Tragic and self explanatory (Gun Control)

[Ninth Doctor]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

Can't beat the timing, huh? One of the earliest entries in the comment section warmed my cockles:

"this story is a lie. The huffington post is not reporting it"

So I just checked, and yep, there's nada, zip, pas un mot about this on HP.

[Spiral Architect]

Who gets to decide the purpose for a nuclear weapon? Or any government? Implicitly, with your reply about nukes, you are saying that some weapons may be regulated. My previous post was only pointing out why I believed your argument was no good. It failed to account for the fact that guns are tools of force, so your argument is at best incomplete. Tools or methods of force (i.e. private defense firms) ought to be regulated because no one has a "right" to use force as they please. Self-defense is the only time force should be permitted. Consider linking this discussion on gun control to discussions on anarchy. Why can't I just run a private defense firm? I don't think it's possible to argue for absolutely no regulation of weapons without accepting that in principle you'd be accepting anarchy.

All I'm really asking for is what principle you are using to determine that a private citizen should not own nuclear weapons, and why guns are excluded. Is it the level of potential damage, or something else?

The Government commissioning the nukes would decide their use. If it is a moral government it would be for self defense otherwise it’s up in the air for what purpose said government would build such a device.

But the point is property is a tool, as well as any category like a weapon. No weapon has a “purpose” sine it takes an outside actor to impose action on inanimate objects. The “purpose” of property is what the owner decides to do with it. People impose motive and action on objects, not the other way around. I think that is what frustrates me more than anything else with this issue, is the subconscious idea that people see guns and fret that the object is acting in some dialectal materialistic way to impose motive and action on men (not you but the people you see getting dragged out on TV to discuss this issue).

The government should step in if a group decides to usurp it’s jurisdiction in having the monopoly on retaliatory force. People give government such a monopoly precisely to stop roving gangs of armed men forcing society into lawlessness. We only need to look to private militias of the 19^th Century to see how “self defense firms” (aka mercenaries) work out. That still is not the fault of the inanimate objects they carry however, since it was the actors they used them in the improper fashion. Back then they had the right idea, they didn’t blame inanimate objects but the men involved and made laws preventing the formation of domestic mercenary groups.

But to answer you directly, yes, in a nut shell it is the scope involved and where it hits on the hierarchy. There is a huge difference between properties that no rational person would build for himself and is an obvious product of government development designed to instantly kill millions and an object built normally in the private sector for personal use. A WMD instantly destroys all life (and property) in the entire jurisdiction it goes off, making a discussion of rights moot since there is no life to base rights on. It is rational for a community to outlaw something that will destroy that entire community instantly.

[thenelli01]

Here's how an attempted mass murder plays out when a sane person also has a gun:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

Great story - won't see that on the news.

[thenelli01]

Can't beat the timing, huh? One of the earliest entries in the comment section warmed my cockles:

"this story is a lie. The huffington post is not reporting it"

So I just checked, and yep, there's nada, zip, pas un mot about this on HP.

http://www.mysananto...out-4123414.php

http://www.huffingto..._n_2315139.html

Note: All it took was a simple search of "San Antonio" on HP website to find that.

Edited December 18, 2012 by thenelli01

[FeatherFall]

Kate, I didn't answer your poll because I'm not sure what you're asking. There are regulations on how one can use a butter knife, if you consider that attacking someone with it is considered an assault. I support such "regulations." If you mean semi-autos should be more strictly controlled relative to revolvers and lever/pump action firearms (a la a ban on high-capacity magazines, for instance), I'm not supportive. I suspect such a ban would amount to a feel-good legislation and would do very little good for a few people, while at the same time doing a little harm to many more.

I can't remember, can you post the link here please?

Here you go. It suggests that gun control can, in some places, lead to more violence. It also suggests that violence is largely a cultural phenomenon. The US is one such culture where gun control seems to increase the risk of deadly violence. I understand why your first impression would be that we should try to change the culture to stop the violence. But we don't have evidence that this course of action is likely, effective, or timely in relation to other methods of reducing violence. We also don't know that creating a culture of non-violence requires gun control. On the other hand, we seem to have clear indicators that when people are legally allowed to assume responsibility for defending themselves by taking up arms and training, violence goes down in the US. So why can't we take the more certain and immediate measures while pursuing a longer-term strategy to change the culture?

