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

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#201

Post by vacri » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:01 AM UTC

csense wrote: post #143

jberryman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but really "there is nothi that can be done to stop it"? What about outlawing firearms for civilian use, or even just not letting the assault weapons ban lapse? And don't tell me every angry/depressed yuppie kid who was going to go on a rampage when guns were easier to get than a drivers license is going to negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns.

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:…

After the Port Arthur massacre here in Australia, firearm laws were tightened, and an amnesty program was put in place for people to drop off weapons. Police were surprised at how enthusiastically the public took up the offer. I don't think this would translate as well in the US due to the 'cold-dead-hands' mentality of a few, but I think you'd find more people willing to give up their arms than you might expect.

a non-negligible percentage of the population carries concealed firearms wherever they go, then it's harder for mass tragedies to occur

The problem is that mass killings are a drop in the bucket. This guy killed 12 people (and maimed 50), and in a bad year you might have half a dozen of them. Say 60 dead to this kind of thing. But the US has 17000 homicides per year. Basing your legal response on spree killings is very much the wrong thing to do.

Given that most murders are crimes of passion done in the heat of the moment, you're going to cause more deaths by intentionally arming the population than saving lives by having a mass shooter killed after the first few victims.

Also, 'concealed carry' is not a magic bullet. Washington state went concealed carry in 1961, yet its crime rates rose and fell in step with its colleagues. Concealed carry arguments always relies on anecdotal arguments and never statistics, I find. The one stat that does get mentioned is crime rate, but there's rarely any mention of other factors (like rising incarceration rates)

Anyway, a simple counter to your armed robbery example - the robber almost always has the drop on you. Most people would rather give up the cash rather than risk the robber actually shooting you while you or a bystander start a mexican standoff.

the worst thing that will happen is you get three squares a day and a roof over your head at taxpayer expense

Really, we need to stop painting prison as a kind of holiday resort. No-one at risk of actually going to prison in any way actually thinks this.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#202

Post by lancefisher » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:03 AM UTC

harshreality wrote: post #153

csense wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the USA can you hunt rhinos?

You don't use 5.56mm nato for deer either. The point was suitability (for hunting) and relative "power" or "lethality" (as much as I hate those terms because they incite caliber wars) of the rifle Holmes used compared to what is typically used for hunting. Typical hunting calibers for medium and large game (regardless of whether the hunt is in the U.S. or Africa) are .308 or .30-06 on up. Some specialized .2xx calibe…

I used a .270 for years hunting deer and elk. I can assure you they are effective for distances up to 400 yards. Also, read about Jack O'Conner who was a proponent of the .270 for hunting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_OConnor_(American_writer)

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#203

Post by vacri » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:14 AM UTC

grandalf wrote: post #93

jberryman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying, but really "there is nothi that can be done to stop it"? What about outlawing firearms for civilian use, or even just not letting the assault weapons ban lapse? And don't tell me every angry/depressed yuppie kid who was going to go on a rampage when guns were easier to get than a drivers license is going to negotiate some black market underworld he knows nothing about to get his guns.

Guns aren't necessary to wreak havoc. He could have brought in explosives, poison gas, knives, etc.

Explosives are much harder to obtain and use effectively, poison gas is much less lethal than people think (blame movies - even the Nazi purpose-designed gas chambers took 20 minutes to kill people), and knives aren't anywhere near as effective as guns - for example, police don't use them to control suspects, and soldiers don't use bayonets anymore.

If you get into a knife-fight with someone, you are going to fuck them up... but you are at high risk of also being fucked up yourself due to poor stopping power and close quarters. Now repeat for each of the 12 deaths and 58 maimings seen in this event.

The Tueller drill says that it is dangerous to have an opponent within 21 feet even when you have a firearm, because they can cover that distance and be on you in 1.5 seconds, a short time even if you're ready and aware of their location and their intention. Now consider that all knife fights happen inside that distance. Seriously, it's not a valid comparison

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

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#204

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:19 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #188

waterlesscloud wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see that you have. All you've done is say it's the odd man out and then ask what it protects. I just can't see that as anywhere near a sufficient argument. Or even an argument at all. It's more of a statement of your thesis without support.

It's a rhetorical question. I don't see that there is anything which makes gun ownership important, I don't see that it protects against anything significant, and I don't see it as being better than not having that right. It's kind of hard to support a negative claim like that. It would be nice if you could kick in a bit of your side instead of just complaining about how I say things. And no, "it's in the Constitutio…

You're the one who is making the case that the second amendment is distinct from the others. Give him something to respond to.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#205

Post by rquantz » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:22 AM UTC

etherael wrote: post #167

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…

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 exis…

"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." A typical remark from gun-loving Americans. They seem to miss a couple of things: if guns are outlawed, and you catch someone with a gun, that indicates they posess the gun with criminal intentions (i.e., their objection can actually be an advantage); if lots of people have guns and normal people can buy them, it makes it that much easier for criminals to obtain them; and a gun in a home is more likely to be use to accidentally kill children than to kill a criminal intruder, which means there is a good reason to try to discourage regular citizens from owning guns.

