"Well there is a minor controversy here - because there are some sciences where experimentation in the traditional lab sense is difficult or impossible. Cosmology, economics, archaeology, palaeontology etc have to make do with observation of pre-existing facts - as in the present case. Some people think that this means that they aren't proper sciences - but personally I think that this is nit-picking."
Granted, experimentation would be difficult here. Not impossible, but difficult. But that doesn't change the fact that presenting two fact that cannot be demonstrated as related and saying that they are is dishonest. It's the same tactic used be sensationalist media and the US's ridiculous party system to pervert statistics to support their side.
"We have no way of knowing exactly - true - but it is not unreasonable to assume that the lack of guns would have cramped their style somewhat.
I admit that it is perfectly possible to commit murder, even mass murder by other means - but the point is that it is harder.
Guns provide a uniquely quick, easy and certain method of killing."
Easier? Maybe. Quicker? Certainly. I'm not sure about mass murder being "harder" without guns. There certainly is a case to be made for other methods being more attractive...
Look at the Oklahoma City bombing... no guns. Higher body count. And it had the added benefit that the perpetrator was not at the crime. Better chance of getting away with it. This guy failed, but he certainly wasn't caught at the scene with a detonator in his hand. He was actually 'caught' because he was stopped for not having a license plate on his car while leaving the city.
The people who are motivated to get up-close and personal with guns are the ones who are going to kill no matter what the method they can find. Removing guns from the equation won't help. Sorry.
"If people (and police) carry guns routinely then there is a risk that all kinds of trivial incidents could be escalated. Remember the case (reported here) a while back where an off duty policeman pulled his gun on a motorcyclist."
And if you take away cars, it will remove the risk of all kinds of trivial car incidents. That doesn't mean anything. As has always been the case, a gun is a tool. Simply removing the tool will not remove the more negative uses of that tool... people will just use a different tool to accomplish what they need. Take away my hammer, and I'll build my house with a rock.
" I do agree with the principle enshrined in British law since 1946 that holding a gun for self-defense is not a valid justification."
And this is where we're going to agree to disagree. As I said above, it's only a tool. If I am responsible enough to train myself both physically and mentally to properly handle a gun in a self-defense situation, and to restrain myself to never use it improperly, why should I be denied that tool to defend myself just because there are others who aren't as responsible. That mentality of punish everyone because of a few bad apples (and let's face it, while the number is large, the criminal element is only a small portion of the total population) is not very enlightened.
Not to be picky, but I combined out discussion into a single thread so that I wouldn't have to keep track of multiple sub-thread branches.
Your idea of experimental science is lacking one small thing in this context... experimentation. You are looking at two coincidental facts and assuming they are causally related without performing any experiments to determine that. Until you actually experement, you are just assuming... nothing more.
And your post about my other violent crime and mass murder... when put down there on its own, yes, it sure does seem all kinds of non-sequiter. Nice trick. But in the context of you saying how these gun-based murders would be less without the guns, it raises a very important point. That point being that you have no way of knowing what these killer would have done without such ready -access to guns.
These people did what they did because they wanted people to die (for whatever reason). They did not do it because they had access to guns. Therefore, when you state that changing a factor that has nothing to with the cause, and say "no, it really is related to the cause", and insist that it will prevent the end result...that strikes me as dishonest. Unless you really do believe that the guns were the cause.
"I just set "the net result " I made no judgement about who was doing the shooting."
If you're not making a judgement about who did the shooting, then why do you insist that gun control will make any difference? The guns will be there no matter if it's legal or not.
"Net result" includes those of us legally owning guns... you're including us in your numbers... hence, assiging blame.
"The more legal guns there are the more illegal guns there will be. Our biggest problem with enforcing gun control in the UK is the availability of guns in the US - if legal US guns can leak into illegal UK hands then how much more will that be happening in the US."
So who's fault is it? The US and our plethora of guns? The people in your countries acquiring them (do you really think they'd stop if the US suddenly disappeared?)? The social environments in your area that creates the criminals and their need for guns?
