School shooting in Finland

[Lonewulf]

Asking a drug dealer to a buy a gun... that's not really that big a deal. You can "imagine" that it would warrant a weird look, but from what I've read on the subject, it's not exactly taboo... I'm willing to be proven wrong with hard facts, of course.

 

[Matthew Best]

Not sure exactly what hard facts you're after, but how about the point that the demand for illegal guns is far, far smaller than the demand for drugs?

 

[gtc]

If you google

'Killthemallnow'

You should find a link to a cached you tube page where a person claims he is about to stage a massacre at a named school in Sydney, Australia.

It seems the FBI helped to track the man down. He has been arrested but, unfortunately, released on bail.

 

[CFLarsen]

And the bit with heroin is a bit of a red herring. I don't quite get where you're going with that. You are the one that is trying to get the law to be changed. I'm not saying that the law saying it's okay makes it okay. I'm saying that you need to provide evidence as to why the law should be changed. Nice to see someone that keeps proclaiming how great a skeptic he is is resorting to such gross logical fallacies as appeals to emotion and strawmen, though. Great going, Larsen!

Here's were I'm going: Heroin was once legal for general consumption. Then, it was not legal. Can you tell me why?

For instance, I think that you should be arrested for wearing purple on a Thursday. Why? I don't have to explain myself. You just should. Doesn't quite go over well, does it?

It's nothing like that. In this case, we can document the immense harm that a school shooting causes. With lots of dead kids on the slab.

He is saying that if you just stand there, you are more likely to be hit by someone that is shooting at you. This is a pretty simple fact. It does not "blame" anyone for anything. It states, simply and clearly, that if you make a hard target, you will be harder to hit. I'm not so sure why this is so hard for you to comprehend.

If you read what you quoted, he didn't just say "more likely to be hit". He also said:

He could have been stopped very easily however.

Philip is blaming the dead kids.

Once again, you play 20 questions. You just can't answer a single question, or provide evidence for any of your claims, can you? You always get everyone else to always do the legwork.

I don't mind you being an asshat, but being an asshat while consistently getting everyone else to do all the work, while doing none yourself is inherently annoying.

...

*I wouldn't say "answer it", because Larsen hasn't answered a single question in his life.

Such blatant lies destroy any valid point you might have.

I don't see how we can discuss with you the issue of what action to take if a video like the one in this case is seen on the internet while you have not clarified your implication that not reporting it is exactly equivalent to not reporting a school shooting that is in progress.

Did you really mean to say that the two things are the same? If so, then we can't take anything else you say seriously. If not, why the heck don't you clarify what you meant?

How do you distinguish between people who intend to carry out these actions, and those who don't?

A rare incident happened. EVERYBODY PANIC! START LEGISLATING STUFF NOW!!

Rare? Perhaps. Devastating? Shaking society?

If you point to rarity as the reason for action, would you not act after the 2004 tsunami? Such tsunamis of that magnitude are rare. What about 9-11? Doesn't happen that often - would you simply have done nothing after that?

How often do you think shootings can happen, before you are willing to legislate?

Apparently you have not heard of the term implication. Or you're just your usual disgustingly disingenuous self.

Character assassination.

Yet that's exactly what everyone else understood you saying, and you never bothered clarifying your meaning. Nice try.

Lying doesn't help your argument either.

Asking a drug dealer to a buy a gun... that's not really that big a deal. You can "imagine" that it would warrant a weird look, but from what I've read on the subject, it's not exactly taboo... I'm willing to be proven wrong with hard facts, of course.

Why is it OK for you to "imagine", but others have to provide evidence that you are wrong?

 

[ref]

Things are getting super-alert around here. The police have taken into custody an 18-year-old male, who threatened his school with violence in a writing he posted on the net. The writing was available on the net for 1 minute. Now, that's fast I would say..

 

[CFLarsen]

Things are getting super-alert around here. The police have taken into custody an 18-year-old male, who threatened his school with violence in a writing he posted on the net. The writing was available on the net for 1 minute. Now, that's fast I would say..

Sadly, this attitude of justified vigilance isn't shared by all.

 

[Lonewulf]

Here's were I'm going: Heroin was once legal for general consumption. Then, it was not legal. Can you tell me why?

I'm sure that it was done for an ultimately rational reason with a ton of evidence behind it, and has done nothing but good, incomparable to Prohibition in all ways. Oh wait.

It's nothing like that. In this case, we can document the immense harm that a school shooting causes. With lots of dead kids on the slab.

Sure. And they're a very very very small minority compared to much more dangerous things, like cars.

If you read what you quoted, he didn't just say "more likely to be hit". He also said:

Philip is blaming the dead kids.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Actually, I'll quote you here to respond to you:

"Such blatant lies destroy any valid point you might have."

Sorry, but "skeptic" is not synonymous with "liar". Too bad you try to fulfill both roles here.

Once more, I see:

*No evidence.

*Untrue accusations.

*No reasonable point whatsoever.

The rest of your post is a continuation of the game of 20 questions. Like any game, it's only useful if it's fun. I am not having fun with this game. Thus, there is no rational reason to participate. Correct?

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm sure that it was done for an ultimately rational reason with a ton of evidence behind it, and has done nothing but good, incomparable to Prohibition in all ways. Oh wait.

I really don't understand this "all-or-nothing" attitude. If a prohibition of X isn't a perfect remedy against the bad effects of X, we shouldn't legislate against X at all.

Can you name one prohibition of something that has done nothing but good?

Sure. And they're a very very very small minority compared to much more dangerous things, like cars.

Yes, the old, tired "cars kill people, too" objection from gun proponents. So do nukes, but I don't hear you advocate private ownership and use of nukes.

Or do I?

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Actually, I'll quote you here to respond to you:

"Such blatant lies destroy any valid point you might have."

Sorry, but "skeptic" is not synonymous with "liar". Too bad you try to fulfill both roles here.

Once more, I see:

*No evidence.

*Untrue accusations.

*No reasonable point whatsoever.

The rest of your post is a continuation of the game of 20 questions. Like any game, it's only useful if it's fun. I am not having fun with this game. Thus, there is no rational reason to participate. Correct?

Since you are participating, you must find it rational to do so.

Why is it OK for you to "imagine", but others have to provide evidence that you are wrong?

 

[Lonewulf]

I really don't understand this "all-or-nothing" attitude. If a prohibition of X isn't a perfect remedy against the bad effects of X, we shouldn't legislate against X at all.

When legislating against X does more damage than not legislating against X, then X shouldn't be legislated against.

Rational position or no?

If that is not a rational position, then you're right; we should have legislated against alcohol and kept it legislated against.

Can you name one prohibition of something that has done nothing but good?

Not really. Nor do I care to try.

Yes, the old, tired "cars kill people, too" objection from gun proponents. So do nukes, but I don't hear you advocate private ownership and use of nukes.

Or do I?

Ah, yes, the old "It doesn't apply to X, so THEREFORE, it shouldn't apply to Y. Why? Because I said so."

Also, the old "Guns are equal to nuclear weapons" from gun control freaks. Yawn.

Yawn.

Since you are participating, you must find it rational to do so.

That, or I'm bored.

Why is it OK for you to "imagine", but others have to provide evidence that you are wrong?

I don't know what you're talking about here.

So, you still have yet to demonstrate why neither I nor Philip can be trusted with a firearm, right? You were given a chance. I guess you just can't do it.

I'm gonna go buy a gun, after I get a license. Think I can't be trusted with one? Well, too bad. Go suck it, Larsen. I'm not answerable to you, nor will I ever be.

 

[WildCat]

Not sure exactly what hard facts you're after, but how about the point that the demand for illegal guns is far, far smaller than the demand for drugs?

Of course, the drugs will be used up within a few days but the gun will last a lifetime.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The Swedish officials have arrested two teenagers aged 16 and 17, who threatened to kill the headmaster of their school. It is said they were inspired by the Jokela shooting. These two also admire the Colombine shooters and guns.
http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=1298&a=713923

Let's hear it for the internet, and everyone's fifteen minutes of fame, on youtube or google video, downloaded again and again and again.

To quote my dad: "The internet is like a gun: it is a tool, dangerous in the hands of the mentally and emotionally unstable."

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

When legislating against X does more damage than not legislating against X, then X shouldn't be legislated against.

Rational position or no?

If that is not a rational position, then you're right; we should have legislated against alcohol and kept it legislated against.

Just a minute.

How do you determine what the "damage" is?

Not really. Nor do I care to try.

Then, your argument - whatever that might have been - is invalid.

Surely, you cannot expect anyone to buy into your argument against the futility of prohibition, if you cannot point to any prohibition that has done nothing but good?

What you are arguing is not freedom, but anarchy.

Ah, yes, the old "It doesn't apply to X, so THEREFORE, it shouldn't apply to Y. Why? Because I said so."

Also, the old "Guns are equal to nuclear weapons" from gun control freaks. Yawn.

Yawn.

Do you advocate private ownership of nukes, yes or no?

That, or I'm bored.

In which case, why should anyone listen to you?

I don't know what you're talking about here.

