Thinking the unthinkable • Hacker News Board

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#361

Post by tylee78 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:03 AM UTC

mosselman wrote: post #143

justincormack wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the list http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings... It certainly looks like Scandinavia and the UK might have a problem. Europe as a whole still has fewer than the US for a similar population but it is high. None for China, India or Brazil. So it is not just about normalisation...

Please. 'it is high' in Europe'? Playing it fast and loose with the word 'high' if you ask me. Of those mentioned in the list; 6 in the past 25 years are in Europe. 3 shootings, on this list alone, happened in the US in the past 6 months! Most European countries probably haven't had any of this type of thing happen in the past 25+ years.

no. just a "honor" murder each week. usually knives though, so does not count.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#362

Post by ampersandy » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:10 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #351

ampersandy wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Less effective in what setting? If physical punishment is more common world-wide, that is rather telling evidence that our forebears found it to be the most effective way to bring children in line, and it has been done ever since; at least until western civilization decided it was improper or at the very least, sub-optimal. My point is that who is the AAP to say how best to raise children? I seriously doubt the valid…

> is rather telling evidence that our forebears > found it to be the most effective way to bring > children in line Our forebears also felt that the best was to run a society included things like: - Slavery / Indentured Service as a means of generating wealth. - Punishing women for sexuality (because all women were temptresses, and a man couldn't be blamed for infidelity, rape, etc). - Torture against criminals / pol…

You make a great point. I didn't think of the big picture when I made that claim.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#363

Post by rerere » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:12 AM UTC

e12e wrote: post #230

unimpressive wrote: post #99

> “Then I’m going to kill myself,” he said. I remember doing that. > He’s been on a slew of antipsychotic and mood altering pharmaceuticals, a Russian novel of behavioral plans. Nothing seems to work. I remember that. > A few weeks ago, Michael..threatened to kill me I did that too. She forgot to mention the time(s) he threatened to run away. (I'd be surprised if he didn't.) After a marathon of transfers, expulsions,…

This reads like something I'd expect to see on kuro5hin.org. I have no idea weather you're trolling or honest - and I have to admit I like that a lot; your comment should be (is) subject to interesting discussion. The mental challenge of deciphering whether or not you're actually serious (thereby weighting if the reality you describe could be real; significantly your change of heart; also how anti/a-social you actual…

It's like all those starving people. Why don't they just... move to where the food is?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#364

Post by lostapathy » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:21 AM UTC

e12e wrote: post #247

confusedNRA wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It borders on insanity when we look at the type of weaponry we allow our citizens to purchase..." "The nra is a terrorist organization." Wow. Just plain wow. It's probably pointless to respond to your post, considering the emotions you are displaying regarding this topic, you probably won't even listen to a single thing, no matter, at least others who see this reply might understand just how perturbed you really are…

> It is a founding principal of america for individuals to maintain and own weapons. Are you referring to the second amendment? Because as far as I can tell, that is about state militia as opposed to a standing federal army - and after the Canadians burned down the white house that whole concept got scrapped in favour of a federal army. Much as I sympathize with the idea of a People on the same footing as the governm…

Have you read the Supreme Court's interpretation of what the 2nd amendment means and it's historical context, as laid out in the Heller and McDonald decisions?

It's reasonably accessible reading (if long) but complete debunks your statement.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#365

Post by pyre » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:23 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #299

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really believe that though? It seems like a nice just-so story that has a nice sociological tie-in with "frontier ism." I don't think that's genetic at all; I think it's just hand-wavy. Somewhere around half of people in this country believe the world is about 6,000 years old, think people can live to be 900 years and so on; I don't know if that is "mavericky." I think the race to find genes for every kind of…

I have a genetic disorder, as does my oldest son. It is homozygous recessive, which means my youngest son and ex husband are carriers. Both my kids were extremely challenging to raise and I ended up homeschooling them both, in part to not have my family wind up being "the next Columbine" in the headlines. I have a long list of ornery relatives and have a fair degree of familiarity with physical traits with known psyc…

Taking the US as an example, how many Americans share a lineage that can be traced back to the pilgrims? I would venture that the majority of the population comes from immigrants outside of the parameters that you provide. Does this higher incidence of 'maverick behaviour' come from a minority of the population?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#366

Post by clarky07 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:26 AM UTC

jpxxx wrote: post #354

clarky07 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how about we blame the mother with poor decision making skills? Why do you need to ban me from owning a gun for self defense, hunting, or other sporting reasons, not to mention the fact that I like liberty in America better than a totalitarian government that doesn't allow it's citizens to have freedom. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor saf…

You have brought a knife to a gunfight, so to speak. Mellow out. "Fart, poop, I farted." - Dr. Who

http://www.policeone.com/edged-weapons/articles/102828-Edged...

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

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#367

Post by pyre » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:27 AM UTC

forgottenpaswrd wrote: post #98

We have a mother that is proud of being anarchist loving Che Guevara, a man that will kill those people he did not agree with. She is having an anarchist child, he does not want someone else to tell him what to do, and reacts aggressively when forced to. Probably that could be a good thing, Bill Gates had the same issue, as a child he wanted to be left on his own, his parents went to the doctor and the doctor said: l…

Could you cite me where Bill Gates threatened his parents with a knife? I must have missed that article.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#368

Post by pyre » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:32 AM UTC

jijji wrote: post #332

Where is the father? Boys need a father growing up.

I'll agree that you get better outcomes with two parents, but the idea that two-parent families are the solution is ludicrous. As a counter-point, a boy grows up in a two-parent family, but his dad consistently rapes him from an early age.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#369

Post by rizzom5000 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:38 AM UTC

dkarl wrote: post #273

fatbird wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another word for "beating" is simply "consequence". Establishing that there are negative consequences for particular behaviours is what's important (and that they're consistently applied and adhered to), and clearly the mother knows that--she punished him effectively by yanking his electronics for a day. There's nothing particular about beating a child that's more effective than other punishments. Show me a child who…

I don't know about you, but there was a limit to how how bad my parents could make me feel through non-abusive consequences. There was always an emotional weighing of the impulse to misbehave versus the punishment that would follow. As with most children, the deprivation of privileges my parents could inflict on me was generally severe enough to outweigh the emotions that drove me misbehave, but when a kid's impulses…

> Like you pointed out, when accepted, it is used inappropriately and destructively much more often than it is used appropriately (hey, just like guns.)

What? I beg to differ. Unless hunting, competition and self defense are inappropriate uses of guns; then guns are used (or non-used)appropriately and non-destructively far more than they are used inappropriately.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#370

Post by clarky07 » Mon, Dec 17, 2012, 5:45 AM UTC

MartinCron wrote: post #352

clarky07 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

read your sibling comment, but here are a few to get you started: [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E... from [1] - Related or similar events Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, who visited the site a week after the massacre to offer prayer to the victims,[70] said that he "is worried…

Thanks for the reasonable response. I took exception to the word "plenty" for knife massacres, as they are exceedingly rare. The truth is, gun massacres are also exceedingly rare, so I guess there's nothing wrong with that parallel, other than the obvious: 1. It's logistically easier to kill more people with a tool that's better at killing a lot of people. and the less obvious: 2. It may be psychologically easier to…

Thanks, I try to be as reasonable as possible, though I have to admit when I came across this thread I had an "Oh noes, somebody is wrong on the internet I can't go to bed" moment.

Back on topic. I'll give you both points, but I'm not sure how they relate to my comment or the parent. I don't believe guns are inherently evil. The are just things. Clearly my parent believes that they are evil and nothing I say will change his mind but that's neither here nor there.

>Regardless, the earlier comment of "please don't take my guns away" serves to create a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to create meaningful firearm safeguards without going out and confiscating your personal weapons of watermelon destruction.

I don't think it is. As I said somewhere else in this thread, the cat is out of the bag. There are far too many readily available firearms for there to be any meaningful gun control in this country short of completely outlawing them AND confiscating them with a search.

There are already lots of firearms safeguards, including background checks, waiting periods, etc. Most people who post on boards like these and say we should have tighter gun control have no idea what that means, or what kind of gun control we in place now. Most of it is fine (in places like TN where I live) some of it is absurd and IMO unconstitutional (in places like DC and NYC). DC has some of the toughest gun control in the country and yet also has some of the highest gun crime rates in the country. Taking guns away from lawful citizens just means the criminals don't have anything to be afraid of.

To get my handgun carry permit I had to go to a class, pass a written test, pass a shooting test, pass a background check, get approval from my local sheriff, and all of this came with a waiting period. (Now, simply buying a gun is easier, but it still requires a background check unless you are purchasing from a private individual). What is it that you (or anyone else) would propose we add to this? You already can't legally buy or own a gun if you are a felon or have any history of mental illness. There are however plenty of guns available for them to buy from private individuals who don't know you are a felon, or alternately they could just steal them.