Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#161

Post by Samuel_Michon » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 10:42 PM UTC

vacri wrote: post #119

InclinedPlane wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, except for Utoya, Liege, Florence, Alphen aan den Rijn, Bratislava, Cumbria, Sello mall, Winnendon school, Kauhajoki school, Akihabara, Jokela school, Linchang school, Kauhajoki school, Shiguan kindergarten, Rio, Azerbaijan State Oil Academy, Siakago, the Chengdu bus fire, and others. Yup, entirely an "American phenomenon". These aren't terror attacks predominantly. These aren't drug crimes predominantly. Thes…

It's not uniquely American, sure. But Europe has 2.5 times the population of the USA, yet has only 12 listings in the last 10 years in your first link, against the USA's 10. In the second link, the page points to individual pages for rampage killers, which give 19 for the USA in the last 10 years against 13 for Europe. But really, arguing about spree killers isn't really the way to do it, even though they are symptom…

“the highest rate in a western first-world country (= similar culture base) that isn't the US is Israel at 2.1, less than half the US.”

And since Israel is in the middle of a civil war, those numbers can be easily explained. More curious is Finland, a western first-world country, which has the same homicide rate as Israel (per your link.)

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#162

Post by mikeash » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:05 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #129

tokenadult wrote: post #64

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also cru…

"So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood." What about suspending the Fourth Amendment? Surely enough random house checks, possibly automated with cameras, could also detect possible criminal activity and sav…

The thing is that the second amendment appears to be fundamentally different, in terms of human rights, from the rest. There are a lot of good arguments as to why allowing free speech, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizures, and other such things is a good thing in general, and are fundamental issues of human rights and freedoms. There are substantially fewer arguments as to why gun ownership is important to freedom in general.

If one were drawing up a list of fundamental human rights today, and were somehow completely ignorant of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, what would it include? Would someone ignorant of the Constitution, but otherwise familiar with government, law, and freedom tend to include gun rights on that list?

The second amendment really seems like the odd man out. (Well, the third amendment is pretty odd too, but nobody cares about it these days.) Freedom of speech is important because the only reason to deny it is to oppress people. Due process and requirements for warrants are important because it keeps the government honest, and suspending them would cause more government abuse than it would stop crime.

But what makes a right to gun ownership important? What does it protect against, and what makes it better than not having that right?

I understand that reasonable people can disagree on this matter, and I hope we can have a reasonable disagreement here. What I'm trying to say is that the fundamental divide here is, as far as I can tell, precisely whether the second amendment enshrines a fundamental human right, the way we feel much of the rest of the Bill of Rights does, or whether the second amendment is out of place and does not describe a fundamental human right. To argue by saying that the other side's attitude would not play well when applied to other amendments in the Bill of Rights is to miss their motivations entirely.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#163

Post by lmm » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:08 PM UTC

harshreality wrote: post #158

tokenadult wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the Unite…

These bad actors are so rare that pointing to lack of an event in 16 years in Australia (population less than 1/10 that of the U.S.) does not mean very much. There was a lesser event in 2002 in Australia: the Monash University shooting. [1] The freedom to use firearms for sport or self defense is lost. Some people value that freedom more than you do. Aren't there still exceptions in Australia for members of gun clubs…

>China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people.

And how many more could that guy have killed with a gun? In any field of endeavour people are more effective when using better tools, and a gun is a tool designed and optimized for killing. Just because we can't make killing impossible doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make it harder.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#164

Post by mikeash » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:08 PM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #72

It's just a complete waste of time to think about these kinds of things. Some humans malfunction and do this kind of thing. It happens quite rarely, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. One's probability of being harmed by the occasional insane murderer (or terrorism for that matter) is microscopic compared to so many other things that we can actually do something about.

I think this attitude is just as useless as the opposing view that we must do anything and everything conceivable to prevent an event like this from ever happening again.

This kind of thing cannot be completely eliminated. But its incidence can be reduced. It's useful to put a bit of thought into how and why this happened and what could be done, not to prevent it from ever happening again, but to reduce the odds.

No, this isn't a particularly big problem, but it certainly merits a bit of thought.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#165

Post by Samuel_Michon » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:09 PM UTC

nodemaker wrote: post #112

54mf wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your first point. The "black market" isn't a place you just go to if you want to buy illegal shit. The fact is, if the shooter didn't have legal, easy access to an assault rifle, he wouldn't have been able to do the damage he did. Period. "It is not entirely coincidental that Aurora and Columbine happened 20 miles from each other." Well, yeah, it is. Assault rifles are legal in most states. What does bei…

Yeah to a great degree it is coincidental I believe. My point being that it happened in a state with lax gun laws as opposed to a state like NY. But yeah I would like to know more about what else is amiss with that area.

