I'm all for gun control

[Lothian]

Even if he is human, I don't care...

Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.

 

[Lonewulf]

shrink, i want to kill. I mean, i wanna, i wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, i wanna see, i wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, kill, kill, kill.

omg so witty

 

[gumboot]

Even if he is human, I don't care. Human life is not sacred to me as it is. So trauma is not an issue.

You might claim that, but I doubt it's true. It's not about human life being "sacred". It's a biological imperative. You're born with it.

With a soldier it's a different story. Sure lots of dehumanization training and propaganda - and some cases a very compelling external motivating factor such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 - can help lower the trauma.

It doesn't, actually. Those sort of factors disable the biological safeguard against killing, but they don't prevent the psychological trauma that comes as a result of it. Indeed some of that actually heightens the trauma (a major mechanism in the atrocity trap).

However soldiers also have to deal with the fact that they have been ordered someplace by screw-ups in high office to kill people they have never met and have most likely done them no personal ill.

This doesn't appear to factor into the equation at all. Indeed, the more impersonal the killing is, the lesser the trauma.

Even if done from an airplane and not face to face, that has to be at least a little traumatizing, though that seems to be less of a problem when you're talking enemies of another culture, especially if they've done their country wrong.

Actually distance from the victim (either through physical distance or technological distance - of which bombing people from an aircraft includes both) greatly reduces and even negates the trauma. The other things - differences in culture and "doing a country wrong" don't appear to play a major part, however as I touched on above, propaganda trying to emphasise the differences of the enemy to dehumanise them can have an intensifying effect on trauma (because the soldier, in the act of killing, realises that propaganda is false).

Sitting next to my laptop is a Jameson Irish whiskey aluminum coaster. It is worth more than the lives of every burglar now and in history. I'd feel worse losing the coaster.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not talking about the value of your possessions weighed against the value of the thief's life. I thought I made that pretty clear in my last post.

Who's talking damnation? There is no God, Satan or Hell, so that's not an issue. If you're talking psychological trauma, I'm not concerned. For others who may feel guilt at ending the lives of trash, it's a shame.

It appears to me that you didn't really read Grossman's book very closely, or you'd now how wrong the above statement is.

What's the difference between killing him or him having a well-earned spontaneous cranial burst? I'm not being facetious. If you don't care about the thief being alive or dead, and if your killing him preserves your possessions, the health and well being of you and your loved ones, and doesn't put you in danger of jail, then why would killing him cause you psychological harm?

You really didn't read On Killing did you?

I do. That's why I killed my empathy for most people years ago.

Empathy for your fellow man is what defines our humanity. It is our humanity. So ironically, you yourself are "less than human" and have quite a bit in common with those thieves you're so keen to kill.

Of course, I don't buy that. You've rationalised away acknowledgment of your empathy, but the mere fact that the notion of a thief generates such anger is itself a sign of empathy. It's a chemical reaction in the brain. You can, of course, kill it if you consume enough of the right drugs (pure methamphetamine seems to do the trick) but I don't think that's what you mean.

Empathy is not a conscious decision it's an instinctive biological response and you have as little control over it as you do over your heartbeat. You either feel empathy for fellow humans or you don't, period.

An estimated 2% of humans don't feel empathy, and can kill others with impunity. You might fit into that 2% of course, and if you are I feel sorry for you, because you're missing the most important part of being human. Alternatively you might have lost it because of drug abuse, and that's frankly even sadder. I've met a few people who can't feel empathy towards a human due to the impact of drugs and they are hollow sad creatures, waiting to die.

But judging from your comments I don't think you are in that 2% (you seem to care about some people) in which case chances are, much as you claim you could kill a thief without batting an eyelid, the simple reality is it would traumatise you.

Of course, despite what you might claim, you cannot know until it happens, at which point it's too late to ever take it back. So, let's talk hypothetically here. Pretend for a moment that killing a thief does cause you psychological trauma for the rest of your life. Is that coaster worth more than your future mental health?

I suspect, if you were honest without me, the answer would be "no". And that's really my point. Forget about the thief. I have about as much respect for thieves as you do. This is about balancing the cost to you.

 

[RandFan]

Gumboot,

I think you offer a legitimate point but I think you overstate the effect. Humans are far too diverse. It's not impossible to be a compassionate and empathetic person and get over killing someone. Having watched a number of documentaries and interviews with clinical therapists dealing with the effects of trauma on humans I can tell you that there is a very wide range of effects depending on a number of variables. I don't think your portrayal of human behavior and response actually fits with what is known of how people deal with traumatic events. I've not read the book and I concede that the documentaries that I'm discussing didn't deal with killing of another human being but given the wide range of responses to trauma like violent assault and kidnapping and witnessing a family member murdered or raped I kinda doubt that there is something unusual about killing another person that would narrow the range of psychological response.

Also, I think there is reason to be skeptical of Grossman's arguments.

Grossman argues that the breakdown of American society, combined with the pervasive violence in the media and interactive video games, is conditioning our children to kill in a manner siimilar to the army's conditioning of soldiers: "We are reaching that stage of desensitization at which the infliction of pain and suffering has become a source of entertainment: vicarious pleasure rather than revulsion. We are learning to kill, and we are learning to like it."

The notion that there is a breakdown of American society is passe and not supported by the availible evidence as is also true of the idea that violent video games are making children violent.

 

[Drewbot]

Shrink, I want to kill. I mean, I wanna, I wanna kill. Kill. I wanna, I wanna see, I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL.

Then they pinned a medal on ya and said 'You're our boy' right?

 

[Lothian]

Then they pinned a medal on ya and said 'You're our boy' right?

Your prize is in the post.

 

[Yjacket]

After more than a year and a half of being absent from the JREF Forums I visited again and found this thread to be of some interest. So I was going to make comments right away and found that the machines would not let me do so - I assume that after such a period of time the account was closed automatically. Thus I had to re-register and cannot make hot links for while. That is OK too.

I have had some minor difficulty in reading the posts sorting out just which ones are a bit tongue in cheek and which are not. However, I would like to toss in my nickels worth of comment.

It has been suggested that legal firearm owners should be forced to purchase liability insurance. In many cases they already have such through their homeowners policy. It was also pointed out by another poster that such insurance would not cover criminal use of a firearm. This is true. I doubt that any of us would be able to purchase a policy providing a victim liability protection for our deliberate misconduct.

At post 56 Francesca R made a comment about increasing accidental liability for the shooter. Is the assumption being made that costs are increasing or that frequency of firearms related accidents is increasing? Costs of most things and actions are increasing to be sure but the frequency of firearms related accidents and fatalities is decreasing and has been since the powers that be first starting keeping a record of such incidents. The last time I checked this data the CDC was showing well under 1000 incidents a year which is a remarkable happening since the number of firearm owners and the number of firearms owned is steadily increasing.

I suspect that a number of people are basing their opinions on some of the anti-firearm literature and claims that abound. As a caution I suggest that you will note in the paper "GUNS AND PUBLIC HEALTH: EPIDEMIC OF VIOLENCE OR PANDEMIC OF PROPAGANDA?" (Copyright 1994 by the Tennessee Law Review and authored by Don B. Kates, Henry E. Schaffer, PhD., John K. Lattimer, M.D., George B. Murray, M.D., and Edwin H. Cassem, M.D.) a citation of valid sources of information by the anti-firearm lobby is frequently missing or is distorted.

As an example I give you the information from the DoJ (FBI) that most victims of murder knew their killer. The anti-firearms groups have elected to interpret that to mean that most victims and killers are domestic partners (family). There is no data to support that interpretation. Furthermore if you will rummage around in the available data you will find that all too frequently in such cases there is a record of law enforcement visits to the residence before the incident of death took place. At least today a person with a domestic violence restraining order is not supposed to make a firearm purchase on the legal market.

Another of the often bandied about claims is that murderers are law abiding citizens who just got angry and went off the deep end. It happens, of that there is no doubt but in the paper I referenced above the authors note that 75% or so of the adult murderers have a lengthy criminal record prior to committing that first act of murder. That means that these persons should not have been able to make a legal purchase of a firearm, especially if the check system operated by the FBI is functioning. That does not mean that the remaining 25% are those who go off the deep end - much of that 25% have juvenile records which probably means prior criminal activity.

IMO what is needed is vigorous enforcement of exiting laws.

 

[Yjacket]

Off topic.

Well that is interesting. When I went to post the above comments I forgot and used my previous "nick" and password and today it worked. So administrator perhaps you would like to close the account you issued my yesterday - Yjacket1.

 

[gtc]

Hi.

Welcome back. You generally need to send a personal messge to an administrator or mod if you want their attention. They don't always read every post. I sent one off for you but you might like to PM Darat.

Cheers.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot,

I think you offer a legitimate point but I think you overstate the effect. Humans are far too diverse. It's not impossible to be a compassionate and empathetic person and get over killing someone. Having watched a number of documentaries and interviews with clinical therapists dealing with the effects of trauma on humans I can tell you that there is a very wide range of effects depending on a number of variables. I don't think your portrayal of human behavior and response actually fits with what is known of how people deal with traumatic events. I've not read the book and I concede that the documentaries that I'm discussing didn't deal with killing of another human being but given the wide range of responses to trauma like violent assault and kidnapping and witnessing a family member murdered or raped I kinda doubt that there is something unusual about killing another person that would narrow the range of psychological response.

It's an interesting thought, but perhaps one of the most important points of the book is precisely that the trauma associated with killing is distinctly different to the trauma associated with being attacked or being in a car accident or whatever.

In fact, though the book doesn't state it, it does actually raise the question of whether those sorts of experiences should generate long term trauma at all (but that's a topic for another thread!).

Also, I think there is reason to be skeptical of Grossman's arguments.

The notion that there is a breakdown of American society is passe and not supported by the availible evidence as is also true of the idea that violent video games are making children violent.

Grossman's book is in two distinct parts, and I personally think his application to civil modern society is deeply flawed (though I think he has points). However this doesn't really undermine the first half, which deals with the psychological process of killing, the effects of it, and ways of disabling the resistance. That first half is thoroughly backed up by compelling evidence through human history and across numerous societies.

 

[Crowlogic]

Gun control? No way! Unless I've got a big bore in the gun rack and a six pack next to me on the seat of my pickup truck I don't feel like a man! God, guts and guns made America great!

No wait a minute something's not right here... Ahh I got it I just realized I'm a Crow so I couldn't care less about what it takes for some to feel like a man. Yeah go ahead lets control the bejezees out of guns. Maybe if we really crack down with some decent gun control we'll end up with a sane amount of firearms in this gun addicted culture.

 

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

Gun control? No way! Unless I've got a big bore in the gun rack and a six pack next to me on the seat of my pickup truck I don't feel like a man! God, guts and guns made America great!

No wait a minute something's not right here... Ahh I got it I just realized I'm a Crow so I couldn't care less about what it takes for some to feel like a man. Yeah go ahead lets control the bejezees out of guns. Maybe if we really crack down with some decent gun control we'll end up with a sane amount of firearms in this gun addicted culture.

Cool. A Nation-Wide Ad-Hom!

I'm all for gun control, crow. All you have to do is convince me that you can pass a law that will work.

As such I suggest that you start with making a law that will prevent illegal drugs from being sold and used in the US.

Not prohibit - prevent. That means you can't just make recreational pharmaceuticals Ok on the open market.

If that works, I still have to require some sort of proof that it wasn't just a fluke, so I'd have to ask you to pass a law that successfully prevents convicted felons from obtaining firearms.

Again, prevent, as above.

So far, all the proposed gun-control laws are designed to make it legal to treat ME, who is as yet a law-abiding gun owner, as a criminal while pretty much leaving the convicted criminals exactly as they currently are.

If cutting down on the number of guns is as simple as that, then it should be no problem getting the two test laws for which I've asked to work as I've asked.

So: Convince me.

 

[gumboot]

Gun control? You're insane. What do guns know about running the country!

 

[Ranb]

Maybe if we really crack down with some decent gun control we'll end up with a sane amount of firearms in this gun addicted culture.

Decent gun control? Got a definition for that? If you are not careful, then you will end up sounding like a politician who says he is for "common sense gun control", which is code for, "We will tell you what you can own and if you are confused, we have a prison cell for you." or "The 2nd amendment is about protecting the people's right to hunt."

So what is a sane amount of guns in your opinion?

Ranb

 

[Lothian]

Hi




Cool. A Nation-Wide Ad-Hom!

I'm all for gun control, crow. All you have to do is convince me that you can pass a law that will work.

As such I suggest that you start with making a law that will prevent illegal drugs from being sold and used in the US.

Not prohibit - prevent. That means you can't just make recreational pharmaceuticals Ok on the open market.

If that works, I still have to require some sort of proof that it wasn't just a fluke, so I'd have to ask you to pass a law that successfully prevents convicted felons from obtaining firearms.

Again, prevent, as above.

So far, all the proposed gun-control laws are designed to make it legal to treat ME, who is as yet a law-abiding gun owner, as a criminal while pretty much leaving the convicted criminals exactly as they currently are.

If cutting down on the number of guns is as simple as that, then it should be no problem getting the two test laws for which I've asked to work as I've asked.

So: Convince me.

You argue that the only worthwhile laws are those that successfully prevent as opposed to prohibit an action. I presume therefore that you oppose laws prohibiting murder, speed limits, child abuse etc and these do not successfully prevent people from breaking them.
Have I misunderstood your argument?

 

[Lonewulf]

You argue that the only worthwhile laws are those that successfully prevent as opposed to prohibit an action. I presume therefore that you oppose laws prohibiting murder, speed limits, child abuse etc and these do not successfully prevent people from breaking them.
Have I misunderstood your argument?

Laws prohibiting murder, theft, and child abuse direct pertain to harm. Someone commits harm, and they are therefore punished for it, under the pretense that this will prevent more harm (or out of a sense of revenge, but I prefer the former defense).

Owning a firearm does not, in itself, cause harm. No matter how many times you people keep claiming it does cause harm, just the simple ownership is not the problem.

However, gun control directly targets law abiding citizens. Thus, it is the claim of people like you, that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will somehow protect them from gun shootings... which seems rather absurd, as those responsible for shootings are usually not the kinds of people that buy guns legally.

It seems more to me, to be disarming those that did nothing wrong as punishment for those that did do something wrong, or because they are responsible for some sort of Original Sin of firearm use; that you are assumed of guilt before innocence in anything pertaining to firearm use.

But you're welcome to demonstrate how owning a firearm is equivalent to committing murder. I'm sure that Danish Dynamite would agree with you; he's called anyone that owns a gun a murderer.

 

[Lonewulf]

Gun control? No way! Unless I've got a big bore in the gun rack and a six pack next to me on the seat of my pickup truck I don't feel like a man! God, guts and guns made America great!

Nice nation-wide strawman AND ad hominem.

I'm not sure about guts, but I certainly don't think that God made America great. I'm an atheist myself. I do think that many people spilled their guts in defense of this nation, and I honor them, though. Guns making America great... well, the ability to obtain firearms was a big part of the revolutionary war. I'm sure that you'll come up with a nice essay on how they could have fought against the British with rocks and sticks?

I don't have a big gun myself; I don't have a gun at all. But I support the ability of other citizens to be able to own a firearm, and I support the ability for myself to be able to buy a firearm, should I pertain it useful to my ability to defend myself. (Currently, I merely have a collapsible baton, mostly because I find the things cool more than anything else; I'm not really able to carry it into anyplace I go to on a daily basis.)

I also don't have a pick-up truck. Nor do I really want one, if I can get away with it; although one would certainly be useful for carrying my SCA gear, for when I feel like doing medieval reenactment.

 

[Lonewulf]

Gun control? You're insane. What do guns know about running the country!

I LOL'd.

 

[Lothian]

Laws prohibiting murder, theft, and child abuse direct pertain to harm. Someone commits harm, and they are therefore punished for it, under the pretense that this will prevent more harm (or out of a sense of revenge, but I prefer the former defense).

You missed out speeding.

Owning a firearm does not, in itself, cause harm. No matter how many times you people keep claiming it does cause harm, just the simple ownership is not the problem.

No matter how many times you people accuse people like me of saying it I still do not recall saying that owning a firearm does in itself cause harm. But feel free to trawl though my posts to prove me wrong.

However, gun control directly targets law abiding citizens. Thus, it is the claim of people like you, that taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens will somehow protect them from gun shootings... which seems rather absurd, as those responsible for shootings are usually not the kinds of people that buy guns legally.

When you say usually I take it that you do accept that guns that have been bought legally are used on law abiding citizens.

It seems more to me, to be disarming those that did nothing wrong as punishment for those that did do something wrong, or because they are responsible for some sort of Original Sin of firearm use; that you are assumed of guilt before innocence in anything pertaining to firearm use.

Actually I was questioning Gagglegnash’s comments in which I understood him to say (and I may have understood) that a law needs to be 100% effective in preventing something to be worth legislating. (I know these are not his words but it is what I thought he was implying. You will note that my post was asking him whether I had misunderstood). From my point of view although I am interested, I really don’t care who American’s choose to give weapons to.

But you're welcome to demonstrate how owning a firearm is equivalent to committing murder. I'm sure that Danish Dynamite would agree with you; he's called anyone that owns a gun a murderer.

You are welcome to demonstrate how owning a Gun makes someone worthy of the Nobel prize for chemistry. Alternatively we could refrain from asking each other to justify comments we never made.

 

[Lonewulf]

When you say usually I take it that you do accept that guns that have been bought legally are used on law abiding citizen

Sure. Attack the majority for the actions of a minority. Works all the time.

As does prohibition.