Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Out of the Blue

View
57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

57. Re: This Dec 17, 2012, 11:20 John
 
jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:
So, what to do? Can't we agree that a 10-day waiting period and extensive background check to purchase a gun should be the bare minimum nation-wide? Can't we agree that we should properly fund mental healthcare so people with problems can be identified and assisted instead of left to fester? Can't we agree to close the gun show loophole?
Ok, so how would that have made a difference in this case? And if he had bought the guns himself, would a 10-day background check kept him from getting them? There are a lot of crazy people who aren't labeled as being so. You gotta be pretty messed up to shoot your own mother.. not to mention defenseless children.. but who could have predicted that?

Gun regulations correlate with lower gun violence. That's just a fact. And in countries where gun ownership is prohibited (China) or very strictly regulated (Japan, UK) not only are gun murders orders of magnitude lower, but also murders overall.

A school attack in China happened yesterday too. The attacker used a knife. 20 children were injured but no one died. If he had access to guns, that would obviously be different.
That's because guns have been prohibited there for many years and they never had millions of them in their country. Of course there are fewer gun-related deaths when no one in the country owns any. People have always owned gun in the US however and there is no way to get rid of them now.

"More people should have guns to protect themselves." Lanza's mother did. He took it and shot her, then shot 20 kindergartners.
That was her fault for having them where her son could get to them. Any parent with guns should keep them locked away from their children.

"Teachers should carry. They could have shot the shooter." And if they had and missed and shot a child? And the cost would be much greater: How many carrying teachers nationwide would lose their tempers and shoot coworkers and students over the course of a year? Just like more cars on the road lead to more accidents, so to do more guns in the population lead to more deaths, regardless of the noble purpose. Humans are irrational, and supplying irrational beings with a force multiplier results in multiple times the force, injuries, and death.
I don't think teachers should carry, but it would be good to have a security guard in the school or have the principle trained to use a gun. And actually deaths on the road have gone down even though there are more because of laws requiring more safety features in cars. That can be true with gun deaths too with the right laws but it's not so easy to enforce what people do at home.
 
This space is available for rent
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 17, 2012, 09:59 Verno
 
Looking at other countries, I can only conclude that America simply needs less guns in circulation but good luck putting the genie back in the bottle, people seem to revel in the antiquated "ULL NEVER TAKE MAH GUNS" type attitude. As if their personal firearm gives them any sway if the government actually wants to infringe on their rights.

No politician is going to realistically touch it other than lip service anyway.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Dark Souls 2
Watching: Korengal, Legends, Intruders
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 22:48 Jeraxle
 
xXBatmanXx wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 19:01:

South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana.......no it doesn't. In South Dakota you go to the Sheriff, who just hands you a little piece of paper that he signed. Boom, carry a firearm. I grew up there, there are guns EVERYWHERE. Any of the homicides that happen are usually stabbings in Rapid City. Gangs are bad and the homeless drink and fight a lot....

Add New Hampshire and Massachusetts to that list. New Hampshire is a 10 day wait and a $10 fee for residents. Out of towners pay $100 and do it by mail. Getting my LTC in MA was as simple as filling out the paperwork and waiting 30 days.

My cousin is a homicide detective in New Hampshire. Like Bats said, stabbings are the norm around there as well. If there is a gun used, it's usually the guy trying to get away from the guy with the knife.

This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2012, 23:00.
 
Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 22:37 Jeraxle
 
jdreyer wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 13:40:

Did you know ANYTHING about statistics? VT is obviously an outlier, but on the average the correlation holds up.

Obviously you don't. Based on STATISTICS, New York State would need 3 times the amount of gun related deaths just to get to the color of Arizona according to your map and the population differences of each state (6.5 Mil Arizona 2011 vice 19.5 Mil New York 2011).

Never let a few pesky facts shape your argument. Just use what you need and throw the rest away.

This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2012, 22:50.
 
Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 19:01 xXBatmanXx
 
jdreyer wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 13:40:
Jeraxle wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 12:15:
jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:

So, what to do? Can't we agree that a 10-day waiting period and extensive background check to purchase a gun should be the bare minimum nation-wide?

In a word, no.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:
Gun regulations correlate with lower gun violence. That's just a fact.

Actually it's not. Explain Vermont. No CCW or LTC. Really, no gun laws to speak of.

Did you know ANYTHING about statistics? VT is obviously an outlier, but on the average the correlation holds up.

South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana.......no it doesn't. In South Dakota you go to the Sheriff, who just hands you a little piece of paper that he signed. Boom, carry a firearm. I grew up there, there are guns EVERYWHERE. Any of the homicides that happen are usually stabbings in Rapid City. Gangs are bad and the homeless drink and fight a lot....
 
