Welcome Guest!
Create an Account
login email:
password:
site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp
Message Board

BobcatAttack.com Message Board
General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events
Topic:  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......

Topic:  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
Author
Message
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/11/2018 6:38:54 PM 
I believe the data does support that people can and will kill by other methods. We've seen plenty of examples of people without guns killing masses of people by other methods. For example, we've seen bombs, people driving trucks into crowds, and we've seen deaths by knives and machetes. One of the biggest mass murders of all time didn't involve guns, or bombs, but rather airplanes.

Again, I do support gun control, and gun buybacks. I think they are absolutely required. I just don't think that's a stopping point. I also think it's important to point out that even in the event gun control doesn't decrease mass murders, it will still have beneficial effects. Having less guns around will reduce suicides, (which are usually successful if done with guns), accidental shootings, and probably armed robberies and single shootings.

By the way, I was texted by someone who pointed out that I was wrong. Mass murders of this type are in fact, not new. Consider this one, from 1927:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/12/2018 8:56:33 AM 
L.C. wrote:
I believe the data does support that people can and will kill by other methods. We've seen plenty of examples of people without guns killing masses of people by other methods. For example, we've seen bombs, people driving trucks into crowds, and we've seen deaths by knives and machetes. One of the biggest mass murders of all time didn't involve guns, or bombs, but rather airplanes.


If the data supports that, then show the data instead of just pointing to anecdotes which don't actually argue what you think they do.

Nobody is arguing that gun control legislation will bring an end to death and terrorism. The argument is that gun control will reduce murder rates and make mass killings harder to pull off.

You are, out of one side of your mouth, saying you agree while insisting mass killings will still take place at the same rate out of the other. You're not presenting data, just anecdotes which include, bafflingly, 9/11.

Guns make it easier to kill people. This is a super simple concept.

Here's some data that proves that:

In 2015, there were 75,875 crimes involving a firearm. The survival rate of people involved was 83%. That same year, there were 124,662 crimes involving knives. The survival rate was just under 99%.

In 2016, guns were only involved in 4.7% of violent incidents. They accounted for over 70% of homicides.

So even if mass killers adopt other methods when they can't get their hands on guns, they will kill less efficiently.

That's the entire point. So when you say "one of the deadliest mass killings in history involved airplanes" you're actually just underscoring how incredibly complex and difficult it is to kill a lot of people without guns. If the bar we set is that to be a mass killer, you have to be capable of hijacking and crashing an airplane into the World Trade Center -- that's a good thing.

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/12/2018 11:18:28 AM 
I think this discussion has reached the point of diminishing marginal utility. The only point of difference seems to be as to whether we should be concerned about non-gun-related mass killings, and it seems unlikely that we will agree on that. I will continue to see them as the bigger long term threat, while you can continue to believe they are unimportant.


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
DelBobcat
General User



Member Since: 8/26/2010
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Post Count: 1,093

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/12/2018 3:37:59 PM 
L.C. wrote:
I think this discussion has reached the point of diminishing marginal utility. The only point of difference seems to be as to whether we should be concerned about non-gun-related mass killings, and it seems unlikely that we will agree on that. I will continue to see them as the bigger long term threat, while you can continue to believe they are unimportant.


I don't think that's what BLSS is arguing. He's saying that the existence of non-gun-related mass killings shouldn't keep us from doing something about gun-related ones. Gun-related ones are the most common type. That doesn't mean that he thinks we shouldn't ALSO do something about other mass killings. You can walk and chew gum.


BA OHIO 2010, BS OHIO 2010, MA Delaware 2012

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/12/2018 9:19:07 PM 
DelBobcat wrote:
L.C. wrote:
I think this discussion has reached the point of diminishing marginal utility. The only point of difference seems to be as to whether we should be concerned about non-gun-related mass killings, and it seems unlikely that we will agree on that. I will continue to see them as the bigger long term threat, while you can continue to believe they are unimportant.


I don't think that's what BLSS is arguing. He's saying that the existence of non-gun-related mass killings shouldn't keep us from doing something about gun-related ones. Gun-related ones are the most common type. That doesn't mean that he thinks we shouldn't ALSO do something about other mass killings. You can walk and chew gum.

