1 - On the Subject of Colorado and the "Trenchcoat Mafia"

ON THE SUBJECT OF COLORADO AND THE "TRENCHCOAT MAFIA"

A SWIL chat list discussion... (page 1 of 2)

From: KT (initials used to protect anonymity)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:00:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

...comes this article from the Washington Post that my sister told me about.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/april99/suspects21.htm

She summarizes the main points of the article as:

Roleplaying games caused the goth subculture

The goth subculture is the same thing as neo-nazi-ism

The killers are typical of the goth subculture.

Does this scare anyone else? My sister and her friends are so appalled that they're writing to the Post and the journalist.

From: KT
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:19:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, SE wrote:

> Am I doomed to flip my lid and open up on unsuspecting teenagers with
> semi-automatic weaponry? (Says J, who just bought a black light-weather
> trenchcoat, since it's getting too hot to wear my winter coat, and who
> plans to wear it all summer long...)

I dunno, J, but the article also says:
"On Web sites featuring poetry called "The Written Work of the Trenchcoat" and in political tracts and other elements of the conspiratorial imagination, trench coats serve as a symbol for things from Hitler and the Nazis to mass murder to suicidal fantasies." You might want to think about the statement your trenchcoat will be sending to people. (And you might want to keep it away from your computer, so it won't do any poetry-writing--I don't think trenchcoats are known for their literary skill.)

From: AH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:32:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

Most newspaper articles I've seen about some group trying to ban something or or other take a relatively objective 3rd-person view; this Washington post article is particularly bad, since it presents so many slanderous leaps of logic as factual. A typical article about this might say:

"Those dang kids they play too much Magic," said the raving Christian fundamentalist lunatic. "It's got pictures of folks with horns, and thus is the work of the Prince of Darkness and his unspeakable minions on Earth." He then proceeded to speak in tongues.

Satan was unavailable for comment.

The Washington Post article is more like:

These angst-ridden, unpopular youths, known by many as the Trench Coat Mafia, lived in the shadowy Goth underworld of role-playing games, neo-Nazi websites, and grim rock music. Could it be that these insidious cults, which gave the offer of some social acceptance in a world that had rejected them, only infected their minds and poisoned their hearts?

"If only they were more popular, like the jocks," said junior Sue Ann Gringle, "Then maybe this tragedy could have been avoided."

From: MB
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 09:43:10 -0700
Subject: Re: [CHAT] A return to _responsible_ gunplay in our schools

Twas brillig, on Wed Apr 21 at 09:33:58 AM, and AF burbled:

> On the other hand, the thought of teachers with concealed guns frightens me to
> no end. I mean, all it takes is a really bad day . . .

I would've dropped out of a particular class if I knew the guy could carry a weapon. He was a Vietnam vet, and would have a tendency to start screaming in the middle of class "You weren't there! You don't know what it was like!" and to start throwing chairs and books.

You learned to dodge.

You learned to be quiet and to not anger him.

They gave him the gifted/accellerated classes because none of the other students would be able to deal with him.

From: CD Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:06:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 12:00:33PM -0400, KT proclaimed:

> She summarizes the main points of the article as:
> Roleplaying games caused the goth subculture
> The goth subculture is the same thing as neo-nazi-ism
> The killers are typical of the goth subculture.

A couple things occur to me reading about this latest senseless tragedy.

1 - These particular lid-flippers may well be of the goth set and are undoubtedly influenced by their music, their games and their lifestyle. But weren't most of the other incidents related to hunting afficianados or just random folks? In any case, these are the fringes anyway. The far outlying 0.01% of a population. It's easy and attractive to categorize according to these outliers, but saying that D&D players are prone to gunning down jocks and cheerleaders is like saying that Christians are prone to speaking in tongues. I dare say I've seen many a role player speak in tongues myself...

2 - In the words of Utah Phillips "Why are teenage kids so conservative? Do we do that to them?" I'm sure we all remember middle/high school fondly as a time of incredible social pressure and emotional turmoil. Is it any wonder that anyone who doesn't fit in starts to feel very very unhappy?

My point in bringing up these issues is not to excuse the actions of anyone who kills innocent teachers and children. These acts are inexcusable. The solution is not arming teachers (can you imagine the nightmares that will occur if that ever comes to pass?) or installing more metal detectors. This is just escallation. The easier and better solution is to shut off the problem at the source. Interestingly, the NRA national conference is coming up in Denver and there are quite a number of gun control bills in the Colorado state legislature this very minute. I, for one, will be very interested to see how they turn out.

From: AF
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:43:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

Everyone is blaming the subculture for this. It occurs to me (not that I actually place any blame on them) that the kids parents should have noticed something. I mean, it's not like these kids just stole their parents hunting rifles. They must have been stockpiling. They had mulitiple BOMBS. How can that entirely be the fault of their Goth subculture, and not in someway reflect on their parents who (a) were completely oblvious (brain dead?) and (b) therefore never thought to send the kids to counseling. Speaking of counseling, shouldn't the school notice something. I mean, sure its hard in a large high school not to have people fall through the cracks, but still. For kids to get that upset and no one to notice (especially after the rash of school shootings last year) makes me wonder . . . How many more school shootings before people get the message?

From: AH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

I was more inclined to blame the social climate. It sounds like these kids come from a pretty intolerant, homogenous culture that doesn't treat outsiders well. Of course, every high school is like that, but this is a more extreme case.

From: MB
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:12:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

Twas brillig, on Wed Apr 21 at 01:48:46 PM, and AH burbled:

> I was more inclined to blame the social climate. It sounds like these
> kids come from a pretty intolerant, homogenous culture that doesn't treat
> outsiders well. Of course, every high school is like that, but this is a
> more extreme case.

I'm with AH on this one.

One of my better friends out here in Seattle is very gay, and came from a _very_ restrictive culture (she grew up near where our next DC is going - Coffeyville, Kansas) and some of what she was telling me.....

I never experienced it -- I went to a city high school on the east coast. The center of the country scares me.

From: AH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:14:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

This reminds me of a provocative quote I saw on a home page recently:

The only Americans whose views are consistently magnified by Senate malapportionment are white, rural, right-wing isolationists. If you are nonwhite or of mixed race, if you live in a major metropolitan area, if you are liberal or centrist, if you support an internationalist foreign policy, or even if you are a conservative who lives in a populous state, you should look upon the Senate with loathing and apprehension.

