Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 125 posts

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#41

Post by dewyatt »

MobileVet wrote: post #26
ChrisLomont wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.

Treating firearms like every other object in our world is a false equivalency. They are created to kill, period. I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt. But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration. In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than tho…

They had warships when the 2A was written, some of which were privately owned.

They also had things like the puckle gun and the founders were aware of advancing weaponry.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#42

Post by MobileVet »

GVIrish wrote: post #34
MobileVet wrote: post #8

It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Freedom of speech is not absolute, why in the world should owning a device intended to kill be unlimited?

Some 2nd amendment supporters think there should be no limitations but in my experience that is not the majority. Most people agree with background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, bans on felons buying guns, etc. Many are against the return of the assault weapons ban and banning of higher capacity magazines. In general I find that many 2nd amendment supporters are fearful of an expansion of gun control law…

Agreed, but the majority are not setting the policy agenda.

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#43

Post by throwaway082729 »

ryeights wrote: post #19
MobileVet wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws yes, substantive laws... debatable. More significant measures like requiring a license or limiting magazine capacity are somehow characterized as over reach. Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.

Would you support a license requirement or a word limit for the First Amendment?

Maybe we should consider one for arguments to avoid arguments like yours

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#44

Post by Juliate »

fit2rule wrote: post #20
empath75 wrote: post #2

[flagged]

It is possible to radicalise anyone. It is not about politics at all. You can convince even the hippiest left-wing peaceniks into terrible activity. All you have to do is fixate the subject on either side of a dialectic argument involving force, violence, duress .. injustice. Or even better, all of the above. The root of all radicalisation is individual responsibility.

Do you have evidence of a number of "leftist" activists that have approximately the same count of murders as right-wingers/white supremacists have?

I mean, something to balance and show some equivalence?

You don't.

Because the single biggest real threat to any US citizen today is an other US citizen that can grab a weapon at will.

And it happens that in the overwhelming number of cases, the person that becomes a mass-murderer is a white, conservative, pro-right, pro-weapon, pro-republican.

Not acknowledging this is either total denial - or total complicity.

And. This is totally about politics (how a government deals with its people). NRA politics; that serves a very specific ideology.

Look in Wikipedia this category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mass_shootings_by_cou... - then browse by country.

All countries, but the USA have sporadic sub-articles. USA has whole sub-categories.

USA are the _single_ country in the world where there are as many mass shootings, every year. When there are been more than 250 in the USA in 2019, there hasn't been even 10 in any other country in the world.

(to the down voters: downvote as much as you want guys - facts are facts - you are only deluding yourselves - you should look in the mirror more and stop considering the USA as the center/perfection of all things, because it's not)

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#45

Post by kcmastrpc »

acdha wrote: post #32
ChrisLomont wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.

> 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that…

You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-...

Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#46

Post by throwaway082729 »

kcmastrpc wrote: post #31
MobileVet wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Treating firearms like every other object in our world is a false equivalency. They are created to kill, period. I grew up target shooting weapons of all sizes and shapes. It is a lot of fun, no doubt. But their capabilities to inflict massive damage in seconds should make it clear that they require special consideration. In addition, the objects we are talking about today are orders of magnitude more deadly than tho…

> orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?

Can you conceal these cannons when you walk into a mall before shooting others?

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#47

Post by Juliate »

westmeal wrote: post #36
gonzo41 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just one point before i get down voted into obscurity. but an effective regulation of firearms would go a long way to resolve this issue.

I don't think you should get downvoted for sharing your opinion, but who do you really think would benefit from regulating firearms? There is a very good reason the constitution provisioned firearms and I think people are starting to forget.

All citizens that wouldn't be killed: * by mistake because it found one in a cupboard? * by someone who gets to discharge his feelings?

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#48

Post by tempguy9999 »

cheez wrote: post #21
xienze wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is very telling that supporters of the 2nd think it should be upheld without ANY limits or backstops. Any additional limits. There are already plenty of laws on the books around gun control, it’s disingenuous to pretend as though none exist.

This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…

> (hello UK!)

Brit here. What are you on about?

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#49

Post by ryeights »

jl6 wrote: post #23
ryeights wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support a license requirement or a word limit for the First Amendment?

Sure, for all the words that can be used to kill people.

Okay. Let’s say we’ve gathered a list of the most dangerous ‘violent’ words (e.g. kill, harm, murder, cleanse, racial epithets, etc.) that could be used in a direct incitement to violence. Would you support a license requirement and word limit on these words? Nevermind that they have various legitimate lawful uses, people’s lives are at stake!

Re: Contagion in Mass Killings and School Shootings (2015)

#50

Post by ryeights »

throwaway082729 wrote: post #43
ryeights wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you support a license requirement or a word limit for the First Amendment?

Maybe we should consider one for arguments to avoid arguments like yours

Thank you for your valuable contribution to the discussion
Post reply on HN