No, that is what I was saying, and he was disagreeing with me, and saying that we should not worry about non-gun related ones because "they will kill less efficiently" and it is "incredibly complex and difficult ... to kill a lot of people without guns".


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/12/2018 9:33:30 PM 
L.C. wrote:
DelBobcat wrote:
L.C. wrote:
I think this discussion has reached the point of diminishing marginal utility. The only point of difference seems to be as to whether we should be concerned about non-gun-related mass killings, and it seems unlikely that we will agree on that. I will continue to see them as the bigger long term threat, while you can continue to believe they are unimportant.


I don't think that's what BLSS is arguing. He's saying that the existence of non-gun-related mass killings shouldn't keep us from doing something about gun-related ones. Gun-related ones are the most common type. That doesn't mean that he thinks we shouldn't ALSO do something about other mass killings. You can walk and chew gum.

No, that is what I was saying, and he was disagreeing with me, and saying that we should not worry about non-gun related ones because "they will kill less efficiently" and it is "incredibly complex and difficult ... to kill a lot of people without guns".



At no point did I, or anybody, say we shouldn't worry about non-gun related deaths. Feel free to quote what made you think otherwise. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly.

I've made a simple point throughout: the data illustrates that guns makes it really easy for people to kill other people. I want it to be hard for people to kill other people. So I think we should make it harder for people to get guns.

We agree there.

All we disagree on is the point you keep insisting on without providing evidence to support. Which is that wannabe mass killers will seamlessly find new ways to kill, without access to guns, at the same rate they kill now.

I've explained why I feel that's unlikely, and I've presented data to support that. Others have also presented data that support my stance. I've asked you to provide some data to support your belief, and instead of doing so, you just said "I believe the data does support my claim", so I asked to see some of that data.

That's the only point we disagree on. That you think that means I think we "shouldn't worry about" non-gun related deaths is not supported by anything I said. If you're going to argue, at least argue in good faith.

I think reducing access to guns will reduce the murder rate, in both mass killings and otherwise. You don't think it'll reduce the rate of mass killings. I'm asking to understand why you think that and asking for data that supports that idea.




Last Edited: 9/12/2018 9:50:33 PM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/13/2018 8:22:12 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
At no point did I, or anybody, say we shouldn't worry about non-gun related deaths. Feel free to quote what made you think otherwise. Maybe I didn't explain myself clearly....

I already quoted examples of what made me think you are not concerned about non-gun related deaths. Perhaps I missed somewhere where you actually said that you were worried about them.

If you agree with me, why are you arguing? Perhaps we can narrow it down if I turn my position into a list. I have consistently taken the following positions:
1. Reasonable gun control is appropriate
2. Gun buyback programs are appropriate
3. Steps 1 and 2 will significantly reduce the rate of gun related suicides, which are often spur of the moment decisions, and will also reduce accidental shootings.
4. Steps 1 and 2 will probably also reduce the rate of gun-related violent crime, including road rage incidents and armed robberies.
5. They may also reduce the rate of gun-related mass murders.
6. Something has changed over the last fifty years that has led to a dramatic increase in mass murders. This is the core problem, and we need to try to understand it and address it.
7. People have already demonstrated that mass murders can be committed without guns.
8. Methods for killing without guns will continue to improve as mass murderers learn from those that go before them.

I don't see any of these as controversial. You asked for data to support point 7, so I gave you some examples. You ridiculed that data by blending in data from all crimes, showing that people tend to survive knife fights, for example. But, do they survive from mass murderers who are set on killing, not wounding? We could also show that people tend to survive car accidents, but how is the survival rate if someone deliberately drives a semi at full speed into a crowd? Knives, vehicles, poison, and bombs are merely examples of methods other than guns that a mass murder could use. Of these, I think poison/chemical weapons will end up being the biggest threat.

That brings up to to point 8. Perhaps it is point 8 you disagree with? Yet, from what I have seen, these mass murders are not spur of the moment decisions. These mass murders seem to obtain weapons, map out their area, and plan their crimes in detail. If they make these sorts of plans currently using guns, and somehow we keep them from having guns, why should we believe they will not plan carefully for non-gun related mass murders, and learn from other mass murderers that went before them?

