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

Katie's New Face

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 337 posts

Re: Katie's New Face

#311

Post by sDlEzAtyoNAz »

DanBC wrote: post #297
sDlEzAtyoNAz wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Against what? In the US, that would be against the individuals who collectively commit millions of violent crimes per year (surveys indicate this number easily exceeds 5 million per year).

The US is awash with guns. There are multiple guns for every US citizens. Despite all these guns the US, as you say, is also a very violent crime ridden country. Can you see how the guns aren't working?

>Can you see how the guns aren't working?

I can see that they're not an automatic cure-all for violence. There are parts of the US with extremely high gun ownership rates, and virtually no crime. And there are parts of the US with high gun ownership rates and high levels of crime. The fact is that there are many people in this world with violent tendencies. There always have been. Their violent tendencies are not a consequence of guns being around.

However, guns are a very effective tool for defending one's self and one's family against such people.

Re: Katie's New Face

#312

Post by SpikeDad »

danso wrote: post #241
SpikeDad wrote: post #95

That was a difficult article (pictures actually) to read. It shows (to me at least) how intimately our humanity is linked to a face that passes our own internal pattern matching heuristics. I'm not proud to admit my initial thought was not how difficult life must be for her but rather how deformed her face was. But then I was proud that my (our) inherent human intelligence and morality was able to put that thought as…

> It shows (to me at least) how intimately our humanity is linked to a face that passes our own internal pattern matching heuristics. Well said. Even as our culture purportedly idealizes the value of a person's inner being rather than appearances, one of the uncomfortable things this story drove home to me is -- I can't say it better than you have: "how intimately our humanity is linked to a face". The image used in…

> Well said. Even as our culture purportedly idealizes the value of a person's inner being rather than appearances, one of the uncomfortable things this story drove home to me is -- I can't say it better than you have: "how intimately our humanity is linked to a face".

Thanks. I was thinking if this is one reason why facial recognition is so anathema to most people (as is to me). Not just because it's a violation of our privacy but it uses the very feature (our face) which as I said in so deeply part of being a human as a weapon against us.

Re: Katie's New Face

#313

Post by zaarn »

alex_young wrote: post #290
zaarn wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years in which the US was not at war: - 1796 and 1797 - 1807, 1808 and 1809 - 1826 - 1828, 1829 and 1830 - 1897 - 1935, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1939 and 1940 - 1976, 1977 and 1978 - 1997 - 2000 This list counts major wars until 2016. Some of the wars led in this time were of defensive nature. This list does not account for covert operations and other, similar acts that might be considered war.

Since 1955: The Korean war was never ended, and there was an active and continued military engagement with daily exchanges in Iraq from 1991 through 2003. The mainland United States has not been attacked as a part of a military operation in the modern era, so the defensive claim is questionable.

I pulled the list from the internet, it was probably incomplete. I sadly can't amend it anymore. The defensive claim is from the source I used.

Re: Katie's New Face

#314

Post by coryfklein »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #261
IshKebab wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah especially because it was a result of a suicide attempt in the first place. If you try to kill yourself after your boyfriend cheats on you, how do you not after this? Also, yet another reason why America's gun laws are stupid. She wouldn't have shot herself in England.

She might've just overdosed on something or jumped off a bridge in England. You don't need a gun to commit suicide. Also the US has gun laws and gun owners organizations, they all agree that at home, you should store your guns in a locked container.

> they all agree that at home, you should store your guns in a locked container

And how is that working for them?

Re: Katie's New Face

#315

Post by tempestn »

lambdadmitry wrote: post #276
tempestn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0] From that link: > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 20…

Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful". The mindset of dehumanizing perpetrators is disgusting, they are still people and we should strive to minimize their injuries, too, if possible (there are plenty of nonlethal means like tazers and pepperspray).

Not sure I agree with this either. I expect the most likely circumstance would be that the defender shows the weapon and the aggressor runs away. It's possible that it results in more gun deaths or injuries when you count both attackers and defenders, but not certain. IMO ctric isn't wrong that, as with anything, you need to study both harms and benefits and make educated decisions; I just had to point out that his initial interpretation of the study results was misleading.

I personally don't own a gun (I'm also in Canada where things are a bit different) but I have to admit that if someone broke into my house I would prefer to have one than not. That doesn't mean that unrestricted gun ownership is a net good though, of course.

Fortunately it appears we can all agree that it is critical gun owners store and secure their guns properly. In my opinion that would be a good place for new laws to focus: for example you could be required to demonstrate that you have a secure storage location and proper training before you could be licensed to own a firearm.

Re: Katie's New Face

#316

Post by nhfoiwehf »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #186
nhfoiwehf wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a problem of their own creation... The DoD didn't invent war. It doesn't declare war. It just fights wars. Who sends our young people to be blown up? Our elected leadership. So we all made this problem.

Does no one at any level of the military (excepting perhaps the Commander-in-Chief) bear any responsibility for the horrors of war? I would have hoped that the Nuremberg trials had put an end to that line of thinking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders

> Does no one at any level of the military (excepting perhaps the Commander-in-Chief) bear any responsibility for the horrors of war?

Yes, responsibility for the horrors of war. But not the decision to declare war.

Re: Katie's New Face

#317

Post by DanBC »

tempestn wrote: post #315
lambdadmitry wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful". The mindset of dehumanizing perpetrators is disgusting, they are still people and we should strive to minimize their injuries, too, if possible (there are plenty of nonlethal means like tazers and pepperspray).

Not sure I agree with this either. I expect the most likely circumstance would be that the defender shows the weapon and the aggressor runs away. It's possible that it results in more gun deaths or injuries when you count both attackers and defenders, but not certain. IMO ctric isn't wrong that, as with anything, you need to study both harms and benefits and make educated decisions; I just had to point out that his i…

> but I have to admit that if someone broke into my house I would prefer to have one than not.

Someone actually has broken into my home, when I was there, and I am profoundly grateful that I, and probably the burglar, didn't have a gun available.

It didn't even cross my mind to arm myself with a weapon. I offered him a cup of tea. I told him I had nothing of value in the flat, and that it'd be safer for him to come down from the loft and leave by the front door than to climb down the scaffolding of the building next door (which is how he got in). He declined the tea, and decided to leave via the scaffolding. I called the police, and they found him in the garden of the house next door. He pulled a beer bottle on them, they subdued and arrested him.

Guns and weapons would have made this mildly stressful situation hugely worse.

Re: Katie's New Face

#318

Post by torstenvl »

lambdadmitry wrote: post #276
tempestn wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the CDC estimates between 500,000 and 3,000,000 lives are saved in any given year [0] From that link: > Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 20…

Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful". The mindset of dehumanizing perpetrators is disgusting, they are still people and we should strive to minimize their injuries, too, if possible (there are plenty of nonlethal means like tazers and pepperspray).

> Moreover, "firearms used in self defense" practically mean more dead people even if the defense was "successful".

You appear to be assuming that using a firearm in self-defense means killing in self-defense. If that is your position (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting you), I am not convinced you are correct. Many uses of firearms in self-defense are brandishing only; and even if a firearm is discharged in self-defense, it is not a given that it kills the original aggressor.

Re: Katie's New Face

#319

Post by labbyz »

philjohn wrote: post #273
labbyz wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Make it opt-in. Then you give control away to the government deliberately. All it takes is a simple checkbox to say you want to be a part of it. It should be easier to receive mailing list spam, than it is to sign over your body, but opt-out makes it the other way around. Forgetting (or being unwilling to be forced) to sign a checkbox does not make one a willing participant, but an unwitting one. I understand this sa…

It's opt-in now, and easy to opt in, yet despite many people saying they support it, few opt in. Hence changing it to opt out - don't want to donate organs? Fine - opt out.

> It's opt-in now, and easy to opt in, yet despite many people saying they support it, few opt in.

Let's take this as a fact. You don't solve the problem by flipping this around, because then you only solve for social gain. You just make it worse for the individual:

> It's opt-out now, and easy to opt out, yet despite many people saying they don't support it, few opt out.

Now you have people not supporting (or wanting to remain blissfully unaware of) donorship, registered as donors. You bank on apathy and ignorance, because a simple and deliberate opt-in was not convincing enough, and turned supporters for or against, but still, for whatever reason, on the fence, into fair gain.

Having your cake and eating it: If it is very easy to go through opt-in process, yet there are problems with registering a deliberate choice, then it will also be very easy to go through opt-out process, but there will be the same problems with registering a deliberate choice. The ease cancels out, and the problems remain. But taking away a human right, until registered protest, is far worse than a deliberate opting out of it.

Re: Katie's New Face

#320

Post by titusjohnson »

ars wrote: post #228
bodas wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bodies are a kind of use it or lose it deal. If you are buried, everything except your bones and teeth will be eaten. Organ donation is the least of your sovereignty problems.

The problem people have with organ donation is that it requires the donor to still be alive, but without brain activity, when they donate. So it boils down to what do you consider death?

Do you have any links regarding the need to be alive? My impression is this is only true for some transplant types.
Post reply on HN