Mrebo

That is the gist of it 😛

It’s more profound than one might think at first glance. The idea that the rules of the physical universe bend toward a certain result is compelling. We also might consider it in terms of maximalization: where matter arranges itself on the most fundamental level in order to create the most complex and varied existence possible. I think that sounds more sensible than the idea that stuff just is the way it is because.

Pitiable story of 21 year old neo-Nazi and how his mother deals with it.

yhwx said:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/ajit-pai-nra-cpac-award/index.html

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission was awarded a handmade rifle by the National Rifle Association Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Ajit Pai, the FCC’s chairman who oversaw the highly controversial repeal of the commission’s net neutrality rules last year, was awarded the rifle, along with the NRA’s “Charlton Heston Courage Under Fire Award,” for his efforts last year during the repeal.

The award came as a surprise to Pai, who was expecting to give a speech unrelated to the NRA. The rifle is awarded “when someone has stood up under pressure with grace and dignity and principled discipline,” said Carolyn Meadows, the second vice-president of the NRA.

Agency heads should stay away from these political events. It increases the perception they are partisan - a problem the FCC has had on the net neutrality issue. Now the NRA steps in and figuratively shoots the guy in the foot.

yhwx said:

Then I don’t really get your point. If suicides are most gun deaths, then shouldn’t these statistics apply to gun deaths too? I don’t just want a solution for mass shootings. We should want one for other gun problems too.

That is a question. That’s why I pointed out that states with assault weapon bans appear to highly correlate to lower gun deaths and yet I don’t think many suicides (which comprise most gun deaths) are committed with assault weapons. So…maybe something else is going on with these numbers.

And I question whether many people who commit suicide by firearm will choose to live if they don’t have a gun to kill themselves with. That sounds very doubtful to me.

yhwx said:

Firstly, you have misread the chart. It’s showing the correlation between gun deaths in general and certain things, not suicide.

Secondly, I did not misread the chart. I neglected to restate that suicides comprise most gun deaths. I should have stated that and put the McCain quip at the end. Sorry for the confusion.

Frink makes a point. 15-Love

I think that chart is pretty useless. It is looking at state level numbers. So x% of the population has been identified and reported as mentally ill. What percentage of non-suicide shooters are mentally ill? What percentage of mass shooters are mentally ill? Are they being identified?

Whether a mental health policy would help depends on how/if it is targeted.

Although the suicide/McCain voters thing makes sense, amirite?

I don’t imagine a lot of people are committing suicide with semiautomatic weapons so maybe the states with assault weapon bans have a low suicide rate for other reasons, which accounts for measured correlation.

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh, I appreciate what you’re saying. And I am not advocating silence (as CatBus suggests) but following page-after-page of mostly pro-gun control statements, I think the other solutions deserve some attention.

It just seems to me that the “other solutions” are like putting a bandage on a severed limb before trying a tourniquet.

Security at schools, mental health interventions, and proactive action by law enforcement (the latter two which may limit access to guns) seems like a way stop school shootings in an acceptable way starting now. No constitutional problems and no partisan resistance. Combine those with gun control measures you might think modest but are feasible. I really disagree that it would just be a bandaid.

Puggo - Jar Jar’s Yoda said:

Some people only want to ban certain guns or restrict guns a bit more.

But, because SOME people want to ban ALL guns, we therefore shouldn’t ban any guns or further regulate gun ownership at all?

No.

ChainsawAsh, I appreciate what you’re saying. And I am not advocating silence (as CatBus suggests) but following page-after-page of mostly pro-gun control statements, I think the other solutions deserve some attention. The failings I mentioned could be addressed by legislation but it takes enormous work to get the votes to address those things, whether it is increased security at every school in the country, mental health intervention, or cooperation between law enforcement and schools/health professionals. If we use this moment (and every other) to mostly or entirely pontificate about guns (including the bad idea from pro-gun people saying we should have armed teachers), then I’m afraid nothing will be done. I’ve previously suggested several gun control measures I favor. I’m worried about the dysfunction in our society that prevents addressing problems in terms beyond our pet issues.

aka SNAFU

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?

They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.

But if he hadn’t had a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. We would be talking about Trump’s claim that he is, in fact, one-fourth Chinese.

Setting aside the practicality of gun bans, if he didn’t have a rifle, I don’t see why he wouldn’t use a handgun, and if not a handgun, a knife or an explosive device. And then maybe we could talk about how we could stop him from killing whatever number of people he killed. Would it be only 5 dead children? Maybe. We can only guess. There’s a sleight of hand going on here and it’s not by me. If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun you’re ignoring all those facts, strangely because they’re not controversial.

Of course he had the desire to kill because of all these factors — where did I ever doubt that? Making the process more efficient at catching those at risk is part of the guns debate.

Didn’t mean to respond to your post.

But restricting access to guns makes sense.

The total gun ban idea is unrealistic and wrongheaded.

And for the millionth time, a total gun ban is not the objective. Go back and look at the Australian law posted a couple pages back - that’s the ideal objective we should be working toward IMO.

Depends who you talk to in this thread. Some say ban semiautomatic rifles, some say handguns too. Some say it’s never going to happen but we totally got to do it.

As I’ve expressed in previous pages, some kind of additional gun regulations can be a good idea. I don’t think the Australia law is permitted here under our Constitution, even beyond the 2nd Amendment, but would have to study that further. I think the obsession with banning guns is distracting from taking other concrete steps to end mass shootings at schools.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun

Add the word “seventeen” and you’re on to something. Harm reduction is the concept behind the whole thing. The only one actually fighting against evil is Batman.

Maybe you misunderstood, I will rephrase: If you think he was only able to kill people because he had a gun…

As for harm reduction, a gun ban is unrealistic and sacrifices basic liberties (whether you think those liberties are outmoded or rarely needed). It’s like the ‘free range’ parenting topic, where charging parents with negligence is about harm reduction.

What if we could put a virtual end to school shootings without a gun ban? Do we even want to try that?

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?

They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.

But if he hadn’t had a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. We would be talking about Trump’s claim that he is, in fact, one-fourth Chinese.

Setting aside the practicality of gun bans, if he didn’t have a rifle, I don’t see why he wouldn’t use a handgun, and if not a handgun, a knife or an explosive device. And then maybe we could talk about how we could stop him from killing whatever number of people he killed. Would it be only 5 dead children? Maybe. We can only guess. There’s a sleight of hand going on here and it’s not by me. If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun you’re ignoring all those facts, strangely because they’re not controversial.

Of course he had the desire to kill because of all these factors — where did I ever doubt that? Making the process more efficient at catching those at risk is part of the guns debate.

Didn’t mean to respond to your post.

But restricting access to guns makes sense.

The total gun ban idea is unrealistic and wrongheaded.

yhwx said:

Mrebo said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?

They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.

But if he hadn’t had a gun, we wouldn’t be talking about this right now. We would be talking about Trump’s claim that he is, in fact, one-fourth Chinese.

Setting aside the practicality of gun bans, if he didn’t have a rifle, I don’t see why he wouldn’t use a handgun, and if not a handgun, a knife or an explosive device. And then maybe we could talk about how we could stop him from killing whatever number of people he killed. Would it be only 5 dead children? Maybe. We can only guess. There’s a sleight of hand going on here and it’s not by me. If you think this kid only killed people because he had a gun you’re ignoring all those facts, strangely because they’re not controversial.

On one of my many dubiously open tabs I’ve had something I’ve wanted to share. Thought provoking for theists and non-theists about the nature of consciousness and design in the universe (crossing my fingers I copied the right url):

https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-explains-why-the-universe-is-fine-tuned-for-life

TV’s Frink said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Yes you’re right, I want to get rid of guns and I insist that we stop there.

Yes, let’s get past that gate first!

ChainsawAsh said:

Mrebo said:

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

Okay, why don’t you start? What sort of failings?

They’ve been in the news and I’ve mentioned them previously in the thread. But there were the calls to the FBI, including a post by Cruz that he wanted to be a “professional school shooter.” He was expelled from school because he had bullets in his backpack. The family he lived with knew he was deeply troubled, knew he had guns (but apparently not how many and where). Kids at school were afraid of him. People knew he tortured and killed animals. Numerous police and social service visits to the house with no actions taken. The deputy working at the school that day stayed outside when the shooting was going on.

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I guess that Hawaii is the exception that proves the rule.

Actually there were some other statistics a while back that used gun ownership rates per household rather than per adult and Hawaii ranked pretty low on that one. I’m not exactly sure how they calculated household though, so that would be something to look into. Part of the weirdness about gun stats is that the rate of gun ownership is trending downward at the same time the number of guns is going up, because while fewer people have guns, those that have them have more of them.

Fake Math!

.

I think we should all be pleased we’re talking about gun control (mostly large scale banning of guns) exclusively, while some are)admitting it’s almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Meanwhile we ignore the enormous numerous failings that could have been avoided to prevent the deaths here and at other schools. Round of applause!

ywho?

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.

I think we’re talking past each other hear.

So soon?

Buying a gun increases your risk of danger more than it increases your safety.

You’re just repeating your conclusion.

2. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.

That’s not true at all. Burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s guns in the house. By buying the gun, you’re increasing the risk of being a crime victim.

I think burglars are more likely to steal from houses if they know there’s anything of value. I don’t know where you are divining the stat about burglars being in particular more likely to burgle if they know there’s a gun, but I’ll continue to assume you are not offering valid generalizations of stats.

In any event, that does not speak to what would happen when dangerous people (not fearing possibility of self-defense with a firearm) do enter your house - for your belongings, or to hurt someone, their spouse, or child. Then it would just be another unfortunate statistic.

3. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.

That is true. And some people endanger their loved ones more than others. On average, the rate is just over 40x different, that’s all.

Some people are going to kill people (including themselves) with or without guns.

4. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones.

Suicides, accidents, murders, burglars who break into your house to steal your guns and kill you when you interrupt them.

I imagine the number of burglars who break into your house, steal your guns, and shoot you with them is a very low number. And indicates certain precautions should be taken, not that you shouldn’t have a gun to defend yourself…from the person breaking into your house with a willingness to kill.

We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

As long as you recognize that the need for self-defense is inextricably tied to a much stronger need to pretend you’re not actually endangering the lives of your loved ones, we’re in agreement.

In light of the foregoing responses, I still don’t buy the attempt at turning this into a simple math problem.

CatBus said:

Mrebo said:

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?

When you buy a gun for self-defense (let’s say exclusively for self-defense, just to avoid overlapping justifications), here is your array of outcomes over the lifetime of the ownership of the weapon:

1. The gun will never serve a useful purpose over its entire lifetime.
2. The gun will be used in self-defense.
3. The gun will be used against you or someone you love.

Now, #1 is the far-and-away most likely scenario, well over 99% probability. #2 is an extremely unlikely scenario that serves as the justification. #3 is another extremely unlikely scenario that counters the justification. However, #3 is over 40x more likely to happen than #2. This is why #2 can be so easily dismissed as a fantasy scenario that actually endangers the families of the people who believe it.

The setup is flawed.

1. The existence of instances of self defense are the exceptions that prove the rule.
2. Relatedly, if law abiding citizens were disarmed they would likely be at greater risk of violence.
3. Some people are at greater risk of needing self defense than others.
4. I imagine most of #3 are suicides. Followed by murders of supposed loved ones. We can speculate on the effect there if handguns were banned, but doesnt negate a need for self defense.

Everybody thinks they’re calling spades around here. And everybody thinks they’re roses. It obviously wasn’t just about Frink not being friendly enough - it was the piling on of personal criticisms by multiple people, including who should have known better. I agree with Frink he doesn’t need to change for anyone. ender would have had to accept that.

Posting now that Frink pledged not to discuss further 😏

🙊🌹♠️

CatBus said:

TV’s Frink said:

I’ll admit I only skimmed a bit but I’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15.

Well, here’s how I’ve seen the argument go in the past. First off, they’d say the “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term invented by the anti-gun crowd to make guns seem scary and dangerous. And they’re half right on that front. The “assault weapon” terminology is a meaningless term designed to make guns seem scary and dangerous, but it was invented by the gun industry as a way of selling more guns because “scary and dangerous” makes them more appealing to certain target audiences.

So, rather than defining guns you can’t buy based on meaningless marketing copy, you come up with arguments for guns you can buy, and that’s activity-based. There’s some categories:

1. Hunting. These days, this is mostly a form of entertainment, but this is still utilitarian for a handful of people.
2. Varmints. Seriously, coyotes suck, and guns are a pretty effective way to keep them at bay.
3. Fantasy fulfillment. This is where your “protection from government”, and “protecting your family” come in. None of this is real, but if you close your eyes and wish real hard, you become fantasy Dirty Harry.
4. Culture/heirlooms. Dad gave me this gun, it’s been in my family since great grandpa James used it to rob a train. It has intense personal value.

So, going at the list from easy to hard.

#4 is easy. Heirlooms have no need to be functional. Fill it with epoxy and you can keep your family heirloom gun forever.
#3 is easy too. Protecting your family in a fantasy world is not worth endangering your family in the real world. If you fill your gun with epoxy, it still works just as well in your fantasies and doesn’t endanger your family anymore.
#1 is mostly easy. For the entertainment angle, there’s a big arcade cabinet version of Big Buck Hunter down at the bowling alley. You’ll probably do better at this version anyway.

So we’re down to utility hunting and varmints. You don’t need an AR-15 for either of these activities (although it’s common for both). For these activities, you do not need semiauto, you do not need concealable, you do not need lightweight, you do not need large clips, you do not need rapid reload. Frankly, bow-hunters will tell you you don’t even need a gun, but bow-hunters are crazy so we don’t listen to them. An old-west-style Winchester rifle works fine for both. You have to cock it every time because it’s not semiauto. You need to stop and reload it frequently. It’s not particularly fun to shoot. Luckily none of this matters for those utilitarian purposes. Could one still be used in a crime? Absolutely. A less common, less deadly crime. And if it’s still too deadly, we can still weigh the right to varmint control against the right to remain breathing and decide which one we, as a society, value more.

So while you’ve still not heard a single argument why a civilian should be able to buy an assault weapon like an AR-15, I haven’t heard a credible argument why a civilian should be able to buy a handgun.

Re handguns, why isn’t the argument for self defense credible in your eyes?