So how are y'all preparing for the Apocalypse?

[Matthew Hughes]

When people bemoan the deaths caused with a single gun I have to wonder how they feel about the deaths from a single bomb.

People don't bemoan the deaths caused by a single gun so much as the deaths caused by millions of guns. If America had only a single gun, there wouldn't be tens of thousands of firearm deaths per year, whether homicides, suicides, or accidents. But seriously, how much easier is it to acquire a semi-automatic weapon with a large clip than to make a bomb?

In any case, there are so many guns in circulation in the US that banning new sales of this or that is totally ineffective.

I agree with you there. That boat has definitely sailed. For better or worse, America is flush with firepower. Hundreds of thousands more will die unnecessarily in the years to come, and there is nothing to be done about it.

The price of freedom, I guess. Hope you're not one of them, or anyone you care about.

 

[Fish Owl]

Present day China has brought back many pre-Mao cultural traditions, but I'm willing to bet there wasn't a lot of rhino horn coming in during the Cultural Revolution when even a foreign science principle was verboten.

You can't erase thousands of years of history and tradition with 10 years of political terror performed by fanatical youths. China endured much worse during Sino-Japanese wars, Taiping Rebellion, Yellow Turban Rebellion, Burning of books and burying of scholars and lot more. Every time traditions and culture endured. As for modern China - it may be labeled as Communistic regime but in fact it have more in common with Chinese Empire than with USSR. All the traditions and Confucian philosophy still present and evident. Even Communism itself is labeled Datong and Party uses Confucian terminology instead of Marxism. Guanxi and other Chinese millennium traditions are used widely in business. Marx would probably be horrified.

As for repressions in China, USSR, Nazi Germany or any other totalitarian state - I admire Americans because they believe it was doing of some small portion of population lead by Evil Overlord. In reality it was will of majority. And they done it not out of fear or for profit but only because they sincerely believe that they were doing the Right Thing. Tyrant always rule through support of his people, if he lose support of at least 20% of population - it will be Civil War. And he is most likely already doomed because someone more capable will take his place to bring peace into country. It is very sad that Americans thinks that by removing Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi or Assad they can change something in Middle East. Nothing will change until people change. If you want Syria or Iraq to be more democratic or civilized in a Western fashion - you need to send there teachers and scholars, not soldiers and tanks.

To some extent, but the differences in degree can vary widely. Guns laws are the prime example.

Huge number of people in USA say that democracy is impossible without freedom to own firearms. For them it is basic individual freedom same as the voting right. As I said numerous times: there is no single concept of "proper Democracy".

 

[RX-79G]

The price of freedom, I guess. Hope you're not one of them, or anyone you care about.

Why? Despite what you might have heard, they don't come alive and control people's brains.

But lockback knives, those are truly a danger to everyone. Good that they banned them in the UK. Everytime I see one it makes me want to use it to commit suicide!

Really, why is it that people think the worst behavior in a society can be curbed by banning access to stuff? It didn't work with booze, it doesn't work with drugs. The primary source of violence in the US is poverty giving rise to drug trafficing and gangs. Other countries that don't have as much poverty blame the guns for the people that end up using them, rather than the circumstances of those people.

 

[Fish Owl]

Really, why is it that people think the worst behavior in a society can be curbed by banning access to stuff?

Both guns and knives can't compare to the destructive power of KinderÜberraschung. This German wunderwaffe is the real menace to society. This is why USA had to ban it.

Other countries that don't have as much poverty blame the guns for the people that end up using them, rather than the circumstances of those people.

Well, in my country there is far more poverty than in USA. Until 2013 guns were under control. After 2013 thanks to Russia and our own glorious new government we have guns all over the place. Care to google results? This is not some photo from warzone in Donbass. It is actually a "peaceful town" only 33 km from Polish border. And yes, I blame guns. There are desperate people in any society but thankfully not everywhere they are allowed to carry lethal weaponry.

 

[Stray Man]

It is very sad that Americans thinks that by removing Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi or Assad they can change something in Middle East. Nothing will change until people change. If you want Syria or Iraq to be more democratic or civilized in a Western fashion - you need to send there teachers and scholars, not soldiers and tanks.

This is true. We left a failed state in Libya, and Iraq and Syria aren't far off from that. We have royally messed up that region. And the world could absolutely use more educators and learning centers that violence and weapons. The Japanese learned a lot from Dutch scholars in the 18th and 19th centuries. I don't know that the Middle East is a similar environment, though; I think they might just want us out of there. Can't blame 'em.

