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

381–390 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#381

Post by droithomme »

sp332 wrote: post #329
droithomme wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article has a graph of mass shootings, offenders and victims from 1980 to 2010. http://boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/2012/08/n... > Based on data extracted from official police reports to the FBI, the figure below shows annual incident, offender and victim tallies for gun homicides in which at least four people were murdered. Over the thirty-year time frame, an average of about 20 mass murders have…

Interesting, this page from the Washington Post says that of the worst 11 shootings, 5 of them happened since 2007, and that doesn't even include Sandy Hook. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/n...

11 is a fairly odd point to pick a cut off. That article's referenced source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/deadlies...) also has errors. It purports to list all 10 and above gun involved murder sprees, including cases back as far as 1949 (ignoring bombings, but whatever).

It doesn't list Starkweather and Fugate's 10 person killing spree in 1957, or James Edward Pough's 1990 rampage in Jacksonville that killed 11 and injured 6, or Mark Barton's 1999 rampage that killed 12 and injured 13, or Leung Ying's 1928 California spree that killed 11 injured 4, or Nidal Hassan's 2009 Fort Hood spree killing 13, injuring 30, or Patrick Sherill's 1986 Oklahoma spree killing 14 injuring 6, or Ronald Simmons 1987 Arkansas rampage killing 16 injuring 4, or George Banks 1982 Pennsylvania killing of 13 injuring 1.

Since the article leaves out so many well known cases it can not be considered reliable regarding its comprehensiveness. The other article which actually did complete counts of all known cases should be considered far more authoritative.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#382

Post by 1123581321 »

ForrestN wrote: post #259
1123581321 wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."

You're over-thinking this, and projecting motives onto an organization of pediatricians that you can't possibly prove. Their audience here is a general one, especially parents. They are not using "only" to make some kind of absolute claim about human nature. The point is that it's commonly accepted (and supported by research) that hitting your children is unhelpful to them and doesn't work well.

The word only makes an explicitly absolute claim. Pediatricians have read the same studies you and I have read, so they know the data isn't absolute. Therefore, they are claiming an absolute where they know there isn't one. You are right that I can't prove why they do this, but I think I can safely say most people persuade using untrue absolutes in order to realize an ideological goal or to make money, and the AAP is a non-profit organization. The quote is not something that should carry weight in a room of scientists or parents. I don't think I am over-thinking something that you've posted, especially now that you've asked me not to think too much about it.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#383

Post by bambax »

evan_ wrote: post #212
bambax wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> She liked to go shooting? It's a lot of fun to do. She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? And she needed to keep the gun (and ammunition) in her home? It isn't true that "Americans have had ready access to guns throughout America's history"; talking about the "Second Amendment" makes it seem that nothing has changed since the 18th century, but the truth is the current situation started no earlier than the 1960s. A…

> She liked to go shooting with a Glock?? Yes??? What do you think a glock is, just out of curiosity? It's a completely boring handgun. Semi-automatic doesn't mean what you think it does. Basically all modern guns are semi-automatic. It's a broad classification.

> It's a completely boring handgun

That's the point. "Boring" means failsafe: good for the shooter, not so good for the victims.

A gun that would threaten to explode in the face of the shooter every other round, or that would make it almost impossible to hit the target, would be completely non-boring. It would also make it a poor choice to carry on a mass-shooting.

The Glock is the Mercedes of guns.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#384

Post by smsm42 »

mpweiher wrote: post #378
smsm42 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anyt…

>> 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?

What you are saying is that if the firearms are available, some of them will be used for violence. If not, the same (actually, slightly higher) level of violence will be achieved by other means. And you think this proves your point that guns lead to violence. I see.

>>> 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?

I did it to demonstrate that on each anecdote another anecdote can be found. I hoped, after my explanation, and specifically stating "plural of anecdote is not data", it would be clear that I do not consider it to be data. I was wrong. Sorry I wasn't clear - I meant that bringing anecdotes does not constitute data.

>>> 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.

It would be smarter to think what could prevent the next accident, but who I am to give advice to experts? After all, those are probably the same experts that make men dressed in uniforms grab my balls and feel my ass each time I fly, for the benefit of my security of course. Nobody can argue with this level of expertise.

Meanwhile, back to our topic - you completely ignored the fact that places with complete gun bans still have very violent and very gun-related crime aplenty. Right here in the US. "Murder capital" of the US is the same place that had gun laws so strict SCOTUS had to rule they are unconstitutional.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#385

Post by nasmorn »

ampersandy wrote: post #248
ForrestN wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outco…

Beating your children isn't to manipulate them into becoming little slaves, it's to punish them for going against society's expected behaviour (which one might argue is its own form of slavery). Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they mis…

Living wirh my wife would also be easier when I could just beat her when she doesnt get my point. Thinking of it my coworkers are also stupid sometimes and I am certainly stronger than most. Good times ahead...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#386

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #342
tsycho wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there an…

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver. There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasio…

> This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver

This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties.

Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload.

Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#387

Post by e12e »

lostapathy wrote: post #364
e12e wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I hadn't. But I notice that in the most recent (2008) decision four out of nine justices seem to agree with my interpretation; so "completely debunks" seem a bit strong.

You are of course right that in light of the ruling; personal defence is part of the current constitution - I was referring to the original intent - of which we may only speculate - and I'd say it's not entirely clear that the current law is not based on twisting the words of the constitution to be in line with the gun lobby. I was making more of a moral/theoretical argument; not a direct legislative one wrt the US of today.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#388

Post by detst »

konstruktor wrote: post #165
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,…

If a sudden moment of clarity would be a repeatable cure for mental illness, we would not need mental healthcare. Please read up on confirmation bias.

Yes and his message is dangerous and counter-productive to people with real mental illness that can't be cured with simply wanting to be better.

The stigma of mental illness often leaves people to think it's just something they have to want to overcome (or that they're not mentally ill at all but just need to overcome whatever problems they have) and there are plenty of people that will be happy to help them reinforce that terribly destructive belief.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#389

Post by mpweiher »

javajosh wrote: post #37
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.

Everyone reaches for answers at a time like this, and a sad majority reach for thoughtless answers like gun control, that ironically embody the very stupidity and carelessness that contributes to this violence. It's such a smug, pat answer that relegates responsibility to some higher authority. It's the same sentiment that makes people feel isolated, alone, unheard, helpless, and eventually, desperate. "Just shut up,…

"...and a majority reach for thoughtful answers like gun control"

TFTY. :-)

Post reply on HN