Another School shooting spree in the US

[pianistimo]

i don't mean to be inconsiderate and insensitive.  especially at this point.  for some, God is hope.  for others, delusion.  i understand how people can think that 'if God is omnipotent - why is there sufferring.'  as i see it from reading the bible - adam and eve chose their own way by taking of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'  that meant - their own choices about what was good and what was evil.  so, even though they made their own choices - death entered the picture whenever their decisions defied the active laws of God - ie murder as one example.  ever since then, death was a reality for humans.  if they had taken of  'the tree of life' instead - which was real and symbolic for the future of the righteous, they would have not experienced death.  but, none of us are righteous.  that's where God truly comes in.  Jesus was the first to be righteous (the second adam).  so our sins can be given to him, and we have access to the joy of psalm 118 - 'this is day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice in it.'  it can be a day that someone even dies.  because - in reality - that is the 'race' end.  you don't have ANY more pain or sufferring after that.  the hardest thing is to continue the 'race' (as the apostle paul put it) - when others have already finished. 

if a person has lived only a short time (as most of these students) - of course there is great mourning.  i don't think anyone is necessarily happy about their lives being cut short.  but, if you believe in the ressurrection - they'll soon be able to finish out their natural lives and NOT have to experience death again - but, merely the 'change into spirit.'  this is what Jesus is bringing back.  NO DEATH.  he paid the penalty for sin.  that is why christians exalt in His name.

ps as i understand it - unless one has already accepted Christ as their savior and been baptized -they await the day when 'everyone will know God.  the least to the greatest.'  that IS the kingdom of God (which is said to be on the earth for a thousand years).  if they already have the Spirit of God - they will be changed to spirit at Jesus return and rule with him for these thousand years - and then also accompany God when he brings the new jerusalem (new heavens and new earth).  the old will be done away.  at least that is what it says in the last chapters of revelations.

what is amazing to me, is that when Jesus had been 'transformed' - He could, at the same time, reveal himself in human form.  how does he do this?  i don't know.  this is a part of God that he was revealing - that was soon to be the nature of ALL who are 'changed, in a twinkling of an eye...at the last trumpet.  the dead shall be raised - incorruptible....'

[opus10no2]

as i see it from reading the bible - adam and eve chose their own way by taking of 'the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.'  that meant - their own choices about what was good and what was evil.  so, even though they made their own choices - death entered the picture whenever their decisions defied the active laws of God

You'll never see the inherent flaw behind this logic.

Without a societal environment, 'Adam and Eve', as a concept, were convieved and created by design.

Choice, even now, is an illusion.
Choice is a word used by us humans to define our reaction, from a myriad of possibilities.

The reality, despite our intellect and understanding of the possibilities - is that there is no choice, and the inevitability of instinct will govern what we appear to 'choose' to do.

Malice, hatred, loathing, these are all human conditions, part of our design.

Again, keep it short and concise, your long posts are rather mind-numbing, pianistimo.

[pianistimo]

i respect your different point of view.  however, personally, i think it is a cop out.  it's basically telling murderers that they couldn't help themselves control their own anger.  it's all God's fault.

that is the way some children are.  it's all my parent's fault.  well, we do have some choices in the matter - as i see it.  the choice to sin, or to not sin. 

some say - 'to be, or not to be.'  but, that is not our choice to make for others.

if there is a pointlessness to life - why don't people ask to be shot?

[opus10no2]

No, choice is an illusion.

If a person is a bad person, they didn't choose to be bad - they were always inevitably going to be bad.

I'm not saying anyone should like a bad person, or excuse them, but to simply understand the inevitability of them becoming a bad person in the first place.

Free thought is kind of an illusion.

We think we are 'above' instinct, and that we aren't animals, but we are just the same in that everything we do is an inevitable reaction of our genetic make-up and everything that happens to us.

How on earth did 'Adam and Eve' truly have a CHOICE? by the absolute definition of the word.

[counterpoint]

No, choice is an illusion.

If a person is a bad person, they didn't choose to be bad - they were always inevitably going to be bad.

I don't agree.  Nobody is born bad. But if a child (or an older person) is treated bad by others, it will develop feelings of hate and anger. If the hate and the anger are getting too big, some day the behaviour will get aggressive in a physical way.

It's not about how you are born - but how you are treated by others.

[prometheus]

There are genes that 'promote' violent behavior and that promote an urge of stealing, etc etc.

If you have then you are at a higher risk.

[opus10no2]

I don't agree.  Nobody is born bad. But if a child (or an older person) is treated bad by others, it will develop feelings of hate and anger. If the hate and the anger are getting too big, some day the behaviour will get aggressive in a physical way.

It's not about how you are born - but how you are treated by others.

I said that.

I also pointed out the inevitability of a person being treated bad, as being just as inevitable as genetic predisposition.

It's a cycle of inevitability.

We live in a universe of reactions, with noone taking any real pure actions.

A deity, or designer,(in theory)  is the action-maker, we are merely reacters.

[ail]

On choice, design and predictability.

