Mass shootings and the Media

[Dakini]

What do you mean? If you set it up right, it takes one person to push the button.

I mean at the other end: you can't target an individual with it without causing nuclear fallout and killing millions of innocent bystanders. It cannot be justly used for self defense on a personal level.

So? Why does that matter?

The purpose of the second amendment in the USA is to protect oneself from government tyranny. You think you're going to do that with a fucking handgun? Nah, you gotta be able to nuke those bastards. Then they'll take you seriously.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What if we used battle robots for self defense?

[Galiantus II]

What if we used battle robots for self defense?

Then some hacker would find a way to take control of them.

[Dakini]

Actually no, that study compares gun ownership in different countries (including ones that aren't actually highly developed countries, like Russia) and the study authors note that correlation is not causation. If you look at individual states, a state like Massachusetts, which has strict gun laws, has a much lower rate of homicide than a state like Florida, which does not have strict gun laws.

The lack of correlation ought to prove to you that gun ownership has no affect on murder rates.

No. The thing is if you have to bring in countries that do not qualify as highly developed countries to say "ah, see, the gun violence in the USA isn't so bad" then you've pretty much failed.

Unless you're going to claim that the USA is not a highly developed nation like Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, most of Europe...

[Sevvania]

I mean at the other end: you can't target an individual with it without causing nuclear fallout and killing millions of innocent bystanders. It cannot be justly used for self defense on a personal level.

So? Why does that matter?

Let's explore the argument of: "Should we be allowed to carry a nuclear suitcase?"

[Dakini]

What if we used battle robots for self defense?

Then some hacker would find a way to take control of them.

That's hardly a reason not to use them. After all, someone can steal your gun and use it against you.

[Galiantus II]

I mean at the other end: you can't target an individual with it without causing nuclear fallout and killing millions of innocent bystanders. It cannot be justly used for self defense on a personal level.

So? Why does that matter?

The purpose of the second amendment in the USA is to protect oneself from government tyranny. You think you're going to do that with a fucking handgun? Nah, you gotta be able to nuke those bastards. Then they'll take you seriously.

You are actually making a very good argument for the legalization of owning tanks and automatic weapons. Nukes still are not a moral option at an individual level, but I could understand a state government owning them.

[Dakini]

So? Why does that matter?

Let's explore the argument of: "Should we be allowed to carry a nuclear suitcase?"

I don't watch video sources, summarize.

[Brickistan]

There are no rights save those that society decides you can have. Society overrules the individual on every level.

You can even see this in other animals. Food is shared. Violent individuals are banished or killed. There is ritualized courtship. Plenty of rights and rules, determined by society (or the flok / herd / whatever as might be the case). Thus, even from the very earliest days of humanity, it's safe to assume that some sort of society existed. Indeed, it might be argued that it was the very fact that we're a highly social animal that helped us thrived during that first period of our species, triumphing where many others failed.

Thus, it makes no sense to talk about individual rights, save in the larger context of the society that the individual is part of.

What I am hearing is that you have no belief in a God of any kind. If you did, you would recognize the value of the individual.

You're hearing quite right - I don't.

Mankind has existed for thousands of years and worshiped an multitude of gods. And not one of them has ever had as much as the tiniest shred of evidence to back he or she up.

[Dakini]

So? Why does that matter?

The purpose of the second amendment in the USA is to protect oneself from government tyranny. You think you're going to do that with a fucking handgun? Nah, you gotta be able to nuke those bastards. Then they'll take you seriously.

You are actually making a very good argument for the legalization of owning tanks and automatic weapons. Nukes still are not a moral option at an individual level, but I could understand a state government owning them.

Nope. Nukes are the only thing that makes the US government take anyone else seriously, look at how that shit plays out abroad: everyone who wants to be anyone is trying to get nuclear weapons because they know that's a big, giant "fuck you, you're not coming here" to foreign powers. Tanks aren't going to do shit when the US military will just swoop in with smart bombs and drones.

Seriously, it's basically nukes or nothing because nothing short of nukes is going to protect you from the tyranny of Uncle Sam.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I noticed that two of the people opposing gun ownership are MLP fans, while another MLP fan is opposing gun ownership on another thread. I should look into this on the MLP thread.

[Galiantus II]

Then some hacker would find a way to take control of them.

That's hardly a reason not to use them. After all, someone can steal your gun and use it against you.

And therefore there is no benefit to having robots do our dirty work for us compared to guns. However, I was referring to the fact someone could easily hack HUNDREDS or THOUSENDS of robots, not an individual one.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's hardly a reason not to use them. After all, someone can steal your gun and use it against you.

And therefore there is no benefit to having robots do our dirty work for us compared to guns. However, I was referring to the fact someone could easily hack HUNDREDS or THOUSENDS of robots, not an individual one.

What if the battle robots don't have wireless. It'll take a while.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Sorry for interjecting uninvitedly, but there have been studies conducted which show that gun ownership in the U.S. actually results in violent crime reduction.

