[Craig328]

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

A car killing somebody is abnormal, whereas a gun killing somebody is just exactly what it was created for.

I posted the stat earlier that showed that item for item, cars are around 4 times as deadly as a gun. A car killing somebody may be abnormal...but it's around 4 times more abnormal for a gun to do so.

Also, a car is deadly because, at its core, it's a design that accelerates a piece of metal (and plastic/wood/glass/rubber/etc) to exceptionally high speeds whose lethality occurs when someone gets in the path of that accelerated mass.

A gun is deadly because, at its core, it's a design that accelerates a piece of metal to exceptionally high speeds whose lethality occurs when someone gets in the path of that accelerated mass.

A gun isn't created for killing. It's created to accelerate a bullet. It's only when you point the gun at something alive, and it's loaded, and your aim is good and they don't avoid the bullet and the bullet strikes a vital spot...that the gun becomes lethal. I own 4 guns and have fired thousands of rounds through them. Not once have they been lethal to a person. That's because it's me, as the operator, has decided not to make the tool a killing tool. I've also been driving for 30 years now. I, as the operator of the vehicle, have also never killed anyone with my vehicle because I've never decided to make the vehicle a killing vehicle.

[jon.kiparsky]

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

A gun isn't created for killing. It's created to accelerate a bullet.

Quoted for sheer facepalmy goodness.

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 16 December 2012 - 07:36 PM

[Atli]

Yea, comparing the mechanics of how the two work means nothing. They were created for two very different purposes. That is something you can't obfuscate away.

Also, the raw numbers of how many cars vs guns cause deaths is also just talking around the point. It is abnormal for a car, given it's intended purpose, to kill. That isn't true for guns. They are intended to kill, even if most people only ever practice that act on lifeless objects.

[Craig328]

jon.kiparsky, on 16 December 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

You assume that all that's needed is more laws, more restrictions and such to "prevent as much as possible the use of guns in the commission of crime".

No, I'm not assuming that at all. I'm assuming that if we're going to have gun control policies, those would be the goals, and that if you're complaining that people making policies don't understand the technical details, then you have some input you'd like to add to make those policies work better.

Now, let's take a look at your pet assumption: laws regulating firearms will fail to work in some cases, therefore they can't ever work, therefore they shouldn't exist.

Do laws "magically" solve everything in the domain they apply to? No, of course not. There are red lights, and there are idiots who drive through them. There are laws against breaking and entering, and still there are somehow burglars. We have laws about all sorts of behavior, and yet, somehow, the courts are still full of people being tried for criminal offenses violating those laws.

Why is it that we never hear brilliant legal theorists like you coming out to abolish all of those laws? Clearly, they aren't working, right?

I'll suggest a reason why we don't hear it: it's because you know your argument is idiotic. We have laws regulating behavior precisely because there are people who would like to indulge in behavior that we find harmful to society as a whole. And the laws provide a framework for regulating that behavior, precisely through a mechanism of legal sanctions. "We won't see lines of criminals turning in their guns, therefore it won't work". Really? Can you really be so stupid that you think this is an argument? Try this one: "Someone stole a magazine from a corner store last week, therefore laws against shoplifting don't and can't work, and therefore we should have no laws against shoplifting". Same argument. You still like it?

Except I'm not arguing about removing laws (nice attempt to switch the impetus of your argument BTW) you're suggesting that we need more laws...as though the laws we currently have against murder with a weapon aren't enough to curb someone killing someone else. You cannot create a fanciful argument in your mind, attribute it to me and then go "tada". I'll respect your adult opinion in a debate but that wasn't one.

So, let's get back to what YOU seemed to think would work:

Quote

Assume there is to be a gun-control policy, at the national level. Assume the goal of that policy is to prevent, as much as possible, human death and injury from handguns, considering both crimes and accidental deaths, and also to prevent as much as possible the use of guns in the commission of crime. Assume that registration and licensing are two tools available to execute this policy, and that restrictions on type and configuration of weapon and type of ammunition is also available as a tool. Other tools may be considered, the policy need not be limited to these devices.

Your suggestion then is that registration, licensing and restricting will reduce the problem. In other words, more laws will reduce the problem (because those sanctions and requirement will only exist through new laws). That's not debatable so if you choose to try and skew that summary, we'll go ahead and part company. And just so we're both clear here: this is YOU suggesting that MORE laws would work rather than some cockeyed, fool argument that somehow equate to ME saying that LESS laws are what's needed (for whatever idiot reason you attribute to your own idea that you'd like to pin on me).

And my entirely reasonable response was: we have laws all over the books that say shooting someone with a gun is against the law. Clearly, THOSE laws aren't curbing the violence enough so we need NEW laws to handle it. And my entirely reasonable question to you (that I noticed you didn't even try to respond to):

Quote

What is it about yet another law do you think will finally capture the respect and attention of all those people who have been breaking the laws all along when they use "guns in the commission of crime"?

