posted
You couldn't enter a crowded nightclub with either of those weapons, and if you could you couldn't kill 49 people with them.
Oh! Unless it's an episode of Buffy, and you're a Slayer, and they're vampires. A pointy stick might work then. But not actual human beings, unless it's a movie and you're Jet Li and we ignore what happens when you drive sharpened wood through living bone over and over again.
Of course there's also the issue of it being impossible to really regulate anything but the open carrying of pointy sticks, since one can hardly outlaw access to wood and knives or even edged rocks. This is another way in which pointy sticks are fundamentally different from firearms.
The biggest way is that pointy sticks are much, much, much less effective tools of violence than firearms. Somebody, some guy around here, remarked on the abundant examples of history proving that point. Another difference is that there is no way to effectively regulate access to pointy sticks, for reasons explained above. This isn't true of firearms as can be seen throughout the world and indeed here in the United States with automatic weapons, which are very effectively regulated.
So. One tool is much, much deadlier than the other. It requires an industrialized culture to produce it, culminating in a tool that maximizes violence while minimizing effort-an extremely efficient and potentially useful piece of technology. The other requires opposable thumbs, rudimentary knowledge of how to use tools, and the ability to then thrust with the constructed weapon. Short of beating someone to death with your bare hands, there are few methods of violence that take *more* effort than a pointy stick. The other guy lives if he's faster than you are, or maybe even just more agile. You could kill a few guys with your pointy stick before it broke.
If all of that isn't enough to illustrate why throwing pointy sticks into a discussion of gun control-and it's baffling to me to imagine why it wouldn't be-there's more. It is possible to regulate access to and use of firearms. We even do it in the United States with automatic weapons, and it's done to further extent through much of the world. On the other hand, it is impossible to regulate access to wood and sharpened rocks and/or knives. While it could be possible to regulate someone carrying pointy sticks out in the world, you would have a tough time stopping starving downtrodden peasants in North Korea from being able to construct a pointy stick. Because there's trees and rocks. There's always trees and rocks.
Ok! So, now you can set aside this transparent sidestepping of the question of armed guards in crowded nightclubs being the silver bullet for preventing mass shootings, right? Well, I mean experience tells me that the answer to that question is 'probably not', but hope springs eternal.
For christ's sake. Pointy sticks. Well at least I can take comfort in the fact that you're not likely to vote.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course pointy sticks are less effective & unbanable...that was the point of giving them as the bottom of a range. I was going to include bare fists just to make a point. But was pressed for time. (Both Annual & Quarterly's made it to the printer on time)
Is this a gun control discussion?
Guns are by far second class to bombs...or box cutters on planes...
I'm saying...clearly it doesn't matter what weapon restrictions are in place you just can't stop a person bent on killing others as it's so fricken easy!
Yes...we can and should control who gets what guns...the part that boggles my biscuit is you -know- my stances on guns...we agree like 90%.
But still...gotta be Rakeesh...I like how stubborn you are...it reminds me of me, I just really wish you were more open to talking about hypothical or ethical stuff w/o you jumping all over me w your complaints of over a decade.
So...anyway...
What drives humans to want to lash out this way? To kill as many of the people they see as the world's problems?
I understand that the shooter was a closeted gay.
I was reading how the majority of mass killings are from exes...by the fbi's standards anyway...will edit post w link tomorrow...
ETA:
quote:Breakups, estrangements and family arguments make up the majority (53%) of cases, though unrelated victims may be caught in the crossfire.
posted
It's not clear he was a closeted homosexual, from where the investigation currently stands. If it were easily demonstrated, such as from clandestine relationships or an online presence by the shooter, it would've come out now. I think it may end up being the case that he was either a self-hating homosexual, or someone who was curious and also self hating as at least a component of his motives, but that it would never be able to be proven. After all, if he kept it all between his ears he could have been very very homosexual or bisexual, but there would not be evidence of it.