Actually no, that study compares gun ownership in different countries (including ones that aren't actually highly developed countries, like Russia) and the study authors note that correlation is not causation. If you look at individual states, a state like Massachusetts, which has strict gun laws, has a much lower rate of homicide than a state like Florida, which does not have strict gun laws.

Vermont has the lowest gun murder rate in the country and very loose firearms laws, including a statewide open or concealed carry allowance without a license.
We shall note, again, that correlation is not causation. Massachussets being 19th in gun homocide rate behind number one Vermont, as well as other states with liberal gun laws (Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Maine being pretty 'liberal' and Montana mimicking VTs 'carry anywhere without a license' provision except inside city limits) we shall note this as being utterly irrelevant.


Mass shootings are a byproduct of reporting and exploitation. They're an easy way to get famous, and psychologically fucked people are most often the ones who take it based on their shitty reasoning.

[Dakini]

That's hardly a reason not to use them. After all, someone can steal your gun and use it against you.

And therefore there is no benefit to having robots do our dirty work for us compared to guns.

No benefit? You don't have to have a soft, fleshy person involved in the whole process! It's clearly superior to have robots do your dirty work.

However, I was referring to the fact someone could easily hack HUNDREDS or THOUSENDS of robots, not an individual one.

So? Apparently all the guns used in crime are totes stolen or if guns were made illegal, all the criminals would have all the guns so the scale of people who shouldn't get guns getting guns is huge.

[Sevvania]

Let's explore the argument of: "Should we be allowed to carry a nuclear suitcase?"

I don't watch video sources, summarize.

"Of course everyone carrying a nuclear suitcase would be asinine, but I also think it's asinine to throw this rebuttal out like it's some sort of game-changer. No one should even want to own a nuclear suitcase, because the risk/cost benefit ratio makes absolutely no sense. If someone has a negligent discharge with a gun, maybe you destroy a .... glass table .... or, God forbid, maybe a person. But the same gun may save your life or the lives of others one day, so the risk/cost benefit ratio is pretty level in favor of being a benefit. Now what happens if [someone] accidentally sets off a concealed carry nuclear suitcase? Lemme give you a hint: Everyone dies. A nuclear suitcase in day-to-day life is unbelievably counterproductive. The risk/cost benefit ratio is obliterated because it's overkill, and self-destructive. It makes no sense. Setting off a nuclear suitcase because somebody is trying to break into your house is earth-shatteringly dumb. Sure, you killed the guy who was trying to kill you, but you also killed... guess who? Yeah, that guy. You killed you, your family, your friends, the bad guy. But because accidents do happen, no one should be allowed to carry a nuclear suitcase. The consequences of an accidental or intentional detonation would be catastrophic, and accomplish the very thing you were trying to prevent: your death. "

tl;dr: "The nuclear suitcase argument is simply disrespectful. Posing this argument insults everyone's intelligence, and is essentially a waste of time."

[Galiantus II]

You are actually making a very good argument for the legalization of owning tanks and automatic weapons. Nukes still are not a moral option at an individual level, but I could understand a state government owning them.

Nope. Nukes are the only thing that makes the US government take anyone else seriously, look at how that shit plays out abroad: everyone who wants to be anyone is trying to get nuclear weapons because they know that's a big, giant "fuck you, you're not coming here" to foreign powers. Tanks aren't going to do shit when the US military will just swoop in with smart bombs and drones.

Seriously, it's basically nukes or nothing because nothing short of nukes is going to protect you from the tyranny of Uncle Sam.

So you are saying that we should be able to own smart bombs and drones? I would support this for towns and cities.

The problem with your argument is that any resistance to a tyrannical regime in the USA would not see any use for nukes. Nukes cause much more damage than simply destroying the target. Nukes are used to target cities and nations, not buildings and bases where your own resistance force is.

[Dakini]

Actually no, that study compares gun ownership in different countries (including ones that aren't actually highly developed countries, like Russia) and the study authors note that correlation is not causation. If you look at individual states, a state like Massachusetts, which has strict gun laws, has a much lower rate of homicide than a state like Florida, which does not have strict gun laws.

Vermont has the lowest gun murder rate in the country and very loose firearms laws, including a statewide open or concealed carry allowance without a license.

Yeah, but who the fuck wants to live in Vermont? Nobody, that's who.

We shall note, again, that correlation is not causation. Massachussets being 19th in gun homocide rate behind number one Vermont, as well as other states with liberal gun laws (Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Maine being pretty 'liberal' and Montana mimicking VTs 'carry anywhere without a license' provision except inside city limits) we shall note this as being utterly irrelevant.

So basically, if you compare a bunch of states that are pretty rural to one that's got a lot of cities...

Mass shootings are a byproduct of reporting and exploitation. They're an easy way to get famous, and psychologically fucked people are most often the ones who take it based on their shitty reasoning.

Which is totally why there are so many mass shootings in Canada, a country that gets 90% of the same media as the USA.

Oh wait.

[Galiantus II]

And therefore there is no benefit to having robots do our dirty work for us compared to guns. However, I was referring to the fact someone could easily hack HUNDREDS or THOUSENDS of robots, not an individual one.

What if the battle robots don't have wireless. It'll take a while.

In that case it would still be possible for someone to hack their personal robot or buy more. It would still have the same effect as if everyone had their own guns.

[Dakini]

Nope. Nukes are the only thing that makes the US government take anyone else seriously, look at how that shit plays out abroad: everyone who wants to be anyone is trying to get nuclear weapons because they know that's a big, giant "fuck you, you're not coming here" to foreign powers. Tanks aren't going to do shit when the US military will just swoop in with smart bombs and drones.

Seriously, it's basically nukes or nothing because nothing short of nukes is going to protect you from the tyranny of Uncle Sam.

So you are saying that we should be able to own smart bombs and drones? I would support this for towns and cities.

The problem with your argument is that any resistance to a tyrannical regime in the USA would not see any use for nukes. Nukes cause much more damage than simply destroying the target. Nukes are used to target cities and nations, not buildings and bases where your own resistance force is.

Oh no. The point of having nukes is a deterrent, not to actually use them.

Or you know, maybe you use one, just to show you mean business.

[Galiantus II]

And therefore there is no benefit to having robots do our dirty work for us compared to guns.

No benefit? You don't have to have a soft, fleshy person involved in the whole process! It's clearly superior to have robots do your dirty work.

However, I was referring to the fact someone could easily hack HUNDREDS or THOUSENDS of robots, not an individual one.

So? Apparently all the guns used in crime are totes stolen or if guns were made illegal, all the criminals would have all the guns so the scale of people who shouldn't get guns getting guns is huge.

There is no moral benefit. Of course it would be great to not have to take part in the violence yourself. However, if the objective is to decrease the homicide rate, there is basically no benefit, and it is also an unfeasible solution with current resources and technology.

[Galiantus II]

So you are saying that we should be able to own smart bombs and drones? I would support this for towns and cities.

The problem with your argument is that any resistance to a tyrannical regime in the USA would not see any use for nukes. Nukes cause much more damage than simply destroying the target. Nukes are used to target cities and nations, not buildings and bases where your own resistance force is.

Oh no. The point of having nukes is a deterrent, not to actually use them.

Tell that to Japan. And carrying around a gun isn't a deterrent to people trying to harm you?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Vermont has the lowest gun murder rate in the country and very loose firearms laws, including a statewide open or concealed carry allowance without a license.

Yeah, but who the fuck wants to live in Vermont? Nobody, that's who.

We shall note, again, that correlation is not causation. Massachussets being 19th in gun homocide rate behind number one Vermont, as well as other states with liberal gun laws (Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Maine being pretty 'liberal' and Montana mimicking VTs 'carry anywhere without a license' provision except inside city limits) we shall note this as being utterly irrelevant.

So basically, if you compare a bunch of states that are pretty rural to one that's got a lot of cities...

You understand what a rate is, right?
Because it's per 100,000 inhabitants.
How populated an area is doesn't affect a rate.

Mass shootings are a byproduct of reporting and exploitation. They're an easy way to get famous, and psychologically fucked people are most often the ones who take it based on their shitty reasoning.

Which is totally why there are so many mass shootings in Canada, a country that gets 90% of the same media as the USA.

Oh wait.

This is one where population plays a role. As well as other social and cultural factors. Canada is, you will now note if you cared to be honest, much smaller population-wise than the US.
You made this claim very early in the thread and couldn't prove it. Did you find something relevant, or are you just repeating yourself?

[Dakini]

No benefit? You don't have to have a soft, fleshy person involved in the whole process! It's clearly superior to have robots do your dirty work.


So? Apparently all the guns used in crime are totes stolen or if guns were made illegal, all the criminals would have all the guns so the scale of people who shouldn't get guns getting guns is huge.

There is no moral benefit. Of course it would be great to not have to take part in the violence yourself. However, if the objective is to decrease the homicide rate, there is basically no benefit,

What the fuck is moral about killing people in the first place, exactly? What makes killing people with a gun more moral than sending a robot to kill people? If it's the reduced effort and risk from robots, isn't it more moral to kill someone with your bare hands or with a knife/sword than it is to kill someone with a gun?

and it is also an unfeasible solution with current resources and technology.

We're not exactly talking about feasibility. Especially when you're making it a moral issue.

[Dakini]

Oh no. The point of having nukes is a deterrent, not to actually use them.

Tell that to Japan.

Japan's problem is that it didn't have nukes. That's why it got nuked.

And carrying around a gun isn't a deterrent to people trying to harm you?

I prefer not having to go out armed to the teeth. I feel much safer that way.