Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer • Hacker News Board

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#241

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:01 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #236

mikeash wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fairly vague. I'm not sure what clear distinction you are trying to draw between the 2nd and 4th Amendments. The distinction is that the 4th amendment limits government power to intrude on our lives by forcing them to clear a certain burden of proof before seizing our property and information. Without that freedom, they could basically take what they pleased when they pleased. There is no equivalent situatio…

"The distinction is that the 4th amendment limits government power to intrude on our lives by forcing them to clear a certain burden of proof before seizing our property and information." I think you're interpreting the 4th Amendment kind of like the 5th Amendment prohibition of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The part of the 4th Amendment that's interesting to this discuss…

I'm curious as to why you think that suicides would not be affected by gun restrictions. Most suicides are not people who are bound and determined to kill themselves by any means possible. Rather, most suicidal people are extremely troubled in general and may change their mind quickly. Making it more difficult for them to get ahold of the tools with which to end their lives could make a substantial difference.

As for the rest, you're absolutely right that it comes down to a potential net gain in lives saved versus lives lost. I think that it would be a net gain, simply because guns in private hands aren't saving a whole lot of lives. The potential downside is relatively low. The impact may not be large, but it does seem to me to be almost certain to be positive, so why not?

I think there is merit to the idea that a heavily armed society would deter crime. But you'd need gun ownership to be far more pervasive than it is now for it to work, I think. The chances of a criminal running into a private citizen with a loaded gun are pretty low. If nearly everyone had one, that would be different, but I don't think we're anywhere close. From where we are right now, reducing gun ownership seems to be a more productive and realistic direction.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#242

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:05 AM UTC

cchurch wrote: post #237

mikeash wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's fairly vague. I'm not sure what clear distinction you are trying to draw between the 2nd and 4th Amendments. The distinction is that the 4th amendment limits government power to intrude on our lives by forcing them to clear a certain burden of proof before seizing our property and information. Without that freedom, they could basically take what they pleased when they pleased. There is no equivalent situatio…

You are missing the point of the second amendment. The second amendment isn't about making sure we get to keep firearms for the sake of having them. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right of a free people to protect themselves. This includes self-defense, but is not limited to it. Understand the context in which the Bill of Rights was written. We had just fought a long war to overthrow British ru…

I believe I understand fairly well the original point and intent of the second amendment. I just don't think that original point and intent are useful anymore. In the 18th century, organized private citizens could defeat world powers in open battle, properly organized (and with the world power properly distracted elsewhere). That's no longer the case today, by a wide margin. There will be no repeat of the American Revolution. The success of any attempt to resist the US government by force will basically come down to whether they can get enough of the US military on their side, or at least prevent the military from acting. A population carrying handguns and hunting rifles won't, as far as I can see, make any difference one way or another to this.

If an armed revolt does break out, it's going to need a lot of illegal weapons and support from a lot of military units who have switched sides, regardless of whether the second amendment is in place or not.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#243

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:09 AM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #235

mikeash wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which part? If it's that gun rights are fundamental to living a fulfilling life, well, lots of people live good lives without them, so that seems unlikely. If it's about gun rights preventing government abuses, which seems like the more likely objection, well, how? I don't see government abuses being stopped or even slowed down by gun rights. When faced with a gun owner, police seem to simply shoot first and ask ques…

Ok, now we're cooking. Is not being compelled to testify against one's self fundamental to "living a fulfilling life?" Since when has that been a qualification for a right? This is a True Scotsman minefield - beware. Can you imagine a case in which gun rights could protect one from government abuses? Why would you think that the abuses that the right to bear arms are meant to prevent are confined to government ones?…

Sorry I'm unable to read your mind. I thought that maybe we could both state our positions and then discuss them, rather than me stating my position in more and more detail until at some point you are finally satisfied and find me worthy of being graced with your learned opinions.

Please consider the possibility that questions are not nearly as obvious when outside your head. I really don't know how I'm supposed to pick your own personal objections out of the roughly ten billion potential objections to what I've said. Your questions may be "obvious" in some sense of the word, but I don't know that they're any more obvious than the innumerable others that are out there.

To respond to your supposedly obvious questions: no, I really can't imagine gun rights protecting against government abuses, not today. At any sign of armed resistance, the government will bring increasing force to bear until they subdue you. If you survive the event, you may be vindicated later, but at no point does being armed help you. As for non-government abuses, there may be some utility there, but if you're having to carry firearms to protect yourself from your fellow citizens, I believe that's a more fundamental breakdown in society and government, and being able to carry guns is just a minor patch on the symptoms. Better to address the root cause through better policing.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#244

Post by harshreality » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 3:10 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #232

pessimizer wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe respond to the obvious objections to those two assertions? For starters, what would be your response to: "Yes, it does."

Which part? If it's that gun rights are fundamental to living a fulfilling life, well, lots of people live good lives without them, so that seems unlikely. If it's about gun rights preventing government abuses, which seems like the more likely objection, well, how? I don't see government abuses being stopped or even slowed down by gun rights. When faced with a gun owner, police seem to simply shoot first and ask ques…

If gun-owning citizens get aggravated enough at a tyrannical government, they can start an asymmetric war. How did that go for the British? How is it going for the U.S. military in the middle east?

Keep in mind that both of those scenarios were or are environments where the rebel forces and the citizenry they belong to do have the same level of constitutional protections that U.S. citizens do.

The only way to win against rebels armed with firearms is if they are not motivated enough to take up arms, or if the government takes off the kid gloves and engages in war with little or no regard for collateral damage. Neutral citizens rapidly turn against the government in that scenario.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#245

Post by harshreality » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 8:26 AM UTC

josephcooney wrote: post #228

CamperBob2 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would only be a straw man if arson weren't a good way to kill a lot of people at once. Events have proven otherwise. This particular assclown had the smarts to do a lot more damage than he did. If he couldn't have put his hands on firearms, who's to say what he might have done instead? Turn himself in peacefully? I'm guessing not. He might have gone full Aum Shinrikyo on the theater full of people.

Under a certain set of circumstances almost anything is capable of killing a lot of people (ice build-up on some piece of hydraulic equipment, corrosion, a screw-driver, some inconclusive scientific data). However for killing in a broad number of scenarios the thing that is going to be most effective is a device that is designed for killing. If, as you claim gasoline is, in general, more lethal than guns (and thus in…

Because guns are better for self defense. That is why police need guns. Their task is to investigate crimes and apprehend suspects. It's not to shoot people.

What does it matter how many fewer ways there are to kill a lot of people with a can of gasoline? A mass murderer only needs one way.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#246

Post by jeffdavis » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 8:33 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #241

jeffdavis wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The distinction is that the 4th amendment limits government power to intrude on our lives by forcing them to clear a certain burden of proof before seizing our property and information." I think you're interpreting the 4th Amendment kind of like the 5th Amendment prohibition of depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The part of the 4th Amendment that's interesting to this discuss…

I'm curious as to why you think that suicides would not be affected by gun restrictions. Most suicides are not people who are bound and determined to kill themselves by any means possible. Rather, most suicidal people are extremely troubled in general and may change their mind quickly. Making it more difficult for them to get ahold of the tools with which to end their lives could make a substantial difference. As for…

"I'm curious as to why you think that suicides would not be affected by gun restrictions."

Conjecture. I have no numbers to back it up.

"The impact may not be large, but it does seem to me to be almost certain to be positive, so why not?"

Your stance seems perfectly rational, and based on two things:

(1) The belief that stricter gun laws will save lives; and (2) The right to own firearms has a negligible value.

I am ambivalent about the first one -- I simply don't have detailed numbers to back it up either way. I am skeptical that any savings would be worth the risk that it gets worse (being fairly low already, the potential downside is greater than the potential upside).

The second one I simply disagree with. It's a personal value and there is no real way for one of us to convince the other. I would be interested to know what fraction of Americans share your opinion here.

