quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: More than anything else, mass shooters want recognition. If you deny them that recognition, they are much less likely to do a mass shooting.
Are you certain about this? The shooter in CT didn't even leave a note.
quote: To people who want to make restrictions to the freedom to carry arms: Are you equally willing to make legal restrictions to the freedom of speech?
If not, then why not?
We already have reasonable limits on freedom of speech.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Apparently it is fairly common there. Knives aren't as deadly as guns, but it just shows that if guns aren't available, these crazies will find another way to cause terror.
Gun control laws are a strange topic for me. On one hand I believe in the right to own a gun. On the other hand I believe that more than just your own state of mind should be taken into account when applying for a firearms license. I think that if you have anyone in your family with mental illness, that should be taken into consideration when you obtain a license to own or carry a firearm.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* Okay, fine. Guns do not protect people from guns in the same way that seatbelts protect people from crashes.
How seatbelts protect the user: 1) Minimize effects of violent impact; 2) Keep the user inside the vehicle.
How guns protect from other guns: 1) Scare shooters out of firing; 2) Kill or incapacitate shooters.
In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Kill count: zero.
Odds that the CT shooter would have been able to force his way into the school's security zone with a knife instead of guns: practically zilch
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
And let's just imagine the arguments in favor of seatbelts if this were the case; would people say that seatbelted highways are polite highways? Or would we be discussing the potential ban of assault seatbelts following yet another 20+ casualties with a mass seatbelt killing when someone snapped and used their seatbelts to murder a school bus load of children?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: In order for seatbelts to protect from crashes in the same way that guns protect from other guns, seatbelts would have to have the ability to lash out and disable other cars at range if the driver felt that the other car posed a threat, and all drivers would have to know that any car equipped with seatbelts could force them off the road with a flap of terrible fabric if that car's driver felt like it.
And let's just imagine the arguments in favor of seatbelts if this were the case; would people say that seatbelted highways are polite highways? Or would we be discussing the potential ban of assault seatbelts following yet another 20+ casualties with a mass seatbelt killing when someone snapped and used their seatbelts to murder a school bus load of children?
Are we then assuming that in this world the right to bear seat belts is also guaranteed by the constitution?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We already place limitations on constitutional rights. You do not, for example, have the right to own bombs. Freedom of speech is limited as are many other first amendment rights. Human sacrifice would be a restriction of religious freedom.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: More than anything else, mass shooters want recognition. If you deny them that recognition, they are much less likely to do a mass shooting.
Are you certain about this? The shooter in CT didn't even leave a note.
quote: To people who want to make restrictions to the freedom to carry arms: Are you equally willing to make legal restrictions to the freedom of speech?
If not, then why not?
We already have reasonable limits on freedom of speech.
The shooter in CT didn't need to leave a note. The bodies are the note. And every single detail of his life will be made public - He knew that.
Yes, I'm rather convinced a morbid desire for recognition - even after death - is a driving motivation.
If these people only wanted to kill, but not get recognition, then they would try to *avoid getting caught*. Getting caught - Or committing suicide on the scene - means they can't continue killing. So obviously the mere desire to kill isn't the main motivation.
As for revenge as motivation - I'm sure it plays always a part. There must be a heavy amount of bitterness towards the surrounding world. It goes hand in hand with the desire for recognition. Notice how these mass murderers are usually introvert outsiders, to whom nobody pays much attention to?
But even revenge doesn't work as main motivation, because mass murderers typically kill people they have no personal relationship with, people they have never spoken to, people they have never even met before. They rarely kill people who actually wronged them. A person who would be *primarily* driven by revenge, would make sure to primarily kill people who have wronged him. Not just blast away everyone who happens to walk by.
And anyway, if you are driven primarily by revenge, you don't want to be caught. Just kill the people you want to kill, and continue with your life. Bomb your school anonymously, instead of shooting everyone in public.
But these people want to get caught. They want to see the scared looks on the faces of their victims. They want to be recognized by their victims. They are on a power trip. They are making a STATEMENT - To the whole world. It's the extreme version of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!".
Sometimes they don't want to leave a physical note, because they already made their note - By killing dozens of people.
Right now, because the media is covering the CT killer 24/7, there are a few people around USA, who are seeing a chance for once in their lives to be recognized. They can manifest their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone is guaranteed to watch.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are we arguing for limitations or a ban?
Depends on what you are asking. Limitations on the right to bear arms is a ban on some types of weapons.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
But these people want to get caught. They want to see the scared looks on the faces of their victims. They want to be recognized by their victims. They are on a power trip. They are making a STATEMENT - To the whole world. It's the extreme version of "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!".
Sometimes they don't want to leave a physical note, because they already made their note - By killing dozens of people.
They get that regardless of the press. I think that you need to show some evidence of your theory.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's use logic on prevention and outcome: - Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence. - Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device. - Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: Let's use logic on prevention and outcome: - Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence. - Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device. - Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
Flaws?
Gosh yes. None of those things are true. All of it is flaw.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: So are we arguing for limitations or a ban?
I think it depends on which gun control advocate you're asking.
But if I believe in a right we have, that the general population deserves, like the right to bear arms, and I think freedom is a little more valuable than safety, then no tragedy ever changes that.
The form of gun control I wouldn't begrudge though, is a further standard of eligibility, but even that is a compromise with freedom and possibly a form of discrimination. Whatever path we go on, something sucks.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ... Right now, because the media is covering the CT killer 24/7, there are a few people around USA, who are seeing a chance for once in their lives to be recognized. They can manifest their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD, and everyone is guaranteed to watch.
If an argument seeks to explain the exceedingly high homicide rate in the US (with or without guns), it has to find a dividing line between the US and the rest of the developed world. Or as Geraine pointed out, even developing countries such as China which are developing but have extremely low homicide rates.
The media is not one of these dividing lines. The media outside of the US can be just as sensational, reveal just as many personal details about a criminal, etc. If anything, I would say that British tabloids (or their inspired Hong Kong counterparts) can be even more sensational.
Especially in the Internet age, when they "[are manifesting] their hatred to the WHOLE WORLD", it is doubly worth taking on why Americans are disproportionately listening and able to pull the trigger rather than go on some quest to censor the media for the entire world.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: On another sad note, a mad man in China stabbed 22 children in an elementary school on Friday as well.
Good thing he didn't have a gun or the children in China would likely be dead. Like ours.
Jokes been made by netizens in China that if they had the same gun policies as the US, they probably wouldn't have the one child policy
Also,
quote:It takes a lot to make China’s government—beset, as it is, by corruption and opacity and the paralyzing effects of special interests—look good, by comparison, in the eyes of its people these days. But we’ve done it. When Chinese viewers looked at the two attacks side by side, more than a few of them concluded, as this one did that, “from the look of it, there’s no difference between a ‘developed’ country and a ‘developing’ country. And there’s no such thing as human rights. People are the most violent creatures on earth, and China, with its ban on guns, is doing pretty well!”
It is a strange fact that in refusing to allow rational gun policies in America, the N.R.A. and its acolytes have damaged precisely the treasure they purport to hold so dear: the moral charisma of American liberty.
posted
- Restrictions on firearms: likely outcome is firearm theft and similar occurrence.
This assumes that the ratio of people who would use a legal gun to do their nefarious act and people who without access to a legal gun would then steal a gun to perform their nefarious act is 1 to 1. That is quite the assumption.
- Ban on firearms: likely outcome is another method, such as improvised explosive device.
This also assumes that the people who without access to firearms would build a bomb, and that the death ratio of bomb vs gun is 1 to 1. I don't think that's a valid assumption.
- Arming teachers: likely outcome is reduced mortality rate.
Assumption is that there will be no accidental shootings from teachers, disarming of teachers by someone, and no rage killings by teachers. Your assumption that the death count per incident would decrease but I'm going to throw in an assumption that the number of incidences will increase and the over all death rate will actually increase while the number of massacres decreases.
*Minor change to wording for clarity.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I didn't say people with guns were safer than people without guns.
I said people with guns are safer when being attacked by someone else with a gun.
That's a really big difference.
Edit: also there's apparently a new page. This is in response to what you said at the end of the previous page.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
That is, she isn't sure that having a gun makes you any safer when faced with someone attacking you with a gun.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not sure that even that much is true.
Um, how can that be in question? I mean, Bob attacks Larry with a gun. Larry is unarmed. Larry dies.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed, and now has at least a chance to defend himself and possibly escapes unharmed.
Where is the ambiguity?
Bob holds up a bank. Larry is a customer, unarmed and stays on the ground with his hands visible. Bob escapes the bank without having killed anyone.
Bob holds up a bank. Larry is a customer and is armed. He reaches for his gun and Larry shoots him.
Bob meets Larry on the street. Bob demands Larry's cash. Larry gives cash and Bob runs away.
Bob meets Larry on the street. Bob demands Larry's cash. As Larry reaches for his gun instead of wallet, the glint of metal makes Bob shoot Larry before Larry even has time to switch off the safety.
