that whirling noise you hear

[the_siobhan]

For some reason I always find it really interesting when the media latches onto a story about the media itself. A little bit of meta-journalism, if you will. So when I saw the headline about a big stink going on right now over an article published in the Globe, I went right on over and read all about it.

Apparently a journalist who wrote an article about the recent shootings in Montréal made the statement that Quebecois culture has to take some of the responsability for actions of Gill at Dawson College, and also for the the Lépine shootings at l'École Polytechnique sixteen years earlier.

Because francaphones are "unwelcoming".

I shit you not.

Now the editor is saying the remarks should have deleted before the article went to print and lots of people are demanding apologies all over the place. And I think the whole thing is hilarious.

To be perfectly clear where I'm coming from, I don't think it's funny that Wong printed something inflammatory and stupid. I sure as hell don't think it's the slightest bit entertaining that a bunch of people died because some douchebag was Fucked In Head With Gun and decided to take his bad day out on a bunch of innocent people.

No, what makes me smirk is just how seriously everybody is taking Wong's comments.

I mean, come on people. She actually suggested that some guy shot up a school cafeteria because Quebecois are unfriendly. Roll your eyes, give the girl one of those pointed hats with the big "D" on it, and get on with your day.

This is all fed by my complete inability to understand why we give people microphones when we already know that something stupid is going to come out of their face. Why is Ann Coulter ever able to even get people to interview her? Why does anybody give a man airtime to talk about international politics when his day job is to play a fucking guitar? Why does anybody really care what the head of some religion thinks about our same-sex marriage laws, or in fact, anything to do with anything except maybe, you know, his religion?

And more importantly, having found somebody to give them a platform - what the hell inspires anybody else to actually listen?

On the other hand, if the world wasn't full of Really Stupid Ideas, we wouldn't have the opportunity to make fun of them. That would pretty much eliminate the Daily Show, and things like the The Racist Survivor Theme Song. And that makes a lot of this stuff totally worth it.

Comments

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

"I didn't want to talk about what I wrote because what I wrote is out there."
"If people don't want to agree, that's fine. I welcome a debate."

Dear Jan: PICK ONE. I think her response is bogglingly unprofessional as well.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I get the impression she was taken by surprise and is kind of scrambling for a response.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Re Stupid things, how many calls have their been in the Canadian Press for more gun control? The last event fomented the massive gun registration program as a response. Looks like it did a lot of good. Guess you need more laws and more money spent on punishing EVERYONE for the act of one.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

19 minutes flat.

I think that's a new record.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

When you keep trying the same thing with no change in results, what do they call that? When lots of people do that, what do you call it.

[redbird]

Internet business-as-usual and an impressive lack of reading comprehension.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Let me be clear, I don't classify as stupid everybody who holds a different opinion than me. I may think they are mis-informed, or have based their opinions on faulty data, or that they aren't looking at all the data, or that their logic based on that data is flawed.

I can buy that some people think the murders would have been prevented if we kept tighter controls on guns, or had better mental health screening in place or if we took a good hard look at how our culture romanticizes violence. I may not agree with them, but I don't think they are stupid.

OTOH, people who think it's because he listened to Metallica and played GTA? Stupid. People who think it's because he posted his profile to a website full of fourteen year-olds pretending to be vampires. Whoo-wee Stupid!

Unfortunately the latter group who seem to have a public voice - sometimes to the point where it interferes with of the former to have any kind of intelligent discussion. And I really don't get that.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

I think you and I will probably largely agree that it's sometimes hard keeping nuts from doing things. They'll kill people regardless, using a car, a firearm or some other improvised device. The mechanisms for their malfunction is complex and that a single solution or "band aid" won't do squat.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I completely agree that I don't believe in band-aid solutions. I think problems are more complex than that.

I also don't beleive in arbitrarily dismissing one aspect of a solution because it by itself will not solve the entire problem.

I beleive in examining options & combinations of options and balancing priorities. 'Cause life is complicated like that.

And that's as far as I'm willing to go in taking a stance pro or con gun control.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

The UK had even more strict gun control, they still had a mass shooting. They have even more strict gun control, they had a broad daylight robbery of a money holding center and another broad daylight breakout of some criminals from court. Gun control doesn't work. It takes money away from enforcement and response to real crimes and criminalizes otherwise harmless behavior. Even the British home secretary has admitted that the Gun Control policies weren't expected to have an impact on crime.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Sorry dude. This is not alt.gothic.guns.guns.guns.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

No, this is I want to see alt.gothic.siobhan.shooting.guns.guns.guns with out having to do a mother may I first. ;-)

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Heh. The house has a loooooong way to go before I can be putting money into toys.

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

It's key to remember that newspapers are in the business of selling newsprint - not news. Any discussion that leads to the resolution of issues lessens future sales - any discussion that is circular, hysterical and emotionally over-wrought drives sales. When you're emotionally invested, you don't think critically - Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?

M.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Oddly, that's pretty much exactly how
I think of politics.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I don't think I've ever met someone in Canada who felt
punished by the gun laws.

Not that I'm trying to start an argument here but it seems to me
that saying that the country is punishing all because of one lone
nut makes just about as much sense as using one lone nut as
justification for gun ownership.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I've met one. But she had the same opinion about having to licence her car.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Felt that the government was trying to punish
her by forcing her to have a license in order
to drive? That's awesome.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Well, she was actually more outraged about the having to have a licence plate on her car in order to drive, but other than that you pretty much got it.

I had to congratulate her for her consistancy.

(I'll give her one thing, during these conversations/debates, she would freely admit she was batshit.)

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Know anyone that was forced to give up property because of the changing laws? I do.
Know anyone that's been forced to register firearms that they've held for years and pay fees to do what they continued to do before? I do.

Registration stops drunk driving just like registration stops gun crime. It doesn't. It just provides a mechanism for confiscation later in the future.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I don't really get it.

I assume you mean to ask if I know any canadian citizens
who have been forced to give up their guns and/or pay for
licensing of their guns?

Well, yes and no. I have not yet met anyone who has had to
give up their guns (as practically all guns that would now
be considered illegal but that were legally owned before 1996?
1998? were grandfathered in).

I do know people who have had to register their guns and pay
a fee for it when they previously had not done so. Including my
father, actually.

I may be mistaken but I believe that the only firearms that are
actually prohibited in Canada automatic weapons (including conversions),
short barreled handguns and short barreled rifles. And, again,
keeping in mind that most of those owned prior to the mid-to-late 90s
were grandfathered in.

So, yeah. I stand by what I said. I don't know any canadians
who feel punished by the gun laws.

As far as comparing a driving license and a gun license, I feel the
comparison is disingenuous. Apples and oranges and all that.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I've always thought it was a reasonable comparison. Both can be used as lethal weapons, both are heavily restricted in where and by whom they can be used. Both can only used by somebody after going through rigorous testing.

Maybe the tool itself isn't comparable, but the legal requirements can be contrasted nicely.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

40,000 auto fatalities from 'Accidents' in the US , less than 1000 accidents per year in the us from guns. Add in suicides ~10,000 and violent crime 20,000 and you have ~30,000 gun fatalities to 40,000 auto fatalities. Considering that guns are designed to do something and cars are not, the guns aren't doing a very good job.

The main difference between car licensing and gun licensing in the States is:

Cars can be owned/driven/operated on private property without registration or a license. Farm trucks/vehices/etc are all under this rule. 12 year old kids learn to drive in the country on dad's pickup on the farm off of the roads. And your driver's license from Georgia is valid in all 50 states and in Canada and Mexico.

Guns are licensed in some localities on the basis of 1 license = 1 gun or 1 license means you can own the gun, but not carry it. A Concealed Carry License allows you to carry in your state and other states that have reciprocal agreements with your state, but not all states. So my State issued car license is valid in New York State. My State issued Gun License is not. Car Registrations work the same too. New York doesn't make me register my car in their state in order to possess it while visiting New York.

And if I have an accident, no-one comes to my home and takes all my car parts and cars.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I assume this means you agree that the two are comparable in some respects, since here you are, comparing them.

I assume the barrage of numbers and factoids is an attempt to draw me into a debate on the merits/flaws of gun control. And since I've already said I'm not interested in participating, I'll just let them lie.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

It is still incrementally death by a thousand cuts over the course of 70 years since 1934. Would you not call $2 Billion Canadian to be punishment for everyone? Especially the gun owners burdened by it?

What happens to a historic Bren "grandfathered in"? Is it destroyed when the owner passes on or is it able to be transferred to another owner? What about a WWI era Lewis Gun? What about an L1A1?

I don't know any canadians who feel punished by the gun laws.

Perhaps I talk to different people on different forums. But I get the distinct impression from the Chaps on the Maple Leaf Up Forum (http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=9af520c4178a7d5cb9a9f98d464c53b0&threadid=5822&highlight=gun+control) that the Gun Control in Canada has made their life harder.


This old thread from 2003 (http://www.mapleleafup.org/forums/showthread.php?s=a9f8ab6b04a37462e2a766e290f0541d&threadid=5044&perpage=40&highlight=gun%20AND%20control&pagenumber=2) sure seems to have a bunch of Canadians hopping mad.

As far as comparing a driving license and a gun license, I feel the
comparison is disingenuous. Apples and oranges and all that.

Yeah, exactly, no-one comes and hauls all your cars, car parts, car accessories and other accouterments away if you happen to let your driver's license expire and try to renew it the next day. Gun Control advocates have stated that guns should be licensed like cars, but when you press them on it, that's not what they actually want.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

>"It is still incrementally death by a thousand cuts over the course of 70 years since 1934.
> Would you not call $2 Billion Canadian to be punishment for everyone? Especially the gun
> owners burdened by it?"

Well, I think that's all a matter of perspective. Whereas 2 billion is a lot for me, it's
a drop in the bucket for a government. That's what? 70$ or so per canadian? Over how many
years?

Now, granted, gun owners have to pay for licenses. But we're talking less than 100$ every
5 years. And, of course, there's an amnesty for long guns.

Certainly, some people will complain about that but we're not really talking about an
obscene amount here.

>"What happens to a historic Bren "grandfathered in"? Is it destroyed when the owner
> passes on or is it able to be transferred to another owner? What about a WWI era Lewis
> Gun? What about an L1A1?"

A lot of that is left up to the discretion of the authorities, such as it is. Like a lot
of things in this country.

I remember being told, however, that firearms made prior to the end of WW2 are exempt. As
in, it can be transfered even if you do not have a valid license. No destruction. However,
if it is still in working order, I'd imagine you would need a license after inheriting it
or whatever.

>"Perhaps I talk to different people on different forums. But I get the distinct impression
> from the Chaps on the Maple Leaf Up Forum that the Gun Control in Canada has made their
> life harder. "

Well, they're allowed their opinion. Perhaps I would change my mind if I were in their
shoes. Personally, I don't think that under 100$ every 5 years (which is less than a
fishing license)is a huge deal. And I certainly don't buy into the idea that police
officers are selling people's gun info, addresses, etc on the streets to the snitches
they supposedly hang out with.

> "This old thread from 2003 sure seems to have a bunch of Canadians hopping mad. "

Seems filled with alarmist speculation. More importantly, that's about politicians
spinning bullshit to win Toronto votes. Of course, as it turns out, their guns didn't get
taken away.

>"Yeah, exactly, no-one comes and hauls all your cars, car parts, car accessories and other
> accouterments away if you happen to let your driver's license expire and try to renew it
> the next day. Gun Control advocates have stated that guns should be licensed like cars,
> but when you press them on it, that's not what they actually want."

Oh, come on. I still don't think that's a fair comparison.

First, a car license requires training to have. It is a certification of the fact that you
have learned to operate the vehicule safely. Jokes about people driving badly aside, that
is the requisite for driving.

A firearms license about providing the government with the information on what weapons can be
found in your home or on your property. As we are talking about weapons, the requirements are
that you not be a criminal or prone to destructive behaviour.

A car is for picking up groceries. A gun is for killing.

You could point out that, on a yearly basis, there are more automotive deaths than there are
deaths by firearms. That is true but only by twisting statistic towards an agenda. Cars (and
trucks and motorcycles et al) are in much wider constant use, which is what results in more
fatalities overall.

Should getting a driving license be made more difficult? Require more training? Probably.
However, since it has become a necessity of modern life, that is unlikely. And yet even
though it is a necessity, it is dealt with pretty severely. Punishment for speeding or
drunk driving or being the cause of an accident or whatever traffic infraction are generally
pretty severe.

So, yeah. Driving licenses are given more leeway than firearms licenses. Guns, however, are
not a necessity of modern life. And, honestly, if you want to keep weapons around but aren't
responsible enough to renew a license every 5 years, perhaps you shouldn't have weapons.

And what the hell am I doing up at 4:30 in the morning? Yikes. I'm off to bed.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Well, I think that's all a matter of perspective. Whereas 2 billion is a lot for me, it's
a drop in the bucket for a government. That's what? 70$ or so per canadian? Over how many
years

So you're fine with your government spending $2 Billion on something that is to buy votes of the left but do absolutely nothing with regards to actually stopping criminal activity? When you consider the tax base and how many pay, it's quite likely more than $70 Can per taxpayer. Kindly go outside and throw $150 in the garbage can if you think it's trivial. It'll have the same effect.

Amnesty for long guns, you mean the amnesty where the provincial police in 5 territories have refused to enforce/operate the registration system for long guns because it's just too much headache for no effective result?

$2 Billion is not an obscene amount of money for a complete waste of time? The data base has a higher than 30% error rate. Is that even remotely useful?

Well, they're allowed their opinion. Perhaps I would change my mind if I were in their
shoes. Personally, I don't think that under 100$ every 5 years (which is less than a
fishing license)is a huge deal. And I certainly don't buy into the idea that police
officers are selling people's gun info, addresses, etc on the streets to the snitches
they supposedly hang out with.

You're not paying so it's not your bailiwick. But there's already been a security breach of the computer system from what I've heard.

A firearms license about providing the government with the information on what weapons can be
found in your home or on your property. As we are talking about weapons, the requirements are
that you not be a criminal or prone to destructive behaviour.


And that has what effect upon crime? Can you show an impact on crime as due to the registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly saw people that didn't look like cops to her running around at an incident in Toronto. Gang Activity the way she described it. _Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the time to abide by the registry.

Again, if you miss a week renewing your license to drive, the police aren't going to show up at your home and take all your cars are they? Confiscation of property for failure to comply with administrative paperwork is bullshit. No matter how you sugar coat it.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

And that has what effect upon crime? Can you show an impact on crime as due to the registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly saw people that didn't look like cops to her running around at an incident in Toronto. Gang Activity the way she described it. _Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the time to abide by the registry.

You have no idea how many gang stories I have where the participants clearly didn't have guns.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Is that indicative of the gun registry preventing the gangs from being armed with firearms? Or is it just incidental?

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Don't know.

Just pointing out that one street-gun story is not proof of anything.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

And just so, one mentally disturbed person isn't either. Contrast that to the number of guns in Canada that are not used to murder people by every day Canadians. Thus lies the folly of gun control. One instance of a gun on the streets in violation of gun control is never significant. One shooting in absence of total gun control is significant. ;-)

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Dude I AM NOT DEBATING GUN CONTROL WITH YOU.

Period.

Knock it off.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Then why did you keep answering me. I was ready to drop it after my alt.gothic.siobhan.shooting.guns.guns.guns statement. :-D

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that in order to avoid being presented with an argument I don't want to engage in, I have to not talk to you at all?

[montieth.livejournal.com]

Not at all. But it seemed as if you were keeping up the discussion on several points, thus I continued the discussion.

Bing, thank you good morning. Oh look at that your time is up (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915&q=argument+monty+python).

[montieth.livejournal.com]

There's a link there, just not very clear because of the text...it's meant in jest....

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

Ahem. May I remind you all that you're arguing on the Internet?


M.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

It's what we do. ;-)

Well, me at any rate....

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Maybe I haven't been clear.

There are discussions I'm quite willing to have - wanna talk about how decisions are made on the personal or government level, sure. Or how people weigh personal experiences against anecdotes against statistics when making judgements, sure. Or how our governments and citizens of our respective countries prioritize individual rights against common good, also great. Or semantics, hell I can talk about semantics for hours. I'm also good for several rounds of dick jokes.

My perception here, however, is that no matter what part of the discussion I take out to play with, you are only willing to respond with "gun control bad". And since that's the one thing I said I'm not interested in, I'm finding it a little exasperating.