If your point is that we have yet to see a specific series of cases where say, a person tries to extract Ricin from castor beans and poison a crowd with minimal success, then another tries, and manages to kill a few people, and then a third does it with even greater success, then I would agree that we haven't seen that specific case yet. On the other hand, we have seen terrorists trying methods for killing, and eliminating ones that don't work well, and refining the ones that do.

That brings me to the point where I will add a prediction: Within a decade, methods for non-gun related mass murders will become far more effective than gun related methods. As a result, that is why my major point of emphasis is on point 6, not point 5. I still believe that reasonable gun control is appropriate, but I also believe it is insufficient.

Last Edited: 9/13/2018 9:10:29 AM by L.C.


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
finnOhio
General User

Member Since: 2/4/2005
Location: Rockton, IL
Post Count: 532

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/13/2018 9:47:44 AM 
The issue is that 'reasonable' or 'sensible' gun control is vague. The other issue is that, what we need is some fantastic research on what would be effective. What we could all hopefully support would be the removal of the Dickey Amendment, which came from Jay Dickey in 1996 that put a restriction on any money towards gun violence prevention research. If we were able to rescind that amendment and begin some research, we would have better understanding on how to proceed. Treat this as a public health crisis, either for the victim or from the perpetrator. Right now, there's a lot of passion on both sides of the issue, but what we need are cold, hard facts. Having the CDC research this rather than some offshoot of the NRA or a gun-control advocacy group.
Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/13/2018 10:12:31 AM 
L.C. wrote:

I already quoted examples of what made me think you are not concerned about non-gun related deaths. Perhaps I missed somewhere where you actually said that you were worried about them.


No, you actually quoted things that are supported by the data I provided and added the assumption that that means we shouldn't care about non-gun related deaths. The entire premise of this conversation is about reducing deaths to the smallest number possible. That you keep insisting I only care about certain types of death is absurd. I have said over and over again that I am trying to make it as hard for people to kill other people as possible. What do you think my argument is, exactly? That we should have gun control but not bomb control?

It's hard for me to come away from this thinking that you're arguing in good faith here.

L.C. wrote:

If you agree with me, why are you arguing?


I have made it super clear where we disagree. Not only have I made the point of our disagreement clear, but I've asked repeatedly for data that supports your point of view in an attempt to understand why you so fervently believe it. That you think asking you to support your beliefs is 'arguing" says a fair amount.

L.C. wrote:

Perhaps we can narrow it down if I turn my position into a list. I have consistently taken the following positions:
1. Reasonable gun control is appropriate
2. Gun buyback programs are appropriate
3. Steps 1 and 2 will significantly reduce the rate of gun related suicides, which are often spur of the moment decisions, and will also reduce accidental shootings.
4. Steps 1 and 2 will probably also reduce the rate of gun-related violent crime, including road rage incidents and armed robberies.


We agree on everything here. What you don't include, however, is homicides. I believe -- and have presented data that strongly supports the idea -- that gun control would also reduce the homicide rate.

That's a point of disagreement. I'm curious how you could look at the data presented and assume that fewer guns would have no impact on the homicide rate.


L.C. wrote:

5. They may also reduce the rate of gun-related mass murders.
6. Something has changed over the last fifty years that has led to a dramatic increase in mass murders. This is the core problem, and we need to try to understand it and address it.
7. People have already demonstrated that mass murders can be committed without guns.
8. Methods for killing without guns will continue to improve as mass murderers learn from those that go before them.


This is the core point that we've disagreed on. I don't see how it's possible to look at the data presented and conclude that there wouldn't be a decrease in the mass murder rate with strong gun control. I have asked for actual hard data that supports that. You've provided anecdotes.

Also, to be super clear, your argument isn't merely that the mass murder rate won't decrease. You're actually arguing that it's going to increase.

Here's what you said:

L.C. wrote:

I do think that this is a relatively temporary problem, however, and that in the future gun deaths will decline, as other more effective forms of mass murder become more common. I do favor reasonable gun controls, but I don't have any illusion that it will change the rate of mass murders.


This entire time, all I've done is ask you repeatedly to provide some statistical support for those points. I've provided data to illustrate how effective guns are at killing people, and how the ridiculously high homicide rate in the United States stems from a small number of gun related crimes. Others have pointed to data that shows a clear correlation between fewer guns in other countries and a lower homicide rate. I followed up on that by illustrating that the number of violent crimes in those countries doesn't differ drastically from those in the United States, but the tools involved do.

