Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Newtown Massacre (Read 33599 times)
Dink Heckler
God Member
*****
Offline


Love-Forty

Posts: 878
Joined: 02/01/07
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #71 - 01/14/13 at 15:55:34
Post Tools
  

'Am I any good at tactics?'
'Computer says No!'
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #70 - 01/02/13 at 02:13:31
Post Tools
"Murder is restricted for purely logical reasons," what an other-worldly idea. Murder is not restricted for purely logical reasons, or the children of Newtown would not be dead. Some sort of intellectual disease is present in someone whose imaginary social system has, in his thinking, superceded the actual social system. Someone whose imaginary categories, supposedly embodying irrefutable truths but actually reflecting all the depth of understanding of a child, have become more important than reality.

Further BPaulsen persistently confuses logic with reason. The first concerns the ramefication of tautologies based on given assumptions, and merely illustrates how how given terms are used. An example is that if A implies B and A is true, then B is true. Reason, perhaps assisted by logic but never confined to it, is what leads to given conclusions about the state of the world or given reccomendations of action. And reason, just because it goes beyond mere logic, can always be disputed.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


Here comes the bass, thunder
in the guts...

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #69 - 01/01/13 at 21:18:42
Post Tools
BPaulsen wrote on 12/23/12 at 01:00:18:
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/22/12 at 14:12:20:
For all of BPaulsen's words, he does not accept that people are free to create and live in communities that will limit certain individual actions for the betterment of the community.


Incorrect. I reject illogical restrictions arbitrarily imposed for emotional reasons, or purely subjective considerations of self-interest/community improvement.

Murder is restricted for purely logical reasons, for example.


There is no illogic in the attempt to forbid weapons at least teh semi automatic ones.
I would have liked it if BPaulsen would have adressed to one or two oft the questions I had here earlier on.
His way of life seems to go like "Help yourself as no one will help you" as back then in the pioneer days. And that indeed needs guns.

But one or two of my questions also deal with the hope for selfprotection under the fact that everyone is allowed to own a gun.

Under this circumstance imagine a situation unclear. May be someone stepping on your lawn or someone simply being aggressive in the pub or bar. Let there be some aggression only in the words, not more. And some acting, like hands to the pockets or so. What does the guy over there want? How to react?

And now throw some guns in it - only virtually, only as a possiblity which in the US comes close to normality.
And now you, having yourself a gun at hand can really grip with your hands the nervous stress excerted on you.

In the end you may shot someone just for the reason he might have drawn a gun out of his pocket - eh, you couldn't be sure. Or you yourself might be shot by the guy as you didn't expect him to have a gun.

You see: The crazy spice in this soup of life are the guns. They are available for a sudden death. So you allways have to be allerted. And if it comes to the point, statistically the normal citizen will nevertheless the slightest be able to cope with the situation as he has adapted his aggression to normal social proportions and not to a every day shoot out at the OK corral. What a pure horror.
  

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Mortal Games
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 587
Joined: 07/24/04
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #68 - 12/26/12 at 20:01:58
Post Tools
The hymn "Imagine" always belongs to the here and now. John Lennon was a very advanced person for his time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxLnIRVVwIM
  

It has been said that chess players are good at two things, Chess and Excuses.  It has also been said that Chess is where all excuses fail! In order to win you must dare to fail!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2915
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #67 - 12/25/12 at 16:30:59
Post Tools
From a musical genius who was shot coming out of his home in New York by a lunatic with a gun. Guns do kill people. Being Christmas day I somehow remembered this song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Vfp48laS8

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #66 - 12/23/12 at 22:43:32
Post Tools
LostTactic and motörhead also seem to have a good handle on this.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ghenghisclown
God Member
*****
Offline


Pedicare Vestri Latin

Posts: 1022
Location: HollyWeird
Joined: 07/19/06
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #65 - 12/23/12 at 22:34:03
Post Tools
Yes, Mr. Cox, America has violence problems. But so do many countries. Even China , as evidenced by a recent event. The problem is this country greases the wheels of violence to the point that crazy people don't have to reload very much, or that someone like Jared Lee Loughner can shoot multiple people and fire off 31 bullets in less than 30 seconds. Why do people need access to weapons that should rightly be in the hands of the military?