You’re pretty quick to assign blame for your problems on us. I think your ‘biggest problem with enforcing gun control’ is that it doesn’t work. But that’s my opinion. See how I don’t state that as 'fact'?
You're trying to change my mind about the logical fallacy of correlation/causation... that can't be done because it's not my opinion... it's a fact of logic.
"Without the guns he would have had a lot more trouble and it is pretty certain that without semi-automatic weapons he would have been unable to kill so many people (the same is true of the recent case in Norway)."
What about the mass-murder crimes that happen without guns?
And did you read the Wiki you sent me? He had 4 hand-guns... only two of which were semi-automatic. The ammunition capacity for a semi-auto is double, but subsequent shots in quick succession are increasingly inaccurate as compared to a revolver. So it's difficult to maintain a stance that the level of violence is the result of what type of weapon was used. Especially "pretty certain".
Yes, he had more bullets that he could spit out faster, but that only matters if he's up against opposition. If he’s calmly just strolling the halls with a couple of revolvers, he could accomplish just as much because he'd be in no hurry to rack up the body count between reloads. It’s not like his targets were shooting back. But this is all speculation. It’s no more or less valid than your assumptions.
You're taking small facts of the situation and making assumptions about it without supporting evidence. And calling those assumptions "pretty certain" is rather dishonest.
As for the crime being harder for him without legally owned firearms... I believe he would have found guns any way he could. It would have only pushed his crime back while he was acquiring the firearms. However, my belief in this, again, is no more a valid 'fact' than your assertions.
Although I never said, or even implied that legal gun holders were responsible for murders that was the case in two mass killings in the UK that resulted in our laws being tightened. Certainly in these cases it is pretty clear that better gun control would have saved lives.
Um... what?
"I, like thousands of other law abiding Americans, carry a legally purchased and licensed gun on me at all times. I sincerely hope I never have to use it, but it's one of those things that you would rather have and not need, than need it and not have it...." - AC who started the discussion of legal gun ownership
"Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death."- You, in response (emphasis added by me)
How is that not saying that legal gun owners are responsible for gun deaths?
"Certainly in these cases it is pretty clear that better gun control would have saved lives."
Are you saying that he did this because he was legally owning those guns and would not have perpetrated that if he didn't legally own the guns? Or are you trying to say he would never have been able to do it without legally-owned guns? Either way, you’re assuming to know what this man may or may not have done if he did not have legally-owned firearms. All you know is that he legally owned guns and that he killed people. Those two facts are not causally related.
"Legally held guns will tend to leak into the criminal community.
Then you better just completely rid the world of guns... because guess what... guns are going to leak to the criminal community by any source willing to sell them or unable to completely defend themselves against theft. And you know why criminals will have illegal guns? Because they DON'T CARE that it's illegal!
”(laughed at by) Most of the UK and large parts of W. Europe - frankly your arguments make about as much sense as creation science to us.”
Oh, right… because Creationism is universally American and all Americans believe in it. Never mind the fact that it’s a complete non-sequiter here.
First, I don’t believe in creationism. Second, I would be the last to call it a ‘science’. The fact you chose to use that label means that you have an, at best, shaky grasp on what constitute logic and science. I evidence that by the fact that I am making statements about logical fallacies and not making illogical leaps with statistics, and you reply (rather derisively) with your European opinion (which you assume is universally shared) as though it is somehow better than my American opinion. (I assume by your statements that you are European… if I’m wrong, feel free to correct that).
You are trying to take a moral road to gun control in response to my statements on the logical fallacy about correlation/causation. So again, feel free to laugh at that. It simply erodes your credibility in this discussion.
"And often you would be right - but when the correleation is so overwhelming I think you can't just trot that argument out and expect not to be laughed at."
Laughed at by who? You? You're the one making broad generalizations based off unclear numbers. Laugh all you want. I'll be content over here with my intellectual integrity untarnished by baseless accusations.
