RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other.

RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 11:43:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Can someone Please explain to me how laws threatening to put people in jail for owning or misusing firearms alters decisions by someone planning to commit suicide at the conclusion of their murder spree? Well, I can think of one way in which this could happen. The first thing to get to grips with is that the line 'where there's a will, there's a way' - beloved of those who advance the view that, e.g., 'if he couldn't have done it with a gun, he'd have done it with a bomb' - doesn't characterise the bulk of what people do. What does characterise most of what humans do is actually the opposite. That is, 'Where there's a way, there's a will'. For instance, I don't have a burning, day-to-day desire to visit Mars because I don't have the means to get there. If I did have the means, it'd no longer be a fantasy, it'd be a realistic desire. Means dictate ends. I might have fantasised, once, about killing my headmaster. But without a serious means of doing that, the fantasy would never have become a real world plan. You want a more apt example: go to a tool shop. Look at a power tool you've never seen before and find out what it does. Ever seen a 12 inch angle grinder? With one of those, you can literally cut a hole in a brick wall and put in a window. Now, do you have a new desire for a window in a particular wall in your house - where you'd never had that desire before? This is what tools can do. Tools are means, and means can create ends.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 11:48:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Can someone Please explain to me how laws threatening to put people in jail for owning or misusing firearms alters decisions by someone planning to commit suicide at the conclusion of their murder spree? Well, I can think of one way in which this could happen. The first thing to get to grips with is that the line 'where there's a will, there's a way' - beloved of those who advance the view that, e.g., 'if he couldn't have done it with a gun, he'd have done it with a bomb' - doesn't characterise the bulk of what people do. What does characterise most of what humans do is actually the opposite. That is, 'Where there's a way, there's a will'. For instance, I don't have a burning, day-to-day desire to visit Mars because I don't have the means to get there. If I did have the means, it'd no longer be a fantasy, it'd be a realistic desire. Means dictate ends. I might have fantasised, once, about killing my headmaster. But without a serious means of doing that, the fantasy would never have become a real world plan. You want a more apt example: go to a tool shop. Look at a power tool you've never seen before and find out what it does. Ever seen a 12 inch angle grinder? With one of those, you can literally cut a hole in a brick wall and put in a window. Now, do you have a new desire for a window in a particular wall in your house - where you'd never had that desire before? This is what tools can do. Tools are means, and means can create ends. Sorry, your analysis is specious and disconnected to the 21st century. We have a multitude of returning veterans with an amazing assortment of PTSD who are far more than just familiar with IEDs. Which are fast becoming the choice of political dissidents world wide. I'd rather people with semi-auto small caliber weapons be the present evil than what is happening in Iraq in every province almost daily. We already had Oklahoma City, the tech is out there everywhere. Our present plague likely has strong roots in the mythical 'cowboy' culture (a creation of Eastern novelists) and it's descendants, to the present glut of first-person shooter games and the hero worship of ultra violent action movie stars.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 11:52:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Sorry, your analysis is specious and disconnected to the 21st century. It's an analysis that draws from social theories, as well as from psychology. It's also driven the policy of gun prohibition in the UK since World War 1. It worked then, and it still works. American society can be different to what it is today. That can happen without the breaking of basic laws of physics.

slvemike4u -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 11:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Where does anyone with reading ability get the idea passing a law fixes a problem with human nature? The whole of human history says different. Unless I'm wrong, shooting children is already against the law? There are real tragedies in life. Few fix. Insane people, cancer, the many political bullies about on the planet, and so on. What matters is what we can do CONSTRUCTIVELY that helps matters. The focus on laws in no way changes the disturbed people who take innocent lives for often incomprehensible reasons. What can we actually do about people who think mass killing is any sort of solution to their immediate problems?? Having an entertainment industry that Doesn't romanticize extreme violence might be a good step? But expecting restraint and responsibility in any profit driven industry is laughable. Laws, like police, are reactive measures and do little or nothing to prevent criminal or insane actions, at best they change the tools used. The real solutions are much harder than one more feel good and ultimately useless law added to the current list of laws that aren't stopping insanity and tragedy. When ALL guns are forbidden and you still see news footage of gun death, what next? If $100,000,000,000 (BILLION!) of illegal drugs are crossing our borders yearly (What the govt admits to), how is any law or laws going to prevent people obtaining firearms? And what depth of police intrusion into our homes and lives is necessary to even actually lower the amount of gun ownership now in the country? My experience and the world wide issues with overzealous and unrestrained police make the current levels of mass violence in the USA in no way an excuse to risk losing All our freedoms in exchange for a false illusion of safety. Than get rid of that pesky law against rape....wtf it still happens so obviously it is next to useless ,right ?

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:10:08 PM)
quote: Can someone Please explain to me how laws threatening to put people in jail for owning or misusing firearms alters decisions by someone planning to commit suicide at the conclusion of their murder spree? All you can do in that instance is limit access. Not much different than people who abuse prescription drugs. They used to be easy to get, all you needed was a prescription. As long as you had one, you could get all you wanted. Now, Doctor shopping is against the law in some states, it can even be a felony. Doctors can also be charged with over prescribing certain medications and lose their licenses and go to prison. Pharmacies require signatures and wont refill until the prescription allows them too. Some narcotics arent allowed refills on prescriptions. That doesnt mean if you need the meds, you cant get them. But access if now limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act When there is an obvious problem with access, certain steps should be taken to limit that access.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:14:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I agree with most of what you wrote. My brain is fried after having been at this most of the day. Forgive me, I will take a fresh look tomorrow. No worries. Sleep well and wake, tazzygirl. quote: I never once said we should ban them. You didn't call it that, true. But banning private possession of automatics was certainly implied. For practical purposes, that's a ban, with the upshot that people can still go somewhere to enjoy using the banned items, if they pay for it. Which is fair enough, I suppose. quote: I just truly do not see a need to have a gun around that shoots off a hundred rounds in x amount of seconds simply because an owner resents being put out of his way over wanting to keep citizens safe. I truly don't see a need to see a need. I see a need to see a need to restrict as a consequence of the best solution to an identified problem that needs to be solved. And what we need to do, we generally do, if doing it is better than the alternatives. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:16:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen What the fuck do you need with all of that? What does anyone need with anything, really? I have a nice statue of King Leonidas. I don't need it for anything. Is that a requirement? IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:17:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer As far as I'm concerned, the duty of those in a community who are not overwhelmed by grief is to find practical solutions. Or to do something meaningful, in any case. That may be research for solutions, documenting the events for posterity, or anything else. quote: The death of Princess Diana here in the UK marked a watershed, though: at the point, it became abundantly clear that outpouring of emotions had ceased to be just a natural and unavoidable thing that we should all put up with, it was now the required thing to do; more than that, it was the most 'admirably human' thing to do. This transition happened in Norway, as well, also during peacetime, if memory serves. It was a major obstacle to people getting anything useful done last year, and served as licence for everyone to ditch a lot of standards. quote: This tragedy had its political causes; therefore it's going to require political solutions. If it's become somehow now 'tasteless' in this or that culture to seek out such solutions - then I'm more than happy to be considered 'tasteless'. I'm "tasteless" too. Should we start a club? [:D] IWYW, — Aswad.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:18:29 PM)
quote: No worries. Sleep well and wake, tazzygirl. I slept extremely well, thank you. quote: You didn't call it that, true. But banning private possession of automatics was certainly implied. For practical purposes, that's a ban, with the upshot that people can still go somewhere to enjoy using the banned items, if they pay for it. Which is fair enough, I suppose. Limiting the access of those guns. They are still privately owned. They can still be sold by the owner. They can still be used by the owner. They can still be shown off by the owner. The only thing that would change would be where they are kept. quote: I see a need to see a need to restrict as a consequence of the best solution to an identified problem that needs to be solved. There is more than one problem. Restricting access would correct more than one problem.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:19:21 PM)
Aswad, Sorry to butt in here, but I'm a bit lost with the various threads on this Connecticut issue. Was it on this thread, or one of the others, that someone was talking about 'slave mentalilties' in relation to those who wanted to restrict gun usage, or some other species of half-baked quasi-Nietzschian old bollocks? Cheers for the help if you can provide such. [:)]

Powergamz1 -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:20:03 PM)
Dictate (v) to require or determine necessarily Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary 'Means dictates ends' in the manner you've described it (that the tens of thousands of suicides each year were forced to form the intent to kill themselves by the devices at hand) is an irrational superstition that goes against any form of science, including social or medical science. quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 Sorry, your analysis is specious and disconnected to the 21st century. It's an analysis that draws from social theories, as well as from psychology. It's also driven the policy of gun prohibition in the UK since World War 1. It worked then, and it still works. American society can be different to what it is today. That can happen without the breaking of basic laws of physics.

VideoAdminChi -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:20:34 PM)
Peon - I can help - see http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4326159 quote: ORIGINAL: VideoAdminChi FR, I have removed personal attacks, posts which made other posters the topic, and posts which violated the Forum Guidelines: http://www.collarchat.com/m_72/tm.htm This isn't a place to insult the kinks, preferences, lifestyles, etc. of others. If you don't like what another person enjoys, rest assured that there are plenty of others out there that probably don't like your activities either. Furthermore, baiting, harassment and personal attacks will not be tolerated. This thread has reached the maximum amount of personal attacks and will remain locked. VideoAdminChi

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:20:40 PM)
Someone who is intent upon killing themselves will always find a way. This has been but a suggestion of limiting access to one of the ways that can cause the most damage.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:24:34 PM)
Oh - whoopsy-daisy. Point taken, Chi. [:)]

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:25:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Limiting the access of those guns. They are still privately owned. They can still be sold by the owner. They can still be used by the owner. They can still be shown off by the owner. The only thing that would change would be where they are kept. In other words, possession. For you, having the state define it as owned may be meaningful. For me, it's not. It's tidier to simply acknowledge that it's a ban, accompanied by companies being allowed to provide a service involving something citizens can't own, and less objectionable, too. For one thing, then those companies have to make the investment, instead of citizens whose ownership is a mere formality, not a real possession; since the citizens won't be party to the profits, they shouldn't shoulder the expense. quote: There is more than one problem. Restricting access would correct more than one problem. We can find an agreement on those grounds. We can't find it on the "no need to X" type grounds. I would refer you to one of the other threads, where Jeff made an excellent statement on this, but like all good threads, it was pulled. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:26:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Was it on this thread, or one of the others, that someone was talking about 'slave mentalilties' in relation to those who wanted to restrict gun usage, or some other species of half-baked quasi-Nietzschian old bollocks? Third and final attempt at writing and posting this reply (I write too quickly for the config): It was the other thread, and I was writing my take on it when Chi locked the thread, but I didn't save the text, so it's lost. As per my current policy, I'm not writing it again. IWYW, — Aswad.

tazzygirl -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:27:21 PM)
quote: We can find an agreement on those grounds. We can't find it on the "no need to X" type grounds. You lost me here.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/16/2012 12:27:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 Dictate (v) to require or determine necessarily Merriam-Webster unabridged dictionary 'Means dictates ends' in the manner you've described it (that the tens of thousands of suicides each year were forced to form the intent to kill themselves by the devices at hand) is an irrational superstition that goes against any form of science, including social or medical science. I didn't describe it in that way, Powergamz. Please don't lie about what I said in my post. Furthermore, it's not an 'irrational superstition', it's a very, very well attested principle with literally hundreds of years of evidence behind it from a very large range of sources (going all the way back to one of Aesop's Fables, if you're interested). Furthermore it's not the only principle of psychological motivation and I never suggested that. So please don't try some cretinous straw man argument with me along those lines, either.

Aswad -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/17/2012 4:37:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl You lost me here. Basically, I was saying we can reach an agreement, but the road to an agreement is via "there's a problem, and here's how we fix it", not via "who needs...?", because the latter isn't even a valid question from my stance, while the former is a valid concern- solving problems, I can do. Seems the rifle used is available in Norway, incidentally, though it's not as widespread. IWYW, — Aswad.

PeonForHer -> RE: Gun Control and mass murder, one does not eliminate the other. (12/17/2012 5:26:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Third and final attempt at writing and posting this reply (I write too quickly for the config): Thanks for that, Aswad.

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625