More Stuff

[jwhouk]

I should add that my connection speeds are 352 up/31 down - which is TONS better than I had back in Wisconsin.

[Alkarii]

Ha! The last time I had internet at home, it was 28.8kbps.

No, you aren't reading that wrong, nor is it a typo.

[lake_wrangler]

One thing I've noticed, about all the talk about gun control, is that people on both sides tend to talk as if the rightness of their argument should be evident to all...

Case in point: I was listening to the radio on the way to work (most radio stations around here are left-leaning... or at least, I don't know where the right-leaning radio stations are, because I don't listen to the ration enough to find out...)

So anyway, they were discussing President Trump's proposal to arm the teachers. One guy kept saying that doing so, or tightening up security in schools, turning them into fortresses, would end up teaching kids that it's a violent world, out there, and once you grow up, you might as well get yourself a gun...

He repeated that mantra a few times, as he kept talking, and I kept thinking: "You say that like that's a bad thing...", and "Why yes, it IS a violent world, out there!"

[Alkarii]

Well, according to the news, it is a violent world.

But when people get all in a tizzy and neglect to do even a little bit of research, they won't realize that while gun ownership in this country has been going up, the national average of violent crime has also been dropping steadily. Now, correlation is not causation, but if a person were to believe that having more guns makes the country more violent, and then found out that, there's going to be a bit of confusion or disbelief at first.

We keep hearing that banning semiautomatic rifles that can accept what the uninformed call high capacity magazines (30 rounds? Some can hold four to five times as much!) would stop mass shootings from happening, because it's common sense, but those of us who know a bit more about guns would tell you that our common sense tells us that it's entirely possible to commit mass murder with handguns. In fact, quite a few of these incidents were with handguns and not semiautomatic rifles.

Also, a person is much more likely to be stabbed to death than shot with a semiautomatic rifle, apparently.

But what do I know, I just look at statistics with the mindset that there's always more to the story... (hence why I'm planning on that video project I mentioned)

[Bookworm]

What I point out to people is something that they don't want to hear.

It doesn't matter what people think. We have a 2nd Amendment, it's been upheld to be personal ownership of firearms, and it says _straight out_ 'shall not be infringed'. That means that all of the random laws banning this, that, and the other are _unconstitutional_, unless they're talking about _crew served weapons_. That is, weapons that could reasonably be provided by the government, rather than owned by the militia member. (This was actually argued out in court while the original creators of the Amendment were still alive. Some folks salvaged cannon from a sunken ship, and there was a successful argument that they shouldn't be in private ownership. ) Frankly, I don't have an issue with machine guns being in that class as well. For anything OTHER than crowd control, they're worthless.

So, what I tell them is that if they want to redefine gun ownership, they MUST call a Constitutional Convention and get a new amendment, modifying the 2nd. That's it. Quit futzing around with the local level,and go straight to your senators and ask for an amendment. Otherwise, realize that you CAN'T keep playing 'let's break the constitution" - the last time that happened, we had a four year Civil War! (Yes, that was the reason for the war. The Northern states kept actively and openly violating the Constitution, and the southern states called them on it. There was a lot of money shenanigans as well, but that was what caused the break - the southern states figured that if the other states weren't going to honor that, why should they honor any other portion of it.)

We certainly don't need another Civil War, especially not one based on firearms. That would be a LOT bloodier, and over quicker - one way or another.

[Atomic]

Being a systems guy, I often get a chuckle about the people debating fleas and hair while ignoring the dog. Enormous volumes of blather are exchanged over trivia while ignoring foundations. As Bookworm points out, the 2d Amendment exists. But it exists because of an underlying issue.

1. Do people have a Right to defend themselves individually?
2. Do people have a Right to defend themselves collectively?

Yes, and yes. Period.

Now you can argue about weaponry, methods, and limitations.

[Alkarii]

I'd read an article earlier today talking about that Morning Joe show, and apparently someone on that show claimed that an AR-15 is "more lethal than an M16," and is supposedly someone who "grew up around" guns.

I'm guessing that he thinks that everyone in that show's audience has never thought to use Google or Wikipedia, as both will quickly tell you that his statement is completely false. Not only that, but you have to have a class 3 license to get an M16, and it's much cheaper and easier to settle for something that isn't fully automatic.

This is another big part of the reason I'm strongly considering that independent project I'd mentioned.

[TazManiac]

I'm currently posting this from a cellphone, in a BART train, underground- gonna try the short version.

Hardly ever do I agree with folks on these topics, stilll the last two posts are agreeable.
Right after an 'event', folks get reactionary, that's where we are right now; reacting.

Long term commitment to ideals are often left to be held up by 'somebody will take of it/us', instead of we need to make sure it's taken care of, both for our selves and everybody else.

Complacency, Fear, 'just want to be in the winning team...', sounds familiar?

It's not enough to just pay Taxes and expect I'll just magically turn it ok.

[AnotherFairportfan]

horrible.jpg (143.76 KiB) Viewed 5940 times

[jwhouk]

And FPF with the last word on that.

[Catawampus]

One thing I've noticed, about all the talk about gun control, is that people on both sides tend to talk as if the rightness of their argument should be evident to all...

That's because it is obvious. . .if you start from the same basic assumption as the other person.

One of the problems with the whole argument is that different people start off with a different vision of what the ideal state of America would be. To some, it's one where every competent adult carries around a gun responsibly and keeps the "bad guys" in check. To others, it's one where access to guns is very limited and so nobody can commit any gun violence. If you assume that the former is the "proper" goal, then it's entirely obvious that restrictions on gun ownership are a bad thing. If you assume the latter, then it's equally obvious that more restrictions are needed.

Unless there's agreement on what the goal is, then there's never going to be any agreement on how to reach the goal.

[Bookworm]

One thing I've noticed, about all the talk about gun control, is that people on both sides tend to talk as if the rightness of their argument should be evident to all...

That's because it is obvious. . .if you start from the same basic assumption as the other person.

One of the problems with the whole argument is that different people start off with a different vision of what the ideal state of America would be. To some, it's one where every competent adult carries around a gun responsibly and keeps the "bad guys" in check. To others, it's one where access to guns is very limited and so nobody can commit any gun violence. If you assume that the former is the "proper" goal, then it's entirely obvious that restrictions on gun ownership are a bad thing. If you assume the latter, then it's equally obvious that more restrictions are needed.

Unless there's agreement on what the goal is, then there's never going to be any agreement on how to reach the goal.

My goal, for lack of a better term, is simply a world where if you want to carry one, you can, and if you don't want to, nobody will look at you funny. That is, one in which people's personal freedoms aren't being sacrificed by _someone else_. I mean, think about it. You aren't allowed to carry a firearm into a federal office - which is _public property_ by definition.

[AnotherFairportfan]

And FPF with the last word on that.

It's actually the latest "Sketchy Chics" on GoComics...

[Atomic]

That's because it is obvious. . .if you start from the same basic assumption as the other person.

It's called Transference. You think everybody agrees with you, so that means that anybody who disagrees (No True Scotsman) must be wrong (the Naive Fallacy).

As opposed to Projection, where a denied self fear/flaw is assigned to another person.

[lake_wrangler]

So anyway, they were discussing President Trump's proposal to arm the teachers. One guy kept saying that doing so, or tightening up security in schools, turning them into fortresses, would end up teaching kids that it's a violent world, out there, and once you grow up, you might as well get yourself a gun...

He repeated that mantra a few times, as he kept talking, and I kept thinking: "You say that like that's a bad thing...", and "Why yes, it IS a violent world, out there!"

It occured to me, some time after posting (and after others had posted below it, so I didn't want to simply edit the post), that my original post needed a particular quote to end with:

Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[Warrl]

One of the problems with the whole argument is that different people start off with a different vision of what the ideal state of America would be. To some, it's one where every competent adult carries around a gun responsibly and keeps the "bad guys" in check. To others, it's one where access to guns is very limited and so nobody can commit any gun violence.

And some of us want less violence, period, thinking that a person who is beaten or stabbed to death is not less dead than a person who is shot to death. While also observing that while the state can (theoretically) deny us firearms, it CANNOT actually DISARM us, and changing what weapons are available is likely to affect the balance of power between those who wish to do violence to others and those who do not wish to be the targets of said violence.

[Atomic]

"The sword is far, the fist is near." - Korean proverb

[Dave]

That's because it is obvious. . .if you start from the same basic assumption as the other person.

It's called Transference. You think everybody agrees with you, so that means that anybody who disagrees (No True Scotsman) must be wrong (the Naive Fallacy).

As opposed to Projection, where a denied self fear/flaw is assigned to another person.

It's also a matter of logic. Logic can take you consistently and provably from a set of axioms, to a conclusion... but it cannot be used to prove your axioms. You have to take them as a "given" (Gödel demonstrated that some decades ago, and blew a hole in the idea that the entire universe could be proven to have a complete and consistent logical structure).

So, two people can reach very different conclusions, each reasoning very logically, if their axioms are different.

That's a lot of what I see in the current political debates (guns, immigration, and numerous others). People see the world differently, have different starting points for their reasoning, and come to different conclusions.

We do seem to have lost some (a lot?) of our ability to compromise... to accept that others do see the world differently than we do, that this is not necessarily wrong, and that we do need to figure out solutions that are acceptable enough to most parties so that we can share the neighborhood/country/continent/planet. A "win at all costs" scorched-Earth strategy is not, in many cases, one which can survive in the long run.

[GlytchMeister]

That's because it is obvious. . .if you start from the same basic assumption as the other person.

It's called Transference. You think everybody agrees with you, so that means that anybody who disagrees (No True Scotsman) must be wrong (the Naive Fallacy).

As opposed to Projection, where a denied self fear/flaw is assigned to another person.

It's also a matter of logic. Logic can take you consistently and provably from a set of axioms, to a conclusion... but it cannot be used to prove your axioms. You have to take them as a "given" (Gödel demonstrated that some decades ago, and blew a hole in the idea that the entire universe could be proven to have a complete and consistent logical structure).

So, two people can reach very different conclusions, each reasoning very logically, if their axioms are different.

That's a lot of what I see in the current political debates (guns, immigration, and numerous others). People see the world differently, have different starting points for their reasoning, and come to different conclusions.

We do seem to have lost some (a lot?) of our ability to compromise... to accept that others do see the world differently than we do, that this is not necessarily wrong, and that we do need to figure out solutions that are acceptable enough to most parties so that we can share the neighborhood/country/continent/planet. A "win at all costs" scorched-Earth strategy is not, in many cases, one which can survive in the long run.

I think part of that loss of compromise is due to the behavior of people on the left-right spectrum. I think it’s reasonable to apply a normal distribution to the population - and the middle 50-75% (or whatever) of people’s opinions are being drowned out or discounted by the outer 25-50% (again, just pulling numbers out of my ass here for expediency). And the most extremist LEFT or extremist RIGHT are the ones who have the motivation and the... verbal capacity, the willingness to talk and talk and talk andntalkandtalkandtalk about their views... these are the only ones who bother running for office, and thus are the only ones who get elected.

Which is why, I think, so many people see major elections as a choice between two bowls of shit.

I think the real silent majority are all those people who are being forced to choose between deep red or deep blue, but would really rather see someone a bit closer to light lavender. And Green and Independant are, time and time again, almost entirely ineffective. And due to the way our two parties work, a third party tends to just weaken the party it is closest to and gets the other party elected.

I suppose it might be feasible to gather a coalition of moderate right and moderate left and work out a compromise that would equally weaken both parties, but that’s gonna right like dancing ballet on the edge of a Muramasa.

[jwhouk]

Red and Blue options in a purple country.