Michael Lind

Mother Jones, February 1998

Does this ring true at all, or does it just sound like ignorant fearmongering?

From: HB
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:15:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, MB wrote:
> I never experienced it -- I went to a city high school on the east coast.
> The center of the country scares me.

you don't have to go very far in to get away from the coast. i grew up and went to school in lynchburg, virginia (does the name tell you anything? the city's founder's cousin was a major proponent of lynching, and two neighboring communities are named "bedford" and "forest" after the KKK's first grand dragon).

we're only about three hours from the coast, and three hours from DC, but that's enough to make it one of the least tolerant places i've ever known. those of us who wore trenchcoats got followed in the supermarkets, because we looked like bad seeds, or something. (it's also jerry falwell's baptist stronghold.)

point being, the middle of the country is even more expansive than you may have realized ...

From: EW
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:49:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

IN RESPONSE TO THE QUOTE FROM AH:

It sounds like he was referring to apportionment--the distribution of House Seats based on the Census. And he isn't quite right--the differential undercount is bad in rural areas too, in addition to the usual suspects (center cities, blacks, hispanics, AmerIndians, recent immigrants... Children are the group with the largest undercount. People with multiple houses tend to get overcounted (we try to catch those, but we can't catch them all).)

The Supreme Court just struck down using sampling to get rid of the undercount, based on the Title 13 (1975 Federal Statistics Law), but they didn't touch the constitutional issue. Current Plans are to go ahead with the sampling stuff (to use for redistricting, funds distribution, and intercensal estimates), but use uncorrected numbers for reapportioning the house.

So, the House really overrepresents rich white suburbanites on the older side of average. (surprise, surprise.) And well-educated retirees.

From: HB
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 14:52:19 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, CD wrote:
> The solution is not arming teachers (can you imagine the nightmares
> that will occur if that ever comes to pass?) or installing more metal
> detectors.

in answer to your "can you imagine" question, i point to Greg Frost's locally-set SF novel, _The Pure Cold Light_. since it's a rather out of print book, which i'm not sure Cordwainer has, i'll quote more than i otherwise would from chapter 13, "License to Teach" (excerpts coming from pages 111-115 of the AvoNova paperback):

==============

He knew exactly how his class felt about their new teacher. They had murdered the last two. The bullgod who escorted him to his room told him about it just before abandoning him outside his door int eh shadowy gallery. The bull slapped his shoulder. "Hope you can shoot, Tex," he said, "the last two before you couldn't make the _grade_!" Braying, he walked off into the shadows.

Angel turned to the door. It unlatched automatically for him.

Inside, all conversation ceased. The instant he stepped through, twenty-three steely gazes fastened in him like hooks. No one spoke or moved as he approached the graffiti-covered podium.

The entire room--if not the entire building--reflected the Overcity's disregard for the incarcerated nons. The wall tiles were broken and crumbling. Mildew grew where leaks had been patched or ignored. In the back lay a pile of broken furniture--desktops and shattered terminal screens, chairs that had been twisted into abstract shapes resembling tubular sculptures. In one corner sat an engine block that must have been twenty years old. Rust in a brown puddle had spread out slowly from under it. The only thing, in fact, in obviously good condition was the door he'd entered through, but that was steel plate, difficult to damage beyond the odd dent.

He unlocked the podium by typing in a code on its number pad. The podium's processor connected to the thirty desks in the room. Each one had a small flip-up screen--provided it hadn't been broken--and a kyboard.

Angel's introduction had been etched into small program cubes he carried--three of them, two as backups. The lecture was interactive.

The program could field any relevant quetsions and ignore nonsensical ones. Should the mask perceive an emergency, the podium relinquished control instantly--at least, that was what it was supposed to do. In any case, he should be sufficiently aware of events unfolding around him to override the program if need be. So he'd been told. Much of what might happen rested on untested promises.

The final safety net consisted of a hidden camera focused on him. He'd been warned by his instructor taht some twitchers, embarking upon their first lecture, experienced cold sweats and an unshakable terror of certain death as they went under. Angel looked for these elements in himself and found only a blank wall, a strange detachment from the events unfolding. Fear as an option had been occluded by the cranial bypass unit, the _crab_. He wondered how the podium's program would recognize an emergency when it gauged such things from his emotions, and he had none.

{SNIP}

He stood in front of a hostile class of children, described as "nons" because to society they were nonentities. He felt nothing either for them or their predicament. Their cruel circumstance lay before him like the ruins of his classroom; he could see it and the hopelesness of it. There was no escape, no ladder up. All of which mean nothing to Angel Rueda. For all the sense he had of it, he might have been viewing the class through the hidden camera lens.

He drew his hand from his pocket. In his palm lay an iridescent cube no larger than a die. It contained billions of facets, each coated with information. This was his program. He dropped it into place in the lectern of the podium. A small cover slid into place over it and a green light came on. That was the last thing he saw.

Something without substance but dark and impenetrable--what the instructor had called _squid ink_--enveloped his consciousness. Where he'd been an empty vessel before, he shrank now, withdrawing altogether. It was a feeling akin to the moment the phobia of memory opened to devour him, except that it never opened. As he shrank, the program swelled like an entity into the abandoned space.

He began to speak. "Good morning," he heard himself say. "My name is Seraph. I'm your new astronomy and physical sciences teacher."

"That's twitcher, _borracho_!" called out one of the nons.

The program ignored the jibe and sailed right along. He listened to its drone--his voice, but not his words. He knew nothing in particular about how stars were formed, which was what he talked about. The manner of speaking, the dull cadence, belonged to someone else.

>From where he dangled, he saw the classroom as through the wrong end of a telescope, across a wide black chasm. With effort he found he could assemble what he saw into recognition patterns, but it took all of his attention to accomplish. He could see but he could not realize.

He was saying, "Low mass stars are cooler and have very long life spans. The high mass stars burn hotter and quicker. If our sun were a high mass star--an O star, say--it would already have burned itself out."

"Kinda like you, hey, twitch?"

The class laughed.

Unperturbed, the program continued ...

{SNIP}

He was wrestling against the shackles of the program when the first shot went off.

The speech aborted. The program flung him into full command of himself. He pitched forward as if thrown into his body. Reeling to stay upright, he clung to the podium. The room tilted and came back to true like the deck of a ship on rough seas. His rubbery legs braced against collapse.

At the back of the room, a tall Latino non turned to face him. The kid held a nasty, short-barreled black gun. He had fired a burst high into the back wall, blasting a line of tiles. One tile had splintered, revealing a pocket of embedded, ruined electronics. Somewhere, distantly, a klaxon was honking.

"Hey, hey, twitcher," the non said, "it's lights-out time for you. You're the guest of honor today and I collect big-time. _Adios_."

The non stalked him down the aisle. Others to either side crouched down, some terrified, others grinning.

The non raised the black gun to take aim.

Angel drew his pistol and shot the non through the bridge of the nose. The body kept marching, but the head snapped back; a net of bloody tissue erupted out behind the kid, who all at once seemed to slide. His left foot snapped up too hig. His dead arms flailed as if grabbing for balance. The gun spun away, skittered two rows, and banged off a desk leg.

More alarms went off, much closer. An explosion shook the whole room. A chunk of wall plaster crashed to the floor. Some of the kids screamed. A few leapt to their feet as tear gas jets around the ceiling hissed to life.

In the confusion, a second non dived for the black gun. He grabbed it and came up firing at Angel, who promptly shot him down. He had ben watching the weapon, anticipating a second attack, with what instincts he could not say. _They mean to kill_, the voice had waned. Didn't they, though?

=========================

i used to think this was fiction.

From: JH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 11:54:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [CHAT] A return to _responsible_ gunplay in our schools

How's this for a slogan: "If guns are used to teach, only teachers will have guns."

...uh, okay, so it needs a little work.

--j "or is it 'only outlaws will be teachers'?"

From: AH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:16:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] trenchcoats

> Wow -- it never occurred to me to think of trenchcoats as suspicious or
> subversive or evil. I mean, sure, they're standard spy uniforms in
> thrillers, and there was a joke in the grimmer DC comics some years back
> about a certain group of antihero characters being called "the Trenchcoat
> Brigade," but mostly my image of trenchcoats is that they're incredibly
> stylish. Walking down the street in Boston in winter a couple years ago I
> saw so many stylish and/or sexy trenchcoats that I immediately determined
> to buy one of my own. I've been very happy with it -- though I admit that
> I only wear it when it's rainy and/or cold.
>
> --j, who never lets his trenchcoat near the keyboard

They wore black trenchcoats. It makes a difference.

From: JH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:19:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

Interesting -- from everyone's comments I was expecting a really horrible article, but I didn't think this one was as bad as other articles I've seen. The writer seems to equate half a dozen groups and ideas that I've never seen all thrown together before (trenchcoat wearers, goths, neo-Nazi white supremacists, southerners, gamers, gun nuts, anarchists, Web designers -- I've seen some combinations of those groups, but not all at once). But I think that's more sloppy writing than anything else -- I'm willing to believe that these particular kids (referred to both as "men" and as "boys" by the writer) were all of those things, even while I reject the notion that everyone in any one of those groups is all of those things.

I mean, the goths *I* know are far more interested listening to loud music, painting their faces white, posturing, and getting laid than in opening up with automatic weapons on classmates. (The movie _The Crow_ notwithstanding.) But it's certainly possible that there are white-supremacist goths...

The idea that D&D inspired the goths is simply laughable; I can't imagine any connection whatsoever. However, there *are* lots of goth RPGs. The White Wolf "World of Darkness" games (Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Wraith, Changeling) use the term "Gothic-Punk" to describe their world and ambience; most of these games are dark, moody, grim, and violent. I certainly wouldn't blame _Wraith_ for a killing spree any more than I would blame _Pulp Fiction_, but an easily-influenced mind could be much more easily influenced by _Wraith_ than by, say, D&D. We're talking *grim*. I'm relieved that those who foment against D&D don't seem to yet be aware of White Wolf games...

Shifting away from the fantasy of this article and into the realm of rational debate: perhaps we should discuss the possibility that such games *can* exert unhealthy influences. Again, I'm a gamer and I reject any simplistic claim that RPGs *cause* violence. But I do think that the culture of violence that kids are exposed to -- mostly on TV -- from a very early age, especially when viewed without any sort of responsible discussion or analysis, helps teach kids that violence is an acceptable method of conflict resolution. What do y'all think? Don't jump on me -- I'm not saying "censor TV and ban RPGs." I'm trying to start a rational discussion here.

From: JM
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:21:47 -0400
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

>From the fingertips of Charles Danforth:
>2 - In the words of Utah Phillips "Why are teenage kids so conservative?
>Do we do that to them?" I'm sure we all remember middle/high school
>fondly as a time of incredible social pressure and emotional turmoil.

Yes, we do that to them. The first n years of a kids life consists of being told The Rules, and of how important it is to follow them. What not to play with, where to go and where not to go, when to say what, etc[1]. That alone makes the wide adherance to arbitrary social rules of what you're supposed to wear, who you're supposed to like, which 'in' things you're supposed to like, more understandable...but I think there's even an additional impetus: there's usually a long period of rebellion (from age 2 on) where the kid fights against rules that they don't like. Then this magical opportunity arrives, in the form of Coolness and Fashion, to have their own rules. These styles are certainly not what their parents are telling them to say/do/wear, but rather things that they can enforce themselves. So they become What You're Supposed To Do in the same way as saying please once was, but with the extra power of being imposed from within (their own peer group). Those who don't follow those rules are in the wrong (in their eyes) just as if they'd refused to Say The Magic Words...

Have I got a solution? Alas, no...

J

[1] I'm convinced that the oft-remarked-on Natural Curiosity of Little Kids is really a learned response, to having to figure out or memorize what so many things are for (doors, mittens, toilets, napkins, traffic lights, cups, "Thank you"... the list is endless); they learn to keep asking about what everything is for, because if the traffic light is red or green for a reason, then the sky must be blue for some reason too. Some people never manage to outgrow that stage, god love us.

From: SE
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:27:09 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] trenchcoats

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, AH wrote:

> They wore black trenchcoats. It makes a difference.

Ooh... Obvious evil.

(I too happen to think that trenchcoats are quite stylish, and decided that as long as I'm pretending to be a Real Person(tm), I wanted to look like a decent one, so I opted for the trenchcoat. Now, it just so happens that whatever coat/jacket I've got, I wear year-round, 'cuz I use the pockets for lots of stuff, rather than getting a man-purse or a fanny pack... So I'll still be wearing my trenchcoat in mid-July. And yes, it's black, because I like black better than tan or green...)

From: SE
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:31:59 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] A return to _responsible_ gunplay in our schools

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, JH wrote:

> How's this for a slogan: "If guns are used to teach, only teachers will
> have guns."
>
> ...uh, okay, so it needs a little work.

How 'bout: "If teachers have guns, only guns will teach."? (Makes sense if you wrap your brain around it in the right direction... :-)

From: KT
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 15:52:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, JH wrote:

> simplistic claim that RPGs *cause* violence. But I do think that the
> culture of violence that kids are exposed to -- mostly on TV -- from a very
> early age, especially when viewed without any sort of responsible
> discussion or analysis, helps teach kids that violence is an acceptable
> method of conflict resolution.

Rational discussion beginning. I admit, I like to watch what my dad calls "rotgut"--stuff like the Die Hard movies, "guy" movies, action movies. And, yeah, when I saw "L.A. Confidential" at Swat, I was yelling for the hero to shoot the bad guy at the end as loudly as anyone else. But the thing that reassures me that I'm still a reasonably non-callous human being is that whenever someone gets obviously badly hurt in a movie, good guy or bad guy, I wince and imagine how much it must have hurt. I do understand the difference between TV and reality; I realize that (hopefully) "no stunt people were harmed during the making of this movie." But I still wince. So, to sum up, even though I watch far too much TV, including violent shows, I don't think I'm going to go berserk and shoot people any time soon.

From: AH
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

As I see it, people who are generally healthy will not be "corrupted" by things like guns, drugs, violence on TV, gambling, chocolate, etc. Many people can experiment/be influenced by these things with positive effects. People with serious emotional problems, for example, should not be drinking alcohol on a regular basis, if at all.

In theory, the govenment abridges our freedoms by measuring the danger to society versus the individual freedoms involved. It's pretty clear that crack cocaine and AK-47 Assault Rifles can do much more harm than good. Whereas if one argues that RPGs (books and dice) should be prohibited, then one must also argue that similar literature must also be banned: Anne Rice novels, William Blake poetry, Francisco Goya paintings, etc.

From: EC
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 16:47:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] More on Colorado

Most of my rational thoughts are still strongly submerged in horror, but I have some thoughts to share. Pardon the loose organization.

I strongly agree that the closest we'll ever get to a solution is some measure of prevention. Unfortunately, that's a bit trickier than hiring better guidance counsellors. Mental disorders are difficult to spot if you're responsible for a few hundred kids. How do you distinguish between an angry unpopular kid and a killer? How many signs are there? There are also a significant number of parents who either don't know or ignore signs of behavioral and mental disorders. For many, many people psychotherapy carries a terrible stigma. Beyond that, for psychotherapy to work, the patient has to want help. We don't know yet (though surely we will over the next few days) what was happening in these particular kids' lives. (I don't want to call them kids; I want to call them monsters.) Maybe they've been in counselling since kindergarten, maybe they stockpiled the explosives in a shack in the woods, maybe the parents agreed with the white supremacist ideas and encouraged the swastikas, maybe action was in progress. Frankly, I doubt these propositions. I think that it's far more likely that we'll learn that they had a history of petty crimes and family upheaval, but no outright physical abuse. Some other kids may suddenly recall an incident of animal killing or torture. Something, from a minor indignity to a major trauma, made them decide to kill.

The addition of armed guards and/or metal detectors is an awful idea and armed teachers is even worse. Statistically, armed teachers are safer than armed students since they aren't adolescents, but who wants to take the chance?

Three years ago, four men at a poker game were murdered execution-style. The killer turned out to be a guy from my homeroom class in high-school. He'd been an average student and a pleasant and friendly guy. He killed four men over either a drug deal or a gambling debt, I forget which. I spent a long time wondering if I ignored any signs there. I decided that I didn't. We never said more than hello. He was just a guy until he killed some people.

Warning, The Irrational Part lies ahead.

I'm so angry. I wish I could resurrect them and chew them out. Eventually, I'll feel some compassion for them, but for right now, I hate those horrid, fucking cowards. They saved the government a couple of million in legal costs, but, at this moment, I desperately wish that they could have been executed. Rationally, I don't want this. Emotionally, I want punish something (maybe the NRA?). I have many friends who went to hellish suburban high schools. They experienced teasing, beatings, the works. They didn't kill anyone. They didn't listen to crappy music.

There's a part of me that is saying that these boys were horribly confused with serious emotional problems. If they'd received the attention they needed, this might never have happened. Right now, though, I don't give a shit. If they didn't have families and friends, I'd be glad they were dead.

The Irrational Part is over.
There are a couple of things that are amazingly creepy to me. The first is the number of school shooters who have been rabid video game players, specifically Doom and Doom-type games. There is an excellent book by Dave Grossman called _On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill In War and Society_ which discusses the process of desensitization (if that's a word). In short, shoot 'em up video games like Doom mirror the methods the army trains soldiers to kill. The other thing is that within hours of the news, rumors started flying that the killers were part of a gay cult. I can't see where that got started, but it lead to some amazing displays of homophobia on some message boards.

From: EC
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 19:34:01 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, AH wrote:

> In theory, the govenment abridges our freedoms by measuring the danger to
> society versus the individual freedoms involved. It's pretty clear that crack
> cocaine and AK-47 Assault Rifles can do much more harm than good. Whereas
> if one argues that RPGs (books and dice) should be prohibited, then one must
> also argue that similar literature must also be banned: Anne Rice novels,
> William Blake poetry, Francisco Goya paintings, etc.

Also in theory, parents are aware of their children's mental states and pay attention to what they read, watch, and listen. At the very least, they visit their kids' websites, so they can learn how to make pipe-bombs.

Would it really be so bad to ban Anne Rice? I'm awfully sick of whiny vampires.

From: DR
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:16:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] country center and apportionment

A song whose sentiments I don't endorse, but which seemed apropos:

I don't like Virginia
I went there in the winter
There were good ol'boys in T-shirts
With a case or two of beer
And though I didn't show my fear
I could tell that there was
danger in their eyes.

And these people in the country
Look a lot like one another
Just like they're related
To everybody here.

>From "Send my Body Home," by Uncle Bonsai

Re Senate Apportionment: most commentators agree that it tends to have a conservative effect on policy. I keep a look out to see how voting on important issues breaks down in the Senate, in terms of population representation. By and large, the small states don't obviously block legislation - Wyoming and Vermont aren't quite rotten boroughs yet, and they tend to agree on average with California and Texas. Trends in politics are still more national than regional, in the long run. However, this doesn't cover the fact that the bills which are proposed are presumably adjusted in advance to cater to the prejudices of the Senate, and that many bills are never proposed at all, as hopeless causes. The Senate slows down democracy (as intended by our Founding Fathers), for good or ill, though I'd say that on balance it doesn't absolutely veto democracy.

My particular bete noires are farming subsidies and resource-extraction subsidies, which clearly benefit from the Senate apportionment (the Senator from North Dakota votes for wheat subsidies; the Senator from Wyoming votes for clear-cutting the National Forests; the Senator from Alaska votes for weaker environmental regulations on the lead mines).

From: JT
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:04:50 -0400
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

JH wrote:
> The idea that D&D inspired the goths is simply laughable; I can't
>imagine any connection whatsoever.

(I decided to send this to the article's author.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Goth movement spring from British 80's subculture? (Pause while I check the web.) Why, heck, I'm right--it apparently began as an offshoot of UK punks, inspired by the 1979 Bauhaus song "Bela Lugosi's Dead":

White on white

translucent black capes

back on the rack.

Bela Lugosi's dead.

The bats have left the bell tower,

the victims have been bled,

red velvet lines the black box.

The splinter group that came to be known as "Goths" were intrigued by nihilism and death and the supernatural, and were fed by musical groups like Siouxsie and the Banshees and London After Midnight. The White Wolf RPGs were developed to cater to them, not vice versa; D&D itself existed long before them, but I suspect most original Goths would have rather been caught (un)dead before playing any game with paladins and elves and red dragons. Too colorful.

(This from: http://www.gothics.org/subculture/origin.html)

From: KT
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:27:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, JT wrote:
> long before them, but I suspect most original Goths would have rather been
> caught (un)dead before playing any game with paladins and elves and red
> dragons. Too colorful.

I completely agree. I think this just demonstrates that the author of the article has at least some of the prejudices that the high schoolers did: anything "we" don't do is freakish, and in the same category of freakishness.

And oh, my god, I am *so* sorry for what some of you went through in high school. [EDITOR'S NOTE: DETAILS HAVE BEEN DELETED FOR PRIVACY REASONS] I mean, I agree with practically all SWILfolk that junior high was not a fun time, but the most that ever happened to me was being made fun of. And my high school was actually really accepting.

RE: SOMEONE'S COMMENT:
> If Matthew Shepard's death raised awareness of hate crimes and > gay issues, perhaps this is a bloody lesson in consequences for the cliques.

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, though. You can't tell teenagers, "Don't make fun of people because they might kill you." Or can you? It's not a great thing to have hanging over your daily routine; and unless you're one of the kids who *has* experienced death close at hand, you usually don't think it could ever happen to you.

From: AF
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:12:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] colorado goth stuff

RE: ACCOUNTS OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE AND TORTURE EXPERIENCED BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE LIST

My God! Where do you people go to school?!! I had a hellish time in 6th grade, yes, but nothing actually got physical. Basically, I dumped my real friends to hang with the in crowd, and the in crowd dumped me, and I got very depressed, but nobody ever broke anyone's bones or threw anything at them or anything remotely in that vein . . . I had n o idea that a NYC private school was THAT sheltered.

From: AF
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:43:10 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] the Colorado Shooting as portrayed in the media

What's wrong with this picture?
Direct quote from The New York Times:

. . . [T]hey were mostly viewed as losers. "They were just a little weird," said Dara Ferguson, a 17-year-old junior and a cheerleader. "They wanted to be different."

From: AU
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:57:00 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

This was in the daily Gazette

>Fifteen bodies were discovered in Columbine High School following
>yesterday's massacre, the two suspects among them. Sixteen remain
>hospitalized, 11 in serious or critical condition. Police are
>investigating evidence to determine whether the two young men had help in
>planting the many bombs and other explosives, or whether they acted alone,
>making several trips in preparation. In a letter, NRA President Charlton
>Heston said that an upcoming gun show has been postponed, but added the
>opinion that had other people at the school been armed, many lives could
>have been saved. The school will remain closed through the rest of this
>school year.

The part that really bothers me is Charlton Heston comment. Does it make any body else sick as well? Part of why this bothers me is that he used the tradgedy to try and further the aims of the NRA. The whole incident seems to help prove to me why guns need to be regulated, not handed out more freely.

From: AF
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

> the tradgedy to try and further the aims of the NRA. The whole incident
> seems to help prove to me why guns need to be regulated, not handed out
> more freely.

To (probably mis)quote one of my favorite movies, The American President:

"For some reason the American People don't connect handguns with handgun crimes."

But yes, of course guns need to be regulated. To me, the whole issue of the right to bear arms needs to be re-evaluated. It's over 200 years since we were colonies oppressed by the Brits. It's over 100 since the South tried to secede. I seriously doubt anyone is going to try to create a military dictatorship, or any incident in which people owning semi-automatics or anything other than a hunting gun are going to be able to say "I told you so." I mean, okay, so owning one rifle for shooting animals is maybe okay (although, when hunting gets beyond hunting for food it bothers me, but I can still understand . . . sort of.) But anything else should be severely restricted. Or at least re-evaluated. Soon.

From: HB
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:18:55 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, AF wrote:
> But yes, of course guns need to be regulated. To me, the whole
> issue of the right to bear arms needs to be re-evaluated. {SNIP}
> I mean, okay, so owning one rifle for shooting
> animals is maybe okay (although, when hunting gets beyond hunting for food
> it bothers me, but I can still understand . . . sort of.) But anything
> else should be severely restricted.

I could not disagree more strongly. While I don't feel that I'm an ardent gun rights advocate, I do feel that the general populace should not be forced to become totally incapable of defending itself against any potential agressor, be it external or internal. I view my right to bear arms in much the same light as the founding fathers: it's a measure of protection against the government, one of many checks and balances to ensure that the government and military don't gain an irremovable upper hand over the populace.

I also believe that those kids should not have had those weapons, and that their teachers (or anyone else in that school) should not have been armed as a preventative measure. How do I reconcile these views? I don't have a solution, but I can tell you that I would not accept yielding my right to bear arms (of any sort) in order to attempt to prevent such atrocities.

From: J?
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:57:19 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

HB: I agree with you, I think. I support citizens right to bear arms too. However, I am wondering how far your advocacy for guns goes. Should citizens be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons? fully automatic weapons? granades? nuclear weapons? It seems to me that the quantity of firepower available to citizens is a key part of this debate.

Heston's comments really bother me in light of the fact that it is against federal law to posess a firearm within 1,000 ft of school property. (Several state right to carry laws also ban posessing firearms on state property.) I am certainly not a lawyer, but as far as I know so-called 'right to carry' laws are not applicable in these circumstances.

From: JS
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

HB> I view my right to bear arms in much the same light as the founding
HB> fathers: it's a measure of protection against the government, one of
HB> many checks and balances to ensure that the government and military
HB> don't gain an irremovable upper hand over the populace.
HB>
HB> I also believe that those kids should not have had those weapons, and
HB> that their teachers (or anyone else in that school) should not have been
HB> armed as a preventative measure. How do I reconcile these views? I don't
HB> have a solution

I don't think those views are in conflict. Saying that one ought to have the right to do something doesn't imply that one ought to do it. The fact that every teacher at the school could've had a gun doesn't mean that it would've been a good idea. I think that people should have the right to drink (and use other recreational drugs), but I don't personally, and I don't think that others should. "I may disagree with what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it", to twist Voltaire a little.

From: LM
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:49:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, AU wrote:

> The part that really bothers me is Charlton Heston comment. Does it make
> any body else sick as well? Part of why this bothers me is that he used
> the tradgedy to try and further the aims of the NRA. The whole incident
> seems to help prove to me why guns need to be regulated, not handed out
> more freely.

I think the Daily Gazette misrepresented some things. First of all, the "gun show" is actually the annual nationwide NRA Conference, scheduled for May 1st in Denver. They will still hold the event, but in one day instead of 3. Also, the Colorado State Legislature had before it a bill that would make it easier to get a concealed weapon permit. Some proponents argued that had a responsible adult at the school been armed, the gunmen could have been stopped earlier. However, most of the legislature agreed that whatever the merits of the bill, it would be impossible to hold a meaningful, appropriate debate in the face of this tragedy, and tabled the bill indefinitely. Perhaps the DG was simply concatenating several statements.

Please note that I am NOT a member of the NRA, and while their various celebrity spokespeople tend to be very silly and do not advance their cause, they tend to promote gun safety. Among other things, NRA guidelines for storing a firearm at home clearly make it impossible to use that firearm as a "home defense" weapon (i.e., keeping the gun locked in one place and the ammo in another, using trigger-locks, etc). They tend to, IMHO, misinterpret the 2nd Amendment, but they have a point - if you let the government take a way a little freedom (by, for example, requiring a 5-day waiting period), it's not long before they take another away (limit gun purchases to one a month). I personally am willing to sacrifice any number of personal freedoms where guns are concerned, because no matter how long a waiting period, no matter the limits, if I can ever afford to be a gun collector, I'd still be able to.

However, I can understand the desire to give up no freedoms without a fight, regardless of how many lives can be saved. if that seems silly, I am reminded of an old Bloom County strip, paraphrased roughly here:

(the scene is a debate between Meadow Party candidates Milo and Opus. The question before them is the speed limit, and a proposed change from 55 to 65 mph)

Milo: Why are you opposed to the speed limit change? Aren't you in favor of the advancement of technology?

Opus: Raising the speed limit would cost thousands of lives in increased traffic accidents. I'm in favor of saving lives.

Milo: Well, then why don't we lower the speed limit to 35 mph? That would save an estimated 15,345 lives each year!

Opus: Umm...

Milo: Or, lower it to 25 mph! That would save over 50,000 lives! but noooooo you're willing to sacrifice all those innocent people, all so you can go tooting around at 55 mph!

Opus: [gives up]

So, there's always a way to take away a freedom and save some lives. We draw lines. So, while I don't agree with the way some people want to save those lives, I can't really say they're just plain wrong. We all draw lines somewhere.

From: HB
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:21:29 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 J? wrote:
> Will: I agree with you, I think. I support citizens right to bear
> arms too. However, I am wondering how far your advocacy for guns
> goes. Should citizens be allowed to own semi-automatic weapons? fully
> automatic weapons? granades? nuclear weapons? It seems to me that
> the quantity of firepower available to citizens is a key part of this
> debate.

AFAIK, it is illegal for anyone but the US government to own nuclear weapons. there's obvious sense that private citizens shouldn't have their own, and the reasons given for the law (extreme environmental hazard, in addition to national security) are sound. of course, i think those reasons justify it being illegal for the US government to own them, too, along with anyone else.

that aside, should citizens be allowed to own semi- and automatic weapons and "conventional" explosives? yes. again, it's a "where do you draw the line" issue ... if we as a people have to defend ourselves, will anything less than these weapons really provide any measure of defense? could a citizen's militia, armed with handguns or hunting rifles, have any chance against anyone armed better? no. so what is the point of the right to bear arms, if legally you cannot be armed as well as the person or group you are defending against, be it kids in a school, terrorists, or a foreign or domestic military?

am i content that, as i see it, allowing everyone to own assault rifles is where my logic leads? no! but disallowing it doesn't prevent anyone who really wants one from having one--and those are the people who are the danger. so in the end, this horrid line of thinking even leads me to be mildly (very mildly!) comforted that our government has the power to obliterate entire countries, because others could do that, too, even though it discomforts me far more.

