News of the day

I hate to break the gun debate (actually, I don't hate to because it's really a futile argument, someone has to find some common ground, but anywho) but I saw this and was actually proud of my country for once:

OUR VERY OWN DEATH STAR

National defense + job creation? How could things go wrong?

Epignosis wrote: The Truth wrote: I hate to break the gun debate (actually, I don't hate to because it's really a futile argument, someone has to find some common ground, but anywho) but I saw this and was actually proud of my country for once: OUR VERY OWN DEATH STAR National defense + job creation? How could things go wrong? Is that really breaking the gun debate?

Now that you mention it, it is like a really large gun...

*shrugs* It'd still look cool.

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: As for specific guns, I don't think banning things keeps us any safer.  People who really want something will find a way to get it.  People who want to kill will try to kill. I think the difference is a matter of degrees of what "really want" means. Say a potential mass murderer knew a neighbor or relative who had an assault rifle, and then imagine if he knew that it was illegal to own one he'd have to go to an arms dealer. Now there has to be a point of a spectrum of insanity (or whatever) where somebody could be swayed by the availability of weapons like that whether or not to commit the crime or to what extent the crime is. It's not too unreasonable to think all kinds of people like this, or even all people who commit gun crimes are beyond reason and practicability. By making it harder to obtain those weapons, we will stop a number of crimes. Not all, but some. By making it harder to obtain weapons, we will stop a number of crimes.  What is that number? You see, I posted earlier this evening a study about defensive gun use.  How many crimes are stopped because people are armed (even with so-called "assault rifles?")?  That's important information to have, right? What trade-off is acceptable to you?

This is getting farcical. Your conclusions are laughable. The United States has more guns in private ownership than any country in the world:

"With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns..."

Found here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

We have an estimated 170,000,000 privately owned guns (yes, 170 million). How many more will be required to make us "safe"? 250 million? 500 million?

By the way, according to studies, states with "Stand Your Ground" laws have seen an increase in homicides:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/stand-your-ground-self-defense-raises-more-questio/nScfb/

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/07/11628/studies-show-more-people-shot-death-%E2%80%9Cstand-your-ground%E2%80%9D-laws

How is it that every other large western democracy can manage just fine without accelerating their gun rate? Why are we on par with Third World Countries in regards to firearm deaths? Because we don't have enough guns? That is plainly irrational. No, it is stupid.

Here is an interesting article:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/mass-murder-shooting-sprees-and-rampage-violence-research-roundup

stonebeard wrote: Though I do lean libertarian at times, I try not to be dogmatic about it. But I do have one question for some of you that are hardcore about it: The US is a very wealthy and prosperous nation. Why is it that we're not happy, healthy, and peaceful? Why is the solution always the direction that other happy, healthy, and peaceful nations have not taken?

I have never been convinced that happiness can be measured. You can't ask people how happy they are, because they don't know how happy they are. Take a middle class American who thinks he's unhappy and make him live in North Korea for a year, then let him come back. His same old life will suddenly seem much better by comparison. We only judge our happiness relative to other experiences we've had, so the application and removal of hardship would increase happiness, whereas the application and removal of luxury decreases it (as we see in lottery winners.)

Why are we not healthy? Because we eat a lot and don't exercise. I think the most important factor is the fact that Europeans tend to walk a lot more, whereas the size of our country has gotten us used to cars and driving. I don't own a car and walk everywhere. I happen to be very healthy.

Why are we not peaceful? Lots of reasons, most of which I believe to be cultural and historical rather than policy based.

^I agree with the last two. Happiness can't be measured but can be observed. And can be seen in issues that have much more prevalence in one society over another.

I think the achievement of comfort and a good standard of living made many American complacent and self-indulgent. I've never seen a place where more people have to constantly gratify themselves whether it be in food, goods, etc. Consummerism is tied to that. In a way, economic success and individualism lead to a point where it would seem people got stuck in a developmental stage and a perennial class of immature not-fully-grown adults arose. And a person (a society) that feels a need for constant gratification is never happy by default.