The conclusion I've reached as a result is that fewer guns will lead to different tools being involved in violent crimes. The data from other countries suggests that those tools aren't as efficient at killing.

That's good. That means fewer deaths. It doesn't, to be super clear, mean that those deaths aren't important and we shouldn't worry about them.

L.C. wrote:

I don't see any of these as controversial. You asked for data to support point 7, so I gave you some examples.


This is correct. I asked for data. You provided examples. Those are different things.

L.C. wrote:

You ridiculed that data by blending in data from all crimes, showing that people tend to survive knife fights, for example.


It wasn't data. And I didn't ridicule it. I provided data that refutes the point you're trying to make.

L.C. wrote:

But, do they survive from mass murderers who are set on killing, not wounding?


I don't know. But the evidence, both statistic and anecdotal, would very strongly suggest they do. There's no reason to think mass stabbings aren't included in the statistics I presented about stabbing survival rates.

I mean, in your own words, "These mass murders seem to obtain weapons, map out their area, and plan their crimes in detail." If they thought knives or bombs were just as effective as guns, why do the vast majority of mass killers choose to use guns in the United States?

You're arguing that knives and other methods are just as likely to lead to death, right? So why does this subset of people, who are intent on killing as many people as possible, and tend to be meticulously detailed, always choose guns?

Between the actual statistics about non-gun related homicides and the actual actions of mass killers, I'm really struggling to see your point of view here.

Which is why I'm asking for data that goes beyond anecdotes.

L.C. wrote:

We could also show that people tend to survive car accidents, but how is the survival rate if someone deliberately drives a semi at full speed into a crowd?


In the most deadly truck attack, which took place in Nice a few years back, the survival rate amongst injured people was 84.2%. And that was the most successful truck attack. In Barcelona, the survival rate was 91%. In Levallois-Perret, it was 100%. On the Champs-Elysse, it was 100%. In Finsbury Park it was 90%. In Charlottesville, it was 96.7%.

I honestly don't know what the survival rates are overall. It's very hard to find data and frankly, the sample sizes are small. Maybe the rate of mass truck attacks will exceed the death rates from mass shootings. I don't know.

But as of now, they haven't. And that's partially because meticulous mass killers who want to kill as many people as possible seem to always use guns when given the option.

L.C. wrote:

Knives, vehicles, poison, and bombs are merely examples of methods other than guns that a mass murder could use. Of these, I think poison/chemical weapons will end up being the biggest threat.


Maybe chemical weapons and poison will end up the biggest threat. Right now, it's the smallest threat on the list.

Also worth noting that chemical weapons are very, very illegal. There's already chemical weapon control.


L.C. wrote:

That brings up to to point 8. Perhaps it is point 8 you disagree with? Yet, from what I have seen, these mass murders are not spur of the moment decisions. These mass murders seem to obtain weapons, map out their area, and plan their crimes in detail. If they make these sorts of plans currently using guns, and somehow we keep them from having guns, why should we believe they will not plan carefully for non-gun related mass murders, and learn from other mass murderers that went before them?


I've been very clear that I do expect mass murders to continue to try and kill people en masse.

I'm trying to make it harder for them by forcing them to rely on methods of killing that are currently far less efficient. As illustrated by hard data.

L.C. wrote:

If your point is that we have yet to see a specific series of cases where say, a person tries to extract Ricin from castor beans and poison a crowd with minimal success, then another tries, and manages to kill a few people, and then a third does it with even greater success, then I would agree that we haven't seen that specific case yet. On the other hand, we have seen terrorists trying methods for killing, and eliminating ones that don't work well, and refining the ones that do.


Yep, we've seen that. And that's a good thing to see. Why? Because it involves terrorists struggling to kill a lot of people.

That you feel their success is an inevitability is a key point of difference between the two of us. I don't think terrorists are an unstoppable force and that it's just a matter of time before they kill us all, or whatever. I think they are, for the most part, disorganized cells of untrained people who are successful in killing only when it's easy.

There are exceptions to that rule, certainly. But the goal should be to make those exceptions harder and harder and as a result, more rare.