Two things are necessary for a mass killing-motive and tools. You can have all the motive you want and without reliable tools, well, you get a case such as the one you cited from China with 5x the attackers and only 80% of the body count. By your own references, the tools do matter. That's simply inescapable.
It is also true that if there were infinite tools but zero will there would be no mass killings, yes. The trouble there is that the tools are not used only for mass killings. In the United States, mass shootings are a drop in the bucket of the actual gun deaths. Suicides, accidents, and more ordinary one on one crimes of passion all (even accidents, I think) far outnumber the death toll of mass shootings in the United States.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Sam, I feel your brevity is inversely related to your participation value.
Actually brevity on certain subject matter is a hallmark of this thread, so I dismiss your objection from this part of the discussion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You complained about his brevity, I remarked-correctly-that that form of brevity is a feature of this thread in that context. So yeah, your objection wasn't so much noted as analyzed and found wanting, an explanation of why given, and then dismissed.
The joke still worked though. I mean I could have dug deeper and looked at all the times you've resorted to one-liners or jokes in response to serious questions-not just from me-and posted 'em all here. Would've been impressive, as there are a number of times you've done that. More work than I felt like doing, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. There actually were two high profile shootings IN ORLANDO that weekend. A singer was shot and killed by a fan at a big concert in addition to the mass shooting. What would otherwise be major news was largely drowned out.
Yes! Thank you! I thought I just thought my cheese was sliding off my cracker!
quote:2. Stone Wolf, you said that "statistically" it was likely that an armed person in the crowd would have ended the attack after only two people were killed. I'm not sure where you got that statistic.
quote:How many mass shootings were broken up in the last year by someone who was armed in the crowd?
I'm not sure about annually, but I posted that story of ten that did help. So it DOES happen.
quote:For that matter, there WAS an armed guard at Pulse who failed to take the shooter down.
This seems to suggest to me that one armed guard is not enough.
quote: There IS evidence that vigilantes in crowds are terrible at stopping mass shooters. When Gabby Giffords was shot, a man in the crowd almost shot an off duty police officer. Why? Because in that situation, with little or no training (or even with training), it's VERY difficult to deduce WHO to shoot at. It's not always the crazy person with an AR-15, and even then, if I have a gun and I see someone with a gun, it's hard to look away from that person. You never know. There's a similar story out of the Virginia Tech shooting, that an armed student was nearly killed by police because the situation was very confusing and no one knew who the active shooter actually was. Also, when someone tried to take down the mall shooter in Seattle a few years back, he was instantly targeted by the mass shooter and killed. In short: there's little data to support your point, and quite a bit of data to suggest that untrained vigilantes are actually terrible at stopping a mass shooting in process.
As I'm researching this subject, I will look for the trend you are suggesting, however, if you have any particular articles or stats you would like to share, I would love to see some numbers. One thing that strikes me is that you say "untrained vigilantes" a lot, however, you might not remember from the gun control threads of old that I am heavily for required training for ownership, and further training to obtain a carry permit. So...no "untrained" anything. Vigilantes? The world has a negative connotation...but for realies yo, wouldn't you like some of our honorably discharged vettes (and similarly trained professionals) to be able to try and save lives?
quote:3. Anyone who says the method doesn't matter is being pretty silly. Clearly a gun is more deadly than a knife. How do I know this? We haven't fought wars with swords...ever...in America. We switched to guns. Because guns kill people better. It's literally the only thing they were designed to do. Guns shoot things. Guns were made to kill either people or animals. Quickly. Accurately. From a distance or up close. Peddling the idea that a pointy stick is the same thing as a long gun with a high capacity magazine is incredibly intellectually dishonest.
On MANY levels it does matter...however I feel that when it comes to the discussion of morality and motivation wise, the tool used is not relevant.
quote:4. Why do we pretend that guns are different from anything else in society that kills people? Cigarettes kill people, so we regulate the hell out of them and try to get as few people as possible to smoke them. Cars are dangerous, and back when they killed an awful lot more people, we started regulating the crap out of them to make them safer, and we required people to have insurance to drive one. When terrorists hijacked a plan they reinforced cockpit doors and stepped up searches. When one smuggled in a bomb, they made us take off our shoes and submit to those naked xray vision scans. So on and so on and so on and so on. Every time we've identified a mass threat in society we've taken mass action to reduce the number of deaths. Have any of these solutions COMPLETELY ELIMINATED THE THREAT? No. But we've saved millions of lives for our efforts. Why are guns the only thing that everyone claims defy all the rest of the rules we've set up in society for how we decide to enact regulation to save lives? Guns, in that sense, are no different than unprocessed milk or seat belts. Yet half our society pretends they are. Can we please do more to do away with this notion?
I'm all for regulation of firearms. Psych evaluations, safe handling training, tactical training, all at the expense of the applicant (as long as it is not exorbitantly expensive, and thus a limiting factor). I'm all for licensing known dangerous/powerful tools, from vehicles to medical practitioners to firearms and limited franchise.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: wouldn't you like some of our honorably discharged vettes (and similarly trained professionals) to be able to try and save lives?
Sure. Issue them all epi pens and bandages to carry with them. They'll save a lot more lives than they would with guns.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I found the info graph I was referencing, not a clue if they are a trust worthy source, will research
So I'm not enough of a statistician or expert to really parse the data, but, assuming all those stories are true, the problem comes in trying to compare things that actually happened with counterfactuals.
The data would have to fall into three buckets. 1. Every mass shooting that actually happened and wasn't stopped until law enforcement arrived. 2. Every time someone tried and FAILED to stop a mass shooting. 3. Every time someone DID stop someone after a shooting. For this last group, you'd have to try to quantify what would have happened had the shooters or potential shooters not been stopped. It would be a case by case basis with lots of guesswork. I'm not sure we could ever pull really useful numbers from it, but that's what we'd have to do.
So again, I'm not sure where you got your overall statistic that more armed people in crowds means more lives saved.
quote:This seems to suggest to me that one armed guard is not enough.
In hindsight perhaps not. But let's say 30 people in the crowd had guns. How confident are you that they all would have known exactly what was happening and known exactly what to do? That all 30 of them in a loud, dark night club would know exactly which person with a gun, or maybe which person FIRING a gun, they should also fire at. I'm not saying people with guns don't stop bad guys, but the idea that more guns makes us more safe just doesn't pass any sort of logical muster with me. More guns seems far more likely to me to make a situation far more dangerous. Yes, even potentially more dangerous than what actually happened in Orlando.
quote:One thing that strikes me is that you say "untrained vigilantes" a lot, however, you might not remember from the gun control threads of old that I am heavily for required training for ownership, and further training to obtain a carry permit. So...no "untrained" anything. Vigilantes? The world has a negative connotation...but for realies yo, wouldn't you like some of our honorably discharged vettes (and similarly trained professionals) to be able to try and save lives?
Gun safety, practice at the range, and the like are completely different things from training for an active shooter situation. Completely different. Unless you actually support requiring everyone to basically attend a shortened police academy so they actually have all the necessary skills to suss out and act in a situation like that, which I think probably would in fact be considered too onerous by most people.
So yes, I would indeed like trained professionals to handle the situation. They're called police officers and they're usually who we call in. But no, I probably don't want a guy with a gun and a week of training to be given that sort of power. I don't trust him. And by definition he is a vigilante. I don't have a better word for someone who takes the life or death decisions into his own hands with deadly force.
quote:On MANY levels it does matter...however I feel that when it comes to the discussion of morality and motivation wise, the tool used is not relevant.