Suppose the universe exists by design of another superior creature (something I don't entirely believe in). Then, this creator may just have designed the rules and pressed the 'start' button. But these rules include randomness in them (true randomness). Then, no, the end result will not be foreseeable. If you want an example, the designer of chess simply listed the rules, but he cannot predict the exact outcome of all the games.

What is choice? I think choice is randomness, and that is having the liberty of taking each outcome out of a possible set. Of course we can always believe, after we have done something, that it was predetermined from all eternity. That's simply a coping way, a resignation to all bad things that happen. As it is said often in 'Arabian Nights' when some tragedy happens, 'Maktub! It was written!'. That's just an easy way to accomodate to loss and guilt. But even though we'll never be able to prove it while we can not go back in time, I do think we have the possibility of choice at each point.

Present day quantum physics suggests there is real randomness in the universe. If there is, then not everything is deterministic. If our own actions are deterministically implied by outside variables, inevitability some of them will depend on truly random events and thus will become random. Not uniformly random, ok, but still random, which is, not deterministic.

We could argue that randomness is just an inability to compute the interaction between all relevant variables. For instance, when you throw a die, you could argue that if you new the exact rugosity of the table it will land on (assuming there is one), the speed you threw it with, the angle, the air resistance, etc, etc, etc, then you could totally determine the face up. But there are just too many variables and inter-relations for us to be able to conceive a good model, let alone compute it. However, interaction between two objects is controlled by the weak and strong mollecular forces between the components of both objects, and at this level, classical physics is not valid anymore, you need quantum effects. And if indeed there is true randomness here, then you'll never ever have the chance of guessing the right face up even if you had unlimited computational power.

I didn't read the posts in full, I just wanted to say that to me full-determinism, creationism and intelligent design are very very far from credible.

Alex

[counterpoint]

There are genes that 'promote' violent behavior and that promote an urge of stealing, etc etc.

If you have then you are at a higher risk.

That's what Hitler said.

But from serious scientists I never heard such thing.

[usahockey]

God has nothing to do with this school shooting.  It was caused by some psychopath with a couple of handguns and a desire to kill people.  If you want to continue your brainwashing, please try it somewhere else.

Also, it is interesting that quantum physics indicates free will.  Most physicists believe it is impossible to determine any exact behavior of the subatomic wave particles, and that probability statements are all that can be made.  Radioactive isotopes of elements will decay at a certain rate, based on probability, but an individual particle can decay whenever it feels like, it seems.  Is this indication of free will at the level of quanta?  Just like we can give statistics and say about how many murderers will be born this year, but we don't know who it is.

[ail]

Also, it is interesting that quantum physics indicates free will.  Most physicists believe it is impossible to determine any exact behavior of the subatomic wave particles, and that probability statements are all that can be made.  Radioactive isotopes of elements will decay at a certain rate, based on probability, but an individual particle can decay whenever it feels like, it seems.  Is this indication of free will at the level of quanta?  Just like we can give statistics and say about how many murderers will be born this year, but we don't know who it is.

I wouldn't call it free will of quantum particles, but what I've heard from physicists (I'm not one, though) is that when you measure a quantum bit to know whether its state is 0 or 1 with an appropriate base then the odds of getting either result are exactly 1/2. You can tilt your base to skew the probabilities to any value (a, 1-a) between 0 and 1 but inherently there will be true randomness in that reading (except in the extreme cases when the base is totally aligned with the superposition state of the qubit which, at any rate, you can not guess at the start).

I notice now that this is an application of quantum mechanics, in particular, to quantum computation, but if it can produce true randomness in an application, that must be because it has true randomness at its core. If I am right, the root for it is stated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Alex

[timothy42b]

Yes I heard and I am somewhat suprised about this. Now I am no gun expert, but I think you need to be a skilled shooter to be able to kill so many.


What I also don't understand is why he wasn't attacked by people. Well, maybe it was tried. But surely you can stop one guy with two handguns from killing so many in the middle of a very crowded place. Just knock him to the ground and take his guns from him. Or knock him down when he was to reload.

I don't know any of the details yet.  It seems somewhat unusual to me as well, and I've had a fair amount of shooting experience.  This is not the first shooting in a crowded space, but as far as i know it is the first time a shooter with a pistol has hit so many victims, and also the first time so many of them died.  Pistols are only a fraction as powerful as rifles and statistically normally more people survive and recover than die.  

Yes, there are some things they could have done.  If they all threw their textbooks at him at once and a number of them charged him, probably they could have subdued him with few getting hurt.  That scenario has happened a number of times too.  I'll bet every one of those students would be able to do that very thing the second time this happened.  However it is so rare it's not something you plan for or practice.

We also don't know what drove the shooter.  Possibly he was so mentally ill he had no control at all and is just as much a victim as those he shot.  Perhaps more of this will come out later.  Until it does it is calling a coward or wishing he'd lived to be punished is premature.  

[usahockey]

I wouldn't call it free will of quantum particles, but what I've heard from physicists (I'm not one, though) is that when you measure a quantum bit to know whether its state is 0 or 1 with an appropriate base then the odds of getting either result are exactly 1/2. You can tilt your base to skew the probabilities to any value (a, 1-a) between 0 and 1 but inherently there will be true randomness in that reading (except in the extreme cases when the base is totally aligned with the superposition state of the qubit which, at any rate, you can not guess at the start).

I notice now that this is an application of quantum mechanics, in particular, to quantum computation, but if it can produce true randomness in an application, that must be because it has true randomness at its core. If I am right, the root for it is stated in Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Yes, whenever we do an experiment to measure these things, we realize that by measuring it, we cannot know what happens.  Of course I'm not saying that particles have any "will" at all, just that there is no known way to determine how they will behave exactly.  But who knows, we could figure out in the future the mechanism behind everything, and be able to predict everything that happens.  I don't think this is possible though, as there is always some unknown variable, some element of chaos in a system.

In my opinion, all of these people talking of God are just too afraid to look at the real event without having God there as some kind of protection.  God is a way to place blame, and to ask for questions.  God is how the weak minded take comfort at night, knowing that "someone" is out there protecting and watching over them (I suppose these students had God with them too, right?)  God is a nice little loophole for any situation that lets people interpret the reality as some kind of fantasy, or saying that it was God's will.  God is what people fall back on when they don't have the strength to carry on by their own will (so it must be God's will or plan).

I do believe in God, or some kind of higher power at least, but I don't think that He/She/It can be understood if He/She/It does exist.  I don't think God exists to help all of us poor humans with all of our troubles and prayers...we have to make our own way. 

I agree with Carl Sagan's quote,

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

My point is, it's ridiculous to argue over the existence of God, or trying to use the idea of God to place blame, or to find meaning.  Why don't you people dig your head out of the bible for 5 minutes and look around you...the influences in our society and the people we are creating are responsible for these disasters; the nuts who find no satisfaction in life, unless they hurt others.  We as a society need to find the solution to this, because surely God isn't going to send down some angels to correct it.

[opus10no2]

ail, some very interesting stuff, and alot I'd agree with.

Though I would like to again assert that inevitability will never ever be anywhere near be completely predictable without knowledge of the beginning, and before(!) the beginning.

I don't have much knoweldge at all about physics, so I'm not completely aware that there is true randomness.

Despite all that is unknown about the universe...the fact that life exists is at once both shockingly random, and makes beautiful sense to us, because the thought of a universe is inconcievable, because none of us, no matter how hard we try, can completely step outside our own perception.


Anyway, about 'blaming god', even if god inserted a 'truly random' preset, to guarantee some form of unpredictable outcome...god is still the designer, or chooser, of this randomness.

[opus10no2]

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard, who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God,' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Great quote.

Yes, whenever we do an experiment to measure these things, we realize that by measuring it, we cannot know what happens. Of course I'm not saying that particles have any "will" at all, just that there is no known way to determine how they will behave exactly. But who knows, we could figure out in the future the mechanism behind everything, and be able to predict everything that happens. I don't think this is possible though, as there is always some unknown variable, some element of chaos in a system.

Yes, not having the ability to ever predict or understand something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The progress of science and human understanding has been progressing from seeing everything as random, and unfathomable choices made by a 'god', to seeing everything as logical and progressively less random and more understandable.

In any case, a life spent in the pursuit of absolute understanding will always be unsatisfying, like sex without an orgasm, and the orgasm, if it ever comes, will only come after death. perhaps.

[usahockey]

I don't have much knoweldge at all about physics, so I'm not completely aware that there is true randomness.

Despite all that is unknown about the universe...the fact that life exists is at once both shockingly random, and makes beautiful sense to us, because the thought of a universe is inconcievable, because none of us, no matter how hard we try, can completely step outside our own perception.


Anyway, about 'blaming god', even if god inserted a 'truly random' preset, to guarantee some form of unpredictable outcome...god is still the designer, or chooser, of this randomness.

Modern physics at the quantum level basically just comes down to probabilities...so yes, it is completely random in one way, but more predictable when looking at the whole picture.

Perhaps "God" is the designer of this randomness.  Perhaps "God" doesn't care one way or the other, and simply IS who he/she/it IS, without trying to design anything, simply exists because it exists, and that we are a part of it.  

People have their crazy interpretations, and for many "true believers" it seems that God just fills the same role as the child's imaginary friend, someone to comfort them in times of uncertainty.  An emotional desire that many people give in to, even if their logical mind tells them that it is ludicrous...this idea that God is some friend to all men, just waiting for us to call on him and find the true way of life, etc.  Quite interesting then that religions and Gods mostly preach the way of peace and forgiveness, yet these same religions and their followers are responsible for some of the most terrible violence and forced conformity that we have seen in history.  

At the same time, I think it is quite obvious that a higher power, or system of order exists.  This is obvious to me when seeing the workings of nature first hand, or realizing the simple, true, beautiful mathematical laws which explain the order we see.  Science is doing the best job explaining HOW things happen the way they do, and religion, in a great collection of philosophical/fictional texts, attempts to explain WHY.  One day it may be possible to find all the "hows", but we may never find out "why".  God may exist, but the purpose and the meaning is certainly beyond the horizon of us men who still fight and kill over something as stupid as God's name.  Beyond our comprehension this purpose or meaning, but the small details and intricacies of this system, we are learning more and more of every day.

