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

Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

news.blogs.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 336 posts

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#301

Post by natex »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #214
recoiledsnake wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today? > How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation…

The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the…

Just one point. "Fundamental Rights" are not granted by government. We are born with them. Further, it is government's role -- some say only role -- to protect those rights.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#302

Post by hackinthebochs »

jlgreco wrote: post #296
hackinthebochs wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is silly. The only reason why the US has trouble against small guerrilla forces is because the world is watching. The US has the military power to literally take over the world if it could get away with it (barring nukes). War is hard in modern times because of moral outrage, not because of some intrinsic power of a firearm against an oppressive government

Why did the Soviets have so much trouble with Afghanistan then? Were they concerned with what the world thought of them?

They did not have the technology that we do now. Guerrilla warfare hasn't changed much, but the most advanced military technology has changed drastically. And yes, they probably were concerned to a lesser extent. Each side in a conflict has to attempt to maintain a moral high ground or they'll lose their power. Long gone are the times when entire cultures reveled in massacres for its own sake. Even Hitler had to dress up his wanton evil in the language of the oppressed fighting back.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#303

Post by entropy_ »

jcromartie wrote: post #226
InclinedPlane wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with gun control. Guns exist, that can't be stopped any more than preventing alcohol from existing (prohibition), and some bad guys will always have access to guns. Or knives, or diesel fuel, or explosives. Was the Oklahoma-city bombing a wake-up call for "explosives control"? Was the 2009 Chengdu bus-fire ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Chengdu_bus_fire ) a wake-up call for diesel control?…

> It's not the gun. It never was the gun. It's the person. Then we just have an order of magnitude more of that kind of person than Western Europe. If it's not the guns, then Americans are just worse people, statistically speaking, than our more civilized neighbors around the world.

That's a false dichotomy. It may simply be that America has a worse way of dealing with troubled/insane/dangerous/etc... people. I'm not saying that's the case necessarily, but it's definitely a possibility you missed.

I live in a country(Lebanon) that went through a 15-year civil war that ended in 1990. Guns are a fact of life here, they are very easy to get and lots of people have them. And yet nobody has ever gone into a school and shot children and parents that I know of.

We've had bombings, assassinations, terrorism, and even a war now and then. If it's violent, we've had it. But not this. Are Lebanese people better people? Hell no. But our societies tend to be more closely knit and more traditional. That has many many drawbacks but it also means that people very rarely get to such extremes in terms of mental well-being(to the point where they could do something like this) without being noticed.

I'm not saying traditional societies are the answer, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying, it's not just a choice between "bad people" or "too many guns". Reality is much more nuanced than that.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#304

Post by hackinthebochs »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #293
hackinthebochs wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guns are the problem. Yes a gun is a tool, one that is specifically created to multiply the efficiency of killing. It's purpose is inherently one of magnifying violence. The technology itself deserves condemnation. Note that I am not advocating getting rid of all guns. But we need to have an honest discussion about them, and that starts with being truthful with ourselves about their very nature.

Guns are designed for killing, but they're not the only thing so designed. Swords and bows are also designed for killing. Does that mean we should crack down on archers and fencers? Overwhelmingly guns are owned and used by peaceful, law-abiding civilians. That they can be misused does not mean we should punish those who have done no wrong. And the idea that we can live in a simple world where we can divorce ourselve…

>Swords and bows are also designed for killing. Does that mean we should crack down on archers and fencers?

The point is the efficiency. The magnification of force is so great with guns compared to other weapons as to render the comparison moot. If I had a weapon that could instantly vaporize a person of choice with the push of a button, this tool would rightly be condemned far and wide. Yet the same tool could be used in a purely defensive manner. We all subconsciously understand the importance of considering the magnitude of force magnification.

I completely agree with your second paragraph. I am far from a pacifist. The point is that these conversations seriously lack nuance, each side takes points to the absolute extreme as a tactic to validate their side. There is much nuance in the middle that needs to be considered. Acknowledging the nature of guns is a starting point.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#305

Post by [deleted] »

natex wrote: post #301
notdrunkatall wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the…

Just one point. "Fundamental Rights" are not granted by government. We are born with them. Further, it is government's role -- some say only role -- to protect those rights.

[deleted]

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#306

Post by codex »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #214
recoiledsnake wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that easy availability of guns amplify the destruction that can be perpetuated by mentally unstable individuals. A similar incident happened in China today where 22 kids were stabbed by one perpetrator but not one had life threatening injuries. What if Walmart China sold guns like the US one does? How many innocent kids would be dead today? > How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation…

The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the…

Hear hear! I only wish the founding fathers had the foresight to anticipate advances in technology. It is my right to carry a nuclear weapon and I don't understand why that isn't more widely recognized.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#307

Post by snogglethorpe »

chill1 wrote: post #95
vyrotek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, the analogy is silly. The point really is that [Noun] Control is impossible. What about crossbows, knives and rocks? Things aren't the problem. People are the problem.

It is very easy to kill someone with a gun.. It is also very easy to imagine how impersonal an experience it can be doing so. If you have to use a knife to kill someone, you are going to have to get very close to them to do it. You're going to have to be very aware of what you're doing. With a gun.. not so much.

It's also much easier to defend oneself against a knife attack in many cases. E.g. pick up chair, hold in between you and knifey guy; not exactly a great situation, but he's going to have to spend significant time and effort on each and every victim he goes after, and slowing things down greatly will dramatically reduce the body count.

Knives are simply much slower and less efficient for the task, especially against forewarned opponents (e.g. most of the potential victims in many mass-killing situations, and potential defenders), and it's vastly more likely the attacker will be stopped quickly even if he manages to kill a few people.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#308

Post by codex »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #248
recoiledsnake wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The laws made more sense during the 1700s than now. No one really has any chance now. You discount the entire industrial and technological progress that happened in the past 200 years.

I assume you're making the argument that a ragtag bunch of rebels wouldn't have a chance standing against an empire armed to the teeth with the latest war machines. If that is indeed the case, have you been paying attention to the news for the last decade?

This is actually an argument for why an armed populace isn't necessary to defeat oppressive regimes; ultimately the rebels are armed by other interested nations (see: Syria, Libya, Afghanistan).

The US would still be under British rule if it weren't for the support of the French government during the American Revolution. It was not the muskets of American farmers which won that war (though they helped); it was a fleet of French ships, 6,000 French soldiers, a steady supply of French gunpowder and muskets, and approximately $13B (in today's dollars) of direct aid from the French--more if you count French defense spending.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#309

Post by loup-vaillant »

While I don't want to diminish the magnitude of the tragedy described here, I'd like to remind everyone that there are many other causes of untimely death that, while mundane, are much more lethal. Take for instance car crashes, or most diseases.

If the goal is to fight untimely death, we should take a hard look at the cold numbers. One will find for instance that smoking scenes in films kill far more people than those shootings. [1]

No, it should not happen ever again. However, we should not forget about the other priorities.

[1]: Regular exposure to smoking scenes makes children and teenagers far more likely to smoke later on. Smoking makes you far more likely to have cancer and such. And having cancer most likely shorten your lifespan. Despite the 3 layers of indirection, the numbers are so massive that a single smoking scene in a blockbuster is probably more lethal than a fully loaded gun.

Re: Mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut

#310

Post by notdrunkatall »

natex wrote: post #301
notdrunkatall wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right to bear arms isn't some trivial notion to be tossed aside when it is no longer convenient to maintain. It is a fundamental right that was given to the people by those who founded our government that we would be able to fight back against that same government were it to ever become oppressive. Every day, we increasingly see the infringement of our civil liberties, and it seems obvious that the desire of the…

Just one point. "Fundamental Rights" are not granted by government. We are born with them. Further, it is government's role -- some say only role -- to protect those rights.

Granted, good catch.
Post reply on HN