L.C. wrote:

That brings me to the point where I will add a prediction: Within a decade, methods for non-gun related mass murders will become far more effective than gun related methods. As a result, that is why my major point of emphasis is on point 6, not point 5. I still believe that reasonable gun control is appropriate, but I also believe it is insufficient.


I mean, okay. I'm not sure I see the evidence of this or any reason to conclude this. And I think it's the key point of disagreement.

You seem to think these deaths are inevitable. I don't. You are, fundamentally, asking me to care as much about hypothetical deaths as actual deaths.

I'm trying to address what's actually happening. You're insisting we talk about your predictions for the future, without providing any reasons that I should accept your predictions for the future as likely.

Last Edited: 9/13/2018 10:15:19 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/14/2018 12:24:59 AM 
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
No, you actually quoted things that are supported by the data I provided and added the assumption that that means we shouldn't care about non-gun related deaths.

If you like, I could go back through all your posts and produce all of your comments that caused me to conclude that you are not concerned about non-gun related mass-murders, but there are quite a number of them.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
What do you think my argument is, exactly? That we should have gun control but not bomb control?

Not exactly. You just seem, for reasons not at all clear to me, not to be at all worried about things like bombs or chemical weapons, so apparently you think that whatever we are doing already is more than sufficient. Your opinion seems to be more reactive than proactive.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
I have made it super clear where we disagree. Not only have I made the point of our disagreement clear, but I've asked repeatedly for data that supports your point of view in an attempt to understand why you so fervently believe it. That you think asking you to support your beliefs is 'arguing" says a fair amount.

Actually, you have argued with me about things we agree on, leaving things quite muddy about where we actually disagree. This post, finally, helps to clarify it a bit.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:

Perhaps we can narrow it down if I turn my position into a list. I have consistently taken the following positions:
1. Reasonable gun control is appropriate
2. Gun buyback programs are appropriate
3. Steps 1 and 2 will significantly reduce the rate of gun related suicides, which are often spur of the moment decisions, and will also reduce accidental shootings.
4. Steps 1 and 2 will probably also reduce the rate of gun-related violent crime, including road rage incidents and armed robberies.


We agree on everything here. What you don't include, however, is homicides. I believe -- and have presented data that strongly supports the idea -- that gun control would also reduce the homicide rate.

That's a point of disagreement. I'm curious how you could look at the data presented and assume that fewer guns would have no impact on the homicide rate.
..

I consider homicides to be "gun-related violent crime". Therefore I consider them to be a included in #4, which I believe will also be reduced.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:

5. They may also reduce the rate of gun-related mass murders.
6. Something has changed over the last fifty years that has led to a dramatic increase in mass murders. This is the core problem, and we need to try to understand it and address it.
7. People have already demonstrated that mass murders can be committed without guns.
8. Methods for killing without guns will continue to improve as mass murderers learn from those that go before them.

...
This is the core point that we've disagreed on. I don't see how it's possible to look at the data presented and conclude that there wouldn't be a decrease in the mass murder rate with strong gun control. I have asked for actual hard data that supports that. You've provided anecdotes.

So you disagree with all of 5-8???

5. Regarding, #5, I haven't said gun control won't reduce mass murder rate. In fact, I said that it "may reduce mass murder rate". The problem is, how much, I don't know. I'm unclear why you think data is necessary to support my assertion that I don't know how much. I can give you reasons why I don't know, however. First, my informal observation is that most gun-related mass murders seem to have been done with guns that were legally obtained. Therefore, it is unclear to me how much impact gun control would have actually had. Secondly, again an informal observation, but most mass murders seem to be planned in advance, not spur of the moment things. I have no doubt that when there are less guns, there will be a reduction of spur of the moment events involving guns. Well planned events involving guns may also be reduced, but how much, I don't know.

6. Yes. I suspected this was a point of disagreement, though you haven't specifically voiced it. Even now I'm not clear which part of #6 you disagree with. Do you disagree that something has changed? Or that we should try to understand it?
In support of the fact that something has changed, here is some data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_deaths_in_US_mas...
This chart shows the growth rate in gun-related mass murders.
Eyeballing the chart, there is exponential growth. I believe that shows that something has changed, and, that something continues to change.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

Also, to be super clear, your argument isn't merely that the mass murder rate won't decrease. You're actually arguing that it's going to increase.