So the religious person sees the sun in the sky and says "This is beautiful, because God made it, and because God is beautiful, and because I told myself this."  The scientist realizes "This is beautiful, because nature is the way that she is, and behaves in this exact manner with a simple equation F=G(m1m2/r^2) every single time, and we can use this to predict other things that will occur in this amazing system."

The religious person and the scientist both agree that it is beautiful...but the scientist knows HOW it is beautiful, mathematically, and can further use this equation to derive other laws or relations or predictions.  And the religious person...well, it depends on what "version" they prescribe to, but each will have their own belief as to WHY it happens the way it does.  And this is about as valid as the reasoning behind why santa clause delivers presents on christmas.

[pianolearner]

I don't know any of the details yet.  It seems somewhat unusual to me as well, and I've had a fair amount of shooting experience.  This is not the first shooting in a crowded space, but as far as i know it is the first time a shooter with a pistol has hit so many victims, and also the first time so many of them died.  Pistols are only a fraction as powerful as rifles and statistically normally more people survive and recover than die.  

Tim,

It may be unusual but it's hardly coincedence that the previous record holder for massacres used a similair pistol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

[prometheus]

That sidearm is very common isn't it? But it isn't a hand held cannon, right?

The dead-to-wounded ratio is also quite high. And the guy wasn't a trained gunman either, it seems. The gun was bought a few weeks earlier. Seems that the reason may be found in the horrible details. People locked up in a room with a guy determined to kill them carrying enough ammo to do so.

[prometheus]

Yes, there are some things they could have done. 

It was not really meant as criticism but this is just something I wonder about. I have no reason to assume I will react differently then other people but it seems to be quite general and common that people fail to react well to sudden acts of violence carried out against them or others.


Take the scenario of five guys beating up a guy in the middle of a street in daylight. The more people that will be standing around, the less of a motivation all of these people will have to do something about it.

Same with someone drowning, etc. People just freeze and do nothing.

I also have a friend who can be described as 'calm' and 'neurotic' and he is trained in several martial arts. But every time where he suddenly found himself in a fight he failed to react properly. He just froze and let himself be beaten up.

[johnny-boy]

So did Gandhi. What's the proper way to react?

John

[usahockey]

Again, it's pretty easy to say "I would have..." [fill in heroic act] when you are sitting at the comfort of your keyboard.  To the students, it was just another day of class.  They were sitting there learning, when someone barges in and opens fire.  Most of us wouldn't even have time to react, or think about what to do before we either get shot, start running, or dive to the ground and pray/hope we don't get hit.

[prometheus]

So did Gandhi. What's the proper way to react?

John

Don't you know why Ghandi did what he did? It would be a useless tactic against a random drunk.

Anyway, we are talking about carrying out rational well-thought out plans in difficult situations.

Usahockey, maybe you should reread some of those posts. And many of those did have time to react.

[usahockey]

Usahockey, maybe you should reread some of those posts. And many of those did have time to react.

I'm sure you know all about it, considering you weren't there.  Should have, could have, would have...don't mean a thing.

[rc]

Take the scenario of five guys beating up a guy in the middle of a street in daylight. The more people that will be standing around, the less of a motivation all of these people will have to do something about it.

Yes, I forget what they named the phenomenon, but the case I read about was of a woman being raped with about a dozen witnesses all wondering "Isn't somebody going to do something about this?"

The way I see it is groupthink, and the larger the group the more inertia it has.  The same deal with mobs, I see it all the time among friends and smaller social groups.  The larger groups usually overrides individual sensibilities.

I can understand it though, since everybody can't communicate instantly in the moment.  Every person that sees the guy in the street get beat up and wants to do something about it, but seeing that nobody is moving also sees the possibility that they'll charge in to the result of being the next guy in the street being beat up. 

Anyone would like some assurance of help before rushing headlong into obvious danger (sometimes deadly), but in the panic and confusion of the moment I can see why nothing usually happens.

[rc]

I don't know any of the details yet.  It seems somewhat unusual to me as well, and I've had a fair amount of shooting experience.  This is not the first shooting in a crowded space, but as far as i know it is the first time a shooter with a pistol has hit so many victims, and also the first time so many of them died.  Pistols are only a fraction as powerful as rifles and statistically normally more people survive and recover than die.

I heard that he shot most victims 3 times.

[rc]

To "choice is an illusion":

It's an interesting perspective to play with, very easy to say when looking back on events - it's harder to imagine different outcomes to something that's already happened, and probably futile.

But it just doesn't ring true for me.  One person may choose to react badly to events, aother will choose to react differently.  It doesn't have to be an automatic reaction, people can choose to entertain thoughts of different natures.

I see that it could be argued that some sort of genetic difference will cause people to react differently.  Then we could argue endlessly on speculation and maybe agree to disagree (agree to being sick of the discussion).

Often with beliefs like this, they can lead to their own proof either way.  Either perspective could be true, so I'm not concerned with speculative truth...  Instead I concern myself with the outcome of an idea - is it useful?

Choice as a reality is powerfully useful.  To me, absolute determinism is the illusion.

[etudes]

read pianistimo  about god is even worse than the shooting spree.......I really hope that you (pianistimo ) stop to mention it sooner or later!

READ IT pianistimo

[timothy42b]

Tim,

It may be unusual but it's hardly coincedence that the previous record holder for massacres used a similair pistol.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby's_massacre

The last large campus shooting however was 41 years ago.  The shooter used a rifle and was suffering from a brain tumor. 

[_dhj_]

....

Often with beliefs like this, they can lead to their own proof either way.  Either perspective could be true, so I'm not concerned with speculative truth...  Instead I concern myself with the outcome of an idea - is it useful?

Choice as a reality is powerfully useful.  To me, absolute determinism is the illusion.

In regard to whether believe in determinism is "useful":

If determinism holds true, whether we believe it to be true lay within the unbroken chain of causation and cannot influence what's ahead along the chain in any meaningful manner or can only influence it in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner.

In the event that determinism is false, there are both advantages and disadvantages in belief in determinism. On the one hand individuals may feel less responsible for their actions and morality as a frame of reference may decrease in importance in decision making. On the other hand however, the (albeit false) realisation that we are all bound by scientific causation will make us understand and be more compassionate towards one another because the concepts of fault and good/evil would cease to exist, manifesting in its place would be the common notion of the "human condition".

I don't believe that we should look at it from a whether it's "useful" or not perspective. That would be wrong reason to believe in an idea just as it would be wrong to believe in god merely because it is "useful" to do so (in fact many do this to give comfort to their existence). That question is analogous because the truth can also, from the objective perspective, lean either way.

Instead we should try and seek the truth.

[pianolearner]

The last large campus shooting however was 41 years ago.  The shooter used a rifle and was suffering from a brain tumor. 

Yes, but when firing at very close range is there really a difference between a handgun and rifle? I doubt he would have killed any people if he used a handgun from a 300ft tower. There is doubt as to whether the tumor was responsible for his actions.

[timothy42b]

Yes, but when firing at very close range is there really a difference between a handgun and rifle? I doubt he would have killed any people if he used a handgun from a 300ft tower. There is doubt as to whether the tumor was responsible for his actions.

There are two differences, the likelihood of actually hitting something and the amount of harm done.

If you have not done much shooting you do not realize how difficult shooting a handgun is.  At 10 meters i routinely hit a golf ball with an air pistol and an aspirin tablet with a rifle, offhand.  An inexperienced person will probably miss a human sized target with a handgun at 5 meters (cops regularly miss bad guys at 3 meters, but then being shot at is a big distraction) but the same inexperienced person will probably hit with a rifle at 25 meters, and with very little practice learn to hit at 100 meters.  The pro's can do 1000 meters but they're in a different class. 

At the distance of the Virginia shooting, you're probably right that it wouldn't have made a lot of difference as far as hitting.  But pistols are so much less powerful than rifles that normally a large percentage of people people survive.  I don't know why this incident was different. 

[pianolearner]

At the distance of the Virginia shooting, you're probably right that it wouldn't have made a lot of difference as far as hitting.  But pistols are so much less powerful than rifles that normally a large percentage of people people survive.  I don't know why this incident was different. 

Are you saying that a more people survive a head shot from a pistol at close range than die? What about shots into the body that come close to or hit vital organs?

[timothy42b]

Are you saying that a more people survive a head shot from a pistol at close range than die? What about shots into the body that come close to or hit vital organs?

A surprising (to me) number of people survive head wounds from a pistol. 

A large number survive torso wounds if medical care is available. 

For practical purposes neither wound is survivable from a deer rifle.  Of course there are exceptions on both sides. 

[pianolearner]

A surprising (to me) number of people survive head wounds from a pistol. 

A large number survive torso wounds if medical care is available. 

For practical purposes neither wound is survivable from a deer rifle.  Of course there are exceptions on both sides. 

Ok. I suppose my real question is, why are you surprised so many died in this shooting tragedy? How many would you expect to die? In the case of Port Arthur are you surprised that so "few" were killed seeing the shooter used an AR-15 rifle? Are you surprised that so few died at Columbine when you consider that there were 2 heavily armed shooters? Perhaps 100 would have died if the Virginia shooter was armed with a rifle? A good reason why assault rifles should never be allowed in the hands of the public.

[prometheus]

Doesn't the type ammo used make a big difference?

[rc]

In regard to whether believe in determinism is "useful":

If determinism holds true, whether we believe it to be true lay within the unbroken chain of causation and cannot influence what's ahead along the chain in any meaningful manner or can only influence it in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner.

In the event that determinism is false, there are both advantages and disadvantages in belief in determinism. On the one hand individuals may feel less responsible for their actions and morality as a frame of reference may decrease in importance in decision making. On the other hand however, the (albeit false) realisation that we are all bound by scientific causation will make us understand and be more compassionate towards one another because the concepts of fault and good/evil would cease to exist, manifesting in its place would be the common notion of the "human condition".

