Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,231 Year: 5,488/9,624 Month: 513/323 Week: 10/143 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 7 of 236 (668452)
07-21-2012 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Phat
07-21-2012 11:15 AM


Re: Violence Hits Home
2) Just because it is a disturbed white guy, it is as much an act of terrorism as it would be had the shooter been black and/or Muslim.
I guess the word "terrorism" is has been thoroughly bastardized and is now completely meaningless if every act of violence is considered as such. The masses only give a shit when a bunch of white people are murdered. Gun shots ring out daily in the ghetto, is THAT terrorism? Does that pull on the heart strings of ANYONE?
3) People will be ever more willing to trade in personal freedoms for greater public security...and our society will continue to change.
Of course they will if every act of violence is labeled terrorism and we have a "war on terror" and every news outlet feeds the masses that the only way to fight this "war" is to give up freedoms.
4) There are no easy answers in faith to tell people. I believe, for the record, that God had nothing to do with this, nor any sort of devil, though some fundamentalist friends whom I know would argue the latter to be the case.
Faith and imaginary friends had as much to do with this as did Osama Bin Laden. The kid was mentally ill and his sickness was ignored and untreated. Plain and simple.
{abe}
Salon writes:
America is a violent country — our homicide rate is four to 12 times higher than that in more civilized parts of the world — and Aurora, Colo., is more violent than the average American town. A down-market suburb of Denver, it sees an average of about 20 of its 325,000 residents murdered each year.
Salon writes:
A lot of people — about 15,000 at present — get murdered in the United States every year. Most of these people get killed in places that, roughly speaking, look something like Aurora: places where the people are poorer and less white than in America in general, and who are therefore by definition not very interesting or important.
Of course these rules don’t hold if some lunatic kills a dozen people at once, especially in a normally innocuous public space, such as a multi-screen movie theater, which interesting and important people can picture themselves within. So today murder in Aurora, Colo., is an interesting and important topic.
Salon writes:
If we faced any kind of real terrorist threat, incidents like the Aurora shooting (except with a political motive) would happen all the time, since, again, there’s nothing that can be done to stop them.
Linky
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Phat, posted 07-21-2012 11:15 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 122 of 236 (668750)
07-23-2012 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 8:48 PM


Re: Gun control question
And the truth is that handguns are far more dangerous than rifles
What definition of "dangerous" are you using that you use it in such a blanket, general way? Sure, a desert eagle will cause more harm round for round than a .22 rifle, but that same .22 rifle with hollow points will fuck your shit up way more than a Desert Eagle with standard rounds. So to say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" outright simply due to how many people are killed by them is dishonest at best. I think you also should take into consideration the range of a weapon. What is the effective range of a Glock vs an AR15, M16 or M4 (or any other rifle)? If your definition of "dangerous" is sheer volume of murders by a weapon, then you must also consider how easy it is to carry/conceal a pistol vs. a rifle.
I am in the middle on gun ownership as I haven't put much thought into it. I can't own one, so I really don't give a shit one way or another if you can or not. I was just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in your usage of the term "dangerous". Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 8:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 9:22 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 126 of 236 (668757)
07-23-2012 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by crashfrog
07-23-2012 9:22 PM


Re: Gun control question
Number of people killed per class of weapon.
So handguns are more dangerous than rifles, but only if you don't factor on other countries or other time periods? But you haven't made that distinction, have you? You've simply repeated "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with no qualifiers.
I defined how I was using the term back in Message 64.
Could you point to the sentence in that post where you defined your usage of dangerous to mean "danger=causing more statistical deaths"? I should like to use the dictionary definition:
dictionary.com writes:
1. full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.
2. able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal
Nowhere in that definition does it come close to saying what you are.
And look, this isn't Call of Duty or whatever where we can rate weapons by their DPS. It's fine for you to believe that an AR-15 is more dangerous than a Glock 19, but if you expect me to agree you need to present some reasonable criterion to support that opinion.
I'm simply saying that you are categorically wrong to just say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" without using any sort of qualifications. Like I said, not all handguns are created equal and not all rifles are created equal. A .50 caliber sniper rifle is a fuck of a lot more "dangerous" than a Walther PPK Conversely, a Desert Eagle is far more "dangerous" than a .22 caliber rifle (you choose the make and model, I'm no gun nut). There are more factors to take into consideration than "handgun or rifle" when saying how dangerous they are.
By your logic, black people from Compton are more dangerous than white people from the Hamptons. Is it statistically accurate? Yes, if you count how many black people from Compton murder people compared to how many white people from The Hamptons murder people.
I suspect they'll both shoot all the way to the back of a movie theater, at least.
Even though the topic is pertaining to a movie theater, you haven't been saying "in a movie theater, handguns are more dangerous than rifles", have you? No, you are flat out saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with your own definition of "dangerous". A definition which, taken a step further, could be used to say that handguns are more dangerous than Sherman Tanks or RPG's or landmines.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by crashfrog, posted 07-23-2012 9:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 7:06 AM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 141 of 236 (668790)
07-24-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 7:06 AM