Pee Ess

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

You are, however, more than welcome continuing the debate with E or anybody else who wants to chime in.

It's not a "forbidden" topic, it's just one that I feel I can't do justice unless I do a ton of homework that I just don't have time for.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Or maybe instead of the word "proof" I should say, "statistically significant".

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

>"So you're fine with your government spending $2 Billion
>on something that is to buy votes of the left but do
>absolutely nothing with regards to actually stopping criminal
>activity?"

I'm not fine with the government wasting *any* money but you
know as well as I do that it happens. As with any political
initiave, there are flaws in the gun registry. I do not think
that necessarily makes it a failure. Have you ever seen a
government put something together that did *not* have problems?

Now, as far as that 2 billion dollars goes, I repeat: Over how
many years? Big numbers are impressive but context is important.
Currently, the gun registry and it's enforcement costs about 100
million a year. Again, that's one of those numbers that's big
for me but really a pitance for the people in charge.

What's more, this is not really an issue of right versus left
in the way that you're thinking. This is an issue of city living
versus rural living. Though those two groups have a certain
demarcation along the left and right, it certainly isn't the
same thing.

Politicians push this issue because it is one that is important
to people living in cities. Because they are the ones who have
to deal with crime and gang violence. The population is also,
of course, concentrated in within the cities so they also form
a huge voting block. Something close to one third of the
population of canada lives in the cities of Toronto and Montreal.

But, more importantly, does it have an impact? Well, that's
hard to tell. The reason isn't necessarily because the impact
is minuscule but rather because it is difficult to find the
links of causality in a situation like this. The fact that
politicians on both sides of the equation try to muddy the issue
doesn't help either.

We do know, however, that the rates of homicide are much less
in Canada than in the US (8.8 per 100k in the US, 2.3 per 100k
in CA) and that over 65% of homicides in the US involved
firearms compared with 32% in Canada.

So that seems to indicate that the country is doing something
right about guns. But, again, that could be attributed to many
things.

Are homicides more common in the US because of the easier
access to guns? Well, the argument could easily be upheld by
the statistics but who know if that's the case.

Until proper statistics are released for the years 2000-2006,
we won't really be able to tell if the new legislation has made
much of an impact.

But saying that it does nothing with regards to stopping criminal
activity is a misleading statement.

Crime is mostly the result of poverty, not guns or lack thereof.
Does regulating firearms prevent crime? Well, no.

It does seem to have an impact on gun crimes and homicide.

>"Amnesty for long guns, you mean the amnesty where the provincial
>police in 5 territories have refused to enforce/operate the
>registration system for long guns because it's just too much
> headache for no effective result?"

Again, that's misleading. There are only 3 provinces/territories
with their own police force. That's Ontario, Quebec and
Newfoundland. The rest is under the umbrella of the mounties. So
what we're talking about is a decision by the RCMP.

And the RCMP's actions were not a decision based on lack of
enforceability or results. Harper declared the amnesty, their
job is to go along with it.

Is it difficult to enforce registration of long guns? Depends.
It is in some areas, like the northwest territories. Does it
have much of an impact on street crime? Probably not. Again,
we're generally talking about more rural areas.

I don't think this invalidates firearms registration in any way.
Hindsight is 20/20, as they say. That's why we have mechanisms
in place to change legislation. I don't really see the point of
scraping the entire act because part of it should perhaps be
revised. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, isn't it?

>"$2 Billion is not an obscene amount of money for a complete
>waste of time?"

Again, that's emotional and manipulative language. Sure, 2 billion
is obscene for a complete waste of time. But there's nothing to say
that firearms registration is a complete waste of time.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

>"The data base has a higher than 30% error rate.
>Is that even remotely useful?"

I don't know? I've never heard that there was
such a significant error rate. And what does
error rate mean? What sort of errors?

>"You're not paying so it's not your bailiwick.
>But there's already been a security breach of
>the computer system from what I've heard."

Right. But I live in the same society so it is
my problem just as much as the guy who collects
WW2 guns or the hunter or the gangbanger.

As far as breaches, that should be alleged
security breach. A gun collector got robbed
and speculation ran rampant that it could have
been criminals breaking into the database and
using it as a list of places to rob. Like most
politicized issues, that quickly turned from
"people could do this" into "people are doing
this" among the politicians and newspapers.

That resulted in a serious review of the
system and its security.

The RCMP did come forward later and, after
proper investigation, admited to a few
thousand security breaches. That got the
alarmists going for about 5 minutes until
someone read the statements instead of
jumping the gun (no pun intended).

The RCMP found that there have been no
breaches of the system from the outside.
The idea that criminals were breaking into
the database to get a shopping list of gun
owners was bullshit. What they did find is
that, at times, police forces would access
the database when they didn't really have
any business doing so. Generally to check
if house x they were going into had an
arsenal hiding in the basement.

So, yes, security breaches but not of the
kind put forward by people with agendas.
And, afaik, that is now heavily monitored.

>"And that has what effect upon crime? Can
>you show an impact on crime as due to the
>registry/licensing scheme? Siobhan clearly
>saw people that didn't look like cops to her
>running around at an incident in Toronto.
>Gang Activity the way she described it.
>_Clearly_ the criminal gangs are taking the
>time to abide by the registry."

Well, as I said earlier, it *does* seem to
have an impact on gun crimes and homicide.
With time, we'll see if that's some sort
of cultural fluke.

Saying that criminals will do crime is kind
of a meaningless point. Much like using one
person's experience as demonstrative of the
entire crime situation in canada.

Honestly, I grew up in some pretty poor
neighbourhoods. Gangs and bikers were pretty
common. Very few guns, however. I can probably
count on my fingers the times were guns came
into it.

Certainly, criminals don't care about
registration. But getting guns was a relatively
difficult endeavour. And, even then, they
weren't necessary most of the time because they
knew the other guy didn't have one so why risk
getting caught with it or something going wrong?

May be hard to relate to but, in my experience,
most street criminals don't have guns or access
to them. Doesn't mean they're not out there,
of course, but regulation of guns does seem to
keep it down some.

You should maybe take a look at statscan
to see what the crimes and rates are like
in Canada. You'll quickly see that violent
crimes have not gone up for quite a few years.
I'll grant you that the overall crime rate has
gone up in the last 4 years but you'll see that
this is mostly driven by an increase in
counterfeiting and crimes like disturbing
the peace and mischief.

>"Again, if you miss a week renewing your
>license to drive, the police aren't going
>to show up at your home and take all your
>cars are they?"

Not the same thing. Cars have become
necessary for a lot of people in the
western world. The urban sprawl and need
to commute have seen to that.

When you take someone's car away, you
could very well be taking away their ability
to earn a living. And that does good to no one.
If anything, it would be easy to argue that
this would raise poverty and crime.

>"Confiscation of property for failure to
>comply with administrative paperwork is bullshit. "

I agree, there should probably be another
way of dealing with it. But, currently,
all we have is the bureaucracy's
discretionary powers.

But it certainly does not invalidate
the firearms registration act.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Me is long winded. Apologies. I never really got the hang of concise.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Not the same thing. Cars have become
necessary for a lot of people in the
western world. The urban sprawl and need
to commute have seen to that.

We can fix that.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Right.

And, realistically, we probably *should*
fix that.

guns and cars

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

And they both often appear in movies, magazines and websites accompanied by pretty girls with exposed navels.

Don't forget that part.

Re: guns and cars

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Hah!

So they're both penis substitutes? :p

Re: guns and cars

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I've always kind of suspected.

Re: guns and cars

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Suddenly I'm finding my default icon more than a little ironic....

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

My mother asked me about the dawson shooting as though
I'd be able to provide extra insight.

It was pretty interesting to catch a glimpse of her
perspective. But, honestly, I think she was looking
for something more profound than "How the fuck should
I know?"

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Aren't we all?

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

How about "Don't worry, I haven't got a gun - I'm not going to go on a killing rampage"[*]

M.

[*] Only tell her this if it's true - it's not good to lie to your mom.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

Heh

I think the most interesting bit I got out of talking
to her was that, apparently, the killer walked in and
asked some guy to hold his bag while he got something
out of it.

So the guy obliges and holds the bag while the killer
started pulling out the gun (guns?). When guy saw what
the killer was pulling out, he dropped the bag and ran.

I can't help but think this would all have been much
neater if he'd simply crotched the killer, taken him
down and called the cops.