Avatar 10714
 
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: New dad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 18:34 Orphic Resonance
 
yuastnav wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 11:36:
Moral superiority does not really exist

of course it exists.. its the basis of the entire right wing conservative platform.. marriage is only between man and woman, god says so, god created the universe so hes better than you, im on gods side so im better than you, etc.

its not "real" in the sense that its bullshit, but it still exists

yuastnav wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 11:36:
Also, your logic is partly confusing to me.
You claim that everyone is an egomaniac, i.e. that this is the default condition of a human being but you also call that a failing. So it's a failing by definition, i.e. society is actually not supposed to work by working?
And by whose moral standards is it a failing? Yours? The society's?

morals are conditioned responses, man made laws, etc. they vary from culture to culture, from region to region - they are relative to a certain time and place

and yes, society is designed to foster selfishness in a way that keeps the powerful people large and in charge, that is the design that has been passed down through the millienia - now, the details on that would take many pages of writing to explain, and i dont really care to do that right now - but the basic point is to keep people fat and happy, keep them believing in what is now known as "the american dream", which is a farce - but is essentially based on that same "king of the hill" scramble to the top where you step on everything and everyone in your way.. for a great modern example, see: steve jobs

the failure is in terms of viability - long term sustainability - that is where it fails.. 6000 years is really not a long time, in terms of the survival of the species.. and the city-state methodolody is roughly that old.. at the current rate of population increase, consumption, pollution, etc. - it wont last another few hundred years

now, you may disagree with that projection - but no one can prove it one way or the other so it will have to remain a theory

but actually i think the most pressing concern for humanity is the AI singularity - once we design an AI that can upgrade itself much better than we can... thats a big deal IMO, and it could change the whole game in a big way
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 17:23 yuastnav
 
DNForever wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 14:31:
I'm either not understanding or not thinking enough then. How can you deny those concepts while accepting the existence of morals?

Morals exist, most people acquire them while growing up. But morals are different for everybody. They are influenced by the environment, school, parents, media etc. so, for a society, or part of it, there is a set of morals that these people try to abide by.
If you would talk about, say, moral superiority, you would need an entity which would decide that one set of morals is superior to another an. If people claim their morals are superior to the morals of either people this is, in my opinion, delusional, since morals are just different.
You could argue that one person has a stronger connection to their morals than another person (if they have the same set of morals) and say that this is moral superiority but in my opinion the flaw is that one argues that they have the same set of morals. If one person has a stronger connection to their morals it means, to me, that their morals are different from another person, with a weaker connection, because they are willing to give up or sacrifice more - or something like that.

For me immorality only exists in the case where you compare a person with a set of morals to a person with no morals at all - the person without morals would be immoral then.
But you cannot say that a thief is immoral because it might be that it is well within his set of morals to steal while the majority of a society would frown upon that. The only time when this could be immoral is when the thief would steal and with that act would go against his own set of morals but this poses two difficulties: a) would a person really go against their set of morals, i.e. is it possible, by definition, to do something like that or is a certain act already an indication that the particular person does not have morals that are connected to that act; b) you would have to know beforehand what kind of morals the thief have to call him immoral.
You could say that he is immoral towards your own set of morals when he steals but that would be kind of redundant, would it not?

[edit]
My problem may very well be a semantic one. I have not really thought about it yet.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 14:31 DNForever
 
I'm either not understanding or not thinking enough then. How can you deny those concepts while accepting the existence of morals?  
Avatar 56259
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 14:16 yuastnav
 
DNForever wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 14:03:
"Moral superiority does not really exist since immorality does not really exist either"

Morality may not exist as a physical concrete thing and yes it's subjective, but what an outright stupid and simplistic thing to say. Morals do exist as general consensus, they may be culturally specific but they do exist. I can tell you're high on like, whose truth is the real truth and nothing's for certain or anything but to deny morals is not a good idea. To me.

Read again. I denied the concepts of moral superiority and immorality (at least from one point of view). Never did I say that morals do not exist.
If you would have taken the time to read my whole post you would have realised that, at least through implication.
Furthermore I cannot see where you got the concept of "morality as a physical thing" from.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 14:03 DNForever
 
"Moral superiority does not really exist since immorality does not really exist either"

Morality may not exist as a physical concrete thing and yes it's subjective, but what an outright stupid and simplistic thing to say. Morals do exist as general consensus, they may be culturally specific but they do exist. I can tell you're high on like, whose truth is the real truth and nothing's for certain or anything but to deny morals is not a good idea. To me.
 
Avatar 56259
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 13:40 jdreyer
 
Jeraxle wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 12:15:
jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:

So, what to do? Can't we agree that a 10-day waiting period and extensive background check to purchase a gun should be the bare minimum nation-wide?

In a word, no.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:
Gun regulations correlate with lower gun violence. That's just a fact.

Actually it's not. Explain Vermont. No CCW or LTC. Really, no gun laws to speak of.

