Gun free zone

[Rudd-O]

Myrkul, you should seriously stop discussing the topic with gyverlb.  He's already decided that he's willing to support violence against you, and he openly stated it not two comments ago.  The "conversation" was over when he admitted to his true wishes, which have nothing to do with persuading anyone with reason.

How does it make any sense to reason with a person who wants to assault you / wants you to get assaulted?  It does not.  Do you seriously think facts will change his mind?  They won't.  How do you figure that reasoning works on a man who considers that "or else" is a valid argument to get you to do what he says?  It doesn't.

Why do you even try?  I'm struggling to understand that, because you clearly are a smart person.  You're trying to prove him wrong?  On the topic of weapong-making, you can't prove him wronger than he already proved himself by admitting "Yes, I want your integrity to be violated for making a weapon".

You don't grovel to snakes for your life.  You don't reason with snakes to avoid getting bitten.  It's futile -- snakes will bite you either way.  You just keep your eyes peeled for snakes, pointing them out as you see them, so others don't get bitten by them.

[myrkul]

Why do you even try?  I'm struggling to understand that, because you clearly are a smart person.

[Rudd-O]

Myrkul, that got me right in the feels.  I know exactly what you mean, so I won't say anything else about that.

Please do realize, though:

Yes, there exist people who want violence inflicted on others for their beliefs ("'cos my community / God / politician X said so, or plain 'cos bitch was asking for it").  Yes, it's an evil.  It afflicts most people in society.  You just saw someone admitting to being like that, openly.  Yes, it's no less shocking today than it was the first time I asked the "against me" question.  Yes, there's no real response to a man who wants you murdered or caged for what you believe / for what you are.

But this, too, shall pass.

gyverlb (and many other evil people) will eventually die / be killed.  They will be replaced by people who are being raised better, in a less anti-social environment.  In sum, they will be replaced by non-sociopathic people.  The nature of moral progress is such that it doesn't get settled by political debate -- it gets settled by generations dying, taking their malevolent beliefs with them.

And, hey, you and I may not live to see that.  But our grandchildren most likely will.

[stochastic]

Teachers and whoever else that are restricted by laws to carry their personal defense weapons need to ignore those laws.  They are easy to conceal and if used in such a situation, the public support would nullify any chance of conviction for carrying a weapon in such a location.

[gyverlb]

[...]
Ok, so to your first item, you're letting the fear of one or two outliers color your policy toward the rest of the population?

Why not if it's a good trade-off for the whole population?

Well, it's clearly not, is it? The other 99% keep getting slaughtered by those outliers.

That's what you assume will happen. This is not what happens in other countries with gun control. I don't see why the US is different. Maybe it is, let's say we disagree on that. There's a heavy consequence for the US: if we agree that the US are indeed different the logical conclusion is that American people are inherently more violent than most of the rest of the civilized world. I'm OK with that conclusion not being American myself but as a nation that's quite a hit on your pride.

[...]

If 1% of the population, given a gun, would go on a rampage, why would you take the guns from the other 99%, given that there is no practical way to keep that 1% from getting a gun, if they really want it?

Because the behavior of these 1% now becomes indistinguishable from law-abiding citizens when everyone has guns. This is a common problem when you try to protect control a population. For example when our government decided to go after file-sharing, yours (assuming you are from the US) complained that it would encourage common citizens to use encryption for communication and prevent your anti-terrorist services to focus their efforts on a small population to find terrorists.

Fixed that for ya.

Now I understand. This isn't about the best way of protecting people. You are mixing your fear of the government over-reaching its powers and oppressing you with this subject. If you can't trust the government you agreed to gave power to protect you you've already lost and nothing can be done. Even guns in every hands isn't a solution in your case. There are two possibilities :

• Your government is actively trying to oppress you and you should make working to overthrow it your top priority. I should add that guns aren't always the solution in this case, most of the time they bring another oppressor in its place who managed to control most of the gun bearers. What seemed to have worked in recent history is massive peaceful protests paired with establishing links with the military and supporters-to-be in the current establishment.
• Your perception of oppression is exaggerated and you are mistaking trade-offs made for the greater good with oppression

In reality this is more complex as most governments mix beneficial trade-offs and various levels of oppression which blurs the line. You'll have to educate yourself on every regulation presented as a beneficial trade-off to make your own opinion. Then if you are convinced that your government is oppressive, share your knowledge of the facts as wide as you can.