You.

So, you still have yet to demonstrate why neither I nor Philip can be trusted with a firearm, right? You were given a chance. I guess you just can't do it.

I'm gonna go buy a gun, after I get a license. Think I can't be trusted with one? Well, too bad. Go suck it, Larsen. I'm not answerable to you, nor will I ever be.

Do you think this is the skeptical stance? That it is backed by scientific evidence?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you think this is the skeptical stance? That it is backed by scientific evidence?

One does not have to be anti gun to be skeptical, Larsen. One can be, but it does not follow.

The statistics on gun ownership and the killing other people are against you. Owning a firearm does not make one kill another person. Just today, about 20 million legitimate and legal gun owners didn't kill anyone. That number includes me.

Can you trust Sir Phillip with a gun? Trust isn't a skeptical quantity, Larsen, it's a human deal, so why are you even asking that question, Mr Skeptical Paragon of Pointless Skeptical Punditry?

Me, I'll trust him. I'll also trust Lefty Sergeant. I'll trust Mehpisto as well.

You need not worry, since you are in Denmark. You can trust all three of us not to travel on a plane, dodge the sky marshalls, and shoot you. Yes. You. Can. Trust. Us.

You can even trust any of us not to shoot you here in the US, should you come across the pond again, since we can trust you not to try and break into our domiciles and threaten our lives and or families.

Trust is a two way street.

DR

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes. You. Can. Trust. Us.

Why?

 

[gtc]

Why?

How can I trust you not to try to beat me to death with your bare hands?

How can I trust you not to try to run me down with a motor vehicle?

 

[Lonewulf]

Just a minute.

How do you determine what the "damage" is?

Cost to taxpayers, people going into jail for any amount of time for merely carrying around marijuana, number of people killed in shoot-outs, amount of profits made by drug dealers, you know, all of that stuff people like you hand-wave away because of your arbitrary desire to control people.

Then, your argument - whatever that might have been - is invalid.

Wrong. Try again.

Surely, you cannot expect anyone to buy into your argument against the futility of prohibition, if you cannot point to any prohibition that has done nothing but good?

Yeah, sure, okay.

Therefore, we can prohibit anything we want to, right?

Let's prohibit cars. They kill plenty of people. That solves a lot of problems right there. And if your desire to have less people die, then therefore, prohibiting cars should be justifiable.

What you are arguing is not freedom, but anarchy.

So, let me get this straight. As long as I'm not running around arbitrarily setting up laws that causes a significant amount of harm, therefore I'm promoting anarchy?

What the hell kind of world do you live in, Larsen?

This is hilarious. People like Larsen believe that if you're not running around having the government control everything, you're promoting "anarchy".

Yes sirree, lack of anarchy is complete government control over everything you do.

Do you advocate private ownership of nukes, yes or no?

No.

Evidence that guns are nuclear weapons? Oh, right. You just make that logical leap because you think that it somehow gives you leverage. If I want to ban nuclear weapons, THEREFORE, I should want to ban everything and anything.



"OH CRAP! I want to ban nuclear weapons! Therefore, I should acquiesce to whatever anyone wants to ban. Larsen, tell us what to ban next! We have to do it!"

In which case, why should anyone listen to you?

I don't know. Maybe because I'm actually making good points?

But feel free to ignore me if you want, Larsen. Doesn't matter; you never listen to anyone that doesn't follow around with your "BAN EVERTHING!!1111" attitude.

You.

Yes, let's talk about me, shall we?

I just had a great night last night. Had some beef jerky, ate some dinner, had a good german beer with that...

Oh, wait, you weren't talking about that? Then what about me are we talking about here?

Do you think this is the skeptical stance? That it is backed by scientific evidence?

That I'm a rational human being?

Yes. Also, yes, it is backed by statistical evidence. Statistically, a LOT of people own firearms. Statistically, only a small fraction actually use them for criminal or non-recreational and non-self defense reasons. So therefore, statistically, the majority of people should be trusted with guns.

Larsen, why should you be trusted to vote?

Just answer the question.

 

[CFLarsen]

How can I trust you not to try to beat me to death with your bare hands?

How can I trust you not to try to run me down with a motor vehicle?

Neither hands nor cars are designed to kill at a distance. Guns are.

If you equate cars with guns, why don't you equate cars with nukes?

Perhaps you do?

Cost to taxpayers, people going into jail for any amount of time for merely carrying around marijuana, number of people killed in shoot-outs, amount of profits made by drug dealers, you know, all of that stuff people like you hand-wave away because of your arbitrary desire to control people.

So, how do you weigh those against each other? You don't punish the same way for different crimes, do you?

Wrong. Try again.

You don't care to name just one prohibition of something that has done nothing but good, and think that validates your argument?

Yeah, sure, okay.

Therefore, we can prohibit anything we want to, right?

Let's prohibit cars. They kill plenty of people. That solves a lot of problems right there. And if your desire to have less people die, then therefore, prohibiting cars should be justifiable.

Yes, you can prohibit anything you want. But that's a political process, not a skeptical one, backed by science.

So, let me get this straight. As long as I'm not running around arbitrarily setting up laws that causes a significant amount of harm, therefore I'm promoting anarchy?

What the hell kind of world do you live in, Larsen?

This is hilarious. People like Larsen believe that if you're not running around having the government control everything, you're promoting "anarchy".

Yes sirree, lack of anarchy is complete government control over everything you do.

Are all laws arbitrary?

No.

Evidence that guns are nuclear weapons? Oh, right. You just make that logical leap because you think that it somehow gives you leverage. If I want to ban nuclear weapons, THEREFORE, I should want to ban everything and anything.



"OH CRAP! I want to ban nuclear weapons! Therefore, I should acquiesce to whatever anyone wants to ban. Larsen, tell us what to ban next! We have to do it!"

No. You tell us what to ban next. Nukes. What else, and why?

I don't know. Maybe because I'm actually making good points?

But feel free to ignore me if you want, Larsen. Doesn't matter; you never listen to anyone that doesn't follow around with your "BAN EVERTHING!!1111" attitude.

I'm not advocating any such thing.

Yes, let's talk about me, shall we?

I just had a great night last night. Had some beef jerky, ate some dinner, had a good german beer with that...

Oh, wait, you weren't talking about that? Then what about me are we talking about here?

I see you lost track. Here it is:

Why is it OK for you to "imagine" that it is not a big deal to buy guns from drug dealers, but others have to provide evidence that you are wrong?

That I'm a rational human being?

Yes. Also, yes, it is backed by statistical evidence. Statistically, a LOT of people own firearms. Statistically, only a small fraction actually use them for criminal or non-recreational and non-self defense reasons. So therefore, statistically, the majority of people should be trusted with guns.

Excellent!

Write an article about how gun ownership is the skeptical stance, and I'll put it in SkepticReport. Open a thread on this forum, too. See if your evidence, based on skepticism and critical thinking, will persuade the many skeptics here.

Larsen, why should you be trusted to vote?

Because that is my right.

 

[Lonewulf]

So, how do you weigh those against each other? You don't punish the same way for different crimes, do you?

Apparently, the law tends to treat people with drugs with a very heavy hand, yes.

Personally, I don't think that the government should punish and attack people for the ownership of drugs. And when it has done such a thing, it's almost always made the situation worse (as in the case of alcohol).

You don't care to name just one prohibition of something that has done nothing but good, and think that validates your argument?

Prohibition of nukes in the hands of general citizens does more good than bad.

There, done. Check.

But... isn't the idea that prohibition causes more harm than good actually more an argument against prohibition than for prohibiting whatever you want?

Yes, you can prohibit anything you want. But that's a political process, not a skeptical one, backed by science.

Y'know, not all skepticism is "backed by science". Skepticism is, and I quote:

A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.

# Philosophy

1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.

Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

None of these definitions state, "a mode of thought only backed up by science".

I'm doubtful that prohibition will cause more good than harm. Therefore, I'm skeptical.

There ya go.

Furthermore, are you saying that all political decisions are arbitrary with no real effect? If prohibiting guns has a very real negative effect, that that should be questioned and looked into. It seems like you think there is nothing logical or scientific about these decisions.

Are all laws arbitrary?

No.

No. You tell us what to ban next. Nukes. What else, and why?

Why? I'm not the one running around going, "WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!111 THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

It's your argument, back it up. I'm not going to run into a field of red herrings just so you can wank off at how great you are.

I'm not advocating any such thing.

Considering that you're trying to force me to defend prohibition of everything from drugs to nuclear weapons, why should I take this statement seriously?

The question is firearms. You have yet to provide any data regarding banning firearms. So far, it's been red herring after red herring.

Why should I take you seriously?

I see you lost track. Here it is:

Why is it OK for you to "imagine" that it is not a big deal to buy guns from drug dealers...

Okay, fine, I'll tackle this strawman. I never said that it was okay to "imagine" and that that makes it evidence.

I just asked for evidence that buying firearms from drug dealers was verboten. It was stated that it would cause a social faux pas. That was not backed up with data.

I asked for data. None was provided.

but others have to provide evidence that you are wrong?

No evidence was provided in the first place in that thing you're trying to "catch" me on. The person who stated that it was a social faux pas to inquire as to obtaining a firearm from drug dealers was just "imagining" too.

Why is it okay for him to do that, and not me? Why not try to "bust" him on that?

I asked for evidence. He had none for his claim. I don't accept "it is self-evident" as an answer, which was the form of argument he seemed to be making.

Excellent!

Write an article about how gun ownership is the skeptical stance, and I'll put it in SkepticReport. Open a thread on this forum, too. See if your evidence, based on skepticism and critical thinking, will persuade the many skeptics here.

Huh?

So it's not skepticism unless it's provided in your journal?

Because that is my right.

And owning guns is mine.

There, finished. Nothing more to talk about. I win the argument.

 

[CFLarsen]

Apparently, the law tends to treat people with drugs with a very heavy hand, yes.

Personally, I don't think that the government should punish and attack people for the ownership of drugs. And when it has done such a thing, it's almost always made the situation worse (as in the case of alcohol).

Prohibition of nukes in the hands of general citizens does more good than bad.

There, done. Check.

What did you just do there? You made a political decision: What you see as good outweigh what you see as bad.

But... isn't the idea that prohibition causes more harm than good actually more an argument against prohibition than for prohibiting whatever you want?

Again, you are reaching your conclusion based on political decisions.

Y'know, not all skepticism is "backed by science". Skepticism is, and I quote:


None of these definitions state, "a mode of thought only backed up by science".

Oh, no. Don't pull that card here. You know the kind of "skepticism" we are talking about - the one we use here, on this forum. Science. Facts. Evidence.

Furthermore, are you saying that all political decisions are arbitrary with no real effect?

If prohibiting guns has a very real negative effect, that that should be questioned and looked into.

That's a big if, isn't it? Because that depends on how you weigh the positive effects up against the negative effects.

A political decision.

It seems like you think there is nothing logical or scientific about these decisions.

We can use logic and science to find the consequences. What we do about it is a political decision.

No.

Which are arbitrary, and which are not? Explain why.

Why? I'm not the one running around going, "WE NEED TO BAN GUNS!111 THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"

It's your argument, back it up. I'm not going to run into a field of red herrings just so you can wank off at how great you are.

I'll tell you why: You have drawn a line between two weapons. Guns, yes. Nukes, no.

You can't just stop there. You have to explain precisely where you draw the line, and why.

If you can't - or won't - then it is you who want arbitrary laws.

Considering that you're trying to force me to defend prohibition of everything from drugs to nuclear weapons, why should I take this statement seriously?

I'm not trying to do that. I'm asking if you do defend prohibition of everything - and, if not, why some things and not others.

The question is firearms. You have yet to provide any data regarding banning firearms. So far, it's been red herring after red herring.

Why should I take you seriously?

You are not entirely ignorant of the many gun threads we have had. Don't lie about me not providing any data regarding banning firearms.

Okay, fine, I'll tackle this strawman. I never said that it was okay to "imagine" and that that makes it evidence.

I just asked for evidence that buying firearms from drug dealers was verboten. It was stated that it would cause a social faux pas. That was not backed up with data.

I asked for data. None was provided.

No evidence was provided in the first place in that thing you're trying to "catch" me on. The person who stated that it was a social faux pas to inquire as to obtaining a firearm from drug dealers was just "imagining" too.

Why is it okay for him to do that, and not me? Why not try to "bust" him on that?

I asked for evidence. He had none for his claim. I don't accept "it is self-evident" as an answer, which was the form of argument he seemed to be making.

When you turn the tables like that, you are in fact saying that it is okay to "imagine", and then ask the other guy for evidence against what you imagine.

You back up your own imaginations with evidence.

Huh?

So it's not skepticism unless it's provided in your journal?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm asking you to provide a skeptical - as in scientific - defense of gun ownership.

And owning guns is mine.

There, finished. Nothing more to talk about. I win the argument.

Not yet.

Are your rights a natural phenomenon or a political decision - a social construct?

 

[Big Les]

The whole "why should I trust you with X" argument is incredibly weak on its own. Cars are the most glaring example - lethal 1-ton+ boxes of metal piloted by barely-trained, apathetic cretins and well-meaning, careful, but fallible people. Hundreds of thousands dead every year. And yet we wouldn't dare ban those because most people use them. This analogy in turn falls down in terms of how essential cars are seen to be to our "quality of life", versus firearms. In America, guns seem to be pretty much on a par, and the sheer logistics of banning them is comparable to a ban on cars - hard to implement and impossible to enforce.