Well, South Park.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairplay,_Colorado#South_Park_a...

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#166

Post by waterlesscloud » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:14 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #162

jeffdavis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood." What about suspending the Fourth Amendment? Surely enough random house checks, possibly automated with cameras, could also detect possible criminal activity and sav…

The thing is that the second amendment appears to be fundamentally different, in terms of human rights, from the rest. There are a lot of good arguments as to why allowing free speech, prohibiting unreasonable search and seizures, and other such things is a good thing in general, and are fundamental issues of human rights and freedoms. There are substantially fewer arguments as to why gun ownership is important to fr…

The important thing to realize is that there are people who would ask the same questions and harbor the same doubts about those other amendments that you have about the second.

The second may seem like the odd man out to you, but that's to you, not to everyone. Others may well (and in fact do) believe that others are the odd man out.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#167

Post by etherael » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:14 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #154

harshreality wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood. By "assault rifles" do you mean the colloquial definition of black semi-automatic firearms with pistol grips and detachable magazines? Or the technically accurate def…

For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the Unite…

Originally Australian here; our gun laws are stupid and largely ineffective, there is currently a war between various outlaw biker gangs going on, they mostly use guns. The Port Arthur massacre actually used weapons that were already illegal at the time and not but a month ago an m4 with underslung grenade launcher was confiscated in a Sydney suburb by police.

No other reasonable interpretation of available data exists other than gun laws have only effectively disarmed the law abiding. Some may claim this alone as all the victory required, but the pretense that gun laws stop criminals from using or acquiring guns in Australia is completely false.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#168

Post by harshreality » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:33 PM UTC

lmm wrote: post #163

harshreality wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These bad actors are so rare that pointing to lack of an event in 16 years in Australia (population less than 1/10 that of the U.S.) does not mean very much. There was a lesser event in 2002 in Australia: the Monash University shooting. [1] The freedom to use firearms for sport or self defense is lost. Some people value that freedom more than you do. Aren't there still exceptions in Australia for members of gun clubs…

>China has strict gun control. What happens when people go crazy in China? Mass killing via tractor (17 dead, 20 injured). [2] Crazy people intent on mass murder find ways to kill people. And how many more could that guy have killed with a gun? In any field of endeavour people are more effective when using better tools, and a gun is a tool designed and optimized for killing. Just because we can't make killing impossi…

Who knows? Maybe there were a few people he'd really like to kill that he couldn't kill with his tractor but could have killed with a gun, and killing them would have appeased his insanity (briefly, at least) so that there would have been fewer people dead.

Maybe if tractors were banned he would have built a fertilizer bomb and killed hundreds.

We can't know, and setting policy based on speculation is pointless.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#169

Post by nodemaker » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:39 PM UTC

nowarninglabel wrote: post #152

csense wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that too many guns exist already in the USA. If guns had just been invented and only a few of them existed, or if we were a moon colony that had never imported guns, or if we were some country where, due to social/cultural/political circumstances very few people have guns, then gun control would stand a chance of working. But we have to work with what we've got. The situation we're actually in is this:…

The one glaring hole is in the idea that people with concealed carry will be ready and able to effectively "start shooting back". Are there objective examples of this? I've seen counter-examples, such as how in the Giffords shooting in Arizona the victims actually brought down the perp through physical force, even though some of them were carrying. Are there similar examples of concealed carry folks bringing down a s…

Recent event in Ocala FL.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/national-international/71-Year-Ol...

Although apparently the robbers had an unloaded shotgun.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#170

Post by greendestiny » Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 11:40 PM UTC

tokenadult wrote: post #154

harshreality wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood. By "assault rifles" do you mean the colloquial definition of black semi-automatic firearms with pistol grips and detachable magazines? Or the technically accurate def…

For concreteness, is there any credible argument that the restrictions on gun availability that were put in place after the shooting incident in Australia in 1996 (which has not been repeated) have in any way reduced the freedom of citizens and residents of Australia? I know a lot of Australians, and they are very freedom-loving people, and I think if gun laws in Australia are different from how they are in the Unite…

Australia is a very urbanised, and gun ownership rates were very low anyway. Recreational shooters feel the laws are unnecessarily restrictive. Most of the population doesn't care. A certain segment of organised crime still has guns, but I think most of the populations desire to be involved in shoot outs with them is pretty low.

I'd say most people who choose not to have guns in first place feel more free when others are similarly disarmed.