Edit: I should add to come back to the main subject that if you are convinced that your government is oppressive it makes perfect sense to refuse any kind of gun control. This is one of the reasons why I'm not for gun control in principle but see it as a desirable target.

[stochastic]

There are a lot of elementary school stabbings in China but no one talks about how more violent and morally corrupt Chinese people are compared to other nationalities and how knives need to be banned.

[gyverlb]

There are a lot of elementary school stabbings in China but no one talks about how more violent and morally corrupt Chinese people are compared to other nationalities and how knives need to be banned.

How many deaths per 1 million people? "Lots" for China doesn't mean much if you don't speak relatively, it's a huge country.

[stochastic]

There are a lot of elementary school stabbings in China but no one talks about how more violent and morally corrupt Chinese people are compared to other nationalities and how knives need to be banned.

How many deaths per 1 million people? "Lots" for China doesn't mean much if you don't speak relatively, it's a huge country.

This happened yesterday.  Luckily no one died.
http://hiphopwired.com/2012/12/14/22-children-stabbed-in-chinese-primary-school-photos/

There were some more heavily reported accounts this year as well.

Here is a list from 2010 to 2011 of school attacks in China with hammers, knives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29

When Americans get into other country's politics they are told to stay out, but the whole world feels the need to inform Americans of their barbaric, non-compassionate nature, backward culture, and archaic politics.

I for one would feel very stupid if I was dying because someone shot/stabbed/hit me when I have the freedom to defend myself easily with a firearm unlike most other people of the world.

[myrkul]

[...]
Ok, so to your first item, you're letting the fear of one or two outliers color your policy toward the rest of the population?

Why not if it's a good trade-off for the whole population?

Well, it's clearly not, is it? The other 99% keep getting slaughtered by those outliers.

That's what you assume will happen. This is not what happens in other countries with gun control.

Gun violence always goes up after a removal of guns from the hands of the law-abiding. I shudder to think of the consequences should that happen here.

If 1% of the population, given a gun, would go on a rampage, why would you take the guns from the other 99%, given that there is no practical way to keep that 1% from getting a gun, if they really want it?

Because the behavior of these 1% now becomes indistinguishable from law-abiding citizens when everyone has guns. This is a common problem when you try to protect control a population. For example when our government decided to go after file-sharing, yours (assuming you are from the US) complained that it would encourage common citizens to use encryption for communication and prevent your anti-terrorist services to focus their efforts on a small population to find terrorists.

Fixed that for ya.

Now I understand. This isn't about the best way of protecting people. You are mixing your fear of the government over-reaching its powers and oppressing you with this subject. If you can't trust the government you agreed to gave power to protect you you've already lost and nothing can be done.

Well, for one thing, I never agreed to anything of the sort. Secondly...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GwIbyp4xBU

[gyverlb]

This happened yesterday.  Luckily no one died.
http://hiphopwired.com/2012/12/14/22-children-stabbed-in-chinese-primary-school-photos/

There were some more heavily reported accounts this year as well.

Here is a list from 2010 to 2011 of school attacks in China with hammers, knives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_%282010%E2%80%932011%29

From this account there are 21 known death over 2 years in a country with more than 4 times the population of the US. So in a single rampage in a school guns made the equivalent damage of 8 years worth of knife attacks in school in China.

When Americans get into other country's politics they are told to stay out,

Depends on the way they do it. I think you'll agree that sometimes they are quite heavy handed about it and don't limit themselves to an exchange of opinions.

but the whole world feels the need to inform Americans of their barbaric, non-compassionate nature, backward culture, and archaic politics.

Hey, Americans are only 310+ millions and the rest of the world accounts for nearly 7 billion, they should expect to meet some grumpy people among them

[TheButterZone]

Either these Chinese criminals have retard-level knife skills, or they aren't intent on killing, just maiming the hell out of everyone. That a silent weapon hasn't racked up a body count many times more than the LOUD, "HEY EVERYONE YOU CAN'T NOT HEAR THIS AND NOT KNOW IT'S TIME TO GET BEHIND DEFENSIBLE COVER AND USE ANYTHING AS A WEAPON" weapon speaks to intent, not the lethality of the weapon.

P.S. Criminals do not use "silencers", because there is NOTHING silent about a "silencer". Exit fantasy world, stage right.

[yogi]

Don't worry America, nobody's going to take your guns away from you. Everybody knows how much you love them. It would be political suicide for any of your leaders to attempt to push through a gun control law. So your guns are safe, unfortunately your children are not.

[TheButterZone]

If it were political suicide then Barack Obama wouldn't be president. When elections are decided by corpses and incarcerated felons consistently (and with impunity) in favor of tyranny remaining in power (Democrats and Republicans), there's no such thing as political suicide, unless you actually protect children by repealing the very gun control that enables their massacres.

[gyverlb]

That's what you assume will happen. This is not what happens in other countries with gun control.

Gun violence always goes up after a removal of guns from the hands of the law-abiding. I shudder to think of the consequences should that happen here.

Hum, I'm willing to be proven wrong but why is it necessary for me to pay $10 for it on this point? Shouldn't statistics as crucial as those proving it be public knowledge and verifiable? Why are all public European statistics on gun crimes disagreing with the title of this $10 book?

Now I understand. This isn't about the best way of protecting people. You are mixing your fear of the government over-reaching its powers and oppressing you with this subject. If you can't trust the government you agreed to gave power to protect you you've already lost and nothing can be done.

Well, for one thing, I never agreed to anything of the sort.

Isn't it implicit if you link gun control with population "control" instead of "protection"? You are assuming a motivation that isn't linked to the welfare of the population, isn't it oppression?

IceT ultimate argument is that guns are the last protection against tyranny and the police. I've read and heard this argument many times. The fact that many people say that doesn't mean it's automatically true. People without guns have fought tyranny (see Gandhi) so in at least some circumstances it can be done and costs less lives and suffering than the alternative. People with guns have fought tyranny and lost too (numerous resistance cells have been wiped out in my country during the last world war in Europe for example).

Guns might have been a good protection against tyranny when the constitution of the US was written. Today oppressive governments are more and more using information control and warfare to oppress people because it's more effective to detect rebellious activity early and deal with it in a quiet manner framing the person for something if needed to avoid people coming to his/her rescue. If you want to resist an oppressive government today you don't need guns, you need access to reliable information and means to communicate it to other people reliably and without eavesdropping. If you want to protect yourself make it written in your constitution.

[stochastic]

From this account there are 21 known death over 2 years in a country with more than 4 times the population of the US. So in a single rampage in a school guns made the equivalent damage of 8 years worth of knife attacks in school in China.

So China (a nation that brutally represses protests) has about 0.016 school massacre deaths per million people.  So if we use your mathematics, if America bans and forcefully removes all of its 310 million nonmilitary firearms in its country it will have about 5 school rampage deaths per year due to knives, clubs, cleavers, hammers, based on the rate in China.

I think a more interesting statistic is how many gun deaths per million nonmilitary firearms in a country, but this statistic is hard to quantify as many nations ban guns, and the guns available in places such as China are hand made or stolen from the military or police.

Massacres are not a phenomena that only occur where people have access to firearms.  The people that do these attacks are the anomalies of society.  Having a mental health problem is not a predictable sign that an attack like this will happen.  Nothing is going to stop a person that has made up their mind to do this kind of attack.  The only possibility may be in reducing the number of victims per attack by restricting the ability of the rest of the population to defend their life.  In exchange for that reduction we are talking about the possibility of the state increasing the suppression of its own population.

The fact that many people say that doesn't mean it's automatically true. People without guns have fought tyranny (see Gandhi) so in at least some circumstances it can be done and costs less lives and suffering than the alternative.

[gyverlb]

From this account there are 21 known death over 2 years in a country with more than 4 times the population of the US. So in a single rampage in a school guns made the equivalent damage of 8 years worth of knife attacks in school in China.

So China (a nation that brutally represses protests) has about 0.016 school massacre deaths per million people.  So if we use your mathematics,

Mathematics are mathematics I don't have my own kind, I simply illustrated that the China knife rampages aren't really useful to compare China and US (especially if you want to make the US look good). Anyway you were the one to bring China up.

China isn't a civilized country by my standards (there's a set of personal freedom I believe to be mandatory and China doesn't enforce them and actively suppress them). If you want to make the situation better in a civilized country I believe looking at how others with common goals for their society get better results do it can shed some light on the subject, bringing China as an example doesn't seem relevant to me even without maths involved.

[TheButterZone]

In China, what are the sentencing guidelines? Knife children, go to slave labor camp, get executed when you break? Knife children to death, get tortured, go to slave labor camp, then get executed when you break? Why are the Chinese criminals seemingly intentionally NOT using knives to kill, only maim?

[gyverlb]

In China, what are the sentencing guidelines? Knife children, go to slave labor camp, get executed when you break? Knife children to death, get tortured, go to slave labor camp, then get executed when you break? Why are the Chinese criminals seemingly intentionally NOT using knives to kill, only maim?

As stochastic said, these are acts of a handful of deranged people and are difficult to interpret. I'm not sure their motivations can have any form of link with the kind of government or country they live in.

[Rudd-O]

I see some people are still having this bullshit non-conversation about "guns" (really, about punishing people violently for their beliefs).

Here's some valuable advice for those of you who continue pretending that this is actually a conversation:

http://youtu.be/d2a5wtTrlLs?t=17m38s

[stochastic]

From this account there are 21 known death over 2 years in a country with more than 4 times the population of the US. So in a single rampage in a school guns made the equivalent damage of 8 years worth of knife attacks in school in China.

So China (a nation that brutally represses protests) has about 0.016 school massacre deaths per million people.  So if we use your mathematics,

Mathematics are mathematics I don't have my own kind, I simply illustrated that the China knife rampages aren't really useful to compare China and US (especially if you want to make the US look good). Anyway you were the one to bring China up.

China isn't a civilized country by my standards (there's a set of personal freedom I believe to be mandatory and China doesn't enforce them and actively suppress them). If you want to make the situation better in a civilized country I believe looking at how others with common goals for their society get better results do it can shed some light on the subject, bringing China as an example doesn't seem relevant to me even without maths involved.

Do you agree that banning all guns would not end rampages that kill children?

Is Japan a 'civilized' nation?

The Osaka School Massacre took place on June 8, 2001, at Ikeda Elementary School, an elite primary school affiliated with Osaka Kyoiku University in Osaka Prefecture, Japan.

At 10:15 that morning, 37-year-old former janitor Mamoru Takuma entered the school armed with a kitchen knife and began stabbing numerous school children and teachers. He killed eight children, mostly between the ages of seven and eight, and seriously wounded thirteen other children and two teachers

Germany?

The Winnenden school shooting occurred on the morning of 11 March 2009 at a secondary school in Winnenden, Baden-Württemberg, in southwestern Germany, followed by a shootout at a car dealership in nearby Wendlingen.[1][5] The shooting spree resulted in 16 deaths, including the suicide of the perpetrator, 17-year-old Tim Kretschmer, who had graduated from the school one year earlier.[1] Another 11 persons were injured during the incident.

No matter the weapon bans that occur after these massacres, they will continue to happen.