Did you know ANYTHING about statistics? VT is obviously an outlier, but on the average the correlation holds up.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 12:15 Jeraxle
 
jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:

So, what to do? Can't we agree that a 10-day waiting period and extensive background check to purchase a gun should be the bare minimum nation-wide?

In a word, no.

jdreyer wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 16:10:
Gun regulations correlate with lower gun violence. That's just a fact.

Actually it's not. Explain Vermont. No CCW or LTC. Really, no gun laws to speak of.
 
Adding signatures to message boards since October 7th, 2012.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 11:36 yuastnav
 
Orphic Resonance wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 00:27:
[...]
I think it has alot to do with people getting off on being morally superior and righteous. [...]

Moral superiority does not really exist since immorality does not really exist either. People have different moral standards and they call each other immoral because they only obey their own set of morals and do not obey the ones of the other person.

Also, your logic is partly confusing to me.
You claim that everyone is an egomaniac, i.e. that this is the default condition of a human being but you also call that a failing. So it's a failing by definition, i.e. society is actually not supposed to work by working?
And by whose moral standards is it a failing? Yours? The society's?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 11:23 DNForever
 

These events are a no-win for everyone. People die and then the media is either sensational or "ignoring it" and not doing the service they're supposed to.
 
Avatar 56259
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 10:57 Mr. Tact
 
You say "journalism" has no complicity and then you point us to an article on a site called "Gawker". How ironic.

Is our 24 hour, reality tv, media circus, entertainment industry the major cause? No. Are they a contributing factor? Without a doubt.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 09:57 Riker
 
I find the idea that the media is complicit in these shootings to be absolutely ridiculous. People have a right to report on the news, and people have a right to know what's happening in the world.

The brutal and horrific nature of these things tends to cause people to scramble to point fingers and grasp desperately. But blaming the wrong people isn't the answer. It's not movies. It's not comic books. It's not music. It's not video games. And it's not journalism.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2012, 10:09.
 
Avatar 6580
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 04:00 Cutter
 
Orphic Resonance wrote on Dec 15, 2012, 22:18:
you think the news media is going to avoid sensationalism because "its the right thing to do"? are you fucking kidding? just like they "do the right thing" when it comes to war crimes, politics, imperialism and all the rest?

its about MONEY kids, ratings, hits, likes, attention... whatever gets people to watch gives the networks more potential ad revenue

how many times will this have to happen until people understand that? the answer is that it will keep happening forever, because humanity is unable to move beyond it and get their priorities in order.. it will happen until there is no one left to die anymore, because no one will still be alive

cynical, yes - but accurate according all the data at hand in the past century of broadcast journalism

Agreed. And the irony that this clarion call is coming from Forbes of all places, lol! A magazine by douchebags for douchebags who make a living fucking over other people.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 02:31 Orphic Resonance
 
no thats me - and im not sure how that quote equates to being on a soapbox.. the rest of the post, maybe - but its a bit different because im actually putting in some work, educating you monkeys

dont deny me before men! or i will deny you before my father who is in heaven!!!!! BITCH! Rotfl
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Out of the Blue Dec 16, 2012, 01:35 Jivaro
 
I find that whole "gonna get on my soapbox to tell everyone else to get off their soapbox and then follow it with a bit of Matthew 7:16" thing vaguely familiar....the style seems to remind me of someone...

Oh wait...Space Captain...is that you? *waves* Merry X-Mas bud!

All joking aside, (and it was a joke btw, you probably don't know who SC is since you are so new), I have found it interesting to read everyone's thoughts on the various issues surrounding the very tragic events of yesterday. I would agree that more people do need to take productive action to affect change, but discussion has it's merits and I would point out that action without a prior discussion is a not often a wise idea. It never ceases to amaze me how this "gaming site" attracts so many individuals from so many different backgrounds with many different political, cultural, and religious views. It is not the place I would first think of to find perspectives not otherwise available to me in my circle of friends and family, but nonetheless it does and can occasionally offer a very interesting insight. To me, discussion is severely underrated. It is not just communication, it is a coping mechanism....and a healthy one at that.

This comment was edited on Dec 16, 2012, 01:50.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: This Dec 16, 2012, 00:27 Orphic Resonance
 
Dades wrote on Dec 16, 2012, 00:05:
We love to think we can fix everything but the only real way to do that is through stricter controls and better societal support mechanisms that most people in North America do not want except in these rare post-tragedy moments.

I think it has alot to do with people getting off on being morally superior and righteous. "Im more concerned about other people than you are!" and all that. "Im RIGHT! You're WRONG!" Its a subconscious thing, but its worth mentioning. People are all ego-maniacs, its how society works. Go ahead and deny it if you want, but that just means you cant see your own failings.

If you really want to do something about the "morally corrupt" society we live in, quit talking about how you want to do something and actually DO something. Talk is cheap. SO cheap. Get off the soapbox and put in the effort, instead of spending all your time puffing up like a peacock.

"You will know them by their fruits"
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo