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

Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#181

Post by grandalf »

mikeash wrote: post #164
grandalf wrote: post #72

It's just a complete waste of time to think about these kinds of things. Some humans malfunction and do this kind of thing. It happens quite rarely, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. One's probability of being harmed by the occasional insane murderer (or terrorism for that matter) is microscopic compared to so many other things that we can actually do something about.

I think this attitude is just as useless as the opposing view that we must do anything and everything conceivable to prevent an event like this from ever happening again. This kind of thing cannot be completely eliminated. But its incidence can be reduced. It's useful to put a bit of thought into how and why this happened and what could be done, not to prevent it from ever happening again, but to reduce the odds . No…

While we're at it we should also be doing something to prevent asteroid impacts, tsunamis, and rare genetic diseases.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#182

Post by mikeash »

grandalf wrote: post #181
mikeash wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this attitude is just as useless as the opposing view that we must do anything and everything conceivable to prevent an event like this from ever happening again. This kind of thing cannot be completely eliminated. But its incidence can be reduced. It's useful to put a bit of thought into how and why this happened and what could be done, not to prevent it from ever happening again, but to reduce the odds . No…

While we're at it we should also be doing something to prevent asteroid impacts, tsunamis, and rare genetic diseases.

Yes, indeed.

I assume you're being sarcastic, which is odd, given that there is a fair bit of effort put in place to search for near-Earth asteroids that could potentially collide with the planet, with an eye toward eventually being able to deflect them, there are a lot of systems put in place to mitigate the effects of tsunamis, and quite a bit of research into rare genetic diseases.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#183

Post by mikeash »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #177
mikeash wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that, although the quantity and level of argument with the others doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same. My point here is that, if you think it is indeed a fundamental human right, you have to actually demonstrate that, not just say that any attempt to take away the second amendment is no better than taking away the fourth.

Well, no, actually, I don't. Since it's part of the Bill Of Rights, it's not on its supporters to show why it's a fundamental right, it's on its opponents to show why it isn't. The whole point of those rights being in the Constitution is so that you don't have to endlessly justify those rights later. And, again, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same to you . That really is an important part to grasp. There a…

I think I've sufficiently argued for why I think the second amendment doesn't belong with the rest. I've also repeatedly stated that I realize this is not a universal view. I don't know what more you want me to do, here, since I seem to already be doing everything you're criticizing me for failing to do.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#184

Post by waterlesscloud »

mikeash wrote: post #183
waterlesscloud wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, actually, I don't. Since it's part of the Bill Of Rights, it's not on its supporters to show why it's a fundamental right, it's on its opponents to show why it isn't. The whole point of those rights being in the Constitution is so that you don't have to endlessly justify those rights later. And, again, it doesn't appear to be anywhere near the same to you . That really is an important part to grasp. There a…

I think I've sufficiently argued for why I think the second amendment doesn't belong with the rest. I've also repeatedly stated that I realize this is not a universal view. I don't know what more you want me to do, here, since I seem to already be doing everything you're criticizing me for failing to do.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see that you have.

All you've done is say it's the odd man out and then ask what it protects. I just can't see that as anywhere near a sufficient argument. Or even an argument at all. It's more of a statement of your thesis without support.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#185

Post by CamperBob2 »

tokenadult wrote: post #64

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also cru…

The theory is that certain risk-reduction measures work in general, minimizing the chance that some individual will engage in any kind of incident like the one in Aurora, Colorado. Gun control is such a sensitive issue in the United States that it is barely being discussed yet by politicians in connection with the incident this weekend, but differing national patterns of gun control have been mentioned by commentators who point to the example of Australia's response to the 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania shooting

The thing is, gun control is a feel-good measure that does nothing. It's no different from "video game control" or "Internet filtering."

What do all of the following events have in common?

* The Virginia Tech massacre

* The Dunblane massacre

* James Holmes's movie-theatre attack

* The Columbine massacre

The answer, besides the fact that they were all committed with guns, is that the total body count in all of these incidents still falls short of what one guy with a can of gasoline was able to do at the Happyland night club. How many more gasoline-fueled deaths are we going to tolerate as a society before we require licensing and registration of gas cans?

