Oooohhh! A Brave Soul

At 7:40 PM, Takin said...
Hey KayI dont know if u remember me or not but i was a fan of ur story at the HP website. Anyways I just wanted you to know that this news was very old. and another thing, when an 11 year old can break into a house and steel, then y cant we expect him to carry a gun, rape or even kill someone. This issue should not be pointed at the media. Because the media only shows was the majority craves, in another word the media reflects our own thoughts media was born by us. The ones that should take responisbility are the parents, specially those wo do whatever they wish, but then expect their children to become perfect citizens. Another group that should be accused is the government, in my beliefe they are too gentle with the society, why should people even have guns. The government should have more control over the society. When the FBI reports that a percentage of the terrorists are natural born Americans, we ask ourselves where did they come from, well they have been in front of you all the time commiting differnet crime, you just didnt see it coming.

This is from a comment I recieved today on a post made a few days ago.

Old news? Yeah, probably. There is a very good reason that I stay away from the front page of the news paper and TV news: they report these stories. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that they report them. I don't want things like this to become a taboo again, nor do I want youths (and adults) de-sensatized to the material, but I know its a travesty and a violation of the very core of human rights (no, not the fluffy kind - the kind that say I should be safe in my own home kind). I don't need TV news to reenforce it. Frankly, it makes me nauseous.

As to your second point, there is a grave difference between stealing property and threatening life or limb. For someone to break into a home and steal something from someone is a violation of their privacy and, can at times, reach into a violation of their safety, but property is just that, property. It's stuff. My stero being stolen will cost me a few hundred dollars. Being raped costs you, and those around you, something much deeper. It transcends everything you do for the rest of your life no matter how far you move from it or how much therapy you undergo. What that steals is irreprable - it steals your sense of security. You can't replace that with a few hundred dollars.

Where the blame lays, I don't know. To a certain extent, it exists everywhere. I mentioned earlier that people are desensitized to things - indifferent to tragedy until it hits close to home. As tuned in as I am to certain things, when the 10 o'clock news reports a murder, it has no real impact on me. I move on with my daily life, a little bit more jaded, a little bit more disappointed with humanity. On some level - I should have a reaction to that. Someone was killed a life was taken, not lost but taken. There should be some outcry. Unfortunately, I've become accustom to seeing and hearing it. It's almost to be expected.

Whether you're from the U.S. or not, I don't recall. In the event that you're not, perhaps you're simply unfamilliar with our news stations. I would be willing to gamble 100 dollars that within the first 20 minutes of a local newscast at least one murder/rape will be reported on. That might not seem so bad, but in order to really understand the horrible nature of it, you'd probably have to see the broadcast.

A family mourns today over the death of a 23 year-old, unidentified male. He passed away at Mercy Hosptial last night, vicitm of a drive by shooting. The suspects are black males, approximately 17-20 years of age. A blue, 1995, Lincoln Towncar was seen pulling away from the scene of the crime. A memorial service will be held at 10 am in Meyers Square. And now, on to national news...

I'm not an idiot. I don't blame the media in their entirity. How many times a day do we air footage of soldiers wounded in Iraq, car bombings, tapes of hostages awaiting beheadings, tapes of soldiers abusing prisoners, tapes of iraqi children with their legs blown off, cowering families? These are attrocities perpatrated by governments - many of them our own. The actions of any large, social institution have an impressive impact on a society - they form a society. Regardless of the your standing on the left or the right, the images, actions and disucssions have an impact on everyone.

Where were these boys parents? Well, they could have been anywhere. Work, Night School, Home, etc... Never underestimate or assume the situations. Are they at fault - yes, of course - but, in no greater capacity than anything else. Should they have been paying more attention - Yes. Clearly they've made an error in judgement somewhere and allowed one of the "important things" to slip away. The children in question were impoverished, african american children, but that has nothing to do it. There are weathly and middle american families individuals and they, too, commit the same crimes. It's just not publicised that way. Trust Me. Say they didn't teach their children right from wrong? Sure. Again, an error in judgement. The fact of the matter is, no parent has control over what a child does, no matter how hard they try to impress their values upon them - that is, short of locking them in the house. (A wise move in this incident.)

You mentioned gun control, a point on which I have to segway briefly. The U.S. Constitution defends the right to "bear arms" in the Bill of Rights. It's a valuable ammendement, but I'm not a strict constructionist. Yes, the constitution defended that right - but it defended that right in a time of the wild west, a disorganized militia, and hunting for your very sustainance. That said, the application of that ammendment are smaller today. 1. When the constitution was ratified, the most damage you could do was a fairly simple hand gun. One of those wild west "pistols" you see in Blazing Saddles. Today, "arms" constitutes air assualt rifles, tanks, nuclear weaponry, and small stones. See? Not a good idea. However, we've been sane enough to limit it to "guns." Now, if you're wiling to limit the original wording of the Bill of Rights, then you must be willing to accept that societies change and evolve, which was the entire point of ammendments in the first place. On that note, why not restrict the Assault Rifles? Please, someone explain to me the rational use of an assualt rifle for civilians. Note, rational and legal. My father is a hunter, and while I think he's an idiot (and a negligant gun owner), there is no reason he should not be able to use a hunting rifle to go hunting. Guns used to kill people = Problem. Guns used to kill dear = Stupid Passtime that should be done away with but what the hell am I going to do about it.

The problem, in my mind, is not a lack of governmental control. Note how much faster, cheaper, and better anything can be done in the private sector. Ask Wal-Mart to build a SuperCenter the same size as a government office building and I gaurentee you, Wal-Mart will have it done by their deadline, over budget - but still less than yuck-schmuck-government-employee managed to do it - and odds are, it won't need to be replaced or remodeled in the next 15 minutes. Public schools in my city recieve $8,500 for each student who shows up on "count day." The private school I attended charged the same amount per student. The buildings are cleaner, books newer, teachers better, materials higher quality, and facilities higher-calibur in a Private school (or, at least the ones I went to.) Why? They had to fight the bloat. They weren't gaurenteed anything. They weren't gaurenteed a customer - so they had to work for their name. They weren't gaurenteed funding - so they had to keep cost effective at all times. It is, in my mind, the function of the federal government to impose standards on a society, not mother them. When the government tries to mother things - well, it's just not pretty.