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

Thinking the unthinkable

anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#371

Post by dinkumthinkum »

trylater wrote: post #331
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You ARE the parent. Why are you responding to yourself using sock-puppet accounts?

:) Next you will say man never landed on moon. Move on! I do see that JohnLatter/LatterJohn/ has created multiple accounts to post. But that doesn't make me as a sock-puppet account. It actually makes me believe that he indeed has some issues. Just because he has a different POV(and that coming from living with something similar, at-least as per his post), it doesn't make it right for folks to simply deflect it as "s…

No, it's obvious. I won't disclose to you why it is obvious it is you, it's not the name. It's really sad; any intelligent person can see that it is you posting several times echoing your own position.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#372

Post by dinkumthinkum »

clarky07 wrote: post #319
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're being a little too pedantic. Automatic, semi-automatic, whatever. Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure.

That is also true of a revolver, or a bolt, lever, or pump action gun. The point is that the above poster has no idea what he is talking about, and as such his opinion on the matter isn't as relevant as it would be if he actually educated himself on the subject.

No, it is not true of a revolver or a bolt, lever, or pump action rifle. I don't want to be mean about it but do you not know what you're talking about? You take a revolver and a box of ammo and I'll take an AR-15 and let's see who can fire more rounds. That's completely ridiculous.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#373

Post by MartinCron »

clarky07 wrote: post #370
MartinCron wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cha…

What I would add. Not perfect, but not terrible either.

Require education/tests/checks/mental health screens for all purchases, not just concealed carry.

Close gun show loophole. Regulate private sales. Hold private sellers responsible if they sell to felons.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#374

Post by stcredzero »

clarky07 wrote: post #333
stcredzero wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Happy to oblige. I recently looked into this before I quit my job four months ago to spend some time working on hobby projects. I should simply extend this to, "one middle class person who's not had the benefit of being on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise." If it wasn't for COPBRA and HIPAA, you'd be in a much different situation. > So as long as you've either gotten the coverage below that age or had…

I quit my job at a tiny company 2 years ago and then I got an individual plan for myself while I worked for myself. Why did she need to stay in the hospital to get an MRI? Couldn't she just wait in the ER until it was her turn? Seems like blown hamstring shouldn't require an overnight hospital stay for any reason ever...

> Why did she need to stay in the hospital to get an MRI?

Have you tried to get yourself home with a blown hamstring?

> Couldn't she just wait in the ER until it was her turn?

The toddler in the accident had the last slot of the day. So, are you recommending that she could've just waited all night in the waiting room?

> Seems like blown hamstring shouldn't require an overnight hospital stay for any reason ever.

She just did what the doctors recommended.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#375

Post by pfedor »

stcredzero wrote: post #266
pfedor wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to meet one middle class person who's not on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise. Happy to oblige. I recently looked into this before I quit my job four months ago to spend some time working on hobby projects. So here's the situation as I understood it: (a) There is a law called COBRA which says after you've quit your job the insurance company has to keep you on the same plan you had for the next…

> Happy to oblige. I recently looked into this before I quit my job four months ago to spend some time working on hobby projects. I should simply extend this to, "one middle class person who's not had the benefit of being on a big company's premium plan tell me otherwise." If it wasn't for COPBRA and HIPAA, you'd be in a much different situation. > So as long as you've either gotten the coverage below that age or had…

> So as long as you've either gotten the coverage below that age or had a job with a group plan at any point later in your life, and had no gaps in coverage since, you are fine.

That's a whole lot of stipulations. I think it should just be reduced to the last 3 words.

It's not "a whole lot of stipulations", it's the complement of "you've only decided to look for health insurance after you got sick."

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#376

Post by Natsu »

GuiA wrote: post #95
mailshanx wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats intriguing. It seems like he has somewhat adjusted over time. Did you witness a general improvement in his personality as he grew up? Did things especially improve in his late teens perhaps?

I definitely think things have improved (although they can always go south at a moment's notice- for example last year, he dropped and broke his phone, which triggered an "episode" that lasted pretty much the whole day.) There are likely multiple factors at play- it's quite conceivable that puberty hormones make the matters worse, and that he's slowly exiting this phase, it's something less in the way. But I also thi…

From your perspective, when & how did it start? Was he always like that, or is there a specific event you remember as the start of this?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#377

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #315
bambax wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings. How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know. All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse. The NRA says "gu…

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time. You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k. Yes…

> If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

This is the option where I live (France). It's not perfect here (very far from it), but I think we have a lot less violence, a lot less people in jail, etc. "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school.

> If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened.

How do you identify "teachers that are sane"? (I would say, teachers that are sane are those that refuse to carry guns.)

And what happens when there are no adults around? Should 6-year-olds be required to carry guns?

This kind of comment makes me happy I don't live in the US. I have three kids (3-4-7); there is no "security officer" at their school, you can come in and out pretty much as you like. The school is small enough that the principal knows every student by name and every parent by sight.

Now, before someone says that I'm stupid because I just generalize from a single data point, and that I probably live in a privileged neighborhood... On weekends my kids go to an American School (so that they can learn some English).

The neighborhood is the same, but in the American school they have "security" officers, big doors, big talkies, and you have to wear a badge at all times.

The "threat" (or lack thereof) is the same, but the perceived threat, and the culture, is very very different.

> Please don't take my guns

It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings.

But I'm not a US citizen, I don't visit the US often, I'm really not in a position to take anything from you. Do what you think is best.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#378

Post by mpweiher »

smsm42 wrote: post #312
mpweiher wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outlawing is a straw man in that it is not the only option for regulation that would help. These things are not booleans! Countries with much tighter gun regulations than the US don't outlaw guns. They also don't prevent 100% gun violence. They just have less of it. A LOT less. So "Regulation of guns would absolutely help nothing" is just plain false. It would help some , as the numbers clearly state. It would not pr…

The countries that do not have "tighter regulations" (by which gun control proponents usually mean impossibility for a regular person without special connections or exceptional trade to obtain a firearm unless he proves to the state his life is in immediate jeopardy) also have lower violence levels than USA. See Switzerland for example. On the other hand, Norway has pretty strict gun laws, which did not prevent Breiv…

Switzerland is a great example, thanks for bringing it up!

As you point out, Switzerland has an overall rate of violence that is quite low, for example slightly lower than that of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentiona...).

However, surprise, surprise, it has a "firearm-related" violence level that is 3x that of Germany, and more than 8x the gun-related homicides. Could that have anything to do with the fact that the Swiss have their Army rifles at home?

How again does Switzerland demonstrate that higher gun ownership does not correlate with higher gun mortalities?

And you say "the plural of anecdote is not data", when just before you used a single incident to "demonstrate" that tighter gun control doesn't work. Huh?

Or is this the old straw-man of "if we cannot eliminate gun violence completely, we shouldn't do anything?" Reduction is a good target.

And no, we do not need double-blind controlled experiments to (a) change regulations that affect lives and (b) actually have those regulations have a measurable positive impact.

Aviation regulations are often changed because of single incidents, when careful analysis of the factors that led to the incident leads experts in the field to the conclusion that making the change could prevent that accident.

Take the awful accident that happened in Tenerife (largest civil aviation disaster ever): one of the contributing factors was that one of the pilots heard "take-off" from ATC and thought he was cleared for take-off, when he had been told to stand by for take-off clearance.

Nowadays, the words "take-off" have been eliminated from pilot/ATC communications except for the phrase "you are cleared for take-off".

They didn't wait to have a statistically valid sample of horrendous air-crashes to make this change, a single incident and its subsequent analysis was sufficient. It is this sort of careful analysis and action that has made air-travel as ridiculously safe as it is (in fact so safe that statistical analysis is nigh impossible these days...that's a good thing).

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#379

Post by mpweiher »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #63
mpweiher wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulating guns ("outlawing" is a straw man) ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally disturbed person can do. A knife in the same situation is much less dangerous, as evidenced by the incident in China at the same time where people were hurt, but none so far killed. Degrees matter.

> Regulating guns ... ameliorates the problem of how much damage a mentally disturbed person can do. No, it makes it much worse. We want the violent lunatics to have guns, because guns are not particularly fast or efficient at killing people. A lone gunman can kill at most a few hundred people before he is stopped. You know those nightclub fires that kill hundreds of people in ten minutes? We want our nutjobs to have…

Well, let's take an example.

Breivik built a bomb, which killed 8. Awful. Because he was dissatisfied with the result, he went on a shooting spree that killed 69.

I think I see your point...

Post reply on HN