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

Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

diegobasch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 164 posts

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#131

Post by numo16 »

rickmb wrote: post #58

The scale of the problem isn't in itself an argument for doing or not doing something about. The emotional impact is most definitely an important factor, and not something that can simply be argued away with numbers. Most people don't live in fear of cancer or lightning strikes, unless they find themselves in the middle of an asbestos filled building or right underneath a lightning storm. The knowledge however that s…

I live in Flint, MI (which has been #1 in violent crime for the past few years) and the thought of people around me potentially possessing and, possibly, carrying firearms around never crosses my mind when I'm out and about. Maybe I'd just prefer to not give myself a heart attack over worrying about someone nearby carrying a gun, but in one of the cities where one should be worried most about it, it doesn't even rank on the scale of things to think about generally.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#132

Post by Turing_Machine »

sp332 wrote: post #18
Turing_Machine wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't worry. Your cobelievers already did it. I guess I just don't have the "sophisticated" European point of view that says that millions killed by government don't count.

It's not relevant to the conversation. We're talking about individuals. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... seems to have a lot more action than the part of your page since the late 18th century, so I think you're wrong either way.

The death toll from the European wars is in the millions.

In addition to the wars per se, European governments have killed millions of their own citizens, and they've been at it for centuries.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#133

Post by boboblong »

Steko wrote: post #127
boboblong wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a parody of the left. "Your rights end where my feelings begin!" Is that really your stance?

That's not his stance, that's fundamental constitutional law. Quoting Paul Waldman from TAP: "for some reason gun advocates think that the right to bear arms is the only constitutional right that is virtually without limit. You have the right to practice your religion, but not if your religion involves human sacrifice. You have the right to free speech, but you can still be prosecuted for incitement or conspiracy, an…

He said:

>Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

Apparently, if someone legally owns a gun, this presents a "threat of death or injury" to others. Of course, if the gun weren't legally owned by an individual but still existed, it would either be illegally owned by an individual or be legally owned by the government or by some other exempted institution. You might feel safer with only the government and criminals owning guns, but many others would feel less safe. What makes your fear more legitimate than theirs? Other rights are restricted only when exercising them would directly infringe on the rights of others. You can't demonstrate that you would be safer if a particular gun owner with no criminal record were forced to turn in his gun. You can't even demonstrate that you would be safer if all law-abiding gun owners were forced to turn in their guns. Even if you could, you couldn't demonstrate that your increased safety wouldn't be more than offset by the decreased safety of the gun owner(s).

The comparison between gun ownership and first-amendment rights is not a good one, because there are already restrictions on gun ownership comparable to the restriction on first-amendment rights. True, you don't have the right to practice human sacrifice--you also don't have the right to murder people with your legally owned guns. True, you can be prosecuted for incitement--and also for waving your gun around in public. True, you can be sued for libel--and you can be prosecuted for brandishing.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#134

Post by nollidge »

boboblong wrote: post #89
nollidge wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you gun control advocates have not forgotten about the second amendment since the opposition will not shut up about it. Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

You sound like a parody of the left. "Your rights end where my feelings begin!" Is that really your stance?

Point out where I said "feelings".

EDIT: The word I used was threat, which, if arguing in good faith, you would have read as "actual risk", rather than "angsty feelings".

I also qualified it with the phrase such as it is. Which, again in good-faith discourse, means "if it exists" or "whatever form it takes".

But do continue to tell me more about how I feel.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#135

Post by nollidge »

pc86 wrote: post #57
nollidge wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assure you gun control advocates have not forgotten about the second amendment since the opposition will not shut up about it. Also, all the rights listed in the first ten amendments are limited to the point at which you're infringing on someone else's rights. The threat of death or injury, such as it is, would seem to be a pretty clear reason to limit that right.

And I welcome you to explain to me how my owning a particular type of firearms constitutes "threat of death or injury." Brandishing is already a crime, so I fail to see what point you're trying to make.

I think my point was pretty explicitly clear. Perhaps there's some other point you imagine I was making that you disagree with, but I can't really help you out of that pickle.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#136

Post by boboblong »

nollidge wrote: post #134
boboblong wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You sound like a parody of the left. "Your rights end where my feelings begin!" Is that really your stance?

Point out where I said "feelings". EDIT: The word I used was threat , which, if arguing in good faith, you would have read as "actual risk", rather than "angsty feelings". I also qualified it with the phrase such as it is . Which, again in good-faith discourse, means "if it exists" or "whatever form it takes". But do continue to tell me more about how I feel.

If a particular gun owner is threatening you, you can take legal action against him or her.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#137

Post by bdunbar »

Zimahl wrote: post #39
bdunbar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't allow people on the roads without a licence I'm not convinced by this argument. Firearms are not used in public spaces, but in private land, or on club-owned property.

Actually, most hunting is done on public land - typically state or federal. There are private game ranches, but those aren't the standard.

Point! I was thinking 'shooting range', not hunting.

Which is silly - where I live half the office is gone during deer season.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#138

Post by bdunbar »

justincormack wrote: post #24
bdunbar wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't allow people on the roads without a licence I'm not convinced by this argument. Firearms are not used in public spaces, but in private land, or on club-owned property.

Firearms are never used in public? Ever?

The only occasion I can think of where a private citizen would use a firearm in a public area is a city-owned gun range, or hunting on public land.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#139

Post by neilk »

Steko wrote: post #126
neilk wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed the point. Gun control might be a good idea, but not because it will reduce the likelihood of psychopathic spree killings. Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. Your monkey brain may protest that this simply cannot be (as mine does), but our monkey brains are wrong . Instead we need…

"Psychopathic spree killings are such a low-probability, extreme event that there's almost nothing you can do, at a public policy level, to influence them. " This is completely false. Being rare doesn't mean there aren't things that can make it even more rare. Many countries have taken steps that make these events far less likely.

You're right - I misspoke there. The OP was more careful, and discussed "iatrogenic" harms (an analogy to medical harms that arise from an attempt to treat a problem).

So, I'll revise what I'm saying to this: if you have a measure that you want to take that is only justified by such extreme events, it's probably not a good idea.

Re: Mass Shootings, Political Correctness, and Magical Thinking

#140

Post by RyanMcGreal »

GVIrish wrote: post #97
RyanMcGreal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America has got to be the only country in the industrialized world where it seems reasonable to respond to mass shootings (and shootings in general) by suggesting that more people should have guns. Here's a scatter plot of firearms per 100,000 and gun homocides per 100 for OECD countries: http://i.imgur.com/ZAI3T.png Needless to say, the dot in the top right corner is the USA> Data is from here: http://www.guardian.c…

Excluding Mexico is a huge disservice because Mexico actually has stricter gun laws than the US. Mexico's gun murder rate is over 3 times greater than that in the US. I feel this is instructive because with all of the guns already in private hands in the US if they were banned outright today you'd end up with an enormous and uncontrollable black market. The same type of black market that exists in Mexico. Even in the…

> Excluding Mexico is a huge disservice

Fair enough - the only reason I took it out was because it squashed all the other values into the bottom left corner so that you could no longer distinguish their relative positions. I still made sure to mention it because Mexico's case is instructive.

Post reply on HN