I think there are compelling reasons to keep guns legal, and I could imagine circumstances in which I would buy a gun. If I have children, I will teach them to safely handle a firearm, as I was taught. But this NRA cliche about banning guns doesn't hold water as an argument.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#206

Post by jeffdavis » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:22 AM 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…

"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."

That's fairly vague. I'm not sure what clear distinction you are trying to draw between the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

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

It can be seen as a right to self defense.

First, consider that your life, or at least your quality of life, depends on the police doing their jobs. To destroy you, the police merely need to make it known that you won't be protected.

There are many examples of this for many different reasons. It could be some political reason why the police chief doesn't want to enforce order in a minority neighborhood. Or, it could be more personal.

Even if the police do make a reasonable effort to protect you, it might not be enough to deter a stalker or someone that you're afraid of. Police generally react after the fact to punish a perpetrator rather than actually protect you, anyway.

You seem to be turning the burden of proof around, to ask why I think we should be allowed a freedom. The social contract says otherwise: we must agree together that a freedom is so dangerous that it should be outlawed.

Honestly, I think you should carefully evaluate whether you think that we are really better off with severe restrictions on guns[1], or whether you are just reacting emotionally to the thought that someone on your block owns a killing machine (which is what guns are, really).

But there are 200M+ guns in the US (numbers aren't precise, but it's about 2 guns per 3 people -- men, women, and children), and we aren't dropping like flies, so you have to look past the emotion. Most gun deaths in the US are suicide, by the way[2] -- and some people argue that is a human right.

[1] The research is mixed on the subject, and I imagine it depends on a lot of factors. To really have an opinion that the right should be removed, you would need to put in a lot of serious effort to research the numbers and convince yourself that people actually would be saved. I have the advantage that I win by default -- I don't need to prove that gun ownership increases safety to hold my opinion, I just need to convince myself that it doesn't increase danger enough to justify restricting it (which is pretty easy considering the low number of gun homicides overall).

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Stat...

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#207

Post by jeffdavis » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:37 AM UTC

japhyr wrote: post #193

csense wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how being in favor of the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms automatically makes someone "paranoid." I hope you're wrong about gun control being a necessary part of the answer to this issue, because as far as I can tell, it's simply not a practical possibility in the USA.

gun control != ban on guns

Did you properly fill out your government-mandated speaking request form 18764(a), and sign it under penalty of perjury, before submitting that comment?

Of course, your speech isn't banned. These forms are just necessary to make sure we know who you are before you speak, and to force you to testify that you haven't committed other unrelated crimes.

The only time we actually would ban your speech is if you fill out the form improperly, because that's a felony, and felons don't get to speak. So read it carefully.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#208

Post by rquantz » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:37 AM UTC

aidenn0 wrote: post #198

mikeash wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

2nd amendment is important because it makes it harder for people to ignore the other 9. This is why Iraq/Afghanistan have bothered me so much, the US military has greatly enhanced their ability to fight a war of attrition against a civillian population with rifles and IEDs, which is exactly the sort of resistance they would have in the event of a popular revolt.

Probably more disturbing is the modern law enforcement emphasis on militarization and crowd control. Witness the response to OWS. Imagine if they were actually attempting to overthrow the government.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#209

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:51 AM UTC

Frozenlock wrote: post #81

corin_ wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe... but two big differences. First: I live in the UK. I've never wanted to kill someone. If I could legally buy a handgun and use it on a shooting range I would. Let's say someday I, for some reason, become a psycho and want to kill people. Right now I don't have anything like a gun to use, best I could come up with is a kitchen knife. Under US gun law, I'd have a glock, even though when I purchased it I had no…

Each time I'm amazed by the lack of imagination of imaginary killers. "I don't have a gun... well better take my kitchen knife then!" Really? REALLY? Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more). And while you're in your car, contrary to simply using a gun, you can't be stopped by someone else having a gun. Anyone wanting to stop you in a timely manner would have…

>Take your car and ram into people. You will probably be able to kill the same amount (or even more).

Priscilla Joyce Ford

http://www.newsreview.com/reno/day-terror-came-downtown/cont...

“It looked as though someone had gone through the streets with a lawnmower, mowing people down,” a woman from Canada who’d witnessed the massacre from the Onslow Hotel-Casino tells the Gazette. “It looked like a battlefield—there were bodies all over the place.”

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#210

Post by bsg75 » Mon, Jul 23, 2012, 4:59 AM UTC

protomyth wrote: post #79

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has a large population and media that tries to scare people. I don't think it's any more common in the US than elsewhere, we just hear about it more from the US since it has a larger population.

Worse, we hear about it 24/7 until the next thing comes along to peak the interest of the media. We don't hear a lot about the 14 things higher on the list of things killing people in the USA (which affects their funding in Congress). Hell, the rush in the media is so obscene that major news networks make stuff up. ABC seems to be the most guilty party this time, but we have had other incidents. We have a no attentio…

> I have no idea how we get past this.

We won't, as long as "journalism" is a profit driven business, where revenue is based on ad viewership.

The result is more entertainment and editorial than education, where the need to be first, even with inaccurate stories, overrides any sense of integrity.