In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>(The following is what I spelled out to someone else):
>Re Florida, what's interesting was something I found in a column a week
>ago by controversial psychologist John Rosemond (born in 1947), who argued
>that guns and wildlife hunting were all the rage among teenage boys
>(including himself and his classmates) in the 1960s, in the state of
>Georgia, and so, during hunting season, there were always plenty of rifles
>and such in the cars in the school parking lot (and at other schools as
>well), but one didn't hear of teenagers committing school shootings back
>then. Therefore, he says:
>"No, guns are not the problem. The problem is feelings. I am a member of...
(deleted rest of excellent text. See lenona321's post for full text)
I'm in agreement with Rosemond here.
But, a couple of comments:
1) At first glance, it is possible to interpret what he says as being a
typical pro-gun nut, with the usual "Guns don't kill people; people kill
people" nonsense. However, I don't think that is where he is coming from.
But I think some people (careless readers) will take it that way.
2) He doesn't go far enough. He doesn't answer the question of "Yes, so,
therefore, what?" I.e., what action should we take as a result of his
thesis? Some would say the answer is obvious, but I'm going to put forward
a contrary view.
The obvious implication seems to be: Get rid of "emotional entitlement".
Get rid of "high self-esteem".
With an implication that if we could do that, then we wouldn't need gun
Well, I can tell you: It ain't gonna happen. You can't put those genies
back in the bottle. People are changing, in terms of their mental outlook
on how to live their lives, and it ain't going back. So, we have to deal
with it. And by "deal with it", I mean, making the world safe, given the
new realities. And that means limiting access to guns.
And here's where I really go out on a limb. I think this is a Good Thing.
A world in which people are not responsible (i.e., not as responsible as
their parents) - that is, they can think as they please, without regard to
consequences - is a Good Thing. As long as they don't have access to tools
that would make those thoughts and desires dangerous.
In other words, Player Piano: Bring it on!
A safe world is a better world!
(I.e., better than a dangerous world in which you have to think and act
responsibly in order to stay safe - given that the people of the present
and future just aren't going to be capable of such responsibility)
When I was growing up we called them "retards", but that's not PC anymore.
Now, we just call them "Trump Voters".
The question is, of course, how much longer it will be until that term is also un-PC.