patrick.net

YesYNot says

Overly simplistic republican version. B doesn't make C, A makes C (guns don't kill people, people kill people).

It is to counter overly simplified democrat version.

Remember, neither extreme is correct but the dialectic of both sides may get us somewhere.

Call it Crazy says

Let's replace your B = a gun with other options...

B= a machete
B= a car
...

There are always trade-offs between the convenience and safety of things, nuclear reactors, cars, guns, etc. If your goal is to minimize these shootings, then gun control seems to be a good way to approach it. We can worry about B = a machete when repeated stories of machete massacre are making the rounds and captivating peoples attention.

Peter P says

It is to counter overly simplified democrat version.

So, to wrongs make a right. Got it. If you say something that is illogical or not well thought out, don't just say that the other guy is worse. Shoot for something better.

YesYNot says

So, to wrongs make a right. Got it. If you say something that is illogical or not well thought out, don't just say that the other guy is worse. Shoot for something better.

Dialectics is not just about right or wrong. It is more about pushing from opposing sides.

After all, is there even absolute right and wrong?

Trade-offs huh?

Sounds like a market thingie.

Call it Crazy says

I'm absolutely not trying to minimize these shootings. It was a horrible, horrible situation!!

I meant minimize the number of these shooting as in prevent them, not minimize the importance of them. I think we all want to minimize them.

Call it Crazy says

Let's look at it from a logical standpoint. You make reference to machete massacres. How many of them have taken place? I don't remember the last one.

That is exactly my point. There have not been a bunch of machete massacres. So you should not have brought them up.

Call it Crazy says

We don't need a knee-jerk, emotional attempt to ban guns

I agree. We need well thought out increased controls on firearms. Seriously, this is an ongoing issue in this country. There is nothing knee jerk about it.

let me just say what's on everyone's mind.

the main issue with gun control is precisely this: how would white folks be able to defend themselves against home invasions by blacks?

Of course there have been a bunch of machete (or other sharp edges) massacres. They just happen in places with strict gun control.

One example:

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

Mark D says

the main issue with gun control is precisely this: how would white folks be able to defend themselves against home invasions by blacks?

To rephrase... how would someone physically less capable defend against someone physically more capable?

Unless we want to emphasize physical strength as the highest moral truth, guns actually level the playing field.

Peter P says

After all, is there even absolute right and wrong

2 plus 2 equals 4 is right. 1 equals 2 is wrong. You might question the absolute nature of these truths, but I cant be bothered :)

YesYNot says

2 plus 2 equals 4 is right. 1 equals 2 is wrong. You might question the absolute nature of these truths, but I cant be bothered :)

These are mathematical truths, which are tautological in nature. (It is consistent only with a set of axioms and definitions, e.g. properties of natural numbers, etc.)

All absolute truths are tautological.

All useful "truths" are relative or subjective.

Peter P says

Of course there have been a bunch of machete (or other sharp edges) massacres. They just happen in places with strict gun control.

One example:

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

Touche. We have a disproportionate number of these shootings in the US, and the ease of procuring an arsenal makes it more convenient. No one is claiming that gun control would prevent them. It might prevent some of them, though, or lower the number of deaths.

Peter P says

These are mathematical truths, which are tautological in nature....All useful "truths" are relative

What, now math is not usefull?

YesYNot says

Touche. We have a disproportionate number of these shootings in the US, and the ease of procuring an arsenal makes it more convenient. No one is claiming that gun control would prevent them. It might prevent some of them, though, or lower the number of deaths.

Perhaps because Americans are more violent than Japanese. If someone is mad enough (as evident in the degree of premeditation), he will always work around obstacles.

People must learn to be peaceful. In many cases people are violent only because they do not love themselves enough.

YesYNot says

What, now math is not usefull?

Math is not externally useful without assumptions.

It is useful only as a subjective art, that is, when you apply it to use in the real world.

There are obviously factors other than A, B, and C.

Since the founding of the United States, there have always been guns. There have always been people with mental illness. There have always been lousy parents. In fact the percentage of the population per capita in possession of fire arms has been substantially higher in the past than today.

What then is different? Whatever that is...is new. Whatever that is...will not go away with only firearm control.

Overcrowded Earth? A planet shrinking hourly as a result of our technical interconnectedness? Information overload? This sort of thing used to be unthinkable - even for your average psycho. Now we think about it all the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem

Call it Crazy says

No, we need well though out detection programs to notice mental illness and noticing people who have the potential to harm other people. Like I said above, firearms have nothing to do with this.

We need both, and yes firearms did have something to do with this. They are a convenient weapon for mass murder. That is why these guys keep using them. If the mass murderer had used chemical weapons, would you be saying 'wmds dont kill people, people kill people'? No, you wouldn't and everybody knows that the killer and the weapon had something to do with it.

deepcgi says

Overcrowded Earth? A planet shrinking hourly as a result of our technical interconnectedness? Information overload? This sort of thing used to be unthinkable - even for your average psycho. Now we think about it all the time.

Overpopulation is source of many problems in the world.

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

Trucks and knives. Evil is creative.

People will use anything.

From another angle... self-inflicted gunshot is a popular way to commit suicide in the US. Will gun control stop that? Perhaps. But people in Japan tend to jump in front of trains. And the suicide rate is higher there too!

What does this tell us?

Call it Crazy says

Remember... "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

It is a cliche. But it is a fact worth repeating.

In order to substantially reduce availability of firearms, we would need to convince the progun lobby that the federal government would not be gaining power in comparison to themselves. It's time to return the power to the states

robertoaribas says

so, the law of unintended consequences strikes again.

