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

431–440 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#431

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #422
bambax wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sh…

You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation. The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The ma…

1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though)

2- Much more importantly, the whole «expertise» debate and argument is very illegitimate. This is the same argument finance people use to claim they should not be regulated: «you don't understand! it's complicated!» It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

After a particularly gruesome mass shooting in the 90s, Australia passed vey tough gun control laws, with a buyback program. No further mass shooting happened since, and criminality didn't increase. Food for thought.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#432

Post by clarky07 »

josephlord wrote: post #430
clarky07 wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is more arguable that there imposition of restrictions is too much of a burden on freedom for the benefit but saying there is no benefit is pure denial. I'm not saying it isn't possible that there is some benefit, I am saying that any benefit would be pretty small, and that the cons easily outweigh the pros in my opinion. Self-defense is an argument that is more easily understood so I tend towards that, but to me…

I think 8 deaths in a knife attack is an outlier as 26 in a gun attack may be. I'm sceptical of the claim that last week's assailant would have killed more than 8 with a knife without somebody stopping him or the vast majority of the children being evacuated. Running away just works better against a knife unless completely cornered and even then some of a cornered group may escape. Evidence ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/…

That's all reasonable. I think you have to consider that many of these knife attacks have wounded far more than 8, >20 just last week. If the person doing the wounding were using a knife more suited to the task, and was more competent at using it there could easily be a much higher death to wounded ratio. Now obviously this plays into the fact that a gun is easier to use, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done. If you can wound 20 with a knife, you can kill 20 with a knife. I suspect if they all ran when he came in to the room a few more would have been saved, shooting 20 running targets is non-trivial. The problem is they were probably all paralyzed with fear. I suspect hiding under a desk would be a more likely reaction, one that doesn't help at all.

>Against a gun even such a selfless act is unlikely to cause much delay.

Look at the attack on Rep. Giffords [1] "Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it. Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury. The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger, who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman."

Gunmen get subdued all the time, but when it's a classroom of 5 year olds and you presumably start with the 1 adult teacher it becomes a lot harder.

>Yes halving the number of deaths in each attack is a benefit but not one that necessarily overrides all other factors.

I think this is key. I wouldn't consider it nearly enough of a benefit to outweigh the pros of gun ownership such as self defense, freedom, and liberty.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#433

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #424
bambax wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

>This is the option where I live (France). Well if it wasn't for the Americans and our guns you would be ruled by Nazi Germany. It might be a long time ago and off topic, but it really wasn't that long ago and it's not that far off topic. >It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings. That's obvious, they just aren't related to mass killings. This technology has been around for > 100 yea…

Even if it were true that France would be ruled by Nazi Germany were it not for «american guns» (more likely, soviet Russia), what does this have to do with mass shootings in contemporary US? (And how are your other wars going, BTW? Any General left still wearing his pants?)

Should we go down this road, I could say that I don't care if you guys shoot at each other until there is no one left standing; the incident involving Vice-president Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face was entertaining indeed. But today it's more difficult to be indifferent to the massacre of children.

If it's so easy to perpetuate mass killings with any weapon, why are (semi!) automatic rifles still the weapon of choice amongst perpetrators?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#434

Post by timtadh »

rehack wrote: post #418
timtadh wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Spare the stick and spoil the child" That proverb is misapplied. When you look at the original Hebrew in context the stick was a guiding stick not a beating stick. A guiding stick is one used for gentle nudges to keep someone on the right path. Basically the proverb is saying: An unguided child is a spoiled child. Today is is often interpreted: An unbeaten child is a spoiled child. However, this is not the original…

I beg to differ. I think this is an interpretation adapted to meet the requirements of modern times . Because the commonly held interpretation of the proverb, is very simply, what it means, that you got to discipline the child, by spanking[1]. IMHO, this(revised definition) is a catchup which the clergy (of various religions) play every now and then. Sometimes to meet the new discovery in science, or other times to m…

It is fine to have a different interpretation but I suggest before forming an opinion to look at modern scholarship on the matter. Biblical scholarship is fractal; the deeper you go the deeper there is to go.

Finally, KJV is simply not a very accurate interpretation of the texts it draws from. Nor does it take into account more ancient texts which are now available to interpreters and translators. Moreover, translation (while interpretation) does not provide context which is why I pointed you to a reliable commentary series which will provide up to date scholarship on the matter.

I am not saying my interpretation is right but I am saying you will need to do a bit better than just referencing a wiktionary article on the etymology.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#435

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #420
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Did you read the parent? >Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure. I didn't say it was faster than an AR. I know exactly what I'm talking about. A revolver could have accomplished the same thing at that school. Yes, this idiot shot some of these kids 11+ times and the revolver wouldn't have done that, but guess what, you don't need to shoot someone 11 times. 1-2 is generally…

Crazy people targeting kids are not, in general, «world class shooters», they are not world class anything except losers. That's the point. Those weapons help shooters that aren't good, shoot fast. We're not talking about SWAT teams here.

Besides, gun control would include all guns, revolvers, sigle-action, you name it.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#436

Post by bambax »

thinkling wrote: post #423
bambax wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 se…

This is a big cultural divide. It's a big divide within the U.S.; it's even bigger with people outside the U.S. who haven't experienced the gun culture first hand, much less grown up with it. Just a factual side-note: "Outlaws" sometimes kill each other but they have yet to massacre kids in a school. _cough_ Just this past spring: A gunman has shot dead a teacher and three children at a Jewish school in the French ci…

He was neither an outlaw nor, stricly speaking «crazy». He was an ideologue, a fanatic and a terrorist. While it's good that there aren't too many guns around, the lack of weapons is not enough to deter terrorists. The only thing that works against terrorism is intelligence. This particular story was a big failure in this regard.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#437

Post by astrodust »

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.

It's not so much that as recognizing you can control your mental illness if you're in the fortunate position of being able to do that, or that you never will and learning to live with it instead of fighting it all the time.

As soon as you make the choice to either wrestle it into submission or surrender to it, you'll probably have an easier time. In this case it seems like taking charge.

Other people have no choice but to surrender and learn to live with the consequences. Maybe for you that means not having any sharp knives, or medication you can abuse, or alcohol in the house. We all have our issues. If we can't control them, we've got to mitigate them to the best of our ability.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#438

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #435
clarky07 wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the parent? >Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure. I didn't say it was faster than an AR. I know exactly what I'm talking about. A revolver could have accomplished the same thing at that school. Yes, this idiot shot some of these kids 11+ times and the revolver wouldn't have done that, but guess what, you don't need to shoot someone 11 times. 1-2 is generally…

Crazy people targeting kids are not, in general, «world class shooters», they are not world class anything except losers. That's the point. Those weapons help shooters that aren't good, shoot fast. We're not talking about SWAT teams here. Besides, gun control would include all guns, revolvers, sigle-action, you name it.

The first video is decidedly not world class. also, no gun control in the US has talked about revolvers, bolt action, or lever action guns. Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem and this couldn't be done with a revolver, but now that I point out it isn't in fact you say you want to get rid of revolvers too. Very handy.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#439

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #431
clarky07 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation. The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The ma…

1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though) 2- Much more importantly, t…

Let's replay this for a minute: You: get rid of automatic weapons Me: he didn't use an automatic weapon You: doesn't matter get rid of semi-automatic weapons then Me: He could do it with a revolver or bolt action gun just as easily You: No he couldn't Me: Yes he could, with proof You: Something about experts, it's complicated, let's get rid of all guns...

>It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people.

Sure, guns kill people. So do knives, and bombs, and trucks, and and and and... These things also have lots of legitimate uses.

top 10 school killings before last week - http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

Note that only 3 of these were in the US.

We have, a flamethrower, a lance, a mace, bolt action rifle, revolvers, knives, machettes, bombs, and cars in addition to the semi-auto guns that you think we should get rid of. This is a problem has been around for a long time, and it is something that has been done with lots and lots of different things. People kill people. This has been true since the beginning of time. If you actually have a solution to this problem let me know. Saying we should take away the guns and everyone will be fine is absurd.

Getting rid of the guns might make you feel better, but it doesn't solve anything. It does however take away my liberty, my freedom, and my rights.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#440

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #433
clarky07 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This is the option where I live (France). Well if it wasn't for the Americans and our guns you would be ruled by Nazi Germany. It might be a long time ago and off topic, but it really wasn't that long ago and it's not that far off topic. >It's just that I still can't see how guns aren't related to mass shootings. That's obvious, they just aren't related to mass killings. This technology has been around for > 100 yea…

Even if it were true that France would be ruled by Nazi Germany were it not for «american guns» (more likely, soviet Russia), what does this have to do with mass shootings in contemporary US? (And how are your other wars going, BTW? Any General left still wearing his pants?) Should we go down this road, I could say that I don't care if you guys shoot at each other until there is no one left standing; the incident inv…

See my other comment regarding weapon choice - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4934021

http://listverse.com/2008/01/01/top-10-worst-school-massacre...

fwiw - semi-auto rifles are actually only used in 3% of shootings. but lets not let facts get in the way of anything.

Post reply on HN