Morality and motivation? No, in that case I don't really think it matters. But to me it seems like you're deflecting. Your argument over the last page hasn't been that methods don't matter when discussion motivation, it's that guns are no more dangerous than sticks and knives and far less dangerous than box cutters and bombs. Those are two very different points, and a proper counterargument to your position on the relative deadliness of a gun is my argument that guns are far more dangerous and the method is actually very important if our goal is to reduce deaths.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't trust anyone who thinks that carrying a gun to the mall makes the people around him safer to carry a gun to the mall.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is it just me or does Rock Dawg always end up on the combative side of the discussion in an almost devil's advocate sort of way every single time? Like every time the Hatrack Hive Mind & Me have an ounce of consensus your like "Nope." and cross your arms and just sit there growling at us.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I don't trust anyone who thinks that carrying a gun to the mall makes the people around him safer to carry a gun to the mall.
Tom doesn't trust cops & armed security eh?
Or by carry you mean concieled? Cause that still includes off duty cops & retired cops...fyi
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyr: So again, I'm not sure where you got your overall statistic that more armed people in crowds means more lives saved.
I think there is confusion...I was just referencing the main infograph...14.3 dead when stopped by LE, 2.3 dead when stopped by civys.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Lyr: ...the idea that more guns makes us more safe just doesn't pass any sort of logical muster with me.
...unless they are cops...then you think EXACTLY that, right?
quote: And by definition he is a vigilante. I don't have a better word for someone who takes the life or death decisions into his own hands with deadly force.
So if Abad guy starts shooting at me and those around me and I say, stop them w my own gun, then I'm taking the law into my own hands...or simply defending myself?
Most folk don't want to be a hero...aren't looking for a fight, they just understand that when out in public there is reasonable chance that they will need one to defend themselves.
Sure...Zimmermans do exist...that's why a psych eval!
Also...I mentioned tactical training, not merely safety.
Also cop's training is...fast, sandwiched between ten million other important lessons & physical exertion & stress.
I've worked w cops on advanced training...and man did they need it.
Your average hobby shooter is, at an estimation, 10x more accurate with a hand gun than "I haven't fired my gun since the accademy" style cops.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyr: So again, I'm not sure where you got your overall statistic that more armed people in crowds means more lives saved.
I think there is confusion...I was just referencing the main infograph...14.3 dead when stopped by LE, 2.3 dead when stopped by civys.
You originally said that statistically more armed people means more lives saved. Then you pointed to that infographic as evidence.
I'm confused as to where the confusion is.
I see your confusion, and I raise you a "huh?". You wanted the source of my numbers...I gave it...
ETA...I was quoting that infographic from memory from Pintrist & it was the average amount of people killed w/o intervention by a citizen...anyway...as Rakeesh points out, the source is untrustworthy...so I retract the point in question anyway.
quote:But to me it seems like you're deflecting. Your argument over the last page hasn't been that methods don't matter when discussion motivation, it's that guns are no more dangerous than sticks and knives and far less dangerous than box cutters and bombs.
This is likely poor communication on my part...
However I feel also there is an undertone of attatude that somehow we are supposed to be mad at guns...like he couldn't just hopped in a rental hummer and rammed it at top speed into the crowd, or spent five seconds online learning how to make a bomb.
The gun isn't the problem, the human behind it is.
There certainly is a time & place to discuss gun control...and we have...at length.
ETA: I also said in that first post...
quote:Sure a pointy stick is harder to wield as effectively...
My point was never "there is no difference", it was, "What difference does it make?"...bc this ain't a gun control thread.
posted
So, we've gone from pointy sticks to a hummer.
Personally, I like my chances at getting away from a malicious driver in a hummer much better than getting away from a guy with an assault rifle. Plus, I'd have a much better chance even if hit of escaping with an injury rather than death.
As an example, just last year a woman did just what you're suggesting... maliciously drove onto a sidewalk repeatedly in Vegas with an intent to hit people... and she killed one and injured three dozen.
Even bombs aren't usually as lethal - having many more injuries than fatalities. From 1983 to 2002, there were 36,110 recorded bombing incidents in the US... with 699 deaths.
The use of a gun (any gun) makes it much more likely that someone dies. This holds true for mass shootings, other violent crime, and even suicide. The balance between death and injury tilts much further toward death when guns are involved vs. other options.
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"... or more accurately, "guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill more people than people without them".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no argument that guns are effective & easy to operate killing mechines...but I'll have to look into the numbers you quoted...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:...I remarked-correctly-that that form of brevity is a feature of this thread in that context.
Man I'm slow on context some times. My wife complains about it at times...not too much...she knew I was literal when she married me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I have no argument that guns are effective & easy to operate killing mechines...but I'll have to look into the numbers you quoted...
Just cause you started it you think it appropriate you get to moderate it? Including banning people from posting?
If there is anything Hatrack has taught me is...don't demand other's silence, simply stop replying when you're done.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: FC: Even bombs aren't usually as lethal - having many more injuries than fatalities. From 1983 to 2002, there were 36,110 recorded bombing incidents in the US... with 699 deaths.
I'm shocked that booms are so ineffective. I will have to modify my understanding of how the world works...thanks FlyingCow! Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
stone wolf, i have really tried to be at least a little bit inclusive of your views and not just shit on you, but you have been a really terrible poster and you keep getting worse and you seemingly refuse to reform your habits and you pathologically double down on your frankly super-shitty, self righteous actions.
you're shitting up my thread.
you're being a bad poster.
i am asking you to take your issues elsewhere and not 'debate' your shit in my thread. it's because i'm actually really honestly tired of you shitting up my thread. if you have even just a little bit of decency in this matter, as far as i am concerned, anything that would show me that it wasn't a big huge mistake to at least try to play nice with you these last few weeks as you started cratering out and indulging in your habits until you became hatrack's most obnoxious poster, you'll stop shitting up my thread.
if you instead just want to do what you seem to always reflexively do, which is some level of 'no!! i will post back forever always and never stop trying to skirmish, no matter how dumb and bad it makes me look' because i'm calling you out for something, then honestly it'll just show me that i was wrong to expect you to potentially be able to reform your bad, dumb habits, and i will stop engaging you with literally any semblance of respect.
please stop posting in my thread because you are being a really, really bad poster.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Being reminded at least twice doesn't usually count as 'remembering'.
Watch this:
*snort* Here's a tip about ignoring people that is ideally learned sometime before graduating high school: the way to ignore someone is to simply ignore them. What you're doing is a step away from a sitcom farce of, "Bill, tell Jane that I'm not speaking to her."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm including research...I'm reading up before posting, I'm doing my best to not engage in pointless personal twaddle, I freely admit when I'm wrong (even of that is not as often as you like), my personal issues; laziness, victomhood, entitledment, ignorance & obtuseness to context have all been acknowledged & improved upon...compare me to Ron & tell me I have not progessed since you told me tursely I was wrong about capital punishment...
Your opinions matter to me, but honestly, I'm about this close to reassessing that and recatagorizing into the spam file w/ three or four others.
You tell me when I'm being stupid...please, I won't complain...just don't be cryptic & expect me to get it.
As to not posting...sorry sam...I'm not going to agree to that & in the past, you (I think it was you?) pointed out how innapropriate & untenable it is to request other's silence.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, man. If you move over to the Brexit thread, ask yourself if I treated you unfairly. You didn't know much of anything about it, so you asked a variety of big and relevant questions. I answered them and admitted to my own ignorance on at least three important points of the topic. I also didn't take even a single shot at you, and it wasn't only because I didn't know much about it that I hadn't read in the last week either.
Mostly it was because you asked questions, didn't assume knowledge that you obviously didn't have, had done some basic reading, and didn't insist on having ridiculous assertions taken seriously. Meanwhile over in the discussion of mass shootings ill just say to avoid further negativity and minimize time spent, you didn't do any of that and quite the opposite more than once.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
Man I'm slow on context some times. My wife complains about it at times...not too much...she knew I was literal when she married me.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
