6 ms·

Did you even read the article? Schneier is talking about human reactions to tragic events e.g. Aurora, 9/11; and stating that we should use these events to dis

by scott_w 14y ago

Did you even read the article? Schneier is talking about human reactions to tragic events e.g. Aurora, 9/11; and stating that we should use these events to discuss the wider issues surrounding such events, instead of focusing on the detail.

robomartin 14y ago
I did read it. And I even read the other articles he linked to. You know the one titled "Average Americans don't need assault weapons". He takes the classic approach of sounding very reasonable while on this other side gently guiding people into where the ideological articles are. Of course jumping at conclusions is dumb. We do that all the time. It's human nature. Those down-voting my post are probably jumping at conclusions without even stopping to think for a moment. All I am saying is that the media is too quick to place blame without looking at or presenting any supporting data. Once you look at the real data --not made-up or massaged data-- it is very obvious where the problems lie. Civilian-grade "assault rifles" are far from being the issue. Knives are responsible for far more homicides. The data also shows the tragedy that the media (both liberal and right wing) choose not to focus on: Hispanic and black young males are killing each other en-masse. Nobody focuses on this. The left doesn't want to offend potential voters and the right doesn't want to risk being labeled as racists. Everyone wants to take Joe Blow's guns away when they spend most of their lives locked away in a safe. I have yet to see a politician take on the real problem we have in inner cities with thousands-upon-thousands of kids killing each other. Want to focus on a problem, that's the problem. The theater massacre was a horrific event. Very sad. Twelve people died. According to FBI data ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PEOPLE where murdered in 2010. Nearly 13,000 people. Where is the righteous indignation there? Where is the "thinking about the broader issues"? The broader issues are political and societal. Guns have very little to do with it.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  I have some ideas about why your post is being downmodded. You say that, for instance, those who disagree with you... "[talk] absolute nonsense" "[don't] think things through rather than follow like sheep" "constantly bitch" "sling distorted statistics [...] and rally idiot voters" "jump at conclusions without even stopping to think for a moment" etc etc. You're not "[only] saying is that the media is too quick to place blame". You're also insulting and pre-emptively dismissing anyone who might disagree with you. That makes it pretty apparent that you're not interested in reasonable debate on this issue, you just want to soapbox. That might have something to do with the downmods.
  - robomartin 14y ago
    Of course, taking those little bits of text out of context makes it sound pretty nasty. Thankfully I am not here for a popularity contest. My experience in discussing the gun issue with people in person is that most anti-gun folks --not all-- tend to operate based on emotion and/or bad data pushed at them by, primarily, liberal-leaning media outlets. HN, like it or not, does have a good liberal-leaning population. I would have been surprised if I didn't get a bunch of down-mods. It's not a matter of language. It's enough to voice opinion supporting gun ownership. It's almost the same if you say anything against Apple. Look, I am not even a gun owner. I might go to the shooting range once or twice a year with friends. It's great fun. That's it. But I really dislike the media making generalization and accusations based on bullshit or not data at all. And, the sad reality of things is that the vast majority of the public takes what the media shovels as fact without question. Few people think of the idea of actually verifying what they are being told before forming an opinion. It saddens me that no argument is being made based on the actual data, which is, if you read carefully, the only thing I am pushing here. That transcends socio-political beliefs and emotion. The FBI data I looked at is produced by compiling standardized crime reports across the country. Look at it and tell me that I am wrong. I'd be happy to learn so if reliable and reputable data supports it. Look at the data. Tell me where and why I am wrong. So far nobody has offered critique of the data, just blind down-votes. That doesn't change the truth, does it?
    - EvilTerran 14y ago
      Frankly, I personally have absolutely no intention to answer your data. I don't have the expertise, nor the patience to gain it. But I can still take issue with your manner. Not because it offends me (it doesn't), not because of some imaginary "popularity contest" -- but because your arrogant tone, and your visible scorn of those who disagree with you, is going to achieve nothing but damage the quality of debate. You can't complain about getting naught but emotive responses when your posts seem structured to provoke exactly that. State your claims, show your data, that's great. If you want people to answer your case, stop there -- dressing it up in antagonism only gives respondents the option of answering your attitude instead of your argument. Don't give them that chance if you don't want them to take it. If they get distracted by emotion anyway, then, well, at least you tried.
- lerouxb 14y ago
  Surely you have seen the graphs comparing america to other stable democracies. Americans kill each other using guns way more often than the citizens of any remotely comparable country. You can't kill people using a gun if you don't have a gun. If it isn't guns that is the problem, then what is it? Something in the water? The air? Genetic? Americans just love killing each other and would happily do it with their hands or knives or cars or pillows or whatever if they couldn't legally buy guns? Maybe, but what does that say about American society? I don't think there's much wrong with society apart from your interpretation of your constitutional rights. This guy who everyone on the left and right labelled a coward is such a coward but would have crossed the border to illegally buy a gun from (presumably) some drug-cartel gangsters and committed the crime anyway if he couldn't easily buy it legally over the internet? I don't buy it. Guns have everything to do with it. Assault rifles have everything to do with it. He wouldn't be able to kill and maim that many people using a six shooter or a knife or a truck. End of story. And the guy is crazy. How is that a political or societal issue? Something unique about America made him crazy? America has a higher percentage of crazy people? Again, no one believes that. There are crazy people everywhere and in all countries yet we don't see crazy people in other countries that aren't currently in civil war killing each other at this scale all the time. You can't stop crazy people but you can at least try to limit the damage. I live in South Africa. We have notoriously porous borders. Most of the rest of africa is flooded with assault rifles and other illegal weapons, so if you want to get a gun illegally it should be easy. Legal gun sales, gun licenses, etc are tightly regulated not unlike Australia. Whatever political or societal or cultural problem you can point out in America, we have that too. Probably worse. Yet we don't have these massacres. We have a high crime rate, yes, but we don't have this sort of thing. You say we're jumping to conclusions, fine. What other realistic interpretation do have to offer? How do you propose America deals with the "black or hispanic inner city" problem? Make laws to take away their guns, but allow the rural whites to keep theirs? Good luck with that. I suppose you would argue that those black and hispanic youths have illegal weapons. Fine. Maybe. But where would you even find illegal weapons if there are hardly any unaccounted for legal ones to begin with?
  - learc83 14y ago
    >I live in South Africa. Your homicide rate is 7 times ours. >Legal gun sales, gun licenses, etc are tightly regulated not unlike Australia. Yet you have 7 times the murder rate. >If it isn't guns that is the problem, then what is it? Obviously it's not the guns. America has 7 times the guns (per capita), but 7 times less murders (per capita). Going by your example there is an inverse linear relationship between guns ownership and homicides. >Maybe. But where would you even find illegal weapons if there are hardly any unaccounted for legal ones to begin with? We have 300 million guns in America, they are nearly all unregistered. There is simply no way to remove them. Furthermore if you tried to confiscate them, there are literally tens of thousands of heavily armed people just waiting for the government to try to take away their guns. The death toll would dwarf any killings you could prevent. If you banned all guns the black market price would skyrocket and many of those 300 million guns that are currently just sitting unused in basements would end up on the streets. The only possible outcome is that after the initial carnage, chaos and insurrection, law abiding citizens give up their guns, while hundreds of millions of guns are still circulating in the hands of criminals. Then once the violence stops, thousands of gun enthusiasts will start manufacturing more firearms. You cannot possibly understand how seriously many American's believe in our right to own firearms. Discussing banning, or Australian style restrictions is a moot point--it cannot happen in the foreseeable future.
- msmithstubbs 14y ago
  I did read it. And I even read the other articles he linked to. You know the one titled _Average Americans don't need assault weapons_ Just to clarify: I don't think Schneier is linking to that article. It looks like it is inserted automagically by CNN's publishing platform in the middle of the articles (I assume to try and increase page views and ad impressions.)

by scott_w 14y ago

robomartin 14y ago

I did read it. And I even read the other articles he linked to. You know the one titled "Average Americans don't need assault weapons". He takes the classic approach of sounding very reasonable while on this other side gently guiding people into where the ideological articles are. Of course jumping at conclusions is dumb. We do that all the time. It's human nature. Those down-voting my post are probably jumping at conclusions without even stopping to think for a moment. All I am saying is that the media is too quick to place blame without looking at or presenting any supporting data. Once you look at the real data --not made-up or massaged data-- it is very obvious where the problems lie. Civilian-grade "assault rifles" are far from being the issue. Knives are responsible for far more homicides. The data also shows the tragedy that the media (both liberal and right wing) choose not to focus on: Hispanic and black young males are killing each other en-masse. Nobody focuses on this. The left doesn't want to offend potential voters and the right doesn't want to risk being labeled as racists. Everyone wants to take Joe Blow's guns away when they spend most of their lives locked away in a safe. I have yet to see a politician take on the real problem we have in inner cities with thousands-upon-thousands of kids killing each other. Want to focus on a problem, that's the problem. The theater massacre was a horrific event. Very sad. Twelve people died. According to FBI data ONE THOUSAND TIMES MORE PEOPLE where murdered in 2010. Nearly 13,000 people. Where is the righteous indignation there? Where is the "thinking about the broader issues"? The broader issues are political and societal. Guns have very little to do with it.

EvilTerran 14y ago
I have some ideas about why your post is being downmodded. You say that, for instance, those who disagree with you... "[talk] absolute nonsense" "[don't] think things through rather than follow like sheep" "constantly bitch" "sling distorted statistics [...] and rally idiot voters" "jump at conclusions without even stopping to think for a moment" etc etc. You're not "[only] saying is that the media is too quick to place blame". You're also insulting and pre-emptively dismissing anyone who might disagree with you. That makes it pretty apparent that you're not interested in reasonable debate on this issue, you just want to soapbox. That might have something to do with the downmods.
- robomartin 14y ago
  Of course, taking those little bits of text out of context makes it sound pretty nasty. Thankfully I am not here for a popularity contest. My experience in discussing the gun issue with people in person is that most anti-gun folks --not all-- tend to operate based on emotion and/or bad data pushed at them by, primarily, liberal-leaning media outlets. HN, like it or not, does have a good liberal-leaning population. I would have been surprised if I didn't get a bunch of down-mods. It's not a matter of language. It's enough to voice opinion supporting gun ownership. It's almost the same if you say anything against Apple. Look, I am not even a gun owner. I might go to the shooting range once or twice a year with friends. It's great fun. That's it. But I really dislike the media making generalization and accusations based on bullshit or not data at all. And, the sad reality of things is that the vast majority of the public takes what the media shovels as fact without question. Few people think of the idea of actually verifying what they are being told before forming an opinion. It saddens me that no argument is being made based on the actual data, which is, if you read carefully, the only thing I am pushing here. That transcends socio-political beliefs and emotion. The FBI data I looked at is produced by compiling standardized crime reports across the country. Look at it and tell me that I am wrong. I'd be happy to learn so if reliable and reputable data supports it. Look at the data. Tell me where and why I am wrong. So far nobody has offered critique of the data, just blind down-votes. That doesn't change the truth, does it?
  - EvilTerran 14y ago
    Frankly, I personally have absolutely no intention to answer your data. I don't have the expertise, nor the patience to gain it. But I can still take issue with your manner. Not because it offends me (it doesn't), not because of some imaginary "popularity contest" -- but because your arrogant tone, and your visible scorn of those who disagree with you, is going to achieve nothing but damage the quality of debate. You can't complain about getting naught but emotive responses when your posts seem structured to provoke exactly that. State your claims, show your data, that's great. If you want people to answer your case, stop there -- dressing it up in antagonism only gives respondents the option of answering your attitude instead of your argument. Don't give them that chance if you don't want them to take it. If they get distracted by emotion anyway, then, well, at least you tried.
lerouxb 14y ago
Surely you have seen the graphs comparing america to other stable democracies. Americans kill each other using guns way more often than the citizens of any remotely comparable country. You can't kill people using a gun if you don't have a gun. If it isn't guns that is the problem, then what is it? Something in the water? The air? Genetic? Americans just love killing each other and would happily do it with their hands or knives or cars or pillows or whatever if they couldn't legally buy guns? Maybe, but what does that say about American society? I don't think there's much wrong with society apart from your interpretation of your constitutional rights. This guy who everyone on the left and right labelled a coward is such a coward but would have crossed the border to illegally buy a gun from (presumably) some drug-cartel gangsters and committed the crime anyway if he couldn't easily buy it legally over the internet? I don't buy it. Guns have everything to do with it. Assault rifles have everything to do with it. He wouldn't be able to kill and maim that many people using a six shooter or a knife or a truck. End of story. And the guy is crazy. How is that a political or societal issue? Something unique about America made him crazy? America has a higher percentage of crazy people? Again, no one believes that. There are crazy people everywhere and in all countries yet we don't see crazy people in other countries that aren't currently in civil war killing each other at this scale all the time. You can't stop crazy people but you can at least try to limit the damage. I live in South Africa. We have notoriously porous borders. Most of the rest of africa is flooded with assault rifles and other illegal weapons, so if you want to get a gun illegally it should be easy. Legal gun sales, gun licenses, etc are tightly regulated not unlike Australia. Whatever political or societal or cultural problem you can point out in America, we have that too. Probably worse. Yet we don't have these massacres. We have a high crime rate, yes, but we don't have this sort of thing. You say we're jumping to conclusions, fine. What other realistic interpretation do have to offer? How do you propose America deals with the "black or hispanic inner city" problem? Make laws to take away their guns, but allow the rural whites to keep theirs? Good luck with that. I suppose you would argue that those black and hispanic youths have illegal weapons. Fine. Maybe. But where would you even find illegal weapons if there are hardly any unaccounted for legal ones to begin with?
- learc83 14y ago
  >I live in South Africa. Your homicide rate is 7 times ours. >Legal gun sales, gun licenses, etc are tightly regulated not unlike Australia. Yet you have 7 times the murder rate. >If it isn't guns that is the problem, then what is it? Obviously it's not the guns. America has 7 times the guns (per capita), but 7 times less murders (per capita). Going by your example there is an inverse linear relationship between guns ownership and homicides. >Maybe. But where would you even find illegal weapons if there are hardly any unaccounted for legal ones to begin with? We have 300 million guns in America, they are nearly all unregistered. There is simply no way to remove them. Furthermore if you tried to confiscate them, there are literally tens of thousands of heavily armed people just waiting for the government to try to take away their guns. The death toll would dwarf any killings you could prevent. If you banned all guns the black market price would skyrocket and many of those 300 million guns that are currently just sitting unused in basements would end up on the streets. The only possible outcome is that after the initial carnage, chaos and insurrection, law abiding citizens give up their guns, while hundreds of millions of guns are still circulating in the hands of criminals. Then once the violence stops, thousands of gun enthusiasts will start manufacturing more firearms. You cannot possibly understand how seriously many American's believe in our right to own firearms. Discussing banning, or Australian style restrictions is a moot point--it cannot happen in the foreseeable future.
msmithstubbs 14y ago
I did read it. And I even read the other articles he linked to. You know the one titled _Average Americans don't need assault weapons_ Just to clarify: I don't think Schneier is linking to that article. It looks like it is inserted automagically by CNN's publishing platform in the middle of the articles (I assume to try and increase page views and ad impressions.)