police power?

Did you watch the police action in Portland when they first attempted to clear out the Occupy encampment?

I don't think that even the high-power personal weapons would have been much of a citizens' defense against the officers with their shields and modern equivalent of armor. Fortunately, the Occupiers were not armed. Had they been armed there would have been a blood bath.

Guns will not protect citizens from their government.

Gun ownership is false security.

All too often, gun owners bother to buy guns but don't bother to take their real duties as citizens which are to inform themselves, to think about the repercussions of government policy and to discuss that policy intelligently with their representatives.

A gun is not an excuse to watch Fox News and repeat platitudes and feel good about yourself when your government is killing people it has deemed terrorists based on some unknown criteria with drones. Guns are no excuse for apathy or for refusing to educate ourselves about the world and our society and protecting not just one's own rights but those of others.

Where were the gun enthusiasts when Occupy was struggling just to be able to peacefully assemble and talk to each other without guns?

Don't we need to exercise and join to protect First Amendment rights first? Aren't they a prerequisite for all of our other rights? If gun owners peacefully participated in the political discourse more and demonstrated and protested about gun ownership less, we might be able to improve our country.

Besides, guns that we can personally own and maintain in our homes in and of themselves will not protect us from modern weapons of war or our police.

In a democracy, we should take responsibility and pick a government that makes private gun ownership for the purposes you describe unnecessary.

If we are afraid of your government, we need to elect a better government.

Guns really aren't a defense against a bad government.

That means utilizing the ballot box, peacefully protesting, and even engaging in tactful civil disobedience where ever possible.

I think the concern is more about what happens if those avenues are no longer an option?

When the government no longer fears its citizenry, is no longer responsive to democratic influence over it, and resorts to more and more "emergency powers" (that are supposed to be temporary, but in fact become permanent) that further empower an oligarchy over the impoverished masses.

If all civilian guns were somehow confiscated, and only the police and military were left armed, what would stop the government from violently repressing its own people, far more than it already does today? There would be no checks and balances left, only "blind trust" that the government would never turn on its own people should the next big economic crisis hit, which is inevitable under capitalism.

The state of political involvement in this country is pretty pathetic. A lot of very powerful people enjoy having an ignorant, disengaged electorate, and they're going to use their power to maintain the status quo as long as they can. I definitely agree with you that our first and most significant avenue of improving government is through elections and communication.

As for the deterrent or revolutionary effectiveness of an armed citizenry, I think it's impossible to forecast, and remarkably unlikely to come into play for a long time to come. However, disregarding the other reasons I support the RKBA, I prefer having the tools of revolution in the hands of the people so that the choice is ours to make. Better to have and not need...

in Red Dawn, huh?

Absurd stuff.

In 2013, there is no need for revolution. Advocating one would be absurd. That said, none of us here can read the future, and it would be naïve to assume that there will never again be a need. I don't fantasize about Red Dawn, and I don't imagine for a moment that I'm a Wolverine-in-waiting. I don't think that will ever happen in my lifetime. But I don't want that option off the table for our descendants who may face threats to their democracy more heinous than anything we've struggled against so far.

Chairman Mao was correct when he said "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun." That is precisely why he also declared that "The Party Must Command the Gun." When he no longer had any significant armed opposition to be concerned with, he could do with them as he pleased. Again, I am not saying this is imminent here, but it is not outside the range of possibilities for which our nation must always be prepared.

OP:The political principle at stake is quite simple: to deny the state the monopoly of armed force. This should perhaps be stated in the obverse: to empower the citizenry, to distribute the power of armed force among the citizenry as a whole.

Yay, and today the State has all the power invested in the army navy airforce marines nationalized guards, & the states have their unorganized militias! distribute the power of armed force amongst the citizenry, I want my machine gun!

2ndA mythology alert: The history of arguments and struggles over this principle, throughout the world, is long and clear. Instituted in the context of a revolutionary struggle based on the most democratic concepts of its day, the Second Amendment is perhaps the clearest legal/constitutional expression of this principle,..

Go away! The 2ndA - the 'clearest expression'(?) - which has almost always been considered ambiguous?! Written in 1791! When horse artilliery (aka cannon) got stuck in the mud! Today there is no well regulated citizens militia! just an UNorganized one! long & clear, 2ndA obsolete!

glaug: Chairman Mao was correct when he said "Political power flows from the barrel of a gun." That is precisely why he also declared that "The Party Must Command the Gun." When he no longer had any significant armed opposition to be concerned with, he could do with them as he pleased.