These situations are purposefully baked such that having a gun ends up being a more negative consequence. The point is not whether these situations would in fact happen, but that they are plausible alternatives to the rosier pictures of guns as tools of self-defense.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Living with other people is all about balancing things that suck.
ya. I'm just demonstrating that I would accept eligibility reform, but I would feel like a jerk for doing so. I'm effectively telling people, if they've ever been unstable, I/we get to tell you when you're a full person again. Sorry. ------------------------
Passing idea I want a second opinion on. Any first gun has to be relatively simple. Handgun. Low magazine. Or however you want to micromanage it. But any purchase of something more dangerous would require that you've handled a firearm for a certain ammount of time with restraint and responsability, and you move up tiers based on the ammount of time you've safely posessed each weapon.
For all I know something like that might be in place, but eh?
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC there's only one example that can be shown to be a data-driven conclusion wherein ownership of a gun makes you safer, and it's in a very limited subset of home invasion situations.
As it is, anyone who wants to make the case that gun ownership actually makes you safer in the event of a shooting is welcome to provide those data points for analysis. Note that in the one case so far when a person was armed during a shooting and had time to respond to it (Loughner's killing spree) they only almost ended up shooting additional innocent people and the situation only barely avoided that.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Note that in the one case so far when a person was armed during a shooting and had time to respond to it (Loughner's killing spree) they only almost ended up shooting additional innocent people and the situation only barely avoided that.
Are... Are you kidding? Or are you really this ignorant of the issue you're making strident assertions about?
You're genuinely asserting that the guy at the Loughner shooting was the "one time" an armed (non) victim responded to a shooting? I mean, really? Truly? Or is this just Sam Sarcasm or something?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're talking about shooting sprees in America, certainly. What's your definition of "recent," though? Are you just thinking of like the last couple years, or what? If so... Why? If not, yeah, you're very wrong.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Vadon and boots: We need to clarify some language here. Threatening someone with a gun is pointing a gun at someone, and not firing. Attacking someone with a gun requires firing.
So, let's run those again, and remember, we are talking about being attacked by someone with a gun, not threatened.
So basically you only have a few different ways this plays out:
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry dies. (most likely)
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry is wounded but lives. (also a possibility)
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is unarmed. Larry runs away because Bob can't hit the broad side of a barn. (not as likely)
OR
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry dies without drawing his weapon because Bob had the element of surprise.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies. Larry is a hero and Bob's murder spree is put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies, but Bob mortally wounds Larry before he dies. Larry dies a hero and Bob's murder spree is put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry shoots Bob, who dies, and an innocent bystander. Larry is much less of a hero and but Bob's murder spree is never the less put to an end.
Bob attacks Larry with a gun, Larry is armed. Larry misses Bob, and hits an innocent bystander. Larry is then killed by Bob, who continues his murder spree. What a jerk.
I say we are better with Larry packing heat personally. I bet Larry would agree with me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In all of those, Larry is, by definition already shot regardless of whether he is armed or not. Or Bob misses. Assuming Bob isn't using an automatic or semi-automatic, Larry may have the chance to shoot Bob (or an innocent bystander).
SO not remotely better with Larry being armed. Even for Larry.
You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough. But I think it gives you a rhetorical when you decide to just discuss the attacks first.
The threats have, probably, the likeliest outcome when guns don't make you safer, when you're threatened and reaction escalates the situation.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In all of those, Larry is, by definition already shot regardless of whether he is armed or not. Or Bob misses. Assuming Bob isn't using an automatic or semi-automatic, Larry may have the chance to shoot Bob (or an innocent bystander).
SO not remotely better with Larry being armed. Even for Larry.
You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Right, but lets say Larry's sister is in the next room.
I realize the language some of us are making is "makes you safer", but still, that can be symbolic for "you and you're family", or "you and whatever you're part of".
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boots: What definition? Being shot at doesn't mean you get hit.
IIRC, statistically in a shoot out 14 rounds are exchanged before one hits it's target.
Let's say Bob is shooting people in the hall of a school...and Larry is not in sight yet, draws his weapon and prepares to fire when Bob comes into view...kills Bob, ending the spree and saving everyone else in that school that would have been massacred. Is that better for Larry and everyone else. Hell yes it is.
quote:Originally posted by boots: You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
Citations?
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: Fair enough. But I think it gives you a rhetorical when you decide to just discuss the attacks first.
Consider what sparked off this discussion...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not calling you out. I'm just bringing the next thing back quickly for the sake of perception checking.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by boots: You also need to take into account, the fact (and it is a fact) that armed people are more likely to get into armed confrontations.
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
If Larry doesn't draw, how is his gun helpful?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Seem like we are comparing stupid Larry with a gun (Who tries to draw even though he has no chance) vs. smart Larry without a gun, who acts in a manner to maximize his chances of living.
Does the fact that Larry is now armed make his IQ go down?
If Larry doesn't draw, how is his gun helpful?
In the situation you've catered specifically where a gun wouldn't be helpful it isn't helpful. But that situation can't be used as a blanket situation to show that guns don't make you safer.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