Here's how an attempted mass murder plays out when a sane person also has a gun:

It's really important to note that the "sane person" was a woman. This is a testament to how guns can empower women to defend themselves.

[Ninth Doctor]

Note: All it took was a simple search of "San Antonio" on HP website to find that.

Mmm, but that's actually an AP story. I searched for the perp's name and came up empty when I looked on HP this morning, still I suppose I spoke too soon. It's certainly not appearing on the main page. One might say it's "buried".

Edited December 18, 2012 by Ninth Doctor

[Nicky]

We also don't know that creating a culture of non-violence requires gun control.

I'd go further than that: we know that it doesn't. All across the Northern US, there are examples of states with permissive of nonexistent gun laws, and very low crime rates (crime rates similar or lower than those in Canada and Europe). Millions of armed Americans, living in peace and perfect harmony with each other.

This of course all came up in the other thread Kate made about gun control, where I posted statistics and a lengthy explanation proving that she is wrong. Too bad she saw fit to make another thread on the same subject, instead of responding to that proof.

I guess it would be kinda hard to declare that anyone who doesn't agree that gun rights cause violence must be insane, under a graph showing that there are 420.000 privately owned fully automatic assault rifles and 3 million other firearms in Swiss homes all across the country, and they had a total of 53 murders last year for the lowest murder rate in Europe.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Nicky

[writer1972]

How many of these shooters are premature babies?

Before they would have died; for the last 30 years or so, they are able to live. At the very least, they spend months in incubators without a mother's touch and normal socialization. What about the correlation between autism and prematurity? Obviously, if the case is that keeping premature babies alive causes a host of other problems, people will have to face the fact.

I take solace in Nietzsche's view on pity. That which is beyond saving is beyond man's concern.

[Eiuol]

I take solace in Nietzsche's view on pity. That which is beyond saving is beyond man's concern.

Are you suggesting that prematurity may lead to autism, which then leads to acting violent?

[Nicky]

Are you suggesting that prematurity may lead to autism, which then leads to acting violent?

Look on the bright side. At least he's not blaming vaccines. (yet)

[SapereAude]

Open carry and the civil rights movement:

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/08/what-are-you-going-to-do-with-your-gun/

[moralist]

How many of these shooters are premature babies?

Before they would have died; for the last 30 years or so, they are able to live. At the very least, they spend months in incubators without a mother's touch and normal socialization. What about the correlation between autism and prematurity? Obviously, if the case is that keeping premature babies alive causes a host of other problems, people will have to face the fact.

I take solace in Nietzsche's view on pity. That which is beyond saving is beyond man's concern.

It appears you have a valid point:

(Dailymail.co.uk)

(sorry about the font size, I was unable to alter it)

edit: here's the link

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2049875/Premature-babies-higher-risk-autism-scientists-discover-link-condition-low-birth-weights.html

Premature babies are five times more likely to suffer from autism, a study suggests.

Researchers say they have established a link between low birth weight and the condition.

Medical advances could also explain the rise in autism as survival rates have greatly improved for babies born too early.

Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, found babies born before the 37th week of pregnancy were five times more likely to have autism than those born on time and normal weight.

Their study, published in the journal Pediatrics, followed 862 youngsters over 21 years.

Lead author Jennifer Pinto-Martin said: ‘As survival of the smallest and most immature babies improves, impaired survivors represent an increasing public health challenge.

‘Emerging studies suggest that low birth weight may be a risk factor for autism spectrum disorders (ASDs).’

Previous studies have linked low birth weight to cognitive problems.

But the latest study, which followed infants born between September 1984 and July 1987, some weighing just a pound at birth, is the first to link it to autism.

Dr Pinto-Martin said: ‘Cognitive problems in these children may mask underlying autism.

‘If there is suspicion of autism or a positive screening test for ASD, parents should seek an evaluation for an ASD.

‘Early intervention improves long-term outcome and can help these children both at school and at home.’

