<p>I usually refrain from getting into this kind of lengthy discussion on a large messageboard (because it usually just goes on and on and sucks me away from my work), but for once here are my two cents on a number of points:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Correct me if I'm wrong (and feel free to yell at me for being pedantic), but I think Cassandra's prophecy-telling tendencies aren't mentioned in the Iliad. I mean, my memory could be failing me, but I really don't think she's in there much. I'm thinking maybe Odyssey instead? But it's been a few years since I read either, so I could be way off the mark.</p></li>
<li><p>I'm all for the elimination of the nasty disgusting heinous repulsive brand-name sugar-flour-chemical combinations. (Can you tell that I'm a healthfood freak? ;)) I think it's morally reprehensible of our society to provide to children, adolescents, and young adults food that has so little nutritional value. They'd yell at you for handing out cigarettes to these young people, since smoking causes all manner of diseases; but aren't obesity and poor nutrition just as harmful? I don't care how much people whine about it. If they want to eat poorly, it should be of their own initiative, not thrust upon them by large scholastic institutions. Students can spend their own money on all the aspertame-filled candy they want, but I strongly believe it's the duty of a school or university cafeteria to provide its students with the nutrients they need to stay healthy and capable of performing at their best. Anything less disgusts me.</p></li>
<li><p>Regarding gun control, I don't think it matters how many instances of shootings you can name and where the murderers happened to get their weapons. What matters is that having more weapons available makes it possible for people considering homocide to do it more easily and on a wider scale. Just that possibility should scare you. For example, if you leave your 2-year-old alone in an unlocked car for three hours, it shouldn't matter whether or not he's been kidnapped yet; you should instead be concerned that he could be. It's a disaster waiting to happen, and I think it's the duty of our government to prevent this sort of thing before it happens, not count how many times it's happened and argue all the finicky details. I still think my side would win with the finicky details anyway, but it's completely a waste of time and a distraction to argue about that when all the verbiage delays action.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>People argue that it's their right to bear arms to protect themselves. From an individual point of view I can see how that makes sense. You live in a scary neighbourhood and you want to protect your own in case the police can't get there fast enough. But from a grander societal point of view it's ludicrous. If you take a step back, you see that allowing civilians to bear arms is merely a clumsy patch on an admitted real safety problem--and a patch that merely contributes to this problem, because if the same cross-section of people are given more weapons, it just stands to reason that there will be more violence amongst them. Instead, governments should be looking towards real, long-term solutions to safety concerns--perhaps by curbing violent images in the media, addressing socio-economic differences that make people desperate, promoting tolerance of others to eliminate hate crimes, improving health care so that people with violent compulsions are identified and treated before they commit a crime, etc. In the short term and in order to appease concerned citizens, they could perhaps consider increasing police presence in dangerous areas. Then in a few years there will be fewer violent tragedies, and the fear and need for guns will go down, etc. The need for guns is part of a cycle of escalating societal violence that needs to be addressed at its source, not with yet more guns.</p>
<p>The global community since the end of the Cold War has been emphasizing disarmament rather than an increase in arms tensions. States that argue that they need weapons of mass destruction to defend themselves in case of attack from their nuclear neighbours are not looked upon kindly. Why is this any different from gun control? Because there will always be murderous people around somewhere, there can never be any lasting peace while there exists the means for mass violence. Guns may be on a smaller scale than nuclear bombs, but still, they can kill a heck of a lot of people relative to, say, knives; but unlike knives, they serve no other purpose in our daily lives (unless we hunt, but how many people in the city do that?) than violence. Maybe policemen need to carry them, but (hopefully, at least) we can trust them to use their guns only when absolutely necessary for their own and public safety. Not so with the general populace. </p>
<p>Why anyone would ever disagree with restricting gun ownership, I simply cannot understand. If I'm missing something here, let me know, but to me it just seems like simple logic: fewer weapons, fewer murders. It all comes down to that. What possible reason is there to encourage violence and vigilante law amongst the general populace?</p>