Who's worse, Adam Lanza or Andreas Lubitz?

[The Hitch]

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

1.) none of the above.

What is a gun designed for other than to kill?

2.)probably a toss-up between the knife and the gun. Most murders by gun involve gang members and are at close range.

About five times as many murders are committed with guns as with knives. This has been a fairly consistent ratio over time, with the most recent numbers like this:

Firearms: 67.8%
Knives or other cutting instruments: 13.4%
Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.): 5.7%
Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.): 3.9%
Other dangerous weapons: 9.2%

Even gun control opponents have cited these stats (as an argument against banning semi-automatic rifles). http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... red-knive/

3.) once you take suicides out, I'm not sure.

See above.

5.). So what? How much co2 does a gun emit compared to a plane? Or car? Practical value?

What does C02 emission have to do with practical value? If you want to argue that the net value of cars and planes is less than zero because of C02 emission, go ahead, but that is a different issue from their practical value. Practical value is relevant because if something causes or facilitates deaths, that negative value has to be balanced against some positive value. Most people, I’m quite sure including you, think for planes and cars the practical value outweighs the deaths. I’m asking you to show me the practical value of guns that outweighs the deaths they cause.

And you continue to dodge this question, by refusing to acknowledge the blindingly obvious fact that a gun has zero value other than its ability to kill. A first grader can see the difference between cars, planes, knives and baseball bats, on the one hand, and guns on the other, while you pretend that there is no meaningful difference.

How much practical value does a bicycle have?

Again, you’re bringing up irrelevancies. The practical value of a bike—which, as a bike commuter, I would say is very high—is not at issue, since bikes are not dangerous weapons. Their value doesn’t have to be weighed against the deaths they cause, which are quite few and mostly limited to traffic accidents (which are usually more the fault of the driver of the car).

The bottom line is this:

If we banned all planes, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all cars, the economy would collapse.
If we banned all knives, the economy would collapse (if you doubt this, consider the food industry).
If we banned all guns, the economy would not collapse. That experiment has been tried.

Despite all your dodging of the issue, a gun is used only to kill and injure. It has no practical value other than self-defense, and that value depends on the argument that if citizens are not able to own guns, there will be more crime and the killing of defenseless citizens. Even if this is true—and there is a lot of evidence indicating it isn’t—the increased crime and deaths still have to be weighed against the increased deaths resulting from lack of gun control, from:

a) accidental shootings
b) killings by mentally ill
c) killings by individuals with a non-criminal background in the heat of the moment
d) killings by that proportion of criminals (it’s not zero) who would be deterred by gun control.

Anything used as a weapon in the hands of the deranged will likely end up with catastrophic consequences. Plane, gun, car or knife. Four times as many people in the USA are killed every year with a baseball bat than died in that plane crash. Yet I can go to any sporting goods store and buy as many baseball bats as I want.

Again, you are intentionally ignoring the fact that baseball bats have a function other than killing people, not to mention the evidence, that I cited above, that they are used to kill far fewer people than guns are.

This isn't about rationalization. This is about the complete and utter fallacy of the anti-gun argument. There are mentally ill people in this world. That is a fact. This plane crash... If nothing else... Demonstrates that mental illness is where we all should be putting our focus.

That’s why the Republicans are so busy in Congress voting for increased funds to treat the mentally ill, right? That’s why that party is at the forefront of making health care available to everyone.

Imagine your posture if Lubitz had opened fire in a school blowing away 149. What would your knee-jerk reaction be? I know it would be and you know it know what it would be.

It wouldn’t be knee-jerk, it would be a reaction based on a lot of careful thought and understanding of statistics. And this is a curious charge to make, given that I’m arguing that what he did was just as bad as a school mass shooting. Indeed, beyond all the deaths, he caused an enormous amount of property damage, plus a lot of money has to be spent in the search and clean-up, and who knows how much of a hit Lufthansa will take. None of these--except burial of the dead and a relatively small amount of property destruction--is collateral damage in mass shootings.

1. Guns are certainly weapons. Funny how the extreme majority of gun owners don't use them to kill anything. They are used for recreation by millions and millions. Pretty much like those that buy baseball bats.

2. Take the gang violence out then re-examine your numbers.

3. Practical value? How many other whole goods can you think of that have little to no practical value? Is this the new standard? Video game consoles have zero practical value yet may have had devastating effect on Lanza. Where does this nonsense end and who's in charge of determining practical value?

4. The function a baseball bat is designed for has no practical value. Ban baseball bats and the economy will not collapse.

5. I don't speak for the Republican Party. It wasn't too long ago dems were in total control and yet mental illness and treatment thereof is still a problem.

6. My point is that if the anti gun crowd were consistent in their thinking the initial uproar would have been directed at the plane, not at the perp.

Holy ****, do you know why people practice with firearms? Evidently, reality is simply something you are incapable of admitting in this scenario. I've been shooting since I was 5 years old, and every day at the range was to sharpen my skills with a weapon, so that in the event I needed to use that weapon in a hunt or to defend myself, I would be more adept at doing so. I don't understand someone like you who cannot admit, much less recognize reality.