Here's what you said:

L.C. wrote:

I do think that this is a relatively temporary problem, however, and that in the future gun deaths will decline, as other more effective forms of mass murder become more common. I do favor reasonable gun controls, but I don't have any illusion that it will change the rate of mass murders.

Yes, that's what I believe. I do believe we can reduce the rate of gun-related death, though how much. I believe that the overall growth rate of mass murders will continue to grow exponentially for at least awhile as I see no new social changes that will reverse the trend.

As for my projection that the growth rate in gun deaths will slow, and the growth rate in non-gun related mass murders will grow is just that, a projection. It is based primarily on the realization that just as there is a limit to how many people a person with a knife can kill, a person with a gun can kill more, and a person with chemical weapons can kill far, far more. For mass murders to continue to grow exponentially, they will have to move beyond guns.

7. All it takes to prove my assertion is a single point. I don't need hundreds of cases. Thus, "an example" is all the data that is required. But, moving beyond the specific example, here is an article that claims that 25% of mass murders in the last decade were committed by means other than guns:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/10/03/mass-kille... /

8. This is my prediction. Considering that all technology improves over time, it doesn't seem to be an unusual prediction.


Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
This entire time, all I've done is ask you repeatedly to provide some statistical support for those points.

The points where we disagree, 5-8 seem to primarily be projections into the future, i.e. opinions. I'm not disagreeing with you about the facts, at least, not so far as I have been able to tell.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
L.C. wrote:

I don't see any of these as controversial. You asked for data to support point 7, so I gave you some examples.


This is correct. I asked for data. You provided examples. Those are different things.

As I said above, for my statement to be true, I only need one case. Thus, a single example was all that was required.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:

You ridiculed that data by blending in data from all crimes, showing that people tend to survive knife fights, for example.


It wasn't data. And I didn't ridicule it. I provided data that refutes the point you're trying to make.

No, you didn't. You provided irrelevant data that most people wounded with knives don't die. Now, if you could refine that data to include only cases where the person wielding the knife intended for the victim to die, then the data would be relevant. More on this below.


Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

I mean, in your own words, "These mass murders seem to obtain weapons, map out their area, and plan their crimes in detail." If they thought knives or bombs were just as effective as guns, why do the vast majority of mass killers choose to use guns in the United States?

You're arguing that knives and other methods are just as likely to lead to death, right? So why does this subset of people, who are intent on killing as many people as possible, and tend to be meticulously detailed, always choose guns?...

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that they can be used for mass murder. Like you, I believe people intent on becoming mass murderers will choose the method they believe will be most effective. Today that method is usually guns. I believe that in the future they will shift to other methods.

L.C. wrote:

We could also show that people tend to survive car accidents, but how is the survival rate if someone deliberately drives a semi at full speed into a crowd?


Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:

In the most deadly truck attack, which took place in Nice a few years back, the survival rate amongst injured people was 84.2%. And that was the most successful truck attack. In Barcelona, the survival rate was 91%. In Levallois-Perret, it was 100%. On the Champs-Elysse, it was 100%. In Finsbury Park it was 90%. In Charlottesville, it was 96.7%.

That is interesting survival information. In the recent Canadian van attack, the survival rate was 58%, with 10 dead, and 14 injured. Nevertheless, this survival data nicely makes the point that I was trying to make. The survival rate of people in car accidents is not in any way related to the survival rate of people in truck attacks. The two are not related in any way, and not even on the same order of magnitude, just as the survival rate of people in knife accidents has nothing to do with the survival rate where the knife was being used with an intent to murder.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:

Knives, vehicles, poison, and bombs are merely examples of methods other than guns that a mass murder could use. Of these, I think poison/chemical weapons will end up being the biggest threat.


Maybe chemical weapons and poison will end up the biggest threat. Right now, it's the smallest threat on the list.

Also worth noting that chemical weapons are very, very illegal. There's already chemical weapon control.