From: JS
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [CHAT] Gun control

This is more about gun control than Colorado at this point.

However you feel about the NRA's pithy "guns don't kill people, people kill people", they do have a point. The root cause of violence is people, not weapons; one thing that's occurred to me recently is that what weapons do is *amplify* our capcity to do violence. A naked unarmed person can still do a great deal of violent harm if they're so inclined. Weapons just make it easer for them to do more harm -- they make the person more powerful (to the extent that ability to do violence == power). Whether that power is used for good (defending you and yours from violent aggressors) or evil (committing acts of violent aggression) is within the person, just like all other power.

Some weapons, like nuclear bombs, are such huge amplifiers that they're not worth the risk. It's also fairly hard to use the power of nuclear weapons for good. As others have pointed out, other cases are less clear. Tanks? Anti-aircraft rockets? Automatic weapons? None of these are weapons of mass destruction, and if you needed to use them to defend yourself, you'd be glad you had them. On the other hand, there are fairly few people in this country who are ever in a situation where they need to defend themselves with an automatic firearm... Whereas there are lots of people who want to commit evil acts of violence, and would be quite happy to do it with such weapons. Statistically, I'd be amazed if the incidents of automatic weapons being used in this country for evil purposes didn't vastly outweigh the incidents of them being used for good purposes.

So given something that greatly amplifies the power to do good or evil, but which in practice is much more likely to be used to do evil, do you ban it?

From; SE
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, HB wrote:

> that aside, should citizens be allowed to own semi- and automatic weapons
> and "conventional" explosives? yes. again, it's a "where do you draw the
> line" issue ... if we as a people have to defend ourselves, will anything
> less than these weapons really provide any measure of defense? could a
> citizen's militia, armed with handguns or hunting rifles, have any chance
> against anyone armed better? no. so what is the point of the right to
> bear arms, if legally you cannot be armed as well as the person or group
> you are defending against, be it kids in a school, terrorists, or a
> foreign or domestic military?

Semi- and automatic weapons, maybe I can see the rationale for. But explosives? Bombs that could take out half a city block? That's not a defensive weapon. That's a pretty purely offensive maneuver, and it's going to take a lot of innocent citizens along with any enemy you try to use it against...

From: OP
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:50:14 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] Re: Gun control

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, JS wrote:

> extent that ability to do violence == power). Whether that power is used for
> good (defending you and yours from violent aggressors) or evil (committing
> acts of violent aggression) is within the person, just like all other power.

Here I must put my two cents in. I don't think that in this case the word good applies. A gun is an offensive weapon--and killing someone to defend yourself and your loved ones is still an act of violence and is still killing someone, which is not in my mind, any kind of good at all. It is, I think, the lesser of two evils. This is not to say that I am against self-defense--because I'm not.

What I would be curious to see are the statistics regarding guns and self-defense. How many innocent lives have been defended by someone nearby having a gun? And really, how many average citizens have the training necessary to be that good with a gun?

I also wonder where these kids in Colorado got their guns. Did they take them from their parents? Buy them on the black market?

From: Megan Hallam
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, 22 Apr 1999, HB wrote:

> that aside, should citizens be allowed to own semi- and automatic weapons
> and "conventional" explosives? yes. again, it's a "where do you draw the
> line" issue ... if we as a people have to defend ourselves, will anything
> less than these weapons really provide any measure of defense? could a
> citizen's militia, armed with handguns or hunting rifles, have any chance
> against anyone armed better? no. so what is the point of the right to
> bear arms, if legally you cannot be armed as well as the person or group
> you are defending against, be it kids in a school, terrorists, or a
> foreign or domestic military?

Here's the point at which I think maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. I don't know whether or not I think it should be a clear violation of law to own semi- to fully-automatic weapons and/or grenades, but I certainly wonder to what extent we should allow easy access. Just like applying for a concealed weapon permit, I'd like to think you'd have to apply for a permit to purchase grenades and other such things, including on that application some reasonable purpose for needing them.

Because here's the thing. Automatic weapons (of the larger-than-pistol variety) and grenades are designed to do one thing: maximum damage when accuracy and non-target casualties are not a concern. If you're being attacked in your home by thugs with machine guns, and you're trying to protect your family, do you really think your own ability to fire a volley of bullets is the best option? If you're being attacked from the street, do you really want to send a spray into that street in response? Or toss a grenade out there? Does "caught in the crossfire" mean nothing to people?

Automatic weapons are excellent choices for gangs and terrorists, because loss of life is not a problem. Right? I think I have to believe that a few well-placed shots (and I support weapons-training requirements for purchase. if you're going to have a gun, you should know how to use it, well and properly) will have more effect than a hundred random ones. Maybe not in all situations, but in most. And if someone breaks into your house with a handgun, all you achieve with automatic fire is destroying a lot of your own property in the process, and maybe killing someone you care about as well. Like the dog, or the cat, or even your child, who gets out of bed because he hears a noise, and takes a couple shots that rip through his door like it wasn't even there. Sorry to be graphic, but it's a real concern. Maybe you should be allowed to own your own personal "even Ripley would be jealous" arsenal, but I don't know. I think it's a bit much.

And as far as arming 'responsible adults' in schools, I can't see any valid reason for allowing teachers and/or staff to carry, with the possible exception of police officer liaisons (we had one, and I would trust him with a firearm, because of his training). Besides the issues of teachers going nuts, or students stealing their guns, and the like, at what point do we really think that a teacher should feel justified in using deadly force against a student? When should they feel comfortable doing so? Is it enough if someone throws a desk, or tries to choke a classmate (which actually happened to my sister, but was completely bizarre for my school, which was fairly non-scary)? Is that reason enough? What if they miss? What if the Latin teacher hits my sister, instead of her attacker? Or another student? L's teacher didn't have a gun, and the problem was resolved without injury. When we depend on guns to resolve issues, that line has already been crossed. You go to your weapon too soon, because you stop looking for other options. And I think that scenario is more dangerous than the alternative.

From: BN
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:22:27 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [CHAT] some historical perspective on the 2nd amendment

HB wrote:

> that aside, should citizens be allowed to own semi- and automatic
> weapons and "conventional" explosives? yes. again, it's a "where do
> you draw the line" issue ... if we as a people have to defend ourselves,
> will anything less than these weapons really provide any measure of
> defense? could a citizen's militia, armed with handguns or hunting
> rifles, have any chance against anyone armed better? no. so what is
> the point of the right to bear arms, if legally you cannot be armed as
> well as the person or group you are defending against, be it kids in a
> school, terrorists, or a foreign or domestic military?

When the bill of rights was drafted, it made sense for private citizens to be permitted to arm themselves well enough to resist a professional army. That's because, at the time, there was one weapon -- the musket. A musket is not an assault weapon (it can fire about once a minute). Nobody was in danger on the street because the thugs of the day might have muskets, and nobody carried a musket under his trenchcoat (it wouldn't have fit).

Fast forward to now. Do we really want to take the 2nd amendment in its original spirit (the populace should be able to defend themselves against a professional army) given the kind of firepower professional armies are packing nowadays? In particular, do we want the people who actually think the government is out to get them to have the firepower to do something about it? What if they decided to strike first? Frankly, given the state of war in the modern world, I don't want my neighbors to be armed for war.

On the level of personal defense, I'm with Megan. Unless you are set upon in the street by a dozen guys with rifles, you don't need a machine gun. You would almost certainly be better off with a handgun you know how to use. There is no effective way to kill just one person with an automatic weapon. If anyone knows of a situation in which lives were saved using automatic weaponry, I'd like to hear it.

From: CD
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:39:50 -0400
Subject: [CHAT] Guns and security blankets

On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 01:50:14PM -0400, OP proclaimed:
> What I would be curious to see are the statistics regarding guns and
> self-defense. How many innocent lives have been defended by someone
> nearby having a gun? And really, how many average citizens have the
> training necessary to be that good with a gun?
> I also wonder where these kids in Colorado got their guns. Did they take
> them from their parents? Buy them on the black market?

People are into fantasy. They like the idea of owning a gun despite the fact that there really is no reason for one. Rationalization follows. And they don't like anyone taking away their means of fantasy.

On the various hiking/camping ng's, we are constantly debating the utility of weapons in the wilderness. By far the majority of recreational campers (as opposed to serious backpacker and people who actually know anything about wilderness) carry or at least support that idea that guns while camping are a good thing. They usually cite attacks by wild animals (rare), wild humans (more rare) and survival in the wilderness. These are the same people who neglect to bring things like maps and matches.

I think it comes down to a feeling of security rather than actual utility. If I have a gun, then I feel safe from all the naerdowells regardless what the statistics say about how much good it may do me (and, in fact harm in the area of accidents) or if they even know how to use a gun. It's a bit like people who own SUV's. 95% of them never drive them through the mud and up hills and dales in raging blizzards. But they justify the gas milage (horrible) and accident statistics with the idea that they could drive up Denali, given the need. Mid-life crises probably come in here somewhere, too.

C, who despite having a few macho fantasies of his own, drives a Honda Civic--occasionally through raging blizzards on back roads--and doesn't carry anything more dangerous than a Leatherman when treking in the woods.

From: JH
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:22:57 -0700
Subject: [CHAT] England and guns

As with the drug debate, anytime the gun debate gets going someone is bound to bring up England. I figured, why wait?

The British, who have no strong tradition of private gun ownership, are appalled by American attitudes toward guns. When a school shooting occurs (as I believe it did there a few months back), the populace generally views it as a reason to instate even stronger laws against gun ownership.

Now, you can say what you like about the British (and they can't talk back 'cause they also have no strong tradition of freedom of speech :) ), but my understanding is that violent crime in the UK is far far less prevalent than in the US. And for the past couple hundred years, at least, the UK gov't has made no effort to set up an internal military dictatorship (unless you count Ulster). So: is the UK approach to guns more sensible than the US's? Is it entirely a cultural matter -- that people in the US, whose mythology comes from the Revolutionary War and a plethora of Westerns, can never accept the strict governmental controls that citizens of the UK find perfectly reasonable?

(I personally, btw, agree with Megan that if you don't have a gun handy, you're a lot more likely to try to come up with a nonviolent solution to the problem at hand than if you do have a gun. But that approach requires more than just banning guns: it also requires training people in nonviolent conflict resolution. Like *that*'s gonna happen on any sort of large scale anytime soon...)

--j, bringing up questions rather than answering them

From: JD
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 13:54:16 -0700
Subject: Re: [CHAT] on the subject of Colorado...

On Thu, Apr 22, 1999 at 10:57:00AM -0400, au wrote:
> The part that really bothers me is Charlton Heston comment. Does it make
> any body else sick as well? Part of why this bothers me is that he used
> the tradgedy to try and further the aims of the NRA. The whole incident
> seems to help prove to me why guns need to be regulated, not handed out
> more freely.

My own 2 cents: Although in general I support gun control, and I really don't think arming teachers would have helped in this case or others, I don't see anything terribly wrong that Heston "used the tradgedy to try and further the aims of the NRA." It's a reasonable proposition that he believes it *would* have helped -- would he be fronting the NRA if he didn't believe firearms were more solution than problem? So maybe he's not *using* the incident -- he really believes it's the answer.

One thing that has struck me in all this is how ready everybody seems to be to restrict someone else's freedom -- to even *blame* all horror's on someone else's freedoms. And to blame anybody who might value those freedoms. Blame people with guns, people who wear black, blame people who listen to Marilyn Manson. And blame anybody who would defend those freedoms in light of the tragedy -- "How can you defend the makers of such horrible music? How can you be so heartless?"

It seems we are compelled to separate away the people who do these things-- we can't just condemn their acts or punish those acts, we have to find a way to condemn these people for *existing.* They have to be horrible that even breathing is a heinous crime.

If the killers had been in the "in" crowd and perfectly "normal" seeming, someone would have found something else to pin it on. Failing that, the "weird" victims would be blamed.

Not only can't this stuff happen to us, or people like us -- it can't be done by us, or people like us. We can't deal with our own capabilities. With what we'd do if we crossed a surprisingly lightly-drawn line. We scare ourselves.

Re: people's school woes
Eek. Sounds terrible. And I thought my schools were bad.

PAGE 1 | PAGE 2

BACK HOME