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

Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

emergency.mit.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–389 of 389 posts

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#381

Post by bmelton »

rooshdi wrote: post #380
bmelton wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you would summarize that as the gist of my argument, then you clearly did not read it. That portions of my argument rest on the precedence of case law, is appropriate. Legal decisions in this country are generally decided on exactly that, and not the half-cocked rhetoric you put forth. For what it's worth, I could put forth statistics that show that guns are used to deter crime at a rate of 80 times the rate with…

I did read it. Ultimately, you have to look at the purpose of certain tools and their net effect on society. I respect the debate and will leave you with these last few resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-deba... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-...

I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive.

That crazy people might misuse them is statistically no more reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw hammers or baseball bats.

All that said, I'll end this debate as you obviously aren't in any position to prove your assertions and are happy to sit in the umbrella that "Guns are bad, mmkay?" If you'd like to actually debate the position, I'd be happy to, but thus far you haven't indicated to me that you're capable.

Edit: Actually, I take that back. I have no desire to engage in a discussion with someone who has admitted they don't care about law while simultaneously advocating that the law be used to curtail a Constitutionally enumerated right.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#382

Post by rooshdi »

bmelton wrote: post #381
rooshdi wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read it. Ultimately, you have to look at the purpose of certain tools and their net effect on society. I respect the debate and will leave you with these last few resources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gavin-magrath/gun-control-deba... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/15/1179166/-Cars-kill-...

I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive. That crazy people might misuse them is statistically no more reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw hammers or baseball bats. All that said, I'll end this debate as you obviously aren't in any position to prove your assertions and are h…

"I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive."

This Harvard study doesn't think so:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and...

Also, read this for your other arguments:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments...

Good debate. I gotta finish work on some software now. Take care sir.

Edit for your edit about rights: http://youtu.be/bx71U-1O-eY

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#383

Post by [deleted] »

rooshdi wrote: post #382
bmelton wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive. That crazy people might misuse them is statistically no more reason to outlaw guns than it is to outlaw hammers or baseball bats. All that said, I'll end this debate as you obviously aren't in any position to prove your assertions and are h…

"I have looked at exactly that. The rate at which guns are used lawfully far outstrips the number of times they are not. As such, their benefit to society is easily a net positive." This Harvard study doesn't think so: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and... Also, read this for your other arguments: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-4-most-meaningless-arguments... Good debate. I gotta finish wor…

[deleted]

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#384

Post by reader5000 »

BryanB55 wrote: post #293
reader5000 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all standard talking points. I'll just respond to one of them: let me ask you, do you and your family wear helmets when driving around in a car? No? Don't you think you and your family would be way better off wearing a helmet in the middle of a car wreck, rather than having to wait for the paramedics to arrive, who are only out for themselves in the first place? Why are you so comfortable risking death or s…

Are you implying that developed civilized nations mean you can let your guard down and no harm will be done? You could bring up countless other examples of things people usually do not prepare for. Bottom line is we can not prepare for everything but does that mean we should prepare for nothing? Why do we have locks on our doors or use passwords and 2 factor authentication in a developed civilized nation? We all pick…

Look up "externality" then get back to me on the difference between a door lock and a firearm.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#385

Post by TDL »

aroberge wrote: post #184
TDL wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. is at historically low point in violence, concurrently there is a historically high percentage of gun ownership in the U.S.

First of all, correlation is often not causation: you can't draw a causal link between the decline in violence and gun ownership. If you compare with other developed countries, it will be very clear that the U.S. has a lot more violence in general and violence using guns specifically. Secondly, violence using guns requires the presence of guns, so it may be possible to establish a causal link between gun ownership an…

Delayed response on my part. There is less gun crime in the U.S. than 20 years ago despite there being more guns. That was my point, I should have come out and said it.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#386

Post by notdrunkatall »

tomkin wrote: post #371
notdrunkatall wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we are all flawed, and when one group of us gains the power to force another group of us do what they want, bad things tend to happen. That's why we have something called the decentralization of power through democracy - maybe you've heard of it? This isn't some crazy conspiracy theory - it's basic history and common sense. Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot: these are but a few of the sociopaths who aspired to power…

Oh boy. What a great argument. Telling me to go fuck myself, and that you don't care what any one else thinks. Great rebuttal. Do you think that the 11,000+ people who are killed with firearms are worthless? Because they are being killed by sociopaths, you know, the kind you list above. You are alright with 11,000+ deaths (per year) because you feel, one day, maybe, there might be a possibility of a tyrannical govern…

Go fuck yourself.

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#387

Post by darkchasma »

notdrunkatall wrote: post #354
darkchasma wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America? The war where the tyrannical overreaching government wanted to take away people's right to own other people and enforce more control over the states than the southern states wanted? Because the government; it won. (I'm pretty happy it did too!) :) So, yea... Great example.

Yes, that America - where people were able to stand up for what they believed in and fight and die for that belief if they so chose. That is precisely the America that I am talking about. And do you know why the South lost? Because the majority of America was not on board with slavery. It was an idea whose time had come to die, and die it did, though not without a fight. Can you guess which side the majority would be…

So the lives of thousands and thousands of men is better than say... a referendum?

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#388

Post by JoeAltmaier »

citricsquid wrote: post #234
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait - your numbers come out to something far less than 28X. 28x the homicides divided by 5x the people = 5.6x the rate?

28x is based on the raw figures (500 vs. 14,000) not adjusted for the differences in population.

Yeah, cause it looks worse that way. How to lie with statistics!

Re: Person with a long rifle and body armor in the Main Group Building of MIT

#389

Post by 18pfsmt »

tomkin wrote: post #368
18pfsmt wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't own a gun, but I appreciate the right for my fellow citizens. I don't care if you ban it in your country; why are you so interested in restricting freedoms of people on the other side of the world? > The rest of the world just sits back and watches your government attack its people? What are they going to do? Do you know ho…

> Personally, I can't understand why you care about how 'we' handle guns in our country. I don't, really. But it is frustrating watching, oh, I don't know, 95% of the developed world somehow getting by without guns while the US can't see past them. > What are they going to do? Do you know how much we (the US) spends on military compared to the rest of the world? It's really no wonder that the citizens of such a count…

Actually, it is neither rhetoric, nor a straw man; I never suggested that you, specifically, advocated for a monarchy. However, back in the 18th century, many people in Europe probably would have (Canada and Australia certainly opted for dependence upon a monarchy).

My main point was to demonstrate that simply because other countries participate and subscribe to a certain way of doing things, does not mean it's the "right way to do it." I was not trying to put words in your mouth. Further, to suggest that the US should rid our society of guns is not realistic and betrays a significant lack of understanding of the prevalent culture in the US.

>Explain how you, a member of HN, plan to de-weaponize your government with your pistol.

Again, I do not own any gun, but if you would like to see how 'primitive' weapons can be used in defiance of powerful government, just look at Afghanistan or Vietnam.

Just so we are doubly clear, I would prefer if all destructive weapons were destroyed, including those of governments. I just don't think that's realistic at this time.

Post reply on HN