Wow. That is myopic as it gets. Because your experience is what it is then everyone's must be like yours.

I shoot at clay pigeons to see if I can hit the ***. It's entertainment and nothing more. I don't shoot birds and never will.

Holy ***. My experience is different than yours.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

It’s ironic that the rule of locking the cockpit door only began, I think, after 9/11, for protection against terrorists. I don’t believe at the time anyone thought it could backfire.

I think having two people in the cockpit would be a deterrent against a suicide attempt, maybe not a guarantee, but certainly making it less likely. One of the central features of depression—I speak from experience here, I suffered from it for a while a long time ago-- is low self-esteem, a feeling of utter worthlessness. Lubitz was almost certainly well aware that what he was doing was a horrible thing for others, but since he viewed himself as a horrible person, that wouldn’t have necessarily deterred him. Killing others would have been consistent with his view of someone who didn’t deserve to live.

Also, hand-in-hand with the feeling of worthlessness is the feeling that life is pointless, that it has no meaning. That being the case, killing others is not such a big deal. It's not that he would have hated others, or taken any joy in their deaths, but that their deaths wouldn't have seemed that important to him. Nothing would seem important to him.

But if he had to overpower someone else, that would make it more difficult. Another feature of depression is lethargy, which again, goes along with low self-esttem and a feeling that life is meaningless. That being the case, there isn’t much point in making much of an effort. Locking a door and recharting the course of a plane is a very simple thing to do, it's about as easy as not doing it, but overpowering another person means going to a lot of trouble. You have to have a clear-cut goal, and regard that other person as standing in the way of that goal, and therefore worthy of being subdued. In my experience, depressed people generally don’t function that way. I'm speaking of pure depression, of course. There could have been more to his condition than that.

The real problem, though, is identifying people like this. It seems that Lubitz hid his problem, because it almost certainly would have meant termination of his job. It’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. If you allow people with such problems to pilot a plane, you’re asking for trouble, but if you don’t, you’re encouraging them to hide the problem.

Blaming the gun is as stupid as blaming the plane. Or the car. Or the knife.

Today’s Quiz. Consider the following items:

a) car
b) airplane
c) knife
d) gun

1. Which of these is designed solely to kill or injure humans and other animals?

2. With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?

3. Which of these results in the most intentional deaths?

4. Which of these results in the most accidental deaths (per person-hours of use)?

5. Which of these has the least practical value?

6. Manufacture and sale for public consumption of which of these has the least benefit for the rest of the economy?

Scott, if you want to argue that people have the right to own guns and defend themselves, fine. I don't agree with that argument, but I think I understand it. But you're too intelligent and informed to pretend that guns can be rationalized in any way remotely close to the way airplanes can be. It has to be an entirely different argument.

1.) none of the above.
2.)probably a toss-up between the knife and the gun. Most murders by gun involve gang members and are at close range.
3.) once you take suicides out, I'm not sure. The plane will come in 4th for sure.
4.) guns
5.). So what? How much co2 does a gun emit compared to a plane? Or car? Practical value? How much practical value does a bicycle have?
6.) two of the four will help end mankind... And it ain't the gun.

Anything used as a weapon in the hands of the deranged will likely end up with catastrophic consequences. Plane, gun, car or knife. Four times as many people in the USA are killed every year with a baseball bat than died in that plane crash. Yet I can go to any sporting goods store and buy as many baseball bats as I want.

This isn't about rationalization. This is about the complete and utter fallacy of the anti-gun argument. There are mentally ill people in this world. That is a fact. This plane crash... If nothing else... Demonstrates that mental illness is where we all should be putting our focus.

Imagine your posture if Lubitz had opened fire in a school blowing away 149. What would your knee-jerk reaction be? I know it would be and you know it know what it would be.

What was the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment Scott?

The right to bear arms, as it relates to a constitutional right, has EVERYTHING to do with a weapon's ability to kill another, and the threat to government inherent in that ability. You don't even understand your argument. Any man can kill another man with his bare hands or some other weapon, but firearms are particularly efficient at doing so, which is why they were afforded special protection.

BTW, following the quoted post, Merckx handed you your ass in a way that was incredibly satisfying to read. I'm sure you still think you won the debate, but I would suggest you're the pigeon in this meme:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

 

[Kokoso]

I'm assuming this plane crash really was the result of a suicide. That conclusion isn't 100% certain as I post this, and maybe never will be, but it seems by far the most likely explanation.

The nearly 150 people who died in the crash make Lubitz a bigger mass murderer than Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter) or any of the others who have gone on a killing rampage in schools and other public places. Lubitz, if he really did do this intentionally, must have had mental problems, but so did the other mass killers. While the primary purpose of the crash may have been suicide, he couldn't have been so far gone that he didn't realize he was killing all the others. And it's thought that the crash was pre-meditated, that he believed there would be an opportunity to lock the pilot out of the cockpit at some point during the flight.

But even if it wasn't, there had to have been some thought to this beforehand. The desire to commit suicide is not something that comes up suddenly and overwhelms an individual. It develops over a long period of time, may come and go, but I doubt anyone commits suicide without ever having contemplated it before, except under exceptionally traumatic circumstances (e.g., people who have accidentally killed someone with a gun have then taken their own lives).

Lanza and others using guns were motivated by hate, and their primary purpose was not killing themselves--though they surely expected it would likely come to that--but others. But if Lubitz had no hate towards others, he at the least had a disregard that it seems to me comes to nearly the same level. There are, after all, many ways to commit suicide without killing others.

If someone wants to argue that Lubitz was the unfortunate victim of a deranged mind, fine, but then the same view must be applied to the mass killers.

I disagree on last thought. Really you can't make any generalization based on speculations (or nothing, one can say). You know nothing, Lubitz could suffer psychotic disorder. It is just speculation and, when I see you wrote that desire to commit suicide isn't something sudden (on the contrary I think most suicides are impulsive), bad one.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

[quote="Scott SoCal]

1. Guns are certainly weapons. Funny how the extreme majority of gun owners don't use them to kill anything. They are used for recreation by millions and millions. Pretty much like those that buy baseball bats.

About 90% of homicides are committed with handguns. Handgun use is a very small proportion of recreational use; banning them would have very little effect on recreation.

Also, there's a big difference between an item like a bat, originally developed for a specific non-violent purpose, being put to use for violence by a small proportion of people, and guns, originally developed for violence, and only later being used for recreation. It would be possible to hunt without guns, and it would be possible to take target practice with non-lethal guns. It would not be possible to play baseball--which is no longer just recreation, but a multi-billion dollar business--without bats.

Not to mention that any of us would feel far safer if all we ever had to worry about on the streets or in our home was someone armed with a bat. Anyone would trade bats for guns.

2. Take the gang violence out then re-examine your numbers.

AFAIK, gang murders are < 25% of the total, so taking them out doesn't affect the numbers much. If you have different stats, you're welcome to post them.

3. Practical value? How many other whole goods can you think of that have little to no practical value? Is this the new standard? Video game consoles have zero practical value yet may have had devastating effect on Lanza. Where does this nonsense end and who's in charge of determining practical value?

Well, this is interesting. A conservative arguing that something that superficially appears harmless might actually have lethal effects if we examine it statistically over a long period of time. Sort of like climate change, or industrial pollution. If you can provide the numbers to back up this notion, and maybe you can, I might get on board with you. But I doubt the numbers will be anywhere near as convincing as they are for guns.

4. The function a baseball bat is designed for has no practical value. Ban baseball bats and the economy will not collapse.

Well, a professional baseball player would certainly disagree with you. As I noted before, baseball is a billion dollar business. Banning bats and ending the game might not result in economic collapse, but the effects would be far more devastating than those from banning guns. And again, about twenty times more murders are committed with guns than with bats. As always, you dodge the point that guns are meant to kill, bats are not. The fact that after guns were invented, people discovered they could be used recreationally doesn't change that. It would be possible to have the same kind of recreation without guns, or without lethal guns.

5. I don't speak for the Republican Party. It wasn't too long ago dems were in total control and yet mental illness and treatment thereof is still a problem.

You speak for it quite a bit on the forum. And you've definitely been a major critic of ACA. I never noticed you had any interest in mental health until suddenly that became a buzzword for those who want to deflect criticism of guns. As you know, I think mental health is part of the problem, but it isn't anywhere near all of the solution.

6. My point is that if the anti gun crowd were consistent in their thinking the initial uproar would have been directed at the plane, not at the perp.

You have a strange notion of consistency. There is nothing consistent about putting guns in the same category as planes. Even if I took seriously your diversionary tactics and talked about banning baseball bats and video games, planes are still an entirely different matter.

1. Ban handguns already. Best of luck with that.

2. If you take criminality out of gun use then the numbers are pedestrian. Let's just agree to be ultra sanitary and ban criminality. Ok?

3. What, that bad people do bad things - gun or no gun? Those ISIS dudes are pretty handy with knives. Should we ban knives or ban ISIS? Which makes more sense to the academics do Ya think?

4. Pro ball players are ridiculously overpaid prima-donnas who are part and parcel to what's wrong with free enterprise capitalism. Who gives a *** what they think?

You think pro baseball is larger than the gun industry? Really? I do think I've hit a nerve. What, you an A's fan? The ban hammer hitting a little too close to home? Eventually dude, the Feds will pick on something even you will find objectionable.

5. I'm not sure where to start with this one. I'm the only one left standing who is even somewhat right of you guys for everyone else had the great sense to vacate a long *** time ago. As to the quip about mental health - hey, it's in the news. What can I say? If I don't hit all the topics you want to discuss in a timely fashion then I'll remind you that I'm just one guy. There's lots of you guys. I'm doing the best I can.

6. I'm not putting guns in the same category as planes. I'm criticizing you ( and numerous others) for your inconsistent thinking. Had Lubitz used a gun while killing 149 others you would not be talking about his mental state. THAT IS MY POINT. Do you see?

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

Wow. That is myopic as it gets. Because your experience is what it is then everyone's must be like yours.

I shoot at clay pigeons to see if I can hit the ***. It's entertainment and nothing more. I don't shoot birds and never will.

Holy ****. My experience is different than yours.

When you're full of sh!t, it's best to just shut the fu*k up. I shoot clay pigeons too, and the purpose that sport was created for, and flourishes because of, is to be a better hunter of birds.

But that's really beside the point when you consider the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment...and it sure as fu*k isn't to shoot trap...

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

 

[frenchfry]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

Nice try, but SSC has already awarded me with the ultimate compliment (see my new signature).

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

That makes no sense. Because you live in California, knives are as efficient as guns?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I disagree on last thought. Really you can't make any generalization based on speculations (or nothing, one can say). You know nothing, Lubitz could suffer psychotic disorder. It is just speculation and, when I see you wrote that desire to commit suicide isn't something sudden (on the contrary I think most suicides are impulsive), bad one.

Yes, he could have suffered from a psychosis, in fact, according to an earlier post by Rhubroma, that is the thinking by some. I don’t disagree with that possibility, I was just pointing out that if he did suffer from depression, that could have resulted in crashing the plane. His action is probably easier to understand if he was psychotic, though OTOH, if he was, it would have been harder to pass his medical examination, as has been reported.

I said that suicides as a result of depression are not sudden, in the sense that one has considered it for some time before actually doing it or attempting it. That’s not inconsistent with suicide being impulsive, in that there still has to be a tipping point. There are many major actions we take in our lives (not just suicide) that we may have considered for a long time, and still, when we finally decide to carry them out, the action may be impulsive in that it may have required certain situational factors. The point is that those factors would not lead an ordinary person to commit suicide, there has to be the background that makes it possible. The action is impulsive in the sense that the actual time that it occurs is very difficult to predict, but it’s not sudden in the sense that it was quite probable that it was going to happen at some point.

Also, many people commit suicide who may not be clinically depressed, and I wasn’t speaking of those.

1. Ban handguns already. Best of luck with that.

Now you’re switching to the “it will never happen” argument. I don’t have a problem with that, you’e probably right, but it’s very different from saying guns should be viewed like planes or cars. I’ve never argued that handguns will be banned, I’ve argued that if one takes the view of competing interests—a very long tradition in this country that I would have thought conservatives would be quite comfortable with—one would never compare guns to planes, cars, knives or bats. Because the weight of the competing interests—risks vs. benefits—is very different for guns vs. the others. And again, in this particular discussion I’m not including self-defense in the latter, because by comparing guns to planes, you were quite clearly not using the competing interests argument. You were not saying, “I support guns because the benefits of self-defense outweigh the risks of more killings”; you were saying, “I support guns because if people don’t think airplanes should be banned, then neither should guns should be banned.” I pointed this out way upthread, and encouraged you to take the competing interest approach, and you ignored me.

2. If you take criminality out of gun use then the numbers are pedestrian. Let's just agree to be ultra sanitary and ban criminality. Ok?

You brought up the issue of gang violence, and I pointed out that it constitutes a minority of gun violence. I’m not sure what your point is now. Of course if you set aside criminal actions, the numbers go way down. We’re left with suicides, accidents and killings by people with no criminal background that aren’t carried out to further some other crime. So what?

3. What, that bad people do bad things - gun or no gun? Those ISIS dudes are pretty handy with knives. Should we ban knives or ban ISIS? Which makes more sense to the academics do Ya think?

Again, you have wandered far from the original point of discussion.

4. Pro ball players are ridiculously overpaid prima-donnas who are part and parcel to what's wrong with free enterprise capitalism. Who gives a **** what they think?

You think pro baseball is larger than the gun industry? Really? I do think I've hit a nerve. What, you an A's fan? The ban hammer hitting a little too close to home? Eventually dude, the Feds will pick on something even you will find objectionable.

I definitely agree with you that MLB players are overpaid. I would love to see the MLB bubble burst, and perhaps it will. But I was just stating a fact, baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry. I guess the gun industry is, too. Maybe we have a standoff in terms of economic impact, but given that bats are used as murder weapons far, far, far less often than guns, the comparison still favors baseball for a very wide margin. That is, the argument that if bats are not banned, neither should guns, doesn’t work. If we’re simply comparing the competing interests of economic impact vs. risks, baseball bats win out very handily.

6. I'm not putting guns in the same category as planes.

Excuse me, but that is exactly what you did do upthread, and when I and others pointed this out, you never denied it, but just kept pushing the comparison. I understand there was some sarcasm involved, but sarcasm doesn’t work very well when in fact the comparison makes guns look far worse. If you really wanted to argue in favor of guns, you would not compare them to planes, because guns don’t provide any of the benefits that planes do. You would argue for guns on their own terms. Many gun supporters do that, but you haven’t been doing that at all in this thread. That’s the only reason I called you on your post in the first place.

I'm criticizing you ( and numerous others) for your inconsistent thinking. Had Lubitz used a gun while killing 149 others you would not be talking about his mental state. THAT IS MY POINT. Do you see?

Well, yes, I would be talking about his mental state, just as we talked about Lanza’s mental state before. What I would not be doing is blaming everything on his mental state, and nothing on the weapons that allowed that mental state to direct a mass murder. And neither am I nor others here blaming the plane crash entirely on Lubitz’s mental disorder. On the contrary, most of the discussion, as far as it’s directed towards avoiding another incident like this in the future, has been about how to change the cockpit environment to make it safer. Because while we would like to be able to identify Lubitzs and Lanzas ahead of time, we’re very far from being able to do that.

Velo said it very well. The immediate response to this has been to consider how to make planes safer. Everyone agrees with this. But when we try to apply the same logic to guns, we’re met with enormous resistance. Alpe says some things have changed in Conn. Fine. But they haven’t in most of the rest of the country, and even in Conn. I’m sure there has been massive resistance to many proposed changes.

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

That makes no sense. Because you live in California, knives are as efficient as guns?

its not really about guns innit? its more about grover norquvist, and buying from the hymn sheet on the right. grover and guns are psalm 17 and 32.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

Wow. That is myopic as it gets. Because your experience is what it is then everyone's must be like yours.

I shoot at clay pigeons to see if I can hit the ***. It's entertainment and nothing more. I don't shoot birds and never will.

Holy ****. My experience is different than yours.

When you're full of sh!t, it's best to just shut the fu*k up. I shoot clay pigeons too, and the purpose that sport was created for, and flourishes because of, is to be a better hunter of birds.

But that's really beside the point when you consider the actual purpose of the 2nd Amendment...and it sure as fu*k isn't to shoot trap...

Hey man, you're bringing the second amendment to this, not me.

Full of ***? I point out that you would be screaming about the horrors of current gun laws had Lubitz used one. Sit back and deny as smug as you like. You are the one full of ***.

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

I disagree on last thought. Really you can't make any generalization based on speculations (or nothing, one can say). You know nothing, Lubitz could suffer psychotic disorder. It is just speculation and, when I see you wrote that desire to commit suicide isn't something sudden (on the contrary I think most suicides are impulsive), bad one.

Yes, he could have suffered from a psychosis, in fact, according to an earlier post by Rhubroma, that is the thinking by some. I don’t disagree with that possibility, I was just pointing out that if he did suffer from depression, that could have resulted in crashing the plane. His action is probably easier to understand if he was psychotic, though OTOH, if he was, it would have been harder to pass his medical examination, as has been reported.

I said that suicides as a result of depression are not sudden, in the sense that one has considered it for some time before actually doing it or attempting it. That’s not inconsistent with suicide being impulsive, in that there still has to be a tipping point. There are many major actions we take in our lives (not just suicide) that we may have considered for a long time, and still, when we finally decide to carry them out, the action may be impulsive in that it may have required certain situational factors. The point is that those factors would not lead an ordinary person to commit suicide, there has to be the background that makes it possible. The action is impulsive in the sense that the actual time that it occurs is very difficult to predict, but it’s not sudden in the sense that it was quite probable that it was going to happen at some point.

Also, many people commit suicide who may not be clinically depressed, and I wasn’t speaking of those.

Jesus f*ck, you can read what you've written I'm sure. You've never talked about suicide as a result of depression, you haven't even talked about depression at all, hence my answer. Anyway, there is something called psychotic depression I can tell you. And suicides as a result of depression even can be sudden. Acute psychosis can manifest itself in hours or even minutes, not to speak about delirium. Sorry for me being impatient, but it seems that some people "understand" nearly evertyhing and that crap you've written is one of these cases. But nothig personal.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

You never mind a political debate as long as there's no disagreement. I find it impossible to believe you ever get very far in any debate on any topic. I'm betting most figure you out right off the bat and just walk away. To that end you're right, I should long ago have done the same.

I don't think I ever said guns were not created as a weapon. In fact I think I said the opposite. When you get wound up maybe read and comprehend before formulating your insults. Just a thought.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

That makes no sense. Because you live in California, knives are as efficient as guns?

Sorry Hitch. Easiest and least risk to the protagonist. Guns if there the desire to kill as many as fast as possible without concern of getting caught.

If it's a mass killing with the typical ending then the gun wins.

If you were to legally purchase a gun in California today you'd probably reconsider using it to murder someone else. But then 99.999% of gun owners dot murder anyone much less multiple people.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

1. Ban handguns already. Best of luck with that.

Now you’re switching to the “it will never happen” argument. I don’t have a problem with that, you’e probably right, but it’s very different from saying guns should be viewed like planes or cars. I’ve never argued that handguns will be banned, I’ve argued that if one takes the view of competing interests—a very long tradition in this country that I would have thought conservatives would be quite comfortable with—one would never compare guns to planes, cars, knives or bats. Because the weight of the competing interests—risks vs. benefits—is very different for guns vs. the others. And again, in this particular discussion I’m not including self-defense in the latter, because by comparing guns to planes, you were quite clearly not using the competing interests argument. You were not saying, “I support guns because the benefits of self-defense outweigh the risks of more killings”; you were saying, “I support guns because if people don’t think airplanes should be banned, then neither should guns should be banned.” I pointed this out way upthread, and encouraged you to take the competing interest approach, and you ignored me.

2. If you take criminality out of gun use then the numbers are pedestrian. Let's just agree to be ultra sanitary and ban criminality. Ok?

You brought up the issue of gang violence, and I pointed out that it constitutes a minority of gun violence. I’m not sure what your point is now. Of course if you set aside criminal actions, the numbers go way down. We’re left with suicides, accidents and killings by people with no criminal background that aren’t carried out to further some other crime. So what?

3. What, that bad people do bad things - gun or no gun? Those ISIS dudes are pretty handy with knives. Should we ban knives or ban ISIS? Which makes more sense to the academics do Ya think?

Again, you have wandered far from the original point of discussion.

4. Pro ball players are ridiculously overpaid prima-donnas who are part and parcel to what's wrong with free enterprise capitalism. Who gives a **** what they think?

You think pro baseball is larger than the gun industry? Really? I do think I've hit a nerve. What, you an A's fan? The ban hammer hitting a little too close to home? Eventually dude, the Feds will pick on something even you will find objectionable.

I definitely agree with you that MLB players are overpaid. I would love to see the MLB bubble burst, and perhaps it will. But I was just stating a fact, baseball is a multi-billion dollar industry. I guess the gun industry is, too. Maybe we have a standoff in terms of economic impact, but given that bats are used as murder weapons far, far, far less often than guns, the comparison still favors baseball for a very wide margin. That is, the argument that if bats are not banned, neither should guns, doesn’t work. If we’re simply comparing the competing interests of economic impact vs. risks, baseball bats win out very handily.

6. I'm not putting guns in the same category as planes.

Excuse me, but that is exactly what you did do upthread, and when I and others pointed this out, you never denied it, but just kept pushing the comparison. I understand there was some sarcasm involved, but sarcasm doesn’t work very well when in fact the comparison makes guns look far worse. If you really wanted to argue in favor of guns, you would not compare them to planes, because guns don’t provide any of the benefits that planes do. You would argue for guns on their own terms. Many gun supporters do that, but you haven’t been doing that at all in this thread. That’s the only reason I called you on your post in the first place.

I'm criticizing you ( and numerous others) for your inconsistent thinking. Had Lubitz used a gun while killing 149 others you would not be talking about his mental state. THAT IS MY POINT. Do you see?

Well, yes, I would be talking about his mental state, just as we talked about Lanza’s mental state before. What I would not be doing is blaming everything on his mental state, and nothing on the weapons that allowed that mental state to direct a mass murder. And neither am I nor others here blaming the plane crash entirely on Lubitz’s mental disorder. On the contrary, most of the discussion, as far as it’s directed towards avoiding another incident like this in the future, has been about how to change the cockpit environment to make it safer. Because while we would like to be able to identify Lubitzs and Lanzas ahead of time, we’re very far from being able to do that.

Velo said it very well. The immediate response to this has been to consider how to make planes safer. Everyone agrees with this. But when we try to apply the same logic to guns, we’re met with enormous resistance. Alpe says some things have changed in Conn. Fine. But they haven’t in most of the rest of the country, and even in Conn. I’m sure there has been massive resistance to many proposed changes.

but it’s very different from saying guns should be viewed like planes or cars.

This started because I was wondering when the anti-gun crowd would be consistent in their thinking and start blaming the plane.

A mass murder occurs by a clearly disturbed individual. If it had been by gun this would have gone an entirely different direction. Please don't insult yourself by arguing otherwise.

you were saying, “I support guns because if people don’t think airplanes should be banned, then neither should guns should be banned.” I pointed this out way upthread, and encouraged you to take the competing interest approach, and you ignored me.

Well I apologize. Btw, I wasn't saying that at all. What Im observing is just how disingenuous the anti-gun argument really is when it comes to mass killing by gun.

Of course if you set aside criminal actions, the numbers go way down. We’re left with suicides, accidents and killings by people with no criminal background that aren’t carried out to further some other crime. So what?

So what? Confiscate all guns and what have you still not addressed?

Excuse me, but that is exactly what you did do upthread, and when I and others pointed this out, you never denied it, but just kept pushing the comparison. I understand there was some sarcasm involved, but sarcasm doesn’t work very well when in fact the comparison makes guns look far worse. If you really wanted to argue in favor of guns, you would not compare them to planes, because guns don’t provide any of the benefits that planes do

Well this has really been dragged down the rabbit hole. I'm comparing mass murder, the said instrument used and comparing the reactions. It not even complicated.

Because while we would like to be able to identify Lubitzs and Lanzas ahead of time, we’re very far from being able to do that.

Maybe one day we will get there. At any rate that, in my view, is where the focus should lie.

Velo said it very well. The immediate response to this has been to consider how to make planes safer. Everyone agrees with this. But when we try to apply the same logic to guns, we’re met with enormous resistance.

Well said. Let's just stipulate that if, because if Lubitz' action, planes were looked at with utter horror and a very loud minority were arguing for their ban then there might be significant push-back.

 

[BigMac]

Very interesting discussion. Just want to add, because you may consider the use of guns for hunting as recreational, still doesn't change that it is used to kill. Few guns are fired to break flying, spinning dishes, or in other actual harmless kind of shootings.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

That makes no sense. Because you live in California, knives are as efficient as guns?

Sorry Hitch. Easiest and least risk to the protagonist. Guns if there the desire to kill as many as fast as possible without concern of getting caught.

If it's a mass killing with the typical ending then the gun wins.

If you were to legally purchase a gun in California today you'd probably reconsider using it to murder someone else. But then 99.999% of gun owners dot murder anyone much less multiple people.

So you agree it isn't "a toss up between the gun and the knife" and that in every imaginable situation, the gun is an easier more efficient weapon to use?

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

I also find Scott's answer to the question "With which of these is killing someone easiest and least risky to the protagonist?" disturbing.

He said it was a "toss up between knife and gun"

Scott, that is just trolling. You think Breivick for example could massacre 80 people if he had a knife?

Well, consider I live in California. Read up on microstamping then feel free to reasess you trolling accusation.

That makes no sense. Because you live in California, knives are as efficient as guns?

Sorry Hitch. Easiest and least risk to the protagonist. Guns if there the desire to kill as many as fast as possible without concern of getting caught.

If it's a mass killing with the typical ending then the gun wins.

If you were to legally purchase a gun in California today you'd probably reconsider using it to murder someone else. But then 99.999% of gun owners dot murder anyone much less multiple people.

So you agree it isn't "a toss up between the gun and the knife" and that in every imaginable situation, the gun is an easier more efficient weapon to use?

Yep. I think I said that already.

I don't think like a mass murderer so I'm considering where we are where I live and also considering if I were to murder someone and not wish to get caught. In that scenario, today, I probably would not use a gun.

But then I'm not a murderer and don't really plan on becoming one.

But yes, for ease and efficiency, a gun trumps a knife.

 

[ChewbaccaDefense]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

You never mind a political debate as long as there's no disagreement. I find it impossible to believe you ever get very far in any debate on any topic. I'm betting most figure you out right off the bat and just walk away. To that end you're right, I should long ago have done the same.

I don't think I ever said guns were not created as a weapon. In fact I think I said the opposite. When you get wound up maybe read and comprehend before formulating your insults. Just a thought.

Merckx asked which things were designed solely to kill people or other living things, and you clearly denied that guns were in that category...now you say they're a "weapon." You're dancing like a $2 wh0re, but it doesn't change the fact that you wrote it. It's on the previous page. Maybe you were drunk posting again, I don't know?

As for debates, honesty is one of the single most important facets of one, and you simply can't manage to bring it to much of any topic.

So again, people aren't protesting planes, because planes were not created and designed to kill people. Guns however were, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure "for purposes of militia," that citizens had the right to own them. I don't howl about that too much, because I do believe in gun ownership. I also believe that people like you and the NRA are fighting restraints that would have an effect on gun violence that doesn't involve denial of protecting us from tyranny, which would still allow gun ownership. (Of course, in clown car land, Obama is a tryant, so maybe I need to rethink my position...)

I also note again that even with issues of the mental health of VETERANS (you know, those guys you love to send off to war, and then screw when they come home), people like you and the politicians you vote for restrict funding for programs that would help them. If you need confirmation, there are plenty of examples.

 

[TheGreenMonkey]

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re: Re:

You are free to suggest anything you like.

I'll offer that I'm fascinated that the very smartest among us will constantly engage with the very dumbest. Seriously, aren't you getting dumber by the minute?

Clearly I will never understand the burden you must feel with the knowledge that you already know everything.

If it helps you sleep at night to go on another "you're acting smart, and that's offensive" rant, feel free. The reality is that you're not honest enough to admit when you're wrong. It has more to do with character than intelligence in reality.

You're the one who regurgitated the same NRA bullsh!t line about guns being the same as food, and airplanes, etc, etc, etc. Your assertion is completely devoid of the recognition that arms were created, and are intended to be used against living things (again, read the history behind the 2nd Amendment sometime, because the founders don't agree with you...) to harm them, which differentiates them from airplanes and cars and everything else your bumper sticker political game is about.

I know it sucks to be a fu*king hack, but it really seems to be your only game. I never mind a political debate, I just detest dishonesty, and you're full of it. How anyone can spout the line that guns are not created to kill things is willfully dishonest to boot. I wish it were stupidity, because I could overlook that.

You never mind a political debate as long as there's no disagreement. I find it impossible to believe you ever get very far in any debate on any topic. I'm betting most figure you out right off the bat and just walk away. To that end you're right, I should long ago have done the same.

I don't think I ever said guns were not created as a weapon. In fact I think I said the opposite. When you get wound up maybe read and comprehend before formulating your insults. Just a thought.

Merckx asked which things were designed solely to kill people or other living things, and you clearly denied that guns were in that category...now you say they're a "weapon." You're dancing like a $2 wh0re, but it doesn't change the fact that you wrote it. It's on the previous page. Maybe you were drunk posting again, I don't know?

As for debates, honesty is one of the single most important facets of one, and you simply can't manage to bring it to much of any topic.

So again, people aren't protesting planes, because planes were not created and designed to kill people. Guns however were, and the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure "for purposes of militia," that citizens had the right to own them. I don't howl about that too much, because I do believe in gun ownership. I also believe that people like you and the NRA are fighting restraints that would have an effect on gun violence that doesn't involve denial of protecting us from tyranny, which would still allow gun ownership. (Of course, in clown car land, Obama is a tryant, so maybe I need to rethink my position...)

I also note again that even with issues of the mental health of VETERANS (you know, those guys you love to send off to war, and then screw when they come home), people like you and the politicians you vote for restrict funding for programs that would help them. If you need confirmation, there are plenty of examples.

Merckx asked which things were designed solely to kill people or other living things, and you clearly denied that guns were in that category...now you say they're a "weapon." You're dancing like a $2 wh0re, but it doesn't change the fact that you wrote it. It's on the previous page. Maybe you were drunk posting again, I don't know?

For someone who FREQUENTLY gets *** wrong you mount your high horse pretty goddam fast. But hey, never waste an opportunity to show your ass.

I'm thinking "used for" when I read "designed." My *** mistake you Jackass.

As for debates, honesty is one of the single most important facets of one, and you simply can't manage to bring it to much of any topic.

What a load of crap. If you think I'm dishonest then why the *** would you engage (if that is most important to you)? You just can't stand opposing arguments. That's what this is about.

So again, people aren't protesting planes, because planes were not created and designed to kill people

Turns out they are pretty effective at killing people when in the wrong hands... notwithstanding their DESIGN.

I also believe that people like you and the NRA are fighting restraints that would have an effect on gun violence that doesn't involve denial of protecting us from tyranny, which would still allow gun ownership. (Of course, in clown car land, Obama is a tryant, so maybe I need to rethink my position...)

Don't lump me with the NRA. I don't lump you in and you have 10,000 times more experience with guns than do I.

You believe in gun ownership? How DO you sleep at night. What a conflict.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Re: Re:

Alpe says some things have changed in Conn. Fine. But they haven’t in most of the rest of the country, and even in Conn. I’m sure there has been massive resistance to many proposed changes.

Completely correct. There's a real debate as to why more laws were implemented, and as to how much affect they will actually have. That remains to be seen. CT still is slightly less strict than Mass or NYC. After the Lanza shooting there was both a knee-jerk reaction from the Democrats (this is a wealthy, blue state), and resistance from the Republicans. It's been almost universally agreed upon that the 2013 laws that passed would not have prevented Lanza from his act. But it's more complicated than that. While Lanza's guns were legally purchased in his mother's name, the instant he took them out the door loaded, he committed a felony. He committed another felony just by having them near a school. Those laws were already in place. The new law also expanded a registry of gun owners, and magazine round limits. Plus allow law enforcement to confiscate some weapons of those who are mentally troubled. But again, Lanza would not have been on such a list or affected by such laws.

Almost predictably, no new legislation went into place expanding mental health awareness or treatment.

So to say "nothing changed" is not accurate at all. As to how much these new laws, and debate around them, will change things in the future, that remains to be seen.

 

[Scott SoCal]

Re:

A gun is a weapon. Yes it can be used for other things like target shooting but primarily it is a weapon, a killing machine.
A plane is a mode of transport. A plane can carry weapons but is rarely used as a weapon itself. Even then it is an improvised weapon like a baseball bat.

So, a gun's design is what everyone's hung up on? Did I get that right? So it's the design that's paramount here?

Dynamite was originally designed as a safer, more effective alternative to nitroglycerine and black powder when blasting rock. If Lubitz had used dynamite to blow up 149 other people then... what?

Since I now better understand the original question the OP posed then clearly Lanza is far, far worse. He used a gun for his mass killing.