"But you'd need gun ownership to be far more pervasive than it is now for it to work"

An interesting point. It would be hard to imagine gun ownership being much more pervasive than it is now, but I agree that so few people carry guns that criminals have little to fear from public places.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#247

Post by lmm » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 12:29 PM UTC

harshreality wrote: post #240

lmm wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disingenous. We can't possibly be certain of the impact of any particular policy change, but that doesn't mean we should never change policy; we have to use our best judgement based on the available evidence. Guns are weapons (duh) and killing is their raison d'etre; if they weren't more effective at killing than the alternatives, there would be no reason to ever produce them.

There are times when killing (or threatening to kill) is legally acceptable, and morally acceptable unless you're a pacifist. By trying to restrict or ban firearms to prevent crazy people from carrying out attacks, you prevent everyone else from using, in self defense, what you just stipulated are very effective killing tools. Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in…

>Maybe the population would be statistically better off (less likely to die or be injured in crimes or by accident) without a gun, but that global statistic does not apply to smaller groups or individuals. The relative risk to certain demographics it seems to me would go up.

Seems unlikely to my mind. People talk about equalizing the odds for more vulnerable victims, but if you don't keep a gun constantly on you and loaded then the attacker will have the advantage (even if you're talking young woman home alone vs. large male intruder, I suspect she's safer if neither has a gun than if he's carrying one and she has one in the safe); if you do there's a not insignificant risk of injuring yourself or your own family with it. And I cringe when I hear people talking about "home defense", as if property is worth getting into a shootout over. The overwhelming majority of intruders are burglars who will usually flee if a home turns out to be occupied. Where I live (with gun control laws) burglars don't generally carry guns, the regular police don't either, and everyone's safer for it.

>Even discounting self defense, the problem remains. If someone values hunting or target shooting enough, they won't be willing to give those up to prevent (maybe) some criminals and insane people from getting guns.

Yes, that's a legitimate argument to have.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#248

Post by mikeash » Tue, Jul 24, 2012, 1:43 PM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #246

mikeash wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious as to why you think that suicides would not be affected by gun restrictions. Most suicides are not people who are bound and determined to kill themselves by any means possible. Rather, most suicidal people are extremely troubled in general and may change their mind quickly. Making it more difficult for them to get ahold of the tools with which to end their lives could make a substantial difference. As for…

"I'm curious as to why you think that suicides would not be affected by gun restrictions." Conjecture. I have no numbers to back it up. "The impact may not be large, but it does seem to me to be almost certain to be positive, so why not?" Your stance seems perfectly rational, and based on two things: (1) The belief that stricter gun laws will save lives; and (2) The right to own firearms has a negligible value. I am…

I don't personally know anyone who owns a gun. Gun ownership could be far more pervasive than it is right now. According to random Wikipedia statistics, only about 40% of US households have a gun, and I imagine they're really unevenly distributed. In any case, as you imply, it's really the pervasiveness of carrying that matters, not simple ownership.

Re: Don’t Jump to Conclusions About the Killer

#249

Post by majorlazer » Wed, Jul 25, 2012, 2:48 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #242

cchurch wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point of the second amendment. The second amendment isn't about making sure we get to keep firearms for the sake of having them. The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the right of a free people to protect themselves. This includes self-defense, but is not limited to it. Understand the context in which the Bill of Rights was written. We had just fought a long war to overthrow British ru…

I believe I understand fairly well the original point and intent of the second amendment. I just don't think that original point and intent are useful anymore. In the 18th century, organized private citizens could defeat world powers in open battle, properly organized (and with the world power properly distracted elsewhere). That's no longer the case today, by a wide margin. There will be no repeat of the American Re…

Take a look at the war in Iraq and the Russian war in Afghanistan. I think people nowadays really underestimate the power of a group of armed people that don't want somebody present. The US population is much more heavily armed than any other country in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_co...

Over 250% more guns per capita than Iraq, and it took us over 8 years of fighting in that country to get anywhere.