The reasons we are given for this are merely constructs built from the rich fantasy life of gun fetishists. They are supposedly defending our freedom. However, Waco, Ruby and Rainbow Ranches prove that if the Feds want it, or the Army wants to get in your house - Newsflash! - they will.

BPaulsen told me in another thread that I ought not to be concerned about the Constitution (the basis of our laws) because, essentially, no one follows it. Yet, despite the fact that people like Ted Nugent are free to own weapons and go watermelon hunting, and shoot at beer cans....we have the Patriot Act, NDAA, Homeland Security, the 4th Amendment trashed and the Fifth going in that direction. Yet Mr. Paulsen clings to the belief that Americans' ability to shoot one another keeps us "free."

In reality, the gun fetishists just bought into the gun industry's superior marketing. And because of this marketing, people and, yes, children, get shot with some regularity.

So, I don't want to ban guns in general, but I do agree with Markovich. It is right and proper for the gov't to regulate weapons, regulate militias, certainly to limit the power and lethality of weapons for the sake of a well-ordered society.
  

"Experience is a dim lamp, which only lights the one who bears it."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
IMJohnCox
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1551
Location: London
Joined: 01/28/06
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #64 - 12/23/12 at 19:07:20
Post Tools
What strikes me about the NRA's proposal is how illogical it is as a reaction. It may or may not be a good idea to have armed guards in schools, but it has no bearing on whether or not it would also be a good idea to prevent private citizens from owning assault rifles. It may well be that both steps would have an effect in making massacres such as the present one less likely.

To be fair to BP, undoubtedly he is right in that America's problems with violence go way beyond anything that gun ownership laws could achieve.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #63 - 12/23/12 at 01:17:20
Post Tools
I've done some googling since the Newtown tragedy. I used to think of restricting gun sales as the obvious way to reduce violent crimes, murders, suicides and accidents in America, but now I'm not so sure.

I tried to look at relatively unbiased sources (not the most frequent ones in this debate), and found some interesting conclusions:

- While absolute levels of gun violence are much lower in other industrialized countries (in Europe, for example), it's actually more relevant to look at changes in the same country or state when laws get stricter or more lenient. And here the results in both U.S. states and the U.K apparantly don't show an undisputed effect of gun laws on levels of gun violence, neither positive nor negative.

The world is complex; the U.S. might be so full of guns and far from an ideal state of few privately owned guns today that any restriction policy now would have an effect only in the very long term, and maybe even a negative effect in the short term (the familiar "only the criminals will keep their guns" argument).

- More than half of all gun-related deaths are suicides. This is still tragic and worth preventing if possible, but not what's on most people's minds these days. While having a gun seems to increase the chance of suicide, most or all of that effect can be explained by people killing themselves within the first year of acquiring a gun, i.e. the gun was arguably bought with suicide in mind.

- Most gun murderers are known criminals with several convictions, often on parole (think stereotypical gang violence in cities). So a huge effect might be had by spending more resources on controlling these high-risk individuals. And also by identifying the "straw purchasers" (often with clean criminal records) who buy lots of guns legally and resell them to criminals.

- Most guns used in crime are "diversions" from the legal market (via "straw purchasers" or sales withoth background checks); not from burglaries or illegal foreign imports. So regulating the legal market should at least make it harder for criminals to acquire guns in the long term.

- School shootings and mass shootings seem hard to predict or prevent since they are rare and idiosyncratic; and strictly speaking involve far fewer deaths overall than "regular" homicides and suicides with guns.

Sources:
National Academy of Sciences (2004): Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881
(pdf available after free registration)
Pdf summary of the above report: http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=10881&type=pdfxsum


Greenberg, Mark and Litman, Harry, Rethinking Gun Violence (January 4, 2010). UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 10-02. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1531371

Still, both mandatory background checks and better access to mental healthcare also look like obvious policies to try and reduce mass shootings to me, if that's the goal.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
BPaulsen
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love Light Squares!

Posts: 1702
Location: Anaheim, CA, USA
Joined: 11/02/08
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #62 - 12/23/12 at 01:00:18
Post Tools
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/22/12 at 14:12:20:
For all of BPaulsen's words, he does not accept that people are free to create and live in communities that will limit certain individual actions for the betterment of the community.


Incorrect. I reject illogical restrictions arbitrarily imposed for emotional reasons, or purely subjective considerations of self-interest/community improvement.

Murder is restricted for purely logical reasons, for example.

Quote:
The state (majuscule or minuscule "s") is an organic part of society.


Demonstrably false given anthropology, ie: the continuation of society after a State has collapsed, and the existence of states prior to Nation-States came along.

Society is organic and as completely natural as operating within your environment. The State is thoroughly artificial.

Quote:
In a democratic society the majority usually determines what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior.


Which is precisely why the US isn't a pure democracy - tyranny of the majority. The popularity of an action doesn't determine its correctness. For whatever intelligence our founders may/may not have had, they at least got that point right.

Quote:
In the real world of these United States, we need gun control laws for the reasons stated by so  many citizens. We aren't duped. We know that limiting freedoms are sometimes necessary for the safety and betterment of ourselves. This isn't some 18th Century utopian society or experiment in liberty. This is where we live. We are safer if civilians do not have access to semi-automatics and handguns.


The eponymous "we" that ignores the many "I"s that comprise the "we".

It is my contention that the State is less equipped to handle self-defense than the individual, and the US Supreme Court and Appellate Courts both recognize this reality. Furthermore, a very clear logical argument can be made for the use of guns in self-defense.

The idea that you are any safer from potential attackers without the presence of guns is ludicrous. Safer from getting shot, yes. Safer in general? No. That's assuming the criminals don't try to obtain them, by the way. 

Quote:
So again, BPaulsen's world view actually limits the very freedom he claims to want, and he's wrong about the power of the state too.


I advocate free choice in the pursuit of self-defense so long as said choice doesn't necessarily harm other individuals in the process. That represents freedom better than relying on the State to do it for you, which isn't something the State is even involved in by its own admission.

What it comes down to is that the gun control advocates believe their self-defense would be strengthened by removing a potential means of being attacked.

Guns are the great equalizer. Their abilities are no less great in the hands of a grandma defending herself from a burglar, or a woman defending herself from a rape attempt.

Of course, the gun control crowd thinks that either the State is going to handle these situations (naive), or they get to console themselves with the idea that at least they won't get shot. Who cares if women and the elderly are put at an even more severe disadvantage in an altercation?

The best argument that you've got going for you is game theory, ie: that you personally are less likely to get shot, and therefore it is a justifiable course of action to ban them. Of course, this argument is completely lacking in empathy, is self-serving, and myopic, but anti-social decisions have never stopped anyone from pursuing them as public policy.
  

2288 USCF, 2186 FIDE.

FIDE based on just 27 games.
Back to top
YIMAIM  
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #61 - 12/23/12 at 00:26:52
Post Tools
I missed the part where MNb wants guns ...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Hadron
Full Member
***
Offline


Doctor, Doctor, Doctor..When
will you ever learn?

Posts: 195
Location: Levin, New Zealand.
Joined: 03/24/05
Gender: Male
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #60 - 12/22/12 at 23:24:02
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 12/20/12 at 02:08:50:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Whatever truth that inane statement has, the same truth inheres is the analogous statement about hand grenades. So should people be allowed to own hand grenades?

Really? Didn’t someone mention the ‘Dunning – Kuger syndrome’? That just about sums this up.  Cheesy

The thing that bothers me that in the face of a potentially socially damaging crisis that so many seemingly want to obfuscate the issue for their own agenda and self aggrandizement. This may seem a little harsh but it is never the less quite true. Take the NRA for example, the best they could come up with to answer the tragedy of Sandy Hook is….wait for it….armed officers in schools. Take this forum for example, 4 pages of comments and maybe half a dozen posts that even come close to examining the issue sensibly. The rest? In the face of all those glorious children losing their precious lives…MnB wants to be able have his gun or guns….BPaulsen extensively trying to apply his own rationalization to it all…and Markovich babbling on about grenades and promising unsuccessfully not to answer BPaulsen.
I would never expect or believe anything mooted on this forum to have even a single effect on the issue of guns in the US but how does such disingenuous nonsense help?
I think this sums the issue up:
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/22/12 at 14:12:20:
In the real world of these United States, we need gun control laws for the reasons stated by so  many citizens. We aren't duped. We know that limiting freedoms are sometimes necessary for the safety and betterment of ourselves. This isn't some 18th Century utopian society or experiment in liberty. This is where we live. We are safer if civilians do not have access to semi-automatics and handguns.

For once I could not agree more with SmyslovFan but I do have some sympathies (to a very small degree) with MnB. I agree with getting rid of semi-automatics. I just do not accept there is a need or a want for a citizen to have a such a gun at all. I however think that handguns are a different prospect if and only if they are super strictly controlled and that it is carefully and strictly balanced against any right to own a firearm.
But the thing is Smyslovfan also hit it on the head
Smyslov_Fan wrote on 12/22/12 at 14:12:20:
I doubt we will get effective gun control laws, but that is because our government is dysfunctional.

And while some people have genuinely tried to apply some common sense to the tragedy at Sandy Hook and others have indulged in the pseudo intellectual two step, the real world just keeps on keeping on:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/8112063/Four-dead-3-police-injured-in-shoo...
Hadron.
  

I'm reminded again of something Short wrote recently, approximately "The biggest fallacy in chess is the quasi-religious belief in the primacy of the opening."
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
motörhead
Full Member
***
Offline


Here comes the bass, thunder
in the guts...

Posts: 226
Joined: 10/09/08
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #59 - 12/22/12 at 14:47:40
Post Tools
Come on, KISS! Keep it straigt and simple. There is some philosophical tussle here that tends to be over-sophisticated and moralin-sour.
Put some chessy logic in it. And then answer a series of simple questions as I tried:

Where you count more murders and killings, in the US or in Europe?
US

When was the right to own guns implemented in the US History?
At times where the US were an evolving country with ever shifting borders and unclear situations out there and weak authorities - when it was a time of mere survival of the fittest.

What are guns good for?
To defend against brutal aggressors.

Are the overall threats in US today as severe as they were then?
Surely no.

Are the autorities in the US today as weak as they were then?
Surely no.

Does some of the threats arise directly from the right to own a gun?
Clearly yes.

Is it allways easy to detect brutal aggressors?
Surely no.

May an owner of a gun fail to jugde a very situation rightly?
Oh yes. See Mr. Zimmermann. As there is the right to own a gun, you allways have to calculate with the fact, that the guy over there too has a gun in his pocket.
So the level of alert rises to unhealthy proportions - and leads to misjudgements. As Mr. Zimmermann seemingly wanted to see a threat and if it were only a guy dressed with a hoody.

Apart of this concrete situations: Is the easy availability of a gun in normal households problematic?
Absolutely. The gun itself bears a latent but lasting danger as is shown in Newtown. This guy there converted his problems into the death of some 26 innocent people.
A gun may be bought stricktly under defensive aspects by his owner (here the mother of the guy) but nevertheless it may all too sudden be used as a killing-mashine (as the guy did).

Will the NRA-approach to guard every school with at least one gun-man solve the problem?
No, surely not. What a silly approach by this die-hard ignorants.
The psycho who wants to go in for the kill will know who is the guard. So he will simply kill him first. And then he will go on with the kill. This in turn will alert the guards to have a closer look at suspect guys.

May a guard fail to jugde a very situation rightly?
Absolutely. Quite a few young guys like e.g. Marilyn Manson or gothic music or so and dress alike with long black coats for example. Looks threatening somehow and you can’t be sure that there isn’t a gun under the coat. And a boy who was normal up to now may tomorrow be over the top and a latent killer. The failure to judge a situation rightly will be an integral part of the decission making.
Just wait for the first boy to be shot innocently...