Imagine Mousy Tongue in charge of todays US army af navy mc & ng!
Which country today fits your categories above? which country is the superest super power in the world? Which country could do as they pleased with any significant armed opposition, limited only by diplomacy & integrity but quickened by political ideology?
.. perhaps mao's obsolete premise needs only be slightly altered for the times 'political power flows from the laser guided projectile'.
.. romans had a saying 2,000 years ago 'the sword itself incites to violence', ooo spooky huh? obsolete yet appropo at the same time.

In 2013, there is no need for revolution. Advocating one would be absurd.

Thank you for supporting the integrity of president obama & his current guncontrol efforts.

wayne's world alert, wayne's world alert: But I don't want that option off the table for our descendants who may face threats to their democracy more heinous than anything we've struggled against so far.

another nathan hale: Again, I am not saying this is imminent here, but it is not outside the range of possibilities for which our nation must always be prepared.

and laser-guided bombs are a poor choice for domestic pacification campaigns. As for the Wayne's World alert, my point is that if a government becomes so bad that its overthrow becomes necessary, it is unlikely to reverse gun control laws made in better days.

I thought it was a very realistic scenario. Cuban and Soviet airborne troops attacking some hick town on the eastern Colorado high plains. Obviously would be a high value target!

The same thing could happen in Australia!

such as the railroad shown in the movie. I figured that is why they established an airhead to secure the rail hub to move their stuff and stop the Americans moving theirs.

I doubt any of us here can really conceive of a time when taking arms against the government would really be necessary because our votes still mean something.

In discounting armed resistance you discount 3 things.

1) If the citizens really took up a meaningful armed resistance against the government that they wouldn't have the backbone to die for a cause. Read the history leading up to the revolution. Some of our patriots died in the street at the hands of the British for verbal protests. The inability of the British to hold on the violence was one of the things that steeled citizens against the government. We presently don't have a government anywhere near that. We haven't seen it since Kent State.
2) You underestimate the effectiveness of an armed populace against an army. The military has great and sophisticated weapons they could turn against us, sure... but it's a numbers game. We outnumber them by a lot. Generally speaking in the Revolution 1/3rd of the populace were pro-British. 1/3rd were ambivalent. 1/3rd were revolutionaries. So if we got to the point that 1/3rd of the populace were in arms... that would be a handful for the powers that be no matter how sophisticated they are.
3) You assume the members of military would play along. How many in the US military would take arms against our own populace; how many would join a revolution and bring their toys/expertise with it?

Speaking of that, people mess up the lingo. We can't have any more "revolutions" since we're not under some other power. We can only have a civil war.


At any rate... the chances of that happening even in the current political climate is next to nothing.

Voting is still the right way to effect change in this government. The gun is the wrong choice not because it would be ineffective, but just because it would be wrong.

iiibbb: 2) Generally speaking in the Revolution 1/3rd of the populace were pro-British. 1/3rd were ambivalent. 1/3rd were revolutionaries. So if we got to the point that 1/3rd of the populace were in arms... that would be a handful for the powers that be no matter how sophisticated they are.

You mean if 1/3 the populace today were in 'small arms', as in guerrilla warfare. Like what generally happens once superior armed forces of a country take over; what next batman, american suicide bombers?

3) You assume the members of military would play along. How many in the US military would take arms against our own populace; how many would join a revolution and bring their toys/expertise with it?

a bit dated, the 29 palms survey: May 10, 1994, About one in four U.S. Marines would be willing to fire upon American citizens in a govt gun confiscation program .. results of a survey undertaken nearly a year ago at a Marine Corps base .. for his thesis, Peacekeeping and UN Operational Control: A Study of Their Effect on Unit Cohesion,

This is how the question was posed to the Marines: "The U.S. govt declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-sporting firearms. A thirty day amnesty period is permitted for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of citizens groups refuse to turn over their firearms.
Consider the following statement: `I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the U.S. government'."
The question was then posed as to what degree the individual Marine agreed with the Statement.
.. a total of 88 percent, or 264 Marines, responded to the question.

Of the 264 who responded, 26.34 percent, or 79 Marines, indicated they would be willing to "fire upon U.S. citizens."
Of that total, 18.67 percent, or 56 Marines, indicated they "agree" with the statement, and 7.67 percent, or 23 Marines, indicated that they "strongly agree."
A total of 61.66 percent, or 185, indicated that they were opposed to firing at citizens.
Of the total, 42.33 percent, or 127, indicated they "strongly disagree" and 19.33 percent, or 58, indicated they "disagree."
I "This particular question, unlike the others, elicited from 15.97 percent of the respondents with an opinion, either heavier pen or pencil marks on their response or written comments in the margin space. The responses to this scenario suggest that a complete unit breakdown could occur in a unit tasked to execute this mission,"
http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/BBStext/shootus.htm appears rightwing, but eh.

Nothing more than a thought exercise. I can conceive of nothing going on in today's government that makes me feel "revolutionary".

But yes, there are things I would fight and die for rather than subjugate myself. But just because that trait is in me, doesn't mean that I think we're anywhere near that threshold or that I am going to be overly dramatic about it. I don't think you or I can accurately describe the state of the nation or the state of the world where I would have to prove those words.


Yes... if 1/3rd of this nation were in a small arms war with the federal government... they could very easily have an impact against a better armed military that is a fraction of it's size.

In other guerrilla wars... what percentage of the populations do you think were resisting the nations they faced: Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan (Russians and US)? What are the numbers? 1/3rd of the U.S. population is a big number, after that it's just commitment to the cause, and maybe some luck.

http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Revolution

that violence is necessary for freedom and that the 2nd amendment is about protecting the citizens from thier government. Neither is true and this is most definitely not an argument from the left

Whether those that post against gun right here realize it or not because they're against the right -- they should at least be for a more equitable distribution of arms between the government, specifically the police, and law-abiding citizens.

To win a battle or a war a military force must be able to do three things: Shoot, Move, Communicate. Using asymmetrical techniques a revolutionary force can do a superior job on shooting and moving, but we would lose badly on communicating. A modern state has and will retain a superior ability in communications and surveillance. A rebellion would never be able to get organized. A repressive government can squash them while they are in the formative stage, without the rest of the population even being aware of it, and with no casualties on either side. An example would be modern China.

The exception would be in the event of a complete economic collapse that would put us back hundreds of years and about 90% (Mostly urban) of the population dead. There are several things that could cause such a collapse, but that is a different topic.

Now they can't communicate either.

I highly recommend a quality gun storage safe or locker with biometric lock for quick access.

I remember back to my 14th birthday in upstate NY. My dad gave me my first .22 rifle. It was a Marlin bolt action rifle with an 8 shot detachable magazine (we actually called them clips back then) and a beautiful wood stock. We ordered it from the Sears catalog and it was delivered by the mailman. My Uncle gave me a 16 gauge single barrel Stevens shotgun that same day, and also a nice wooden gunrack that held three long guns to hang on the wall. My dad helped me hang it on the wall of the bedroom I shared with my then 10 year old brother. We hung it on the wall right next to my bed. There was a little shelf and a drawer on the bottom of the rifle rack, and that's where I always kept the box of 16 ga. shells and a couple of boxes of .22LR.

Any time I felt like it I could grab the rifle or the shotgun and some ammo and go out in the back yard and shoot. I had permission to go on the neighbor's farm and hunt small game (we could get a jr hunting license at 14.) I took the .22 rifle and ammo to school with me on the school bus and kept it in my locker all day, then take my friends bus home to his house to shoot woodchucks.

Those were different times and a different society. Nobody had a gun safe. Everyone I knew kept their guns hanging on the wall with ammo nearby. Our house was never locked. I don't think we ever even had keys for the locks on the doors.

I kinda miss those days.

Whenever I hear the "your guns would be useless against the drones and the smart bombs" argument, I marvel that people who call themselves progressives are rooting for the Death Star.

Orwell's quote has less to do with armed resistance to state tyranny and more to do with government trusting its citizens, who are the sole source of its claim to legitimacy.

The preponderance of gun violence in the US comes from extra-legal actors: felons in possession of firearms for illegal purposes. Their rights have already been abrogated, and with just cause. Little or nothing is gained by abrogating the rights of non-felons in possession of firearms for legal purposes. It simply drives a wedge between government and its citizens, eroding trust on both sides.

The phrase "state monopoly of armed force" gives me chills. To me, it defines "police state." I must add that I know and interact with many cops, and they all support my right to bear arms.

are suicides and accidents, not murders and not the result of felons. Look at CDC reports of deaths for evidence. Your point that the majority of gun violence comes from extra-legal or criminal forces is patently false. Besides, without universal background checks, anyone can buy guns, even criminals. That's why the NRA opposes them.

if not, then he is correct.

you will make someone leave the thread.

He writes: "The preponderance of gun violence in the US comes from extra-legal actors: felons in possession of firearms for illegal purposes."

CDC gun fatalities: Suicide: 18,735 deaths
Homicide: 11,493 deaths
Unintentional: 554 deaths
Legal interventions: 333 deaths
Undetermined: 232 deaths

Total: 31,347 deaths

The CDC reports an additional 73,505 firearm non-fatal injuries for 2010.

Even assuming that EVERY homicide was perpetrated by someone with a prior felony conviction (untrue, but for arguments sake I'll give you that), 11,493 out of 104,852 does not come close to representing a "preponderance" of gun violence.
And of course any act that results in death is violence. What an absurd question. Any discharge of a firearm or use of any dangerous weapon is violence. They harm people.

vi·o·lence [vahy-uh-luhns]
noun
1.swift and intense force: the violence of a storm.
2.rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence.


As much as you think those people's lives are not worth counting because they don't justify your position on guns, that is not the case. Their lives matter every bit as much as yours or anyone else's.

Just be honest. You do not believe those lives are as important as your right to own guns. Your very attempt to dismiss the majority of deaths and injuries by firearm demonstrates that. The rest of us aren't naive enough to fall for the lies you tell yourself. Why not free yourself from the pretense?

Facts are tricky things. The figures are what they are. The only issue here is why you feel compelled to deny them. You fool no one but yourselves.

Countries with handgun bans have much lower homicide rates, as do states with stricter gun control laws. You need to stop depending on the NRA for "facts."

no, and you can't show cause and effect. The UK has a handgun ban, but its murder rate did not drop after the ban. Actually, what states are those besides Hawaii? USVI and PR are also US territories that have strict gun laws and high murder rates. USVI, like their British neighbors with the UK law, make Chicago look like Burlington. All of the countries that have higher murder rates than we do, also have stricter gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

Seems I can find a logical fallacy or propaganda technique with every pro control post. BTW, I didn't get any information from the NRA. Perhaps you need to stop depending on Brady or VPC for "facts"

It it repulsive NRA propaganda. We have the highest murder rate in the industrialized world. The only countries whose rates are higher are improvised nations and former war zones. Even calculating just the murder rate, which leaves out 2/3 of gun deaths, our level is more than 4x that of Great Britain: 4.8 per 100,000 compared to 1.2 for the UK. The Congo's murder rate is higher than ours, Honduras and El Salvador's are higher. Ours is even higher than Palestine! at 4.1! More people die here than in a territory under siege by a foreign military occupation. Every developed nation has rates substantially lower than ares.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Frankly I find your efforts to spread right wing lies thoroughly objectionable. It is dishonest. And you should be ashamed of stooping so low. It does point out the utter moral bankruptcy of your argument.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

BVI has a murder rate of 8.6 according to your link. The Wiki link shows Bermuda as 12.3 and you have not shown a cause and effect.

Mexico is part of the "industrialized world" and a member of OECD. Terms like "undeveloped" "industrialized" etc. are antiquated over generalizations used by people who are not very well traveled or informed about the rest of the world.

Point out a single lie or example of NRA or right wing propaganda? I said the stronger correlation is wealth inequality within the US and outside the US. Last I checked, it wasn't an NRA claim and certainly not a right wing claim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GINI_retouched_legend.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/06/crime_and_inequ.html

Why wouldn't Palestine have a lower murder rate? Because they don't have a Starbucks?
Since you could not prove your claim, you resorted to a personal attack. I find that pretty disgusting.

in huge amounts. Our policies allowing gun proliferation have destroyed that country. That you can actually expect anyone to take you seriously when that's an argument you provide is astounding.

That same argument you gave is advanced by every right-wing gun proponent on every talk show: Wayne La Pierre, Alex Jones, Ted Nugent, and sociopath who runs Gun Owners of America. They are CLEARLY and OBVIOUSLY much repeated right wing talking points.

There is a clear correlation between guns and violent deaths. The homicide rate in the US is 15x that of the rest of wealthy countries. As the NYTimes reports, gun control does lower homicide rates: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html?_r=0
Within the US, there is also an absolute correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
The point should be obvious, but you apparently need the obvious explained.

So apparently for you to determine gun deaths to matter in this country, we would have to be the very worst in the world. The fact that somewhere more people die than here justifies your gun fetish? You prefer to compare us to the Congo than Britain or France? As long as more people are dying somewhere else, even if by American guns, that justifies gun proliferation at home?

Your attempts at self justification are just that. The fact is you value guns more than human life. Your efforts to explain away the appalling death toll in this country demonstrates as much. Then there is the fact that only 1/3 of violent gun deaths in the US are classified as homicides. Another 73,505 were injured by guns in 2011. I'm sure you'll argue they don't count either.

I can't have a conversation with someone with so little regard for honesty. I expect your fundamental purpose here is to lie to yourself. So keep talking to yourself and leave me out of it. You're not going to convince anyone else with such obviously false and self-serving propaganda.

You people ban funding for research on gun studies and then bemoan the absence of peer reviewed studies? You ensure that doctors are federally prohbited from documenting information about guns and then bmpan the absence of peer reviewed studies in my post. Complete hypocrisy. It's not bad enough that you people shit all over the First Amendment, but then you try to use that as a basis to counter an argument when you yourself provide NO EVIDENCE of any kind, peer reviewed or not.


That same false argument you repeat was made by Alex Jones when he appeared on Piers Morgan and by the sociopath who runs Gun Owners of America. Wayne LaPierre repeats the exact same argument with frequency. After all, where else did you get it? That economist article, ALSO NOT PEER REVIEWED--has floated around the web and repeated by right wingers ad nauseum.

I never said 90% of Mexican guns come from sales along the border. I said US gun dealers supply the Mexican cartels. That is a fact. We have destroyed Mexico through our guns and disgusting appetite for guns. To claim we do not supply them with guns is a bold faced lie. I suggest you read the articles you link:
"This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated."

To claim that means they did not come from the US is another blatant distortion on your part.

Guatemalan is armed BECAUSE of the US. We waged war against that country for decades and armed death squads with weapons use to wipe out guerrilla groups and indigenous economies. Those are American guns. Knowing a little history helps.

The CDC shows that 90% of suicides by gun are successful, compared to 5% by pills. Reduced access to guns WOULD absolutely cut down on suicides, since guns are the single biggest method for suicide in the US. But that won't happen. People like you work diligently to ensure it doesn't.

Obviously you said nothing about gun deaths. That would require deciding those lives matter.

You have employed no reason. You have relied entirely on distortion. Your entire argument is a sad effort at self delusion.

I meant violent crime, obviously, and the use of guns therein.

The causal relationship between suicide methods and suicide rates is tenuous at best.

Accidents can and have have been greatly reduced through safety education.

Your data on non-fatal injury is not broken down, I see. On what do you base your assumption that none of it is criminal in nature?

You cite a bunch of numbers, all in an attempt to show how "bad" guns are - so let's examine your numbers:

First, CDC figures of 18,735 deaths attributed to suicide, although you fail to state what year (or years) this number is taken from. (You do cite the non-fatal injuries number as being from 2010, so I'll assume the previous numbers are from the CDC report for the same year.) There are many reasons for an individual to commit suicide - some tragic, (depression, mental illness, etc.) and some that are a blessing - incurable disease, incredible pain and suffering, etc. Why those people chose to end their lives is not the issue here. You infer that perhaps without guns in our society, those 18,735 people would still be alive - those nasty firearms caused those deaths. This is blatantly false. A firearm is a non-volitional object - it makes no decision - those folks, for whatever reason, chose to end their lives, and used a firearm to that end. Do you believe that they all would have made a different decision if firearms didn't exist? Might be best to ban knives, ropes, car exhaust, sleeping pills and liquor while you're at it. "Just be honest." - You throw that number in for the sole purpose of having a greater emotional impact - wow, look at these huge numbers of people affected by gun violence! This isn't just one or two people, it's a lot! We better ban guns!

Second, gun homicides: 11,493 deaths. I do not know how the CDC compiles the figures, but the from the FBI "Uniform Crime Reports, Expanded Homicide Data Table 8," for the year 2010, the total number of homicides in the United States came to 13,164. Of those, 8,874 were the result of firearms. Big discrepancy between CDC and FBI numbers here, but still, 8,874 is a lot of people. Since numbers seem to be what you like to toss around, perhaps you'd be interested if a few other numbers from the same FBI report for 2010:

Homicides by Knives or cutting instruments - 1,732
Homicides by Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.) - 549
Homicides by Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.) - 769
Homicides by Poison - 11
Homicides by Explosives - 4
Homicides by Fire - 78
Homicides by Narcotics - 45
Homicides by Drowning - 10
Homicides by Strangulation - 122
Homicides by Asphyxiation - 98
Homicides by Other weapons or weapons not stated - 872

Total other than firearms - 4,290

You indicate that every person's life is worth counting, and I agree with you. May I assume that, in light of these last figures, you are willing to discuss legislation that bans all knives, hammers, chemicals, swimming pools and bathtubs, matches, (and especially that full-auto match, the lighter), drugs, water, rope, and plastic bags? If not, then why? Don't the lives of those 4,290 people count with you? Or is it that you do not believe those lives are as important as your right to own knives, hammers, matches, and so forth? (If you're serious about saving lives in America, and it's all about the big numbers to you, then perhaps you might consider focusing your efforts on banning automobiles, cigarettes, alcohol, and maybe red meat.)

As you say, just be honest - you want to throw out numbers as justification for banning firearms. Do you really think if all the firearms were gone from the U.S. tomorrow, the violence would cease? If your answer is yes, then "You fool no one but yourselves."

Seriously - guns, knives, clubs, and so forth are NOT the problem - violence, mental illness, and the disregard in our society for individual life and individual rights, are the problems. Until we address that, no ban on any object is going to solve anything.

that one cuts both ways, methinks.

legislation that was pending in Colorado at the time. It was their last conversation.

They were both opposed to it.

somehow they want some one to pull in the reins.

Deliberative.

feeling "out of control" and feels likes something is "bad wrong" but, doesn't know what it is or how to stop it.

then again, who knows.

plus, they are probably disassociating at some point and then it doesn't matter what they "used to think".

I feel sure there were "signs" and "cries for help" but, was anyone around to recognize them and know how to intervene in a positive way.

all very sad.

...one or more guns used at Columbine were obtained from Mark Manes whose parents were active gun-control proponents.

Cries for help or means to rebel, both generally end the same way. A parent will either take notice or deepen their denial.

Sunday school teachers ... anyone. this is all of society's issue.

remember: it takes a village to raise a child.

but, yeah ... sad ...

...of progressively greater (social) diameters around a child, it must be recognized that the contributions made by the next bigger circle pale in comparison to those (which should be) made by the smaller. The buck stops with a parent.

do not have the wherewithal to properly address the issue and sometimes even their cries for help for their child fall on deaf ears.

I urge all to watch this film: We Need to Talk About Kevin

Kevin's mother struggles to love her strange child, despite the increasingly vicious things he says and does as he grows up. But Kevin is just getting started, and his final act will be beyond anything anyone imagined. Eva Khatchadourian is trying to piece together her life following the "incident". Once a successful travel writer, she is forced to take whatever job comes her way, which of late is as a clerk in a travel agency. She lives a solitary life as people who know about her situation openly shun her, even to the point of violent actions toward her. She, in turn, fosters that solitary life because of the incident, the aftermath of which has turned her into a meek and scared woman. That incident involved her son Kevin Khatchadourian, who is now approaching his eighteenth birthday. Eva and Kevin have always had a troubled relationship, even when he was an infant. Whatever troubles he saw, Franklin, Eva's complacent husband, just attributed it to Kevin being a typical boy. The incident may be seen by both Kevin and Eva as his ultimate act in defiance against his mother.

more at link:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1242460/

...and haven't been and hope I am never in that situation. But there is a point where principles like tough love become the only options because we all have our limits.

I generally avoid depressing movies.

treatment.

we are not talking about :just a spoiled brat: here.

But sometimes it is the only way to develop a sufficient number of witnesses when you're personally incapable of dealing with the problem.

that is what I am trying to say, we need more ways to deal with this than just dumping the problem because you, as a parent, are incapable of dealing with it.

Our Mental Health System should be such that any and all of the family should receive the care that they need.

We have failed the whole family, not only physically but mentally and as a society we are reaping what we have sowed.



I thought I said this at the very beginning. Am I going around in a circle here?

There should be support both from friends and family and from community. For too long the characterizations applied to problem children have been disconnected parents or criminal kids and sometimes both. The 800 pound gorilla no one is admitting to is mental/emotional malfunction.

In time those 800 pound gorillas just get cabin fever.

thank you for posting it. K&R