Re: Gun control question
It's just a flat-out lie to say that I didn't.
No, you've just repeatedly used it as such and I am calling you out on it. I asked you to point out where in message 64 you indicated your usage because I read it and found nothing. Please rectify this misunderstanding.
I'm comparing rifles to handguns.
I'm sending you to Afghanistan. You get to choose between a "rifle" and a "handgun". You're telling me you will choose a handgun?
Why should I believe that caliber is a proxy for "danger"?
Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm. And if you don't understand how a higher caliber round is more dangerous than a smaller one, you shouldn't even be in this conversation. But keep saying that handguns are more dangerous than landmines. Hell, handguns are more dangerous than TNT or C4.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 7:06 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:55 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:00 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 145 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:02 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 146 of 236 (668796)
07-24-2012 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 1:55 PM


Re: Gun control question
The potentail to harm is not necessarily determined by the caliber. And its not by the caliber alone.
A .22 caliber rifle is a puny little thing with almost no power.
So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:28 PM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:40 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 147 of 236 (668797)
07-24-2012 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 2:00 PM


Re: Gun control question
not my problem
I did read that post and you did not make yourself clear. If you want to be misinterpreted, then sure, it's not your problem.
Why wouldn't I choose the weapon that was the most reliable, versatile, and accurate?
So every handgun is more "reliable, versatile, and accurate" than every rifle?
I didn't even once say that handguns are more dangerous than landmines.
Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:00 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 149 of 236 (668799)
07-24-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 2:28 PM


Re: Gun control question
I think that is part of the problem we are having here, some guns and rounds are better in certain circumstances, a shotgun is great for clearing rooms if it doesn't matter what gets hit. What may be more dangerous in one environment may not hold true in another. A man with a glock 40 is a lot less of a threat at 100 yrds then a man with a nice .22 rifle.
PRECISELY the point I am making. The only point, actually. It is dishonest and inaccurate to blatantly say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles". However, crash has continued this mantra with no qualifiers, hence my hyperbole about landmines and RPG's and shit.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:28 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:48 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
(1)
Message 152 of 236 (668802)
07-24-2012 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 2:40 PM


Re: Gun control question
More dangerous how? And to what?
Ask Crash, not me.
Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted.
Think about this though: by blanketly saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles", don't you think that leaves it open to interpretation? In a discussion about gun laws, you are saying handguns are the most dangerous. Given how laws get written up (and who writes and enacts them), it seems to me that such a statement advocates a handgun ban in comparison to rifles. "Rifles are ok, but handguns are bad", "RPG's are ok, but handguns are bad", C4 is ok, but handguns are bad".
Me thinks you ought be more descriptive, no? This, IMO, is how shitty laws get passed, when even an advocate makes a sweeping statement such as this.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:40 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 157 of 236 (668807)
07-24-2012 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by crashfrog
07-24-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Gun control question
Yes, I did. Message 125 in response to you asking that exact question.
I thought it was message 64? Are you now admitting that you didn't define your usage until I called you on it?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2012 5:12 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 158 of 236 (668808)
07-24-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by New Cat's Eye
07-24-2012 2:57 PM


Re: Gun control question
But think about this; which would save more lives: A law tightening the use of C4, or a law tightening the use of handguns?
How many US civilians even died from C4 in the last decade? How would tightening C4 save any lives at all? In the context of laws pertaining to the citizens of the US, C4 is less dangerous than handguns. But that doesn't make C4 "okay"..
That isn't the point I am making. I am being hyperbolic on purpose. Crash didn't define his usage until I called him on it, and even then he said he had already done so.
The context was sufficient for me to understand what he was saying.
Then any and all debate on this site about how people misuse words should be stricken from the record if we all get to use our own definition of words, right? How many threads have been curtailed because a creationist is using a non-standard definition of a word?Think: stellar evolution vs. biological evolution.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:31 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 917 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 206 of 236 (668930)
07-25-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by DevilsAdvocate
07-25-2012 6:54 PM


Re: Gun control question
It is up to the goverment and the people who elect it to determine what the definition of 'arms' is.
Genuinely curious and not trying to argue: isn't it the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution?

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 6:54 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 7:16 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024