"Americans are a bunch of murdering criminals? (That's the only one I could think of)"
case-in-point.
And 'overwhelming correlation'? Much like how overwhelmingly similar the numbers are between the decline of pirates and the increase in global warming? Hmm... I guess I should accept that one too. After all, it would be silly to resort to logic in the face of such overwhelming correlation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
The 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy is not subject to the degree of correlation. It's subject to the simple fact that statistics in-and-of themselves do not encompass all of the relevant facts surrounding the numbers they put forth. To say "well, they're close enough in this situation" is lazy and dishonest.
"What is your alternative thesis?"
Exactly what I stated... that there's a large amount of violent crime being committed by people who own guns illegally. Sorry, didn't think I was that ambiguous there. In fact, I thought my mention of the recent violent crime in my area might help illustrate my alternative thesis.
"Gabriel, as always, you manage to get off on such wonderful tangents."
So, you post that this whole article is wrong... and that we should address such things as changing our society's views on gun control... and I'm on a tangent when I address those topics? Make up your mind... do you want to talk about Theater or gun control? Or do you just want to throw out a bunch of topics and accuse anyone who disagrees with you of 'going off on a tangent' when they choose to discuss them with you?
"IT. DOESNT. MATTER. MAKING. IT. HARDER. IS. KEY."
No, it's not. How about we spend that time and energy trying to help people learn to respond to those situations? How about we use it to help reduce the amount of 'poor' (of whatever form of 'wealth' you want to consider) so that this doesn't happen in an attempt to 'gain more'?
If you want to look at it as a terrorist action, why not use that time and energy trying to NOT PISS PEOPLE OFF ENOUGH TO WANT TO TERRORIZE YOU!
"The ease by which weapons of mass killing are obtained is an issue. Try the same crime with a six shooter, and tell me how many dead people you have. It's a game changer for 60 or 70 people who would be alive today."
" I am not telling anyone to wait for anything to take action to that end. I am saying it absolutely sucks ass to be making a "security theater" piece at this point. Deal with real issues, not a freaking agenda. You don't think that perhaps the tone and the direction of this post would be better without the nasty terms being used? Do we really need to talk about "security theater" right now?"
Considering two other countries (at least) are already talking about more Theater laws, I think the answer to that question is "no, it's not too soon". Because if reasonable, rational people that agree with sentiments similar to what Mike is posting don't speak up in counter to those points, then we'll just keep seeing more useless laws that don't stop a thing and continue to erode simple liberties we take for granted. Mike isn't 'making this a Theater peice'... he's responding to the Theater peices already being made.
"I am saying it absolutely sucks ass to be making a "security theater" piece at this point."
First, what follows is not a tangent... it speaks directly to your statement about this being an untimely piece that you find offensive...
Now, here's the answer to that...
DON'T FUCKING READ IT. Just like everything out there that pisses you off, DON'T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO IT. Stop trying to force your morals onto someone else. Just like the minister or reverend or whoever it was that sparked off the great radio censorship in the 70’s and 80’s because he heard a song on the radio he didn’t like… just like the people who wanted ‘proper warning’ on record labels to warn about lyrics instead of actually researching what your children are listening to… just like the people who are worried about being exposed to ANYTHING you don’t like… GO THE FUCK AWAY. Let those of us who want to discuss these things do so in peace without having to ignore you.
/rant
"We could easily decrease that 1.2% by making it much more difficult to get hold of a gun. The side effects would be fairly negligible outside the gun industry/lobby."
Wrong. You'd only make it more difficult to legally obtain a gun. All those 'guns on the streets'? Yeah, those will still be there. And the people who use them don't care that you just added another crime on the list that they'd be guilty of breaking.
So the 'side effect' of me not being able to legally have a gun to defend myself against someone who illegally has a gun and who doesn't care about that little distinction is going to be that I now either illegally own a gun for self-defense or I'm going to be dead/robbed/injured... not that there's one less gun out there.
I have to point out here that correlation does not imply causation. Look at those numbers of violent firearm death and tell me how many of them were carrying legally and how many of them were carrying illegally. No, I don't have the numbers in front of me, and you'll probably be able to find as many reports showing one direction as you will the other.
My point is that just because we have a high gun violence ration, it's not right to imply it's because of those of us who have gone through the processes to carry one legally.
In fact, I can tell you, because I keep up with them, that (to the best of my knowledge) every SINGLE gun-related death in my city this year (Jacksonville, FL... which has a ridiculously high per-capita rating for violent crime... yay us...) involved illegal firearms carried by convicted criminals, or legally owned firearms being carried illegally.
I think I remember one or two stories in the last few YEARS here where there was a shooting involving a legally licensed concealed weapon... the most recent of which was the shooter being found not-guilty of the shooting he was involved in.
So, the statistics are only ‘against us’ when people mis-imply what the numbers mean.
"As for "security theater", there is none really in play here. The biggest failing that I can see is any culture that allows sales of the weapons that can do this sort of thing. Having a machine gun capable of taking out nearly 100 people in short order makes me wonder. "
And to what culture are you referring? As Mike points out, they have some of the strictest gun laws in place. Ours? Do you have proof the guy got his guns from us? The neighboring country? Look, I could keep going around the globe, but let's stay at the point here: no matter who lets the guns be sold or NOT be sold, people who want them are going to get them.
Let's make this clear, since I think it's the key point:
PEOPLE. WILL. AQUIRE. THAT. WHICH. YOU. OUTLAW.
Period. And you want to know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL! So how the HELL would making these kinds of guns and large quantities of ammo illegal help?
Now, I don't have the answer to these issues... but I know that huddling down and saying "see!!! We should OUTLAW them!" is a weak and lazy approach to a more serious problem. And it is delusional and misleading since it gives the impression that people are doing something about it.
Same applies to our Security Theater. If we're closing the barn doors after the horses out, and closing them only part way, and 'keeping them closed' with scotch tape... what are we really accomplishing? Especially when viewed against the loss of liberty it entails.
"Mike, first I have to say it's pretty gruesome to not even let the bodied get cold before you start with the rhetoric. It's pretty disappointing, makes me think you are desperate to make some sort of point."
As for this... when the survivors of this horrible event are saying things like "let's make a better world about this now", who the hell are you to say how long we should wait before we take action to that end?
He never said otherwise. He is saying there is no reason to buy it for its own sake. That would be the RtB part of it all.
------------------
"2nd, the "bizarre spectacle" method has long been used by talentless hacks, as currently, "Lady Gaga" does occult sex goddess schtick, with outre costumes."
And? There is obviously a market for it. Just because you don't like the music/image/industry doesn't mean it's not a legitimate market.
Take Marilyn Manson... I hate his anti-religion crap (I think it's combative and too over-the-top); there are few of his songs I can tolerate and fewer I actually like. But I respect the man as a salesman and performer because he found an audience that wanted him and sold the hell out of it (no pun intended). Just because I think it's all really silly to see thousands of non-conformists all conforming to a uniform look doesn't mean that there's not a real entertainment business to be run there.
Or, if you want to go more 'main stream', let's go back to another "shock rocker" that created a new market, worked it like a boss, and STILL has ridiculous following: Elvis Presley. I think most of his music sucks (in my taste & opinion), I hate the craze scene, and I’m glad the “he’s still alive” crap is pretty much as dead as he is. But none of my opinion removes anything from the fact that this Shock Rocker excelled by giving a great Reason to Buy: rebellion against your parents’ ways… something that has always been around, and will always be around.
And if all that is still too current and to give proof that the Rebellion Market is eternal, let’s dial it back to one of the most OG Shock Rockers of them all: W. to tha A. to tha Mozart (reprezent!!!) That man was OBSCENE! (or, I belive the current term is 'off tha hook!')
------------------
"And bizarre spectacle only /appears/ "worthwhile" to teenagers who think they're rebelling. But eventually it fails: most wise up, some move on to ever more bizarre."
Let me answer that with another quote:
"That's what I like about them high school girls, I get older and they just stay the same age". - Wooderson, Dazed & Confused
Now, wash the creepy off that, drop the 'girls', and you get the attitude of every single music act that targets any niche audience. They know their individual audience members will move on. They also know that there will always be more coming in behind them as long as their sound/image stays relevant to the social norms (or abnorms). Kinda how that works.
Umm... actually, Pandora DID close the box. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora). I think you want to use for your analogy something like "can't return the things back into the box". Just sayin.
I agree with what you're saying.... I just really enjoy Greek Mythology :)
" Are you really such a thin-skinned, little lollipop that a few harsh words bother you so? Try the doily crocheting discussion board."
this would be some that 'reasonable' discussion you're talking about elsewhere? Insulting someone who, quite reasonably and calmly, points out your poor behavior?
I think someone else already mentiond that you're the one getting laughed at... and this is another example of why. Cheers!
"Really Marcus? That's just the sort of idiotic claim I was talking about. You know it's not an accurate analogy , you know it's not even close to being one but you open your big, stupid mouth and say it anyway. So anyone that may have been inclined to listen to your position is going to dismiss you as a nutjob. Is that really what you want?"
Holy sweet jessus shitting on a stump. Did he really just open that one up?
Nope... I'll shut up... take it Marcus. All yours.
Re: Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
"Copies at my local library are 5 cents a page" And last time I checked, that money goes to paper, toner and upkeep of the copy machine... not the 'privilege' to copy stuff.
"The "joke" isn't even marginally funny, so the laughter isn't about that."
And yet you're still here to talk about it. Or still here to insult it. Still haven't really figured out if you're just disappointed or a squeaker. Considering you'd have to have hit puberty to have a kid, I'll have to rule out squeaker. Altho, I've met some people well past pre-pubescence that act as childish... so perhaps ruling that out may be premature.
"As for a slow day, well, you are here. Think about it next time before you shoot yourself in the foot."
Wasn't aware I was holding a gun. Oh! You must be talking about that wicked-sick BURN you got on me. Ah, the classic "nuh uh! YOU are!" and "I know you are but what am I!?"... can't believe I got my ass handed to me by that. Guess I'll go burn my computer and cut my interweb connection now.
And I'm actually at work posting here between phone calls and web-meetings. But nice to see you're busy setting an example of insulting other people's artistic expression for the next generation. Bravo.
"Ok son/daughter... watch close at how daddy trolls!"
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Richard
Easier? Maybe. Quicker? Certainly. I'm not sure about mass murder being "harder" without guns. There certainly is a case to be made for other methods being more attractive...
Look at the Oklahoma City bombing... no guns. Higher body count. And it had the added benefit that the perpetrator was not at the crime. Better chance of getting away with it. This guy failed, but he certainly wasn't caught at the scene with a detonator in his hand. He was actually 'caught' because he was stopped for not having a license plate on his car while leaving the city.
The people who are motivated to get up-close and personal with guns are the ones who are going to kill no matter what the method they can find. Removing guns from the equation won't help. Sorry.
And if you take away cars, it will remove the risk of all kinds of trivial car incidents. That doesn't mean anything. As has always been the case, a gun is a tool. Simply removing the tool will not remove the more negative uses of that tool... people will just use a different tool to accomplish what they need. Take away my hammer, and I'll build my house with a rock.
And this is where we're going to agree to disagree. As I said above, it's only a tool. If I am responsible enough to train myself both physically and mentally to properly handle a gun in a self-defense situation, and to restrain myself to never use it improperly, why should I be denied that tool to defend myself just because there are others who aren't as responsible. That mentality of punish everyone because of a few bad apples (and let's face it, while the number is large, the criminal element is only a small portion of the total population) is not very enlightened.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Richard
Your idea of experimental science is lacking one small thing in this context... experimentation. You are looking at two coincidental facts and assuming they are causally related without performing any experiments to determine that. Until you actually experement, you are just assuming... nothing more.
And your post about my other violent crime and mass murder... when put down there on its own, yes, it sure does seem all kinds of non-sequiter. Nice trick. But in the context of you saying how these gun-based murders would be less without the guns, it raises a very important point. That point being that you have no way of knowing what these killer would have done without such ready -access to guns.
These people did what they did because they wanted people to die (for whatever reason). They did not do it because they had access to guns. Therefore, when you state that changing a factor that has nothing to with the cause, and say "no, it really is related to the cause", and insist that it will prevent the end result...that strikes me as dishonest. Unless you really do believe that the guns were the cause.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: @ Richard
"Net result" includes those of us legally owning guns... you're including us in your numbers... hence, assiging blame.
So who's fault is it? The US and our plethora of guns? The people in your countries acquiring them (do you really think they'd stop if the US suddenly disappeared?)? The social environments in your area that creates the criminals and their need for guns?
You’re pretty quick to assign blame for your problems on us. I think your ‘biggest problem with enforcing gun control’ is that it doesn’t work. But that’s my opinion. See how I don’t state that as 'fact'?
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: @ Richard
What about the mass-murder crimes that happen without guns?
And did you read the Wiki you sent me? He had 4 hand-guns... only two of which were semi-automatic. The ammunition capacity for a semi-auto is double, but subsequent shots in quick succession are increasingly inaccurate as compared to a revolver. So it's difficult to maintain a stance that the level of violence is the result of what type of weapon was used. Especially "pretty certain".
Yes, he had more bullets that he could spit out faster, but that only matters if he's up against opposition. If he’s calmly just strolling the halls with a couple of revolvers, he could accomplish just as much because he'd be in no hurry to rack up the body count between reloads. It’s not like his targets were shooting back. But this is all speculation. It’s no more or less valid than your assumptions.
You're taking small facts of the situation and making assumptions about it without supporting evidence. And calling those assumptions "pretty certain" is rather dishonest.
As for the crime being harder for him without legally owned firearms... I believe he would have found guns any way he could. It would have only pushed his crime back while he was acquiring the firearms. However, my belief in this, again, is no more a valid 'fact' than your assertions.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What about better safety education. That 'could have saved lives' too. All without the removal of our right to own a gun. Wow. Imagine that.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
@ Richard
@Richard post # 95 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-ma ssacre.shtml#c1336
Um... what?
"I, like thousands of other law abiding Americans, carry a legally purchased and licensed gun on me at all times. I sincerely hope I never have to use it, but it's one of those things that you would rather have and not need, than need it and not have it...." - AC who started the discussion of legal gun ownership
"Unfortunately the statistics are against you here. The net result of more Americans carrying guns is more violent death."- You, in response (emphasis added by me)
How is that not saying that legal gun owners are responsible for gun deaths?
Are you saying that he did this because he was legally owning those guns and would not have perpetrated that if he didn't legally own the guns? Or are you trying to say he would never have been able to do it without legally-owned guns? Either way, you’re assuming to know what this man may or may not have done if he did not have legally-owned firearms. All you know is that he legally owned guns and that he killed people. Those two facts are not causally related.
Then you better just completely rid the world of guns... because guess what... guns are going to leak to the criminal community by any source willing to sell them or unable to completely defend themselves against theft. And you know why criminals will have illegal guns? Because they DON'T CARE that it's illegal!
@Richard post # 98 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-ma ssacre.shtml#c1383
No, it’s not ‘backed’ by an obvious mechanism… that’s the fallacy.
@Richard post #100 http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110724/23110515226/looking-security-theater-through-lens-utoya-ma ssacre.shtml#c1407
Oh, right… because Creationism is universally American and all Americans believe in it. Never mind the fact that it’s a complete non-sequiter here.
First, I don’t believe in creationism. Second, I would be the last to call it a ‘science’. The fact you chose to use that label means that you have an, at best, shaky grasp on what constitute logic and science. I evidence that by the fact that I am making statements about logical fallacies and not making illogical leaps with statistics, and you reply (rather derisively) with your European opinion (which you assume is universally shared) as though it is somehow better than my American opinion. (I assume by your statements that you are European… if I’m wrong, feel free to correct that).
You are trying to take a moral road to gun control in response to my statements on the logical fallacy about correlation/causation. So again, feel free to laugh at that. It simply erodes your credibility in this discussion.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And 'overwhelming correlation'? Much like how overwhelmingly similar the numbers are between the decline of pirates and the increase in global warming? Hmm... I guess I should accept that one too. After all, it would be silly to resort to logic in the face of such overwhelming correlation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming
The 'correlation does not imply causation' fallacy is not subject to the degree of correlation. It's subject to the simple fact that statistics in-and-of themselves do not encompass all of the relevant facts surrounding the numbers they put forth. To say "well, they're close enough in this situation" is lazy and dishonest.
Exactly what I stated... that there's a large amount of violent crime being committed by people who own guns illegally. Sorry, didn't think I was that ambiguous there. In fact, I thought my mention of the recent violent crime in my area might help illustrate my alternative thesis.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re:
No, it's not. How about we spend that time and energy trying to help people learn to respond to those situations? How about we use it to help reduce the amount of 'poor' (of whatever form of 'wealth' you want to consider) so that this doesn't happen in an attempt to 'gain more'?
If you want to look at it as a terrorist action, why not use that time and energy trying to NOT PISS PEOPLE OFF ENOUGH TO WANT TO TERRORIZE YOU!
Oh, that's right. I must have forgotten that no one ever killed mass numbers of people without high-capacity, high-rate-of-fire guns... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
Considering two other countries (at least) are already talking about more Theater laws, I think the answer to that question is "no, it's not too soon". Because if reasonable, rational people that agree with sentiments similar to what Mike is posting don't speak up in counter to those points, then we'll just keep seeing more useless laws that don't stop a thing and continue to erode simple liberties we take for granted. Mike isn't 'making this a Theater peice'... he's responding to the Theater peices already being made.
First, what follows is not a tangent... it speaks directly to your statement about this being an untimely piece that you find offensive...
Now, here's the answer to that...
DON'T FUCKING READ IT. Just like everything out there that pisses you off, DON'T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO IT. Stop trying to force your morals onto someone else. Just like the minister or reverend or whoever it was that sparked off the great radio censorship in the 70’s and 80’s because he heard a song on the radio he didn’t like… just like the people who wanted ‘proper warning’ on record labels to warn about lyrics instead of actually researching what your children are listening to… just like the people who are worried about being exposed to ANYTHING you don’t like… GO THE FUCK AWAY. Let those of us who want to discuss these things do so in peace without having to ignore you.
/rant
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the 'side effect' of me not being able to legally have a gun to defend myself against someone who illegally has a gun and who doesn't care about that little distinction is going to be that I now either illegally own a gun for self-defense or I'm going to be dead/robbed/injured... not that there's one less gun out there.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re: Re: Re:
My point is that just because we have a high gun violence ration, it's not right to imply it's because of those of us who have gone through the processes to carry one legally.
In fact, I can tell you, because I keep up with them, that (to the best of my knowledge) every SINGLE gun-related death in my city this year (Jacksonville, FL... which has a ridiculously high per-capita rating for violent crime... yay us...) involved illegal firearms carried by convicted criminals, or legally owned firearms being carried illegally.
I think I remember one or two stories in the last few YEARS here where there was a shooting involving a legally licensed concealed weapon... the most recent of which was the shooter being found not-guilty of the shooting he was involved in.
So, the statistics are only ‘against us’ when people mis-imply what the numbers mean.
On the post: Looking At Security Theater Through The Lens Of The Utøya Massacre
Re:
And to what culture are you referring? As Mike points out, they have some of the strictest gun laws in place. Ours? Do you have proof the guy got his guns from us? The neighboring country? Look, I could keep going around the globe, but let's stay at the point here: no matter who lets the guns be sold or NOT be sold, people who want them are going to get them.
Let's make this clear, since I think it's the key point:
Period. And you want to know why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE THAT IT'S ILLEGAL! So how the HELL would making these kinds of guns and large quantities of ammo illegal help?
Now, I don't have the answer to these issues... but I know that huddling down and saying "see!!! We should OUTLAW them!" is a weak and lazy approach to a more serious problem. And it is delusional and misleading since it gives the impression that people are doing something about it.
Same applies to our Security Theater. If we're closing the barn doors after the horses out, and closing them only part way, and 'keeping them closed' with scotch tape... what are we really accomplishing? Especially when viewed against the loss of liberty it entails.
As for this... when the survivors of this horrible event are saying things like "let's make a better world about this now", who the hell are you to say how long we should wait before we take action to that end?
On the post: The Dear Hunter: Recognizing The Importance Of Adding Value, Connecting With Fans
Re: OR could be that this guy's music stinks.
------------------
And? There is obviously a market for it. Just because you don't like the music/image/industry doesn't mean it's not a legitimate market.
Take Marilyn Manson... I hate his anti-religion crap (I think it's combative and too over-the-top); there are few of his songs I can tolerate and fewer I actually like. But I respect the man as a salesman and performer because he found an audience that wanted him and sold the hell out of it (no pun intended). Just because I think it's all really silly to see thousands of non-conformists all conforming to a uniform look doesn't mean that there's not a real entertainment business to be run there.
Or, if you want to go more 'main stream', let's go back to another "shock rocker" that created a new market, worked it like a boss, and STILL has ridiculous following: Elvis Presley. I think most of his music sucks (in my taste & opinion), I hate the craze scene, and I’m glad the “he’s still alive” crap is pretty much as dead as he is. But none of my opinion removes anything from the fact that this Shock Rocker excelled by giving a great Reason to Buy: rebellion against your parents’ ways… something that has always been around, and will always be around.
And if all that is still too current and to give proof that the Rebellion Market is eternal, let’s dial it back to one of the most OG Shock Rockers of them all: W. to tha A. to tha Mozart (reprezent!!!) That man was OBSCENE! (or, I belive the current term is 'off tha hook!')
------------------
Let me answer that with another quote: Now, wash the creepy off that, drop the 'girls', and you get the attitude of every single music act that targets any niche audience. They know their individual audience members will move on. They also know that there will always be more coming in behind them as long as their sound/image stays relevant to the social norms (or abnorms). Kinda how that works.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re:
I agree with what you're saying.... I just really enjoy Greek Mythology :)
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
bonus points for the social stereotype.
Add it all up, and you win the intarwebs! Minus the parts that are protected by copyrighrs, of course.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think someone else already mentiond that you're the one getting laughed at... and this is another example of why. Cheers!
On the post: Aaron Swartz Indictment Leading People To... Upload JSTOR Research To File Sharing Sites
Re: Re: Re:
HAX!
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nope... I'll shut up... take it Marcus. All yours.
On the post: Copyright Alliance Takes On The Aaron Swartz Case With A Post Full Of Bad Analogies
Re: Re: JSTOR is "selling scarcity": isn't that your advice?
On the post: Gatekeepers And The Economy
Re: Re: Re:
Wasn't aware I was holding a gun. Oh! You must be talking about that wicked-sick BURN you got on me. Ah, the classic "nuh uh! YOU are!" and "I know you are but what am I!?"... can't believe I got my ass handed to me by that. Guess I'll go burn my computer and cut my interweb connection now.
And I'm actually at work posting here between phone calls and web-meetings. But nice to see you're busy setting an example of insulting other people's artistic expression for the next generation. Bravo.
"Ok son/daughter... watch close at how daddy trolls!"
Next >>