If you want to solve the underlying problem, which is nothing more or less than catching undiagnosed mental illness early, you are going to have to do it some other way besides banning inanimate objects and tools.

Finally, your opinion as to what I "need" or "don't need" is not of any particular interest. History suggests that if you really want to maximize your odds of a violent death, you should let the police and military have a monopoly on violence.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#186

Post by CamperBob2 »

jessedhillon wrote: post #134
jeffdavis wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood." What about suspending the Fourth Amendment? Surely enough random house checks, possibly automated with cameras, could also detect possible criminal activity and sav…

Look up "straw man argument" or maybe "slippery slope." Then, make a better argument.

The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. That means it's only a fallacy in the context of dealing with logical entities. Can humans, and their governments, be assumed to act as logical entities?

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#187

Post by jdhopeunique »

harshreality wrote: post #148
tokenadult wrote: post #64

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also cru…

So far I am not aware of any reason for young people in residential neighborhoods in the United States to have what are called "assault rifles" for legitimate purposes, and I certainly would be glad to know that none are in my (crime-free) neighborhood. By "assault rifles" do you mean the colloquial definition of black semi-automatic firearms with pistol grips and detachable magazines? Or the technically accurate def…

My girlfriend's younger brother was in the marines. He had to get his older sister to buy ammunition because he couldn't despite handling far more deadly firearms in the military.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#188

Post by mikeash »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #184
mikeash wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I've sufficiently argued for why I think the second amendment doesn't belong with the rest. I've also repeatedly stated that I realize this is not a universal view. I don't know what more you want me to do, here, since I seem to already be doing everything you're criticizing me for failing to do.

I'm sorry, but I really don't see that you have. All you've done is say it's the odd man out and then ask what it protects. I just can't see that as anywhere near a sufficient argument. Or even an argument at all. It's more of a statement of your thesis without support.

It's a rhetorical question. I don't see that there is anything which makes gun ownership important, I don't see that it protects against anything significant, and I don't see it as being better than not having that right.

It's kind of hard to support a negative claim like that. It would be nice if you could kick in a bit of your side instead of just complaining about how I say things. And no, "it's in the Constitution so it's automatically true until disproven" does not work.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#189

Post by bbxiao1 »

eurleif wrote: post #179
bbxiao1 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a aside, I think the American founding fathers' views of human rights was more that anything and everything is a fundamental right whether it is free speech or, on the other extreme, murder. However, since people have banded to form "society", to join society, a person would have to give up certain rights, e.g. the right to murder. So, depending on where you stand with respect to human rights, who should defend th…

What's a right? Isn't it something that no one can murder you from doing (or in general, use force to stop you from doing)? If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything?

If murder is a right, isn't nothing a right, since anyone can murder you in response to anything?

That's kind of the idea. What actions are you physically capable of? Once again, in the context of absolute freedom, what are you allowed to do (i.e. a right)? The thing is absolute freedom is a bit complicated especially given individual differences. Order/laws develop to facilitate interactions with other people.

I'm not sure how well I can explain this, so here's a link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

You have the right to find it interesting, a right to find it horribly stupid, or a right to find it _________________.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#190

Post by josephcooney »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #185
tokenadult wrote: post #64

From the submitted article: "At this very moment, the police have probably gathered a great deal of evidence from James Holmes. They may well have a clear read on his motives right now. It is vital that they share this information fully with the public, but just as vital that they conceal much or all of it while they conduct their investigation. Testimony from friends, family and survivors of the massacre is also cru…

The theory is that certain risk-reduction measures work in general, minimizing the chance that some individual will engage in any kind of incident like the one in Aurora, Colorado. Gun control is such a sensitive issue in the United States that it is barely being discussed yet by politicians in connection with the incident this weekend, but differing national patterns of gun control have been mentioned by commentator…

I guess the thing is that gasoline has many non-killing uses, whereas guns don't. I live in a country where access to guns is much more tightly controlled than in the US, and I'm glad of it. Sure, under some circumstances a can of gasoline can be more lethal than a gun, but the prospect someone chasing me down the street at 3AM with a can of gasoline doesn't scare me nearly as much as someone chasing me with a gun. Think of all the lethal scenarios that a gun can be used, replace with "can of gasoline" and see your straw man go up in flames.
Post reply on HN