I don't believe that we should look at it from a whether it's "useful" or not perspective. That would be wrong reason to believe in an idea just as it would be wrong to believe in god merely because it is "useful" to do so (in fact many do this to give comfort to their existence). That question is analogous because the truth can also, from the objective perspective, lean either way.

Instead we should try and seek the truth.

Any idea how to go about doing that?  I can't think of anything in this context, both are plausible.  I don't think there is any objective truth to either, they're both perspectives.

True or not, the belief in choice opens doors.  Whether I choose to meander the internet for an hour or go practice each has it's own chain of consequence.  Day by day the small choices add up to make a lifetime.  After the fact we can call it determinism - something or other made me choose what I did.  But choice in the moment is the way to influence the future, immediate and distant.  I want to make useful choices, that will lead to good outcomes.  It only seems like an illusion in hindsight, right now, the choice is very real.

[timothy42b]

A good reason why assault rifles should never be allowed in the hands of the public.

I would disagree for several reasons, but the easiest to explain is probably this one.

We have on the one hand the rare tragedy almost always caused by someone severely mentally ill;  it affects us emotionally because of the rarity as well as the sad event itself. 

And on the other hand we have a level of "routine" crime - armed robberies, murders, etc. 

The mentally ill are not deterred by consequences or threats.  They are fairly predictable because of their limited response repertoire, and in many cases treatable.  Limiting the type of weapon available does not seem to prevent them causing the occasional tragedy, and anyway it is a mistake to set policy based on what "might" happen in rare cases.  You can't prevent every disaster, we don't have a contract for the sunrise, but really we could make a difference in a very large percentage of these.

Routine criminals are sane and are afraid of consequences, so we have some leverage in working with them.  They don't tend to use assault rifles - last statistic I saw was that 0.026% of shootings used them. 

[prometheus]

Routine criminals are sane and deterred? What do you mean?



People in Europe are totally worried; when will those gun-crazy Americans finally do the right thing and adjust their constitution to modern times. How many more people will need to die.


How can a mentally ill person buy a weapon? When will children learn that guns are bad, etc.


It's just an obsessive, irrational, thing many American people have. Media try to explain why no politician can touch this issue and why they all have to lie and act like they are pro-gun to be able to get votes. They also cynically explain that Americans have a better solution; "There aren't too many guns. There are too little. If all of those victims had carried a gun this incident wouldn't have happened."

It's almost getting to this point: "These poor American people. They no longer know what is good for them. Maybe we Europeans force them to give up their guns."

Yes, colonial times are over. A 18th century constitution needs to be adjusted to modern times. You need an amendment.

Ooh No wait. We Europeans are so stupid...


Why should US citizens need arms when they are too lazy to do that what they are supposed to do through violence through the democratic system?

[counterpoint]

prometheus - well said!

[prometheus]

If there is a rebellion against the US government the US army will use jet fighters, tanks, etc and have a huge military advantage. So even in that respect the amendment is totally obsolete.

Actually, the amendment should give the citizens the right to have a citizen militia armed with everything the US army also have; up to thermo-nuclear weapons.


There are two reasons why there aren't even restrictive laws; toys and money.

Americans want to use weapons as toys. And the gun manufacturers want their money. Politicians serve these interests. That's it.

[timothy42b]

Americans want to use weapons as toys. And the gun manufacturers want their money. Politicians serve these interests. That's it.

No, prometheus, while some of what you say is well thought out you're missing some real issues.

There are two vast philosophical divides, and for some reason Europeans and US seem to be on opposite sides of both of them. 

The first divide is over need.  On one side, a private citizen may own something, or may have access to information, ONLY if he can convince the state that he truly truly needs it.  On the other side, the state is allowed to prohibit the private citizen from ownership or knowledge ONLY if the state can prove with evidence that significant harm would occur.  Now, I know in European minds there is no need to prove anything because "everybody knows!"  But that isn't the point.  In the European system the burden of proof is always on the individual to prove a need, never on the state to prove a harm will ensue.  I think we can see this in the recent extreme gun bans in England and Australia.  These were already countries with highly restrictive gun control, and an absence of what you call the "American gun culture," yet when a tragedy occured you went even further and passed more laws in the heat of the emotional moment.  You can do that because the state is never required to show a legitimate reason.

The second point is a little more subtle.  This is the inherent right to individual self defense.  US (I can't say Americans, because Canada does not agree) feels that everybody has that right.  It is not the cowboy mentality you think it is, this is a deeply held fundamental belief that this one prerogative is, well, inalienable.   The European does not have this mindset;  the European expects the state to take care of him, and has delegated this right to the police.  It is gone, you cannot get it back, and you don't miss it. 

[counterpoint]

The second point is a little more subtle.  This is the inherent right to individual self defense.  US (I can't say Americans, because Canada does not agree) feels that everybody has that right. 

I'm pretty sure, everywhere in the world exists this right to self defense.
But self defense does not mean, that you are allowed to kill everyone who is supposed to do you harm You have to decide how big the real danger is, and killing the aggressor is not justified in the vast majority of all cases.

[prometheus]

That's right. If there is a thief in your home and you beat him a broken nose then you probably just went over the edge. At least, if the thief was unarmed.
If you beat up a thief into a hospital you are going to get convicted.

A woman once bought a gun after being attacked by two guys who put a knife on a throat.

So then she bought an illegal gun. Then she was attacked once again by two unarmed people. One of them grapped her bag. She shot him. The other fleed. Then the other came back to help his fellow thief. The woman had panicked and killed the other thief as well, probably fearing rape or something.

She was very lucky that the judge did not find her guilty of manslaughter. But still, that day she was one of the victims as well. She put herself in a position where she killed two other people for no good reason because she panicked carrying a gun.

She was convicted of illegal gun possession.

[_dhj_]

I think a defender armed with a gun or a knife is more likely to get hurt than an unarmed defender because that defender is deemed as a higher threat to the attacker (who is probably armed, or is given the chance to take the defender's arms and use it against the defender). Prometheus has a good point and Americans are wrong. Of course it is a "cowboy mentality" because the harm outweigh the benefits in real life situations.

[timothy42b]

I think a defender armed with a gun or a knife is more likely to get hurt than an unarmed defender because that defender is deemed as a higher threat to the attacker (who is probably armed, or is given the chance to take the defender's arms and use it against the defender). Prometheus has a good point and Americans are wrong. Of course it is a "cowboy mentality" because the harm outweigh the benefits in real life situations.

But you pulled that thought out of the air, or your butt, or somewhere.  Your saying so doesn't make it true. 

There are statistics and you are simply wrong. 

Look, Europeans don't feel any threat.  It does not bother them at all to give up their rights to self defense because they have carefully built a society based on the premise they will be taken care of.  And they are, for the most part;  health care and support systems are really pretty good.  It made sense to them that this was somebody else's job.  Until recently, crime was so low that this sense of security was perfectly reasonable.  The decision to trade perceived security for freedom was theirs to make, and has been made. 

The US is several centuries younger and sadly parts of it can be more dangerous.  Home invasions are not unknown in some areas and not everybody can afford to move.  Homeowners are sometimes killed and the ones who aren't are severely beaten and permanently disabled.  You would deny them the right to defend themself with anything beyond a punch in the nose. 

That woman who shot her assailant should have a medal instead of a jail sentence.  The govt did not protect her and had no intention of protecting her.  So what should she do, have a fist fight against two large powerful criminal males?  Does that make any sense?  Of course she bought an illegal gun, she wasn't allowed a legal one.  Duh.  Because she isn't allowed to defend herself.  And many people live where they will never need to, but she already had proof that she did. 

"probably fearing rape"  Okay seriously, let's hear your side of this one.  If he intended rape, but not murder, would you let her shoot him to prevent it?  Or is that just something she should put up with and hope he gets prosecuted for later?  I think I know your answer. 

She did not kill two people "for no good reason" and she did not kill them because she was carrying a gun.  She killed them because they attacked her.  They made that choice, not her.  Had she not been carrying the gun, she would probably have been killed. 

I should point out that in the US it is generally considered justified to use force in defense of life, but never in defense of property (except law enforcement).  If they're stealing your car, even if you happened to be armed, you let them go.

[pianolearner]

But you pulled that thought out of the air, or your butt, or somewhere.  Your saying so doesn't make it true. 

There are statistics and you are simply wrong. 

Look, Europeans don't feel any threat.  It does not bother them at all to give up their rights to self defense because they have carefully built a society based on the premise they will be taken care of.  And they are, for the most part;  health care and support systems are really pretty good.  It made sense to them that this was somebody else's job.  Until recently, crime was so low that this sense of security was perfectly reasonable.  The decision to trade perceived security for freedom was theirs to make, and has been made. 

The US is several centuries younger and sadly parts of it can be more dangerous.  Home invasions are not unknown in some areas and not everybody can afford to move.  Homeowners are sometimes killed and the ones who aren't are severely beaten and permanently disabled.  You would deny them the right to defend themself with anything beyond a punch in the nose. 

That woman who shot her assailant should have a medal instead of a jail sentence.  The govt did not protect her and had no intention of protecting her.  So what should she do, have a fist fight against two large powerful criminal males?  Does that make any sense?  Of course she bought an illegal gun, she wasn't allowed a legal one.  Duh.  Because she isn't allowed to defend herself.  And many people live where they will never need to, but she already had proof that she did. 

"probably fearing rape"  Okay seriously, let's hear your side of this one.  If he intended rape, but not murder, would you let her shoot him to prevent it?  Or is that just something she should put up with and hope he gets prosecuted for later?  I think I know your answer. 

She did not kill two people "for no good reason" and she did not kill them because she was carrying a gun.  She killed them because they attacked her.  They made that choice, not her.  Had she not been carrying the gun, she would probably have been killed. 

I should point out that in the US it is generally considered justified to use force in defense of life, but never in defense of property (except law enforcement).  If they're stealing your car, even if you happened to be armed, you let them go.

Tim,

I support the argument for self defense but Americans take it to the extreme. You have presented a compelling argument in regard to want Vs need. But seriously, how can anyone argue they need an AK-47 or UZI 9mm machine gun for home/self defense...against what...in case the Russians invade?

[usahockey]

I support the argument for self defense but Americans take it to the extreme. You have presented a compelling argument in regard to want Vs need. But seriously, how can anyone argue they need an AK-47 or UZI 9mm machine gun for home/self defense...against what...in case the Russians invade?

Just for your information, no, an ak-47 or an uzi cannot be legally purchased in the united states, unless you go through the trouble to get a permit for an automatic weapons.  These are very hard to get (it needs to be personally approved by your local town sherriff, and go through many other checks as well), and I believe the number of permit holders who have actually committed crimes with these weapons is a statistically insignificant percentage, or even zero.  Very few gun owners have these permits, and so chances are (99% of the time) when someone commits a crime with an automatic weapon, it was purchased illegally, or illegally modified in some way.

You can purchase "ak-47" or "uzi" civilian rifles legally, as a normal citizen, but these guns are semi-auto, and have no real advantage over using a standard semi-auto hunting rifle.  They are "assault weapons" based on some cosmetic details, but mechanically have no added ability to kill.  Now maybe the best idea would be to ban semi-auto rifles, and only allow people to have bolt-action rifles...I suppose a real hunter doesn't "need" semi-auto.  But the whole thing about assault rifles is ridiculous, as they are just souped-up looking hunting rifles.  Most gun crimes are still committed with regular semi-auto handguns. 

For truly practical purposes (ie hunting or sport) there is no real need to have semi-auto handguns, or rifles.  Bolt-action rifles and shotguns could be legal along with nothing else, and I think gun crime might go down.  It's a lot harder to walk around town with a rifle or shotgun concealed, trying to commit a crime, than with a handgun.  And you can't pose much threat if you have to reload after every shot.  Even so, the criminals would find a way around it, and then regular citizens would be out-gunned by the bad guys.  We need to find a way to create good criminal control, such as controlling gangs and drugs.

[prometheus]

The govt did not protect her and had no intention of protecting her.

Of course the government had the intention of protecting her. They just can't protect everyone at every moment.

So what should she do, have a fist fight against two large powerful criminal males?  Does that make any sense?

If she had tried that she wouldn't have killed them. She could also have the criminals get away with her bag.

Of course she bought an illegal gun, she wasn't allowed a legal one.  Duh.  Because she isn't allowed to defend herself.

Because she isn't allowed to kill bag thieves. The state also has the intention to protect those.

And many people live where they will never need to, but she already had proof that she did.

There is no solution to this problem. We all run the risk of being robbed by criminals, amd killed by our friends/family or even by madmen. But maybe you should look at how it has been throughout history. Surely the situation right now is much better.

"probably fearing rape"  Okay seriously, let's hear your side of this one.  If he intended rape, but not murder, would you let her shoot him to prevent it?

I already explained that the judge ruled it was self-defense. Of course she wasn't attacked and she was not defending herself but her bag, she just panicked and had a gun.

If someone attacks you then you will not know if the intention is murder or rape. So you can use self-defense. The point is that the gun is the force-multiplier.

Or is that just something she should put up with and hope he gets prosecuted for later?  I think I know your answer. 

I didn't get all the details of this case but I would not have called her violence self-defense or I would have called it dispropotionate self-defense. So I would have convicted her but with the lowest punishment possible. She already punished herself the most with her stupidity of buying a gun and assuming to be immune from crime and now having the image of two people dying at her hands burned into her brain.

She did not kill two people "for no good reason" and she did not kill them because she was carrying a gun.  She killed them because they attacked her.

They didn't attack her. They grabbed her bag out of her hand and tried to run away. One of them was shot. He was carrying the bag. Then the other returned and was also shot.

They made that choice, not her.  Had she not been carrying the gun, she would probably have been killed.

Had she not been carrying a gun she would have been stolen of her bag just as the time before.

She made the choice to buy a gun. Then she panicked and unleashed her violence unwillingly. She is responsible for their deaths. 

I should point out that in the US it is generally considered justified to use force in defense of life, but never in defense of property.

I heard quite a few other things. Not sure if they are true.

[arensky]

I have mixed views on gun control; ideally we should not need  firearms. But they are out there and often in the wrong hands. I should not be deprived of the right to use my own "force-multiplier" if I or my loved ones are threatened. There are people who would kill me or my loved ones/friends for no good reason. I will not compromise my right to be able to multiply the force should I need to.

The arguement that the police/authorities alone should bear the responsibility of defending the public is flawed. The police always arrive AFTER criminal acts occur, at which point it's too late for prevention, although police should be the primary agents of criminal apprehension. And who are the police , anyway? Think of "A Clockwork Orange".

My two cents.

[arensky]

If there is a rebellion against the US government the US army will use jet fighters, tanks, etc and have a huge military advantage. So even in that respect the amendment is totally obsolete.

And all that firepower is working so well in Iraq? The "insurgents" in Iraq are validating the amendment, every minute of the day.