But politicians get brownie points for doing something. By the time unintended consequences strikes, people have long forgotten the causality.

No, we should not ban guns, trucks, fertilizer, or many of the other items that are useful, but dangerous. We need policy that balances the benefits with the risks. There are limits on the amount of pseudophedrine and fertilizer you can buy anonymously, because these can make drugs and bombs. There are constraints on guns for the same reason. Silly slogans like guns don't kill people just prevent any serious discussion.

YesYNot says

We need policy that balances the benefits with the risks.

Policies are not good at the balancing act. They tend to push towards the extremes.

Usually, the market is the best in maintaining equilibrium, but I am not sure how it will work in cases like this.

This is directed to Christians who own guns, are in favor of any war or believe in self defense .

Who would Jesus kill? Who would Jesus say it is alright for you to kill.
What caliber handgun would Jesus carry?

KJV:"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." Does this translate to: Pull out your bullet shooter & blow the fuckers away?

Atheist,you can kill for any reason without fear of Hell.

Should one call the death of young children by 2nd amendment "Arms",Collateral Damage..... until it happens to one of their family members?

nearly 100k people were reported being raped each year. perhaps we should cut off every males penis to prevent this...

Women need to be taught self-defense techniques. This deters would-be rapists and bad husbands.

Peter P says

Women need to be taught self-defense techniques. This deters would-be rapists and bad husbands.

9% of people reported being raped were men.

Meccos says

9% of people reported being raped were men.

I am not surprised. Rape is about power, not sex.

Why is humanity so uncivilized?

Damn, This thread went from guns to rape.

George Carlin:

"They don’t care about you at all… at all… AT ALL. And nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Thats what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick thats being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth.

It's called the American Dream,because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Call it Crazy says

Like I said above, firearms have nothing to do with this.

YesYNot says

...and yes firearms did have something to do with this. They are a convenient weapon for mass murder. That is why these guys keep using them.

Yes, they're convenient, which is why people keep using them, but they're also dramatic in nature and have been proven as such. If you want to kill a lot of people in the most dramatic way possible, and get a huge rush from doing so, then you're going to resort to using guns to do it.

I used to read HuffiPost comments for fun. I cannot do it any longer. Too many idiots use keyboard. Just thinking that this population won the election, their leftist conditioning, their ignorance, their despise of different ideas,...It just terrifies me.

GraooGra says

Too many idiots use keyboard. ....their leftist conditioning, their ignorance, their despise of different ideas,...It ust terrifies me.

I can say the exact same thing about people on the far right, like yourself.

I'm tired of hearing, "it's my [God given] right!" It's all about YOUR right. We're such a rights driven country that it scares the heck out of me. The fact we're so rights driven tends to blind us and put us in a state of denial. It keeps us from doing things that need to be done for the greater good of the people. It does more than terrify me. It disturbs me.

Call it Crazy says

Once again, you are resorting to "emotions" and not logic.

That's your answer to EVERYTHING when it comes to discussing something like this. However, I beg to disagree with you and others on the far right. I very much have logic on my side. I take great care in researching facts, listening to what others have to say, including experts, and making a rational decision about it. I may be passionate about what I believe in, just as passionate as you and others on the far right, but that doesn't mean I'm not being rational about these kinds of things.

Call it Crazy says

In reality, if you want to kill a lot of people dramatically, you can drive a car through a crowded public gathering. Although, you might not get a "dramatic" response from the MSM because we all "accept" cars in our daily lives.
You could also fly a plane into a building or two... that's certainly dramatic and can kill a lot of people... now, the MSM would have a field day with that, because we normally don't "expect" that to happen....

While that is true, utilizing guns prolongs the experience and gives the individual a high, like drugs. Sure, you drive a car or fly a plane into a building, but that's a quick way of killing a large amount of people. It's over relatively quickly. With guns, you can begin shooting until you're out and, as you reload, you can take some time to savor the chaos and the sheer look of panic and terror in your victims' faces. Once you start shooting again, you get a greater rush from the killing. You may even relish in the fact you're about to kill someone who's huddling in the corner begging for their life to be spared. A shooting can last several minutes or more While driving a car or flying a plane into a building is dramatic, it's NOT dramatic enough.

Why aren't super bazookas and mini atomic bombs legal to own? Since it's not the weapon but the person that does the killing, we should have zero concern about anything that could be considered a weapon. Machine guns that can shoot 200 round in 10 seconds should be legal. Never know when one has to defend themselves against hundreds of people.

Suburban Gal says

GraooGra says

Too many idiots use keyboard. ....their leftist conditioning, their ignorance, their despise of different ideas,...It ust terrifies me.

I can say the exact same thing about people on the far right, like yourself.

I'm tired of hearing, "it's my [God given] right!" It's all about YOUR right. We're such a rights driven country that it scares the heck out of me. The fact we're so rights driven tends to blind us and put us in a state of denial. It keeps us from doing things that need to be done for the greater good of the people. It does more than terrify me. It disturbs me.

First of all, I can discuss and argue with you any time, any day. You (I mean plural left) just escape the argument.

Second, 'before we even start, what does it exactly mean 'greater good of the people'. Commies butchered 60 million people for the 'greater good of the people', so I run away from these slogans.

BobbyS says

Why aren't super bazookas and mini atomic bombs legal to own? Since it's not the weapon but the person that does the killing, we should have zero concern about anything that could be considered a weapon.

Maybe because they are not pointed, when you shoot you create a collateral damage? So you need to draw the line somewhere. The problem is that left wants to take away all gun rights, maybe far right would be happy with bazookas, I don't know.