She says future studies will look at possible links between brain haemorrhage, a complication of premature birth, and autism by examining scans taken of these children as newborns.

Georgina Gomez, action research leader for The National Autistic Society, said that further research is needed to confirm the connection and pinpoint why babies born underweight may be more prone to developing autism.

'Low birth weight has been linked to a range of motor and cognitive problems and often goes hand-in-hand with premature birth and birthing complications.

'It is important to dig down further to try to understand the biological processes and events that could explain this proposed connection.

'While research into the causes of autism continues, it is vital that efforts are directed towards ensuring that people with living with the condition have the support and services they need.'

One in 100 Britons is estimated to be autistic. But just 20 years ago, scientists estimated that fewer than one in 1,000 people had the condition, indicating a dramatic increase.

The higher rates in recent years have been attributed to various causes, including improved diagnoses, as well as genetic and environmental factors.

In 2008, a study by researchers at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, found one in four babies born seven to 14 weeks prematurely could be at risk of developing autism.

Edited December 19, 2012 by moralist

[Eiuol]

It appears you have a valid point:

It's fine to wonder if prematurity leads to autism, but that has nothing to do with this shooting because autism isn't associated with violent behavior at all.

[Grames]

Google search "autism violent behavior"

"... at all" is an overstatement.

[softwareNerd]

So, someone wants to ban premature babies from owning guns when they grow up?

Here's a poster on the "Liberty Law Blog", who thinks Asian Americans should be banned from owning guns. I read it twice, but could not detect satire.

[Eiuol]

"... at all" is an overstatement.

You are right on that, so to rephrase: I am not aware of any evidence that suggests autistic people are prone to extreme bouts of violence (i.e. a shooting spree) by nature of autism. I am indeed aware that some autistic children are aggressive and/or violent, but that's different than the violence we are discussing.

[moralist]

It's fine to wonder if prematurity leads to autism, but that has nothing to do with this shooting because autism isn't associated with violent behavior at all.

The murderer was simply given over to evil.

[Nicky]

It appears you have a valid point:

His point is that premature babies should be left to die. Is that what you're agreeing with?

[Nicky]

So, someone wants to ban premature babies from owning guns when they grow up?

Here's a poster on the "Liberty Law Blog", who thinks Asian Americans should be banned from owning guns. I read it twice, but could not detect satire.

I just can't believe he forgot about gingers. They're the worst. They don't even have souls.

[AbA]

So, someone wants to ban premature babies from owning guns when they grow up?

Here's a poster on the "Liberty Law Blog", who thinks Asian Americans should be banned from owning guns. I read it twice, but could not detect satire.

You might want to think about getting your satire detection chip set checked.

[softwareNerd]

You might want to think about getting your satire detection chip set checked.

I'm happy to be corrected. What do you see that I don't? Or, do you happen to know some background context about the author. If you have read something else by this author and know that he is sane, then I can see that you'd assume this is satire, but if you're judging just from the article, I'm curious what you see in it that I missed.

[Ninth Doctor]

How many of these shooters are premature babies?

Wow, like I said in #28, there’s sure a lot of ways of skinning this cat. I have an old friend who was born prematurely, and is blind as a result. Here he is, doing his thing:

Like Kate87 when she started this thread, I regard this as "self explanatory".

[AbA]

sNerd,

Never heard of this individual until now.

The first thing that made my satire detection unit beep was his claim that "two out of the last 13" represented a disproportionate number.

And his last line of, "It makes more sense than most of what will be proposed over the coming weeks." leads me to think that he's just poking fun at the general level of knee jerk irrationality that seems to be the hallmark of public discourse on this subject.

And then when I got to the very end and saw that the author himself is an Asian American.....

[Ninth Doctor]

You might want to think about getting your satire detection chip set checked.

I just had a look at it, and that thing is simply dripping with satire. I've never seen that site before, but it's obviously a libertarian site. Whenever you see the words "Modest Proposal", you're almost certainly not meant to be reading literally.

[moralist]

His point is that premature babies should be left to die. Is that what you're agreeing with?

I only noted the valid connection between premature births and autism, not his conclusion.