I don't know how far either side can get in a debate about which governmental system is better; the West or the Communist Block. Both have had their share of problems and corruption. I don't think the ideal form of Communism has been implemented in the world, and I think that Capitalism is a root to a lot of the evils of Democracy. I don't know that we truly live in a Democracy in this country (or a Representative Republic); I think we are ruled by an Oligarchy, who likes to put a Shadow Play in front of us in order for us to believe that we live in a Democracy (Representative Republic). How do we end up with two candidates that are hated as much as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump? One was backed by a corrupt establishment that stole the nomination for her and colluded with the media throughout, while the other fed off the anger and frustration of the downtrodden, feeding them lies and promises he clearly doesn't intend to keep (he appears to already be going back on promises, even before he officially enters the White House).

46% of our electorate didn't vote. Many are completely disillusioned with the entire process, and why shouldn't they be? Neither of the two parties in the Duopoly represent them or their interests. The lip service they pay us falls on deaf ears when we can clearly see them walking down Wall Street, making friends with as many wealthy donors as they can. I'm not sure which is worse. Republicans obviously have worse intentions, but the Democrats are far better liars. I've read briefly on governmental histories of several other countries this term as well, however, and there's corruption everywhere, or at least dysfunction. The country with the most attractive government to me that I studied was Germany, heh. They REALLY don't want to go to war again. They're also the birth place of the Green Party!

 

[RX-79G]

There are desperate people in any society but thankfully not everywhere they are allowed to carry lethal weaponry.

I think the main reason I don't have a particular issue with the existence of guns is that we are supposed to be free people. The kind of freedom that is about doing the right thing by choice, not because there is someone endlessly protecting you from yourself.

 

[Fish Owl]

I think the main reason I don't have a particular issue with the existence of guns is that we are supposed to be free people. The kind of freedom that is about doing the right thing by choice, not because there is someone endlessly protecting you from yourself.

According to this logic we need to abolish laws and disband police patrols. Why protect people from themselves?

 

[RX-79G]

According to this logic we need to abolish laws and disband police patrols. Why protect people from themselves?

Police don't "protect people from themselves", they are supposed to protect people from each other (in theory). But mainly they investigate and enforce laws after the crime is already committed and sort out property crime.

The police prevent very little violence, IMO. They do mitigate it once it starts, though.

 

[Fish Owl]

The police prevent very little violence, IMO. They do mitigate it once it starts, though.

I disagree. Police patrols do a lot of good. When they showed up in my neighborhood street crime dropped almost to zero. In 1990-2000-th people were afraid to show mobile phone or mp3 player in public. Someone would immediately try to rob you. Today a lot of youngsters play with their iphones and ipads in parks and near shopping malls. All thanks to the police.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

The kind of freedom that is about doing the right thing by choice, not because there is someone endlessly protecting you from yourself.

You're being protected from the dangerous minority. And what choice will you have when the man comes into the theater and begins shooting at you with a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-round clip? Of course, you'd be better off if he had a lock-knife instead, but you're willing to let him have access to the mass-killing weapon rather than see your freedom limited.

You might change your mind at the moment he points the weapon at you, but you're comfortable with the situation as long as it's someone else who is being murdered. In more communally minded societies, people say, "No, it's not a good idea to have too much firepower in private hands. Somebody is going to get killed or maimed, and even if it's not me or my loved ones, it's still a bad thing."

The reason to control guns is simple: you can do a lot more harm with a gun and people have less chance of avoiding that harm. It's the same rationale that makes it illegal to own hand grenades.

 

[RX-79G]

You're being protected from the dangerous minority. And what choice will you have when the man comes into the theater and begins shooting at you with a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-round clip?

They thing is, the 'protection' you're talking about is extremely shabby. It's like a beach with a shark fence, but the fence has massive holes in it. Then we tell the kids to go swimming because we feel good about "doing something", when we didn't change the probability of a shark (madman) hurting people in any real way.

If you are an armed country, then you need to be an armed country. If you believe the probability of a mass shooting is high enough (statistically they are actually pretty rare and have a much lower death toll per capita than most anything else you could name), then you need to either construct densely packed public places differently (which would also help with fires and earthquakes), or you need to have a few more people also armed. A rifle is not so much more dangerous than anything else that even one theater goer with a pistol can't radically change the outcome.

As I see it, there are three perception problems:
1. That dying by mass shooter is probable and somehow more awful than being killed by a drunk driver.
2. That subtle changes to the supply chain is the most effective way to address madmen.
3. That a semiautomatic firearm is the most dangerous and scary weapon a madman can use, and they will be deterred if they can't get one.
I see all of those as extremely unrealistic and entirely illogical. As we have seen in the US, Japan and France; bombs, aircraft, fire, nerve gas and trucks are all much more deadly.

 

[Fish Owl]

or you need to have a few more people also armed.

You say that freedom to own guns is good because you feel more protected and can retaliate. But in reality how many madman were stopped by armed civilians? As far as I can see in news only police, SWAT or army can stop mass shooter (if he do not choose to take his own life before they arrive).

And it is understandable. If someone wants to enter building and shoot people – he will have his gun ready and loaded. You won’t have time to unholster your gun and remove the safety switch. You will only have like 1-2 seconds before he shoots you. Even if you are skilled enough not to panic and react accordingly.

bombs, aircraft, fire, nerve gas and trucks are all much more deadly.

It doesn't mean we need to expand this list. The less dangerous stuff is available for open sale - the better.

 

[RX-79G]

You say that freedom to own guns is good because you feel more protected and can retaliate. But in reality how many madman were stopped by armed civilians? As far as I can see in news only police, SWAT or army can stop mass shooter (if he do not choose to take his own life before they arrive).

That isn't the case. I can think of several that were stopped by a single armed person - even if some of those armed people were single off-duty policemen. And I can think of some mass shooters stopped by unarmed people. One was 3 miles from where I live. But even with the number of licensed armed people in the US, not that many people are carrying a gun at any one time.

It doesn't mean we need to expand this list. The less dangerous stuff is available for open sale - the better.

This only makes sense if you believe that availability of dangerous stuff causes violence. It doesn't.

But if you believe that someone intent on mass murder will simply take whatever weapon is available, then I prefer madmen go with the limitations of firearms rather than derailing chemical trains or driving a natural gas truck into a festival. In the information age, there is no reason to assume that mass attack weapons like bombs or toxins are hard to find out about and construct.


Another aspect to this is the strong belief that some guns are more dangerous than others, and only those guns should be banned. While there is some truth to this, most people don't realize that the Aurora, Colorado theater shooter killed a lot of his victims with a basic shotgun.

 

[Fish Owl]

I can think of several that were stopped by a single armed person

But statistically which is more: persons who shot to kill effectively or persons who shot to defend effectively?

if you believe that availability of dangerous stuff causes violence. It doesn't.

It causes violence to be more severe. Without guns conflicts are usually resolved by simple brawling. If one of men involved in fight carries a gun it can easily end up in homicide.

In the information age, there is no reason to assume that mass attack weapons like bombs or toxins are hard to find out about and construct.

Police usually trace and control any materials that can be used to create bombs. Even if it is just fertilizers. Thankfully because of this 90% of terrorists are stopped before they can act.

 

[RX-79G]

But statistically which is more: persons who shot to kill effectively or persons who shot to defend effectively?

Statistically, both are so rare that there isn't any meaningful data. If you look at shots fired by mass shooters vs deaths, the numbers vary widely. If you compare the number of shots fired by mass shooters compared to the number of shots fired to stop them, the defenders are more efficient. But I don't see how this matters - it is like comparing the gas pedal to the brake.

It causes violence to be more severe. Without guns conflicts are usually resolved by simple brawling. If either of men are carrying gun it can easily end up in homicide.

Okay, you're now switching from a talking about mass murderers to bar brawls. Guns are less severe than other mass murder means.

Police usually trace and control any materials that can be used to create bombs. Even if it is just fertilizers. Thankfully because of this 90% of terrorists are stoped before they can act.

No they don't. While someone might be looking out for missing truck fulls of fertilizer, common bomb making materials are not controlled or tracked at all: black powder, consumer fertilizer, propane, cleaning chemicals, petrol.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

If you are an armed country, then you need to be an armed country.

I think our world views are at such variance that we cannot discuss this issue with any confidence of finding common ground. So I will leave it here.

 

[Fish Owl]

No they don't. While someone might be looking out for missing truck fulls of fertilizer, common bomb making materials are not controlled or tracked at all: black powder, consumer fertilizer, propane, cleaning chemicals, petrol.

I strongly do not advise you to buy something that can be made into bomb and googling up tutorials. You will have police knocking in your door very soon. There are lots of ways to control and trace information in web.

 

[RX-79G]

I think our world views are at such variance that we cannot discuss this issue with any confidence of finding common ground. So I will leave it here.

That's a shame, Matthew. I don't think either of us are zealots - you'd think two educated liberals could discuss something like this reasonably.

I strongly do not advise you to buy something that can be made into bomb and googling up tutorials. You will have police knocking in your door very soon. There are lots of ways to control and trace information in web.

I'm not interested in making any bombs. However, you are greatly overestimating the power of any government to track cash purchases and internet cafe searches. The Boston Marathon bombers had previously been investigated - one of them for multiple crimes.

 

[Fish Owl]

However, you are greatly overestimating the power of any government to track cash purchases and internet cafe searches. The Boston Marathon bombers had previously been investigated - one of them for multiple crimes.

Because USA do not have enough experience to fight terrorism on its territory.

 

[RX-79G]

Because USA do not have enough experience to fight terrorism on its territory.

I'm sure that argument could be made, but it doesn't remove the problem that buying bomb supplies or researching bomb building can easily be done anonymously.