I don't appreciate that your style of debate when confronted with the suggestion that it's false, empty or otherwise invalid is to start with this childish crap...but I'm accustomed to it. I'll give it this one more shot to see if you can explain why it is you think that people who are already breaking laws will suddenly and magically respect and obey these (or for that matter ANY) new laws that you think will solve the problem.

jon.kiparsky, on 16 December 2012 - 10:24 PM, said:

Craig328, on 16 December 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

A gun isn't created for killing. It's created to accelerate a bullet.

Quoted for sheer facepalmy goodness.

Do you mind if I throw this back in your face any time you get the idea you're not an idiot?

Not at all. I suspect that given your demonstrated lack of civility and objective reasoning, you're going to see arguments like that as idiocy all the time. I expect that from you. Before you do, explain to me and the literally millions of law abiding gun owners this: if a gun's express function is to kill, have the people that own those 200 million or so guns been using them incorrectly when we shoot them? I mean, that's only like 99.99999% of us...but we must be doing it wrong, right? If I fire my gun and it's not killing someone...I'm clearly doing it wrong.

[creativecoding]

I think a more accurate description of a gun is that it's made to poke holes in things. Whether it be paper, a deer, or a human, that's all it does. It just pokes holes in things. And it does it really, really well.

Which is basically the whole problem. The problem isn't that "guns kill people", the problem is "guns help poke holes in people really, really easily". Now it doesn't matter how responsible you are. What matters is how responsible every other person out there is. When you say "I own 4 guns and I've never harmed anyone with them!", that doesn't matter. Because out there, there's a guy who thinks "hey I own this gun and I can take down 10 people with this clip!". Obviously this guy is not thinking in the right light and they have some issues. But nonetheless, any mentally deranged man can poke holes in people really fast, really easily.

Then people argue "criminals will still get the guns! Only the freedoms of innocent Americans will be taken away!". Well that's not the point either. Criminals will always find ways to kill people and to distribute drugs and do whatever else criminals do, the point is we have to make it harder for them. We can't just throw our hands up and say "well they're gonna do it anyways, might as well let them". If you don't let insane people have guns, there will be less mass murders. If you don't let felons have guns, there will be less crimes committed with guns. If a law was imposed where every one of your guns had to be checked in every couple of years, and absence of doing so would result in say, a $250,000 fine, there will be no people buying weapons and selling them to felons.

Just a thought of mine.

[Craig328]

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 10:33 PM, said:

Yea, comparing the mechanics of how the two work means nothing. They were created for two very different purposes. That is something you can't obfuscate away.

Also, the raw numbers of how many cars vs guns cause deaths is also just talking around the point. It is abnormal for a car, given it's intended purpose, to kill. That isn't true for guns. They are intended to kill, even if most people only ever practice that act on lifeless objects.

Fair enough. So, how about the people that kill with knives? Those devices were MADE to carve flesh. That is their intention (if you're not merrily traipsing about slaughtering society with a butter or bread knife that is). Their entire purpose of existence is to slice through flesh. You do that to a person, that could cause their death in much the same way a bullet could cause death. Let's go ahead and get rid of those, right?

Or...is it a mistake when someone murders someone else when the stab and kill with a knife? The knife, although designed to do exactly what it did (cut things), was misused by the wielder and caused death. Is that why we won't regulate and ban knives?

[creativecoding]

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

[Python_4_President]

Kipper.... Sometimes you're useful, but in topics like these, you're no more useful than I am, no matter how high your head is raised while you type your bullshit.

Further, to those thinking this is a "serious discussion", it's not. I haven't heard a single original idea tossed out in this thread, and only a couple I didn't immediately recognize as being influenced by standard propaganda. I've read a LOT of these threads in my life, so if I was on the history channel right now talking about it, I'd be called a PhD. Expert. Grand Master. and all those other stupid titles you sillies bow to. Here's my expert opinion: This thread is meaningless and will change nothing. Everyone participating in it will be equally as tarded when it is buried in a couple of days as they were before it started. Policies will be made regardless of what you say here, and regardless of what anyone does. The only thing issues like this achieve is polarization of otherwise tight-knit communities, which SHOULD alarm you tards, but it doesn't, because you're just a bunch of useful idiots doing what useful idiots do.

Unfortunately, the truth of the matter is: Without an educated, ethical, moral, and loving people, a free society cannot exist. With the majority of the people in the states being totally tarded, sociopathic parasites, it's not looking good for us.


So I see your future...

You own no weapons. Linux is considered a weapon. You own no property. All your software is leased, and stored in "the cloud". You can only take pictures of what your device will let you take pictures of. You must have a developer license to lease a compiler/interpreter. Even if you did own Linux, you'd first have to crack secure boot to use it, that's a felony by the way.

Essentially, you're all owned. Owned because you're timid. Owned because you're cowardly. Owned because you turned on each other over bullshit you have no control over. Owned because you have no love in your heart. Owned because you say you care about people, but you don't.

Owned because you were afraid of someone else having weapons and using them against you. Owned because you saw your neighbor as the enemy.


FLAMEON!

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

A car killing somebody is abnormal, whereas a gun killing somebody is just exactly what it was created for.

I posted the stat earlier that showed that item for item, cars are around 4 times as deadly as a gun. A car killing somebody may be abnormal...but it's around 4 times more abnormal for a gun to do so.

No matter how many times someone brings this up, it is still a fallacy of false equivalency.

[Craig328]

creativecoding, on 16 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

Except knives are a common tool that we sorta have to use every day... Guns aren't.

So...the functionality isn't the issue but the frequency of use of the object is?

Listen, the truth of the matter is this: this right was especially included in our Constitution for a very good reason. The framers didn't do a bang up job everywhere else but fucked up on this part. The right for people to keep and bear arms exists so that the people don't find themselves on the short end of the arms stick when the government becomes oppressive. The idea was that the people would be as well armed as the government or at least within shouting distance.

Many who pooh pooh that are simply ignorant of how things work. America is not somehow magically immune from economic or political reality. It is the nature of government to always try and regulate more and more and more. Eventually regulation becomes oppressive and eventually that repression passes a breaking point common to the majority and the majority find that the change they want cannot be achieved through the normal processes because either the government has abolished those processes, have made a mockery of them (think the vote in many third world countries where the dictator wins 99.9% of the vote) or that there is no viable alternative to the political options presented to the people.

Without segueing this too far off the topic, if America continues on it's present fiscally irresponsible course, one day the entitlement checks WILL stop because we'll be like Greece: nobody will loan us more money with which to write those checks. When that happens there WILL be a revolt. There's nothing special or magical about America that declares that what's happened in Greece, Egypt, Libya and elsewhere can't happen here. Hell, in 235 years, America has done it twice. In fact, we're overdue. It's the day that all that we take for granted goes to hell (and no, I don't think it will happen anytime soon...but without radical change to the way we're doing things now, it is inevitable) is when you'll be looking at the police outside with their pistols, shotguns and sub machine guns and wishing you weren't so damned overmatched. That's precisely the reason for the 2nd Amendment and it's the reason why, while we truly need guns for long run, that too much restriction of their existence only favors the government when that day comes.

Yes, that sounds apocalyptic but that's why America is a nation of guns. Our issue is not the presence or prevalence of guns...it's a society that glorifies violence and has adopted such a permissive attitude such that even fringe questionable things can't be ostracized and shunned. Should our kids be raised on video games that feature mass murder where body counts qualify for high scores? Should our "popular" music be filled with profanity, disrespect, violence and sex? Should we expect that when Hollywood shows the star in the movie getting shot and then bouncing right back as though the bullet in his shoulder is no more concerning than a minor bruise that our kids won't get desensitized to the violence that guns can do? On its own, each item is minor. Taken as whole, they're a major reason why we have an entire segment of our youth that think that glorifying thug life, gangsters and such is okay and something to emulate.

If you want to reverse gun violence you can't do the wishfully impossible and think you can legislate guns out of existence. THAT is the true idiocy. You cannot have the simple, easy and lazy "solution" because it isn't one. The cause isn't the gun...it's the mentality of the person holding it. And to affect that, you have to decide that while the freedom of expression guaranteed by freedom of speech means that you CAN make TV shows where people use guns all the time and the only people that die are the really bad people at the end of the episode who really deserved to die...but SHOULD you? You CAN make popular music wherein the singer confidently proclaims he'll bust a cap in someone's ass (usually a total stranger) if they offer him even a minor perceived slight...but SHOULD you?

That's the solution...except it's hard and requires diligence and an unwavering commitment to enact it. And this society is nothing if not transitory and unfocused anymore.

farrell2k, on 16 December 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 02:21 AM, said:

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 10:10 PM, said:

A car killing somebody is abnormal, whereas a gun killing somebody is just exactly what it was created for.

I posted the stat earlier that showed that item for item, cars are around 4 times as deadly as a gun. A car killing somebody may be abnormal...but it's around 4 times more abnormal for a gun to do so.

No matter how many times someone brings this up, it is still a fallacy of false equivalency.

Why? Because you said so?

[Atli]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

Fair enough. So, how about the people that kill with knives? Those devices were MADE to carve flesh. That is their intention (if you're not merrily traipsing about slaughtering society with a butter or bread knife that is). Their entire purpose of existence is to slice through flesh. You do that to a person, that could cause their death in much the same way a bullet could cause death. Let's go ahead and get rid of those, right?

Or...is it a mistake when someone murders someone else when the stab and kill with a knife? The knife, although designed to do exactly what it did (cut things), was misused by the wielder and caused death. Is that why we won't regulate and ban knives?

You're right that knifes are meant to carve things. However you are over simplifying their purpose. Yes, they are intended to carve things, but very few knifes are actually intended to be used for fighting. Most are cooking utensils or utilities intended for practical, non-violent purposes. (Think: carpenters, or hobbies like wood carving.)

Much like with the cars, an overwhelming majority of knifes aren't made to kill. Using it to kill is an abnormal act given their intended purpose. Of course, I'll grant you, there are knifes made for fighting and hunting, but those are far less commonly used, and not usually used by the average person.

You also need to take into account just how lethal knifes are compared to guns. If the average person could walk into a classroom and kill 27 people armed only with a knife, then there would be just as much need for regulation for them as the guns. That, however, is not the reality. Knifes are deadly enough in close combat against one or two people, but no way could you kill 27 people with a knife before somebody managed to take you down, or all your remaining victims fled outside your reach. Even kids have the presence of mind to run away from a crazy person killing their friends with a knife.

[jon.kiparsky]

Quote

Your suggestion then is that registration, licensing and restricting will reduce the problem. In other words, more laws will reduce the problem (because those sanctions and requirement will only exist through new laws). That's not debatable so if you choose to try and skew that summary, we'll go ahead and part company. And just so we're both clear here: this is YOU suggesting that MORE laws would work rather than some cockeyed, fool argument that somehow equate to ME saying that LESS laws are what's needed (for whatever idiot reason you attribute to your own idea that you'd like to pin on me).

Craig, I have no idea what arguments you think you're making, or what you think you're responding to, because what you're saying makes no sense whatsoever.

There's so much complete failure in your last few effusions, it's utterly pointless to continue with this. I can't even tell if you're trying to retract your anarchist position or doubling down on it, since you end up doing both in this passage here.

If you ever figure out what it is you think or what you mean to say, and can hold to it for more than one post in a row, maybe we can try this again. For now, I just don't have time for you.

[creativecoding]

I... I don't even know what to say. Are you being serious? Like honestly, do you actually believe what you're saying? First of all you say I'm useless in this thread, just like you, then you say I'm typing bullshit. So... Just like you?

This sorta is a serious discussion, as serious as the Caffeine Lounge gets. As for ideas, there have been many thrown out. As for original ideas, nobody cares. We're not looking to be creative here, we're looking for a solution. As for propaganda? What the hell? What ideas are influenced by propaganda? I seriously hope you don't count the killing of 18 kids as "propaganda".

I'm sure you'd be an expert at the subject, after reading common joe's opinions in a public programming forum. And "bow" to? we "bow" to people who have credentials in areas related to what we're trying to fix? Well damn, we must be tards. You know who we should have consulted all this time? You. Because you're obviously the expert.

And obviously this thread alone will change nothing, but in case you lack the common sense needed to realize it, there are thousands of other boards, chats, public meetings, and a bunch of other gatherings going on where people are discussing the same thing. And obviously if one of them rises up with a good solution, we're going to strive at putting that in place.


As for the US population being tarded, sociopathic parasites - speak for yourself. We've made it this far, we're not going to crumble over this. We are still continuing to get better with more just laws and fair punishment.

I'm not going to even reply to your statement about our futures, I'm afraid your tinfoil hat has fried your brain too far.

Now if you're actually just trolling, I'm sorry, my sarcasm meter doesn't really work on topics about little kids dying.

[jon.kiparsky]

Atli, on 16 December 2012 - 10:37 PM, said:

Even kids have the presence of mind to run away from a crazy person killing their friends with a knife.

Or hell, to hit the crazy person with something while he's distracted with trying to stick a knife into someone who doesn't want a knife stuck into them.

But this is playing into the distraction game. "Why not regulate knives?" And then "You could hit someone with a monkey wrench. Why not regulate monkey wrenches?" In other words, "guns? Talk about guns? No, we'd lose that argument, so let's talk about anything but guns!"

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 16 December 2012 - 08:53 PM

[farrell2k]

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

Why? Because you said so?

Partly, but mostly because they're not equivalent...

Craig328, on 17 December 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

If you want to reverse gun violence you can't do the wishfully impossible and think you can legislate guns out of existence. THAT is the true idiocy.

Great, but as already mentioned by others, there are societies that have pretty much done this. Arguments stand on their own merits, and of your argument is demonstrated to be incorrect only once, it is completely incorrect.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 16 December 2012 - 08:56 PM