People in places like Europe (at least the Europe I know from) are happy with less, feel a lower need to be constantly indulging themselves in something, take less medications, spend more time with families, etc. Happiness can't be measured, but observed. Comparing the US to North Korea, even as an example pf the relativity of the issue, is a little too extreme.

Maybe the one thing that made America prosperous, its individualism, wi (is) its downfall.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Sean Trane wrote: Despite the tragic loss of innocent lives...     Isn't there some kind of poetic justice that a gun-happy mother dies from her own vice and from her own flesh & blood's doings??   After all, he who lives by the sword....   ==================     As an afterthought:   I'm not sure that woman and her son deserve a human burial at all!!   That is an absolutely terrible thing to say.  You should be ashamed of yourself and I think you owe an apology right now. The shooter's mother was not a criminal.  She did not commit the crime.  She made a mistake in giving her son access to guns because she thought his mental illness wouldn't cause him to hurt anyone.  She was wrong, but what mother of a child with disabilities like his really thinks her son is going to go on a shooting rampage.  The mother is a victim, not a criminal.  Her death is a tragedy, not "poetic justice."

Inhaling gunsmoke can cause cancer.

dtguitarfan wrote: 4 Reasons Both Sides of the Gun Control Debate Aren't Making Any Sense Best article on gun control debate I've seen since the shooting.  This one even made ME rethink some of my positions.

I read the guy's first point and already (in a roundabout way) addressed it yesterday.  He also undermines his own premise: If a teacher doesn't have the discipline to not kill kids who tick him off, how does a SRO do it?  And who is saying all teachers must carry? 

Train willing teachers to use a weapon similar to the police.  As I said, if you trust a person with your child, you should be able to trust them with anything (including a weapon).  One or two SROs  on a campus of 2000 is not enough to prevent a mass murderer.  Fifty or more armed teacher (and prospective perpetrators who won't know who is indeed armed) is better suited for the task.

As for his third argument, that fails too if you apply it consistently to the rest of the Constitution.  We have the Internet now- does that change the freedom of the press?  He says, "[T]hings like freedom of speech and the right to due process are universal and timeless birth rights (or should be, at least)" but offers no justification why this is so.

(Also, his ignorance about the three-fifths of a person issue reveals itself.  Why were blacks counted as three-fifths of a person by the US government?  To hurt their feelings by telling them they weren't a "whole person?"  They were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of their state's representation in a Congress for which they could neither vote nor hold office.  They may have been better off not being counted at all.)

The Truth wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Truth wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Truth wrote: I hate to break the gun debate (actually, I don't hate to because it's really a futile argument, someone has to find some common ground, but anywho) but I saw this and was actually proud of my country for once: OUR VERY OWN DEATH STAR National defense + job creation? How could things go wrong? Is that really breaking the gun debate? Now that you mention it, it is like a really large gun... *shrugs* It'd still look cool. So does Ellen Page, but you wouldn't want her in space, would you? Stop being so serious, Rob. btw, how have you been?

I am goodly, thank you for asking.  Winding down the semester (Praise God).  Freshmen...

Sean Trane wrote: OK, went home last night...     Equality 7-2521 wrote: timothy leary wrote: The only things you know about the mother the media told you about. Sounds like the perfect reason to not rejoice in her being murdered. Who's rejoicing?? Certainly not I     I didn't say I was happy about this... I'd much prefer the event never happened   But it's about time that guns started killing owners instead of innocent victims..; As for the mother, AFAIK, she's depicted as a victim by the medias (yes I know nothing more of her).... but it's her unhealthy  passion that allowed the whole drama to unravel...     Yeaaaaah, I know the usual NRA BS... guns don't kill people, people kill people...   but guns are made to kill people!!!

Replace happy with the feeling that justice has been done.

For being made to kill people, a lot of people seem to use them frequently without killing anyone.