Will it make the US society more dangerous if at least semiautomatic weapons will be forbidden?
No. These are weapons for wars. And if someone instists on owning them on grounds of the fear that there may be a civil war in the future, then we have someone who is quite suspect to psychic lability. Who knows when this guy will go over the top and will feel threatened by quite normal circumstances?!

Will it make the US society more dangerous if guns at all will be forbidden?
No. Take a look at Europe.
We have to seperate three groups: The first are victims who are shot under real criminal circumstances. The second collects those shot by  misinterpretation of the situation, see Mr. Zimmermann. And the third ist for those who are killed in a conflict where the availability of a gun lead to a mere over reaction by one of the participants. If there is no gun the over reactor may hit em, if there is a gun he may shoot em.
Victims of the first group should be avoided. But if one thing is clear then it is that you can't live in total security. As sad as this fact may be. But it can't by no means be that society accepts the existance of the groups 2 and 3 as a permanent collateral damage on society just to make individual situations - not - more secure.
The right to own a gun does not give anyone more security simply because any other guy too has the right to own a gun - even the bad guys. And the bad thing is that the bad guys are simply ahead, as they know when they turn to be criminal while you as a normal citizen aren't aware. So the gun is statistically seen surely no assurance.

Does the individual right to protect yourself with a gun stand higher than the right of the society to cut down the overall damage done with weapons?
A political to philosophical question.
From the individual point of view it is preferable to survive any kind of threat (and the individuum may hope to never misjudge a situation).
From the point of view of the society the question fills a wider frame. The society should ask for the collateral damage resulting from the availability of guns. In the Newtown-case the mother will have bought the weapons for defensive aspects. But ironically that very security lead her to death and has cost the lives of many kids and adults. The hope for security with weapons has turned into a massacre.
As in any society the common interests stand higher than the individual the consequence seems clear. Overall security stands higher than indiviual. All the more since the individual aspects vary from person to person. Where the one feels secure the other will yet sling the gun. 

Will it be easy to make the US a weapon-free country?
No, sadly. Perhaps it will never work at all to the country clean.






  

A walk trough the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
YaBB Moderator
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #58 - 12/22/12 at 14:12:20
Post Tools
For all of BPaulsen's words, he does not accept that people are free to create and live in communities that will limit certain individual actions for the betterment of the community.

The state (majuscule or minuscule "s") is an organic part of society. In a democratic society the majority usually determines what is acceptable or unacceptable behavior. BPaulsen is free to try to find a society that fits his notions of morality, but I doubt he will succeed for some very good reasons that fall outside the limits of this conversation.

In the real world of these United States, we need gun control laws for the reasons stated by so  many citizens. We aren't duped. We know that limiting freedoms are sometimes necessary for the safety and betterment of ourselves. This isn't some 18th Century utopian society or experiment in liberty. This is where we live. We are safer if civilians do not have access to semi-automatics and handguns.

I doubt we will get effective gun control laws, but that is because our government is dysfunctional. It is almost impossible to pass meaningful legislation in our current government. This is precisely the opposite of what BPaulsen fears. Our government has become impotent to effect real change except in the face of outside aggression.

Four more people were killed in a mass shooting in Pennsylvania yesterday. There have been fourteen mass murders by gunfire in the US this year. There will be more before legislation is voted on in February (at the earliest). This is an urgent need. But the gun culture here is such that effective gun control will not happen now. It may not happen in our lifetimes.

So again, BPaulsen's world view actually limits the very freedom he claims to want, and he's wrong about the power of the state too.

Edited:
Edited to add a missing word.
« Last Edit: 12/22/12 at 17:38:31 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LostTactic
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 336
Joined: 02/19/11
Re: Newtown Massacre
Reply #57 - 12/22/12 at 09:36:30
Post Tools
The only persons who should be allowed to use guns are the military and special branches of the police force. If Adam Lanza hadn't of been able to obtain a rifle I have no doubt that the loss of life would have been much less. If someone snaps and decides to go on a killing rampage the best we can do is limit the damage they can do. There was an almost identical case to this in China on the 14th Dec, the difference is the person used a knife instead of a gun. He wounded 22 children but none were killed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo