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

451–460 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#451

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #439
bambax wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clea…

> Let's replay this for a minute

I'm sorry but this replay is incorrect. I said from the start "all guns are bad". I don't think you should get rid of only "automatic" or only "semi-automatic" or only "rifles" or what have you. I think you (you being the US) should ban every single gun, no matter its mode of operation, where it's made, etc. Ban, buy-back, destroy.

I used "automatic" for emphasis in my first comment (a bad idea, I see this now ;-) and the pro-gun cohort jumped on this word to try to disqualify me and any further comment I could make: "he couldn't shoot himself out of a paper bag, don't listen to this guy".

If this is what you truly think, fine, but don't make me say I advocate (or advocated at any point in this discussion) the ban of specific guns. I advocate the ban of ALL guns, and even more importantly, I think you will not see the end of this until you change, or more to the point eradicate the whole "gun culture" and "shooting is fun" and "guns are cool" memes.

The only purpose of guns is to kill people (not "shoot pumpkins" -- but thanks for the invite). They are useful to people whose job it is to kill people (namely, the army; the police, I'm not so sure). Every other citizen should not have guns (ANY gun).

This is the policy implemented successfully in the UK and Australia, two English-speaking countries and the closest allies of the US (surely you can relate to the country of Churchill?)

See

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/16/gun_control_afte...

and

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2012/12/gun-control

But unfortunately I also think this sane policy will not happen, as does The Economist.

That's a shame but in the end it's your problem, not mine. Just make sure your gun cabinet is locked, and that one of your distant nephews who's been on Prozac for years without you noticing, doesn't get hold of the key.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#452

Post by bambax »

grabastic wrote: post #292
bambax wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to a boarding school in Ireland for a year, and they had a uniform -- but it was a uniform, not a "policy". There was one pair of trousers, one shirt and one pullover allowed, and they were provided by the school. This was fine with me; it was a very clear rule with only one interpretation possible, and it was completely external to my relation with my parents or in fact authority in general. You had to wear a…

What is not clear about "black or khaki pants only"? I'm quite surprised that you've chosen to identify with the petulant, knife-wielding child in this article. Sure feels like you're bringing some personal baggage to the equation... this article is too short on details to draw the conclusions that you have.

This woman is insane and belongs in a mental institution, not her kids. This article articulates exactly what I think

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/12/17/i_am_adam_la...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#453

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #438
bambax wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem

No. I said "all guns are bad" (and you replied to that comment). I advocate banning all guns...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#454

Post by illuminate »

CoryG89 wrote: post #190
illuminate wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. Curing "being an asshole" is not curing mental illness.

You don't think it is at all possible that the kid from the story, while also having a serious mental illness, could also be cured of 'being an asshole', just like the commentator here?

I believe that "curing yourself" of negative personality traits becomes more difficult with the context of mental illness, yes. These conditions are not rational or logical.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#455

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #453
clarky07 wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem No. I said "all guns are bad" (and you replied to that comment). I advocate banning all guns...

No, your orignal comment - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928127 said that "only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons" and "but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??"

Nothing about that said all guns are bad, part of it was completely false referring to the automatic. There is absolutely nothing exciting about a ... gasp ... "GLOCK" semi-automatic pistol. Glock is just the name of a brand. You could also have a Ruger, or Smith and Wesson, or Kimber, or any number of other brands that make pretty much identical guns.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#456

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #451
clarky07 wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 clea…

> Let's replay this for a minute I'm sorry but this replay is incorrect. I said from the start "all guns are bad". I don't think you should get rid of only "automatic" or only "semi-automatic" or only "rifles" or what have you. I think you (you being the US) should ban every single gun, no matter its mode of operation, where it's made, etc. Ban, buy-back, destroy. I used "automatic" for emphasis in my first comment (…

2 things.

1. Australia isn't a reasonable comparison.

"At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia."

600k was 20% of all of their guns. 600k would be .2% of the legally owned guns in America.

2. England has a violent crime rate that is over 4 times higher than the US. Just because shootings drops, doesn't mean crime or murder drops. That has been my major point throughout all of this. Yes, banning guns lowers gun crime. No kidding. It doesn't however make you safer. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#457

Post by bambax »

clarky07 wrote: post #455
bambax wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, your comments around this whole thread have talked about how the semi-auto assault rifle was the problem No. I said "all guns are bad" (and you replied to that comment). I advocate banning all guns...

No, your orignal comment - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928127 said that "only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons" and "but can someone please explain why a school teacher would have three guns in her house, one of them a Glock semi-automatic pistol??" Nothing about that said all guns are bad, part of it was completely false referring to the automatic. There is absolutely nothing exciti…

Yes, that was my first comment. My second comment was this one:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4928822

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#458

Post by mpweiher »

antidoh wrote: post #131
mpweiher wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, total prevention is a straw man. No-one is claiming that total prevention is an achievable goal. (Massive) reduction is. I am a pilot. It is said the FARs (Federal Aviation Regulations) are written in blood. We still have fatal accidents from time to time, but they have been reduced by an almost incredible amount, especially considering how much air travel has increased. Yeah, you could argue that the fundamen…

I'm not throwing up my hands and saying do nothing. I'm suggesting that we address the fundamentals , which in this case is mental illness.

Evidence to the contrary: http://smallbutkindamighty.com/2012/12/16/guns-dont-kill-men...

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#459

Post by stretchwithme »

ownagefool wrote: post #113
stretchwithme wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have two family members that were bipolar. One lived in the US and was diagnosed and treated for decades. She received free care due to Medicaid and Medicare. She was always poor. Was it the best care? Perhaps not, but at least she could always get it when she acknowledged she needed it. The other lived in the UK and went undiagnosed for decades. When he finally met his mom and realized he was also bipolar, he had…

"It seems universal care sacrifices everybody's quality". I don't think thats quite the case. I live in the UK and can't comment on the US system from personal experience, however what I hear most about over the pond is the many people who get screwed from not having health care or not actually having significant cover when the need arises. Its said that having a life threatening illness will pretty much bankrupt the…

There may actually be a dearth of reports on "So and so got adequate care".

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#460

Post by tripa »

confusedNRA wrote: post #218
tripa wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's still a bit of time before we can print ammo. Gun control could evolve into ammo control.

I don't mean to come off as insulting, but you do understand how incredibly easy it is to make your own ammo right? Dye casting lead is peanuts, considering the low boiling point of lead makes for easy casts. There is so much ammo already out there, new brass probably won't even need to be created, simply reusing all old brass that's out there would more than suffice for the needs of even a large squad. So we have le…

I wrote that in a spirit of "put ingredients in the machine on one side, collect ammo on the other."

I just meant to say it's just as sensible to regulate ammo than it is to regulate guns, and (IMHO) easier. That doesn't mean home ammo is out of reach. Just like I don't think home-built guns are.

I admit not having considered it in as much detail as you did :-)

Post reply on HN