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

Thinking the unthinkable

anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 462 posts

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#311

Post by goolulusaurs »

mpweiher wrote: post #115
Firehed wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are we limiting to firearm-related deaths? Within hours of the event in CT, there was another mass attack at a school in China - that one by knife, wounding twenty or so. While guns may have increased the severity of the damage, the lack of a gun did little to stop a similar event from taking place. People that want to do harm to others will find a way, and while there's something to be said for trying to lessen…

Precisely: the attack in china wounded twenty. As of this writing none were killed. The "severity of the damage" is a highly relevant measure, not something to dismiss. "...poor attempt at treating the symptom rather than the disease". Sorry, the symptoms (i.e. lots of people dead) are the problem here. My data pull was primarily for the countries mentioned earlier, I added some others I find relevant because I have…

I believe we were ignoring the severity of the damage because we were attempting to investigate what mental factors went into making people decide to go on killing sprees. How much damage they did ultimately doesn't affect the factors that led them to decided to make the attempt.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#312

Post by smsm42 »

mpweiher wrote: post #64
smsm42 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outlawing - at least if you are not police officer or soldier - is not a straw man at all. Only recently we got a SCOTUS decision that proclaimed US citizens have right to own guns, and that was a close one too. Before that, many places existed where private ownership of guns was essentially banned, and many still exist now, even though with the new decision they will be eventually phased out. However, people that in…

Outlawing is a straw man in that it is not the only option for regulation that would help. These things are not booleans! Countries with much tighter gun regulations than the US don't outlaw guns. They also don't prevent 100% gun violence. They just have less of it. A LOT less. So "Regulation of guns would absolutely help nothing" is just plain false. It would help some , as the numbers clearly state. It would not pr…

The countries that do not have "tighter regulations" (by which gun control proponents usually mean impossibility for a regular person without special connections or exceptional trade to obtain a firearm unless he proves to the state his life is in immediate jeopardy) also have lower violence levels than USA. See Switzerland for example. On the other hand, Norway has pretty strict gun laws, which did not prevent Breivik from committing his crimes.

Can we conclude now that plural of anecdote is not data, or do you have any actual data that shows banning lawful citizens from possessing means of self defense actually prevents violent crime?

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#314

Post by smsm42 »

mpweiher wrote: post #124
tjaerv wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. From the WaPo article: "Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: Stat…

Link to the actual paper?

"Gun death" is a very suspect term. If you equate some fool shooting himself while trying to repeat what Bruce Willis did on TV, actual violent homicide crime and potential rape victim shooting the attacker, and add there policemen shooting suspects (which they can do at smallest provocation) - you get quite a wrong picture. I wonder also how places like Chicago - where they had mafia-initiated gun bans - fared in this paper. I also find it very suspect that poverty level, etc. did not have correlation - do they want to tell me Chicago ghetto and some rich millionaire neighborhood in non-gun-control state have same level of crimes with use of guns? Very hard to believe without seeing the actual authenticated data.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#315

Post by clarky07 »

bambax wrote: post #197
shirederby wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> yet only in the US do kids shoot other kids with automatic weapons. I'm getting very tired of this. If you want to have an informed discussion about gun violence you need to acquire at least a modicum of information about firearms, especially but not limited to different actions, e.g. , single-action, semi-automatic, and automatic. Virginia Tech? 2 semi-automatic pistols. Sandy Hook? 1 semi-automatic rifle and 2 se…

This discussion about "semi-automatic" versus "automatic" weapons actually strengthens the case FOR regulation; automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings. How one can conclude from these facts that less regulation is better, I don't know. All guns are bad, and the more automatic they are, the worse. The NRA says "gu…

There are plenty of mass killings with knives as well. If you completely got rid of semi-auto guns, people would use bolt action guns. If you get rid of those, people will use knives. People have been killing each other since the beginning of time.

You clearly have no knowledge of guns, how they work, how they are currently regulated. The reason automatic weapons aren't used in shootings, is that they cost > 10k.

Yes, it is easy to kill a lot of people with a semi auto handgun. It would also be really easy to kill a lot of people with a bolt action gun. Or a pump action shotgun, and yet no one talks about banning those. For some reason we've become fascinated with "scary assault rifles". You should come out to my farm and shoot a few watermelons and you'll see that it's a lot of fun.

The guns aren't the problem. The crazy guy shooting people is the problem. If the principal and the teachers that are sane had guns with them, or there were some security officers or police with guns, this wouldn't have happened. Would you like to take the guns away from the police too?

If you outlaw all guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. That is a worse option.

Sorry for the rant, I just get really frustrated when people who haven't done any research into the subject make assertions that are simply not accurate.

If we could go back in time 400 years and ban all guns that might be a good idea, at this point the cat is out of the bag though. Please don't take my guns, I'd like to be able to defend myself against the crazy people that already have them.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#317

Post by clarky07 »

wisty wrote: post #303
confusedNRA wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post. "automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings." Could you please extrapolate how semi-automa…

There's no real difference between automatic and semi-auto in terms of how dangerous they are. An experience marksman will use both the same way (as spraying full auto greatly reduces accuracy). An inexperienced marksman with a fully automatic weapon will empty their magazine into the ceiling. Burst fire might be a bit better (it's what the US Army uses), but semi-auto is more lethal than fully auto in the hands of m…

Except that police have been outgunned many many times in history, generally by guns that were/are illegal or nearly impossible to get. Tommy gun vs revolver ring a bell?

I do agree that full auto wouldn't help an inexperienced marksman, he'd likely just waste more ammo. However, an experienced marksman could also easily do just as much damage with a bolt action gun. The key is that it's really easy to kill people with guns if the other people don't have guns. If you outlaw guns, only the criminals will have them.

Fwiw, the military uses select fire guns, i.e. guns that can be both semi auto or full auto. Generally aimed semi is more effective as you waste less (running out of ammo is really really bad) but there are times when full out is good for things like providing cover.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#318

Post by clarky07 »

tsycho wrote: post #220
confusedNRA wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't even tell the difference between a semi automatic weapon and a fully automatic weapon. Then you make a reply, glossing over the fact you haven't a clue what you are talking about, to then make another asinine post. "automatic weapons are regulated => they're not used in mass-killings; semi-automatic weapons are not regulated => they are used in mass-killings." Could you please extrapolate how semi-automa…

I think bambax's main point is summed up by - "The NRA says "guns don't kill people, people do" but the truth is that guns help people who want to kill people, kill more people." Do you have any real points to counter that, rather than just pointing out irrelevant technicalities or calling him names? And no, it doesn't change bambax's real point at all whether its a automatic or a semi-automatic.

Yes, guns also help people to defend themselves. For every mass shooting with a guns I can give you twenty articles about someone defending themselves and saving their lives and others with the use of a gun.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#319

Post by clarky07 »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #290
InclinedPlane wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you comment on something as serious as this you should have your facts straight. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, and no automatic weapon has ever been used in a school shooting to my knowledge.

I understand what you're saying but I think you're being a little too pedantic. Automatic, semi-automatic, whatever. Within a minute, one can fire many, many rounds with only a few pounds of pressure.

That is also true of a revolver, or a bolt, lever, or pump action gun. The point is that the above poster has no idea what he is talking about, and as such his opinion on the matter isn't as relevant as it would be if he actually educated himself on the subject.

Re: Thinking the unthinkable

#320

Post by jacquesm »

nmridul wrote: post #180
InclinedPlane wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you comment on something as serious as this you should have your facts straight. Automatic weapons are highly regulated in the US, and no automatic weapon has ever been used in a school shooting to my knowledge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASjfzG4mpyU If you watch that video, you will understand how scary the situation is. If someone could easily get hold of such things, I'm not sure how they react on a moment of anger...

Mass murder is pretty cheap it seems.
Post reply on HN