And that's a good thing, and I favor making them increasingly controlled, since I believe they are by far the biggest threat. As a side note, this week my company tried to buy a chemical that we have used for probably well over 30 years. For the first time ever we had to jump through many, many new hoops to explain why we wanted it before we could get it. I support that.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
L.C. wrote:

That brings up to to point 8. Perhaps it is point 8 you disagree with? Yet, from what I have seen, these mass murders are not spur of the moment decisions. These mass murders seem to obtain weapons, map out their area, and plan their crimes in detail. If they make these sorts of plans currently using guns, and somehow we keep them from having guns, why should we believe they will not plan carefully for non-gun related mass murders, and learn from other mass murderers that went before them?


I've been very clear that I do expect mass murders to continue to try and kill people en masse.

I'm trying to make it harder for them by forcing them to rely on methods of killing that are currently far less efficient. As illustrated by hard data.

I would disagree. You have not been clear that you are concerned about methods other than guns, and that is why we have, apparently, disagreed, when perhaps we didn't disagree at all.


Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
That you feel their success is an inevitability is a key point of difference between the two of us. I don't think terrorists are an unstoppable force and that it's just a matter of time before they kill us all, or whatever. I think they are, for the most part, disorganized cells of untrained people who are successful in killing only when it's easy.

There are exceptions to that rule, certainly. But the goal should be to make those exceptions harder and harder and as a result, more rare.

This hits at our point of disagreement. I hope they aren't unstoppable, but I look at the exponential growth, and I see every reason to believe that it could grow for awhile. That's why I favor not only approaching it from a gun control perspective, but also from a social perspective, trying to understand what changes in our society have led to this new trend.

Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote:
...
You seem to think these deaths are inevitable. I don't. You are, fundamentally, asking me to care as much about hypothetical deaths as actual deaths.

I'm trying to address what's actually happening. You're insisting we talk about your predictions for the future, without providing any reasons that I should accept your predictions for the future as likely.

Let me try one more time to explain. I agree that we should do what we can to address the current methods of killing. It will help some, but how much, I do not know. We can develop antibiotics to address the way current germs work, but unfortunately, germs adapt, and continue to kill in new ways. Similarly, I expect mass killers to adapt to whatever restrictions we put in their way.

That doesn't mean that we should throw up our hands and give up. It doesn't mean that we need to "talk about my predictions for the future". What it does mean is that we need to make some serious efforts not only to prevent the mass killings, but to prevent the desire to mass kill. We need to figure out what is going wrong in our social system that is leading to exponential growth.

Last Edited: 9/14/2018 12:28:16 AM by L.C.


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 9/14/2018 8:00:07 PM 
In the end, my conclusion is that the primary place we disagree is the one place that we both knew we disagreed before we started, and that is on the nature of man, and why these sorts of things even occur at all. That difference ends up leading us to vastly different expectations for the future. In the end, one of us will be right, and the other wrong. To be honest, I hope you are the one that turns out right. I hope these things fade away again, and cease to be "a thing".


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
L.C.
General User

Member Since: 8/31/2005
Location: United States
Post Count: 8,534

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 10/3/2018 7:36:19 PM 
Yes, Ricin is illegal, but then, so is killing people with guns. Ricin incidents do occur, by the way:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-ricin-idU...

Will bio-warfare terrorism grow in the future? I guess we will find out.


"When two men always agree, one of them is unnecessary." William Wrigley

Back to Top
  
Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame
General User

Member Since: 7/30/2010
Post Count: 861

Status: Offline

  Message Not Read  RE: Machine Gun at the Peden Gate......
   Posted: 10/4/2018 5:42:08 AM 
L.C. wrote:
Yes, Ricin is illegal, but then, so is killing people with guns. Ricin incidents do occur, by the way:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pentagon-ricin-idU...

Will bio-warfare terrorism grow in the future? I guess we will find out.


How many people died? Doesn't this support my point better than it supports yours? Obviously people try to kill others in many ways. Guns are still the easiest and most effective ay to do so.

Maybe more and more people will try ricin. Or maybe they'll just keep using guns because our leaders continue to do nothing to address the problem.

My guess? They'll just keep using guns. Your guess is different. I guess we'll see.

Last Edited: 10/4/2018 5:45:30 AM by Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame

Back to Top
  
Showing Replies:  151 - 163  of 163 Posts
Jump to Page:  < Previous    1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View Other 'General Ohio University Discussion/Alumni Events' Topics
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             



Copyright ©2019 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties