Ghost of Electricity

i seem to remember reading somewhere that AGIB was written/composed/arranged on pro tools at the loft cutting and pasting extensively, then when it was "done" they learned how to play what they'd constructed on the computer, went to another studio and recorded it more or less live.

Outlaw the meteorites and senseless acts of violence like this won't happen.

Yup.  I think we need a constitutinal amendment.

edit: damn that's some atroshus spelling. sorry.

It'd be nice to see companies like Smith & Wesson, Glock and the ammo manufacturers participate in the sales boycott of states that attempt to infringe on our Second Amendment rights. What's good for the goose ...

Why stop there?  I wouldn't ming seeing every gun and ammo  manufacturer participate in a sales boycott in every state.

Probably would have ignored this but it seems sadly appropriate to post here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21455453

 

 

2) Hixter isn't a statistic.  He is a living, breathing human being.  

And it is my sincere hope that he doesn't become a statistic.  But let's remember this isn't about hixter, it's about policy.  and this argument:

Live your life by statistics, if you choose. Myself, when I hear someone break a window in my house I'm going to reach for a 12-gauge rather than crunch numbers in my head.

 

 

may work for him, but does not serve as a strong enough foundation on which to build an entire policy.

wish i could discuss this with you further over a brew at solid sound (especially as you won't be packing there-i'd feel safer), but alas, i'm unable to attend:( 

Live your life by statistics, if you choose. Myself, when I hear someone break a window in my house I'm going to reach for a 12-gauge rather than crunch numbers in my head.

 

I've answered that question at least 5 or 6 more times. I'm not going to continue repeating myself every time you don't like my answer.

I agree we should enforce the laws, but punishment as a deterrent has never worked on any issue and won't work here.  

I think I -- and others -- said this before, but it bears repeating as, Hixter, you call for the current laws to be enforced.  

yes by all means enforce the laws that exist, but they will do nothing to prevent gun crime from happening in the first place.  

No, it isn't.  I've stated before I can understand that it does make you feel safer.   But apparently it IS difficult for you to understand that it actually puts you at greater risk.  Before backing that up with the statistics above, I argued it in this post, which you conveniently ignored:  

 

Incorrect.   There are two axes that this hinges on --you having or not having a gun, and the intruder having or not having a gun.  Let's consider your safety.  If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire.  There could be a random shot froma a domestic dispute at a neighbour's which comes through your window and hits you, but the odds of this are obviously infintesimally small. If you are armed and the intruder isn't, the likelihood of you being injured by gunfire goes up.  The intruder could wrestle the gun from you and use it on you, or the gun could backfire.  Neither is likely, but either one is more likely than being hit by a random shot through the window, and of course those infintesimal odds are still present.  So, when the intruder is not armed, you are more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

Now let's consider the situation of an armed intruder.  If this is the case unquestionably your odds of being injured or killed by gunfire have increased.  But the question is, are you more or less likely to be injured if you have a gun than if you don't.  If the intruder enters with intent to harm, you are likely to he injured or killed either way.  He has the element of surprise.  Odds are not good for you.  If the intruder has entered without intent to harm- say to burgle or because he's strung out looking to raid your medicine cabinet or he's a bored kid looking for kicks or whatever- your having a gun increases the chance that the situation will escalate into one where you are injured or killed.  He (or she) sees that you have a gun, panics, and uses the weapon that he (or she) didn't really intend to use.

 

Finally let's consider that the intruder is armed and you are not (the situation you are most afraid of).  If he enters with intent to harm, your chances are not good.  But remember they weren't good when you were armed either.  As he is already holding his weapon and has the element of surprise,I would put your likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire at about equal whether you have gun or not.  If the intruder enters without intent to harm he is less likely to use his weapon if you are unarmed than if you are armed, and you are less likely to be injured or killed by gunfire.

 

So if we are considering your safety, we can see that if you are armed the likelihood of your being injured or killed by gunfire in all situations is either equal or greater.  

And i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't ignored or forgotten my question about how to prevent gun violence from happening in the first place.

When you said this:

 I'm not going to worry about statistics,...

I refrained from using statistics and kept to logic (which has gone unrefuted).  But now that you've done this:

in addition to introducing yet another inconsistency to your position, you have freed me to do this:  

But let's keep it domestic, at least for now:

number of unintentional gun fatalities per 100,000 people, USA, 2009: 0.27

which if you do the math comes out to about 800 unintentional gun fatalities a year in the US

 the FBI counted an average of 213 justified firearm homicides per year over the period 2005-2010    

So if you have a gun in the house  you are about 20 times as likely to kill someone accidentally (probably a guest, loved one, or yourself) than to kill an intruder. 

That will never be a "yes or no" question. 

Incorrect.  This is the fundamental philosophical question at stake here.  Your inability to answer a simple yes or no question speaks volumes about the fact that your arguments are built on a foundation which is neither solid nor consistent.  The fact this it is only one of several questions that have gone unanswered does the same.

 

 

I believe my right to protect myself is more important than anything the community does to protect me, yes.

If I had asked that question I would be satisfied with your answer.  But that's not the question I asked.  The question is (hopefully I'll avoid the typos this time) "Do the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community?"  Again, I ask for a simple answer: "Yes" or "No."

I'd also like to say thank you (no irony intended) for writing to your representatives.  We need more serious debate and more people participating in the democratic process. 

You're completely ignoring my comments about other weapons (knives, bare hands, etc.) and trying to boil it all down to statistics which only include injury by firearm. Only one thing matters: my safety. I don't care if the intruder is armed, unarmed, a raving murderer or the teenager down the street: I am going to protect my safety and a gun will be my method of protecting myself and stopping the threat to my safety.

 

And since when do guns "backfire"?

Backfire, misfire.  I openly admit to being ignorant of the terminology.  I think you know what I mean.

Here's my solution for the umpteenth time: enforce current laws. They cover every possibility already, so why do we need more that only serve to infringe on the rights of the good guys while not affecting the bad guys in the slightest.

I fully agree with you that the existing laws should be more strictly enforced.  But I don't see it as a solution.  The old addage- an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.  Even the strictest enforcement of existing laws would be no more than a few ounces of cure.  How do you suggest preventing gun crime?

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

I don't break laws. I don't hurt people. All I want to do is be able to protect myself.

That's the second time you've avoided my question.  Do you believe that the rights of the individual trump the rights of the community? Yes or No?

Think of how many lives would be lost if the United States were to repeal the Second Amendment and forcibly confiscate Americans' guns. It would be a bloodbath.

No, if the ammunition is unavailable the weapons become irrelevant.

I always find these debates humorous, like anyone is going to convince others of an opposing viewpoint to change their minds..

 

 

 

My own reason for engaging in the debate is not to convert the other side, who are (broadly speaking at least) dogmatically entrenched in theor views.  My hope is that, by showing the inherent weakness and illogicality of the pro-gun stance, and pointing out that this same line of thinking dictates the current gun laws, people who agree with me in a passive sense are encouraged to become more active.  If I can "convert" someone along the way, that's just a bonus.

I'll say it again: write your elected officials and tell them what you think.

Also could someone explain to me how the argument that “if the second amendment allows me to own a gun so why not a rocket launcher/tank/nuclear missile” is any different than the “if we allow gays to marry what’s to stop people from marring their dog”. I don’t see the relevance

I'd rather you married your dog than shot him.

 

I say the right of an individual to defend himself is the fundamental right of all mankind.

So you do in fact believe that the rights of an individual trump the rights of the community?

So you believe that societies like Japan and the UK deny their citizens the most fundamental human right?

 

 

 

3) Most importantly, your scenarios seem to place equal importance on injuries and deaths for both the victim and the criminal. The only thing that counts is the safety of the victim, anything that happens to the intruder is a result of his criminal actions. Our laws don't consider the victim's actions to be a crime.

 

 

Incorrect.   There are two axes that this hinges on --you having or not having a gun, and the intruder having or not having a gun.  Let's consider your safety.  If neither you nor the intruder are armed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone will be hurt or killed by gunfire.  There could be a random shot froma a domestic dispute at a neighbour's which comes through your window and hits you, but the odds of this are obviously infintesimally small. If you are armed and the intruder isn't, the likelihood of you being injured by gunfire goes up.  The intruder could wrestle the gun from you and use it on you, or the gun could backfire.  Neither is likely, but either one is more likely than being hit by a random shot through the window, and of course those infintesimal odds are still present.  So, when the intruder is not armed, you are more likely, not less likely, to be injured or killed by gunfire.

Now let's consider the situation of an armed intruder.  If this is the case unquestionably your odds of being injured or killed by gunfire have increased.  But the question is, are you more or less likely to be injured if you have a gun than if you don't.  If the intruder enters with intent to harm, you are likely to he injured or killed either way.  He has the element of surprise.  Odds are not good for you.  If the intruder has entered without intent to harm- say to burgle or because he's strung out looking to raid your medicine cabinet or he's a bored kid looking for kicks or whatever- your having a gun increases the chance that the situation will escalate into one where you are injured or killed.  He (or she) sees that you have a gun, panics, and uses the weapon that he (or she) didn't really intend to use.

Finally let's consider that the intruder is armed and you are not (the situation you are most afraid of).  If he enters with intent to harm, your chances are not good.  But remember they weren't good when you were armed either.  As he is already holding his weapon and has the element of surprise,I would put your likelihood of being injured or killed by gunfire at about equal whether you have gun or not.  If the intruder enters without intent to harm he is less likely to use his weapon if you are unarmed than if you are armed, and you are less likely to be injured or killed by gunfire.

So if we are considering your safety, we can see that if you are armed the likelihood of your being injured or killed by gunfire in all situations is either equal or greater.  

 

 

I hope my interest in this discussion is more about trying to figure out what hell we can reasonably expect to do about gun violence given the realities in the USA in 2013 and less about scoring points or making anyone here look stupid.

Yes, absolutely.  Remember we're trying to solve a problem here.  Let's put all possible solutions on the table.  Mine is to repeal the 2nd Amendment.  Hixter doesn't like this idea, and is on the defensive.  (We're trying to take away something which is dear to him after all). He has nixed gun control arguments (on grounds that do not hold for me personally) but hasn't proposed solutions of his own. Like I said earlier, I'm a good listener.  How do you propose to reduce, or even better effectively eliminate, the problem of gun violence in America?

But another thing I said earlier was that I'm aware that gun owners' minds won't be changed on this issue.  Again, I urge people who think along the same lines as myself (whether or not they go so far as to call for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment) to write their elected officials and speak their conscience.

I suggest that the 2nd Amenment historically made sense.  It was written fresh after the War for Independence, which was fought mainly by militia--farmers with guns.  The founding fathers wanted a sort of insurance policy to prevent tyranny, guns in the hands of the citizenry had recently done just that.  The secondary function was personal security, which made sense in the frontier lands which could not practicably support any police force.

That was the 18th century, a century which accepted slavery and the subjugation of women as a matter of course.  Thankfully, on those issues we managed to progess, even changing the constitution (the 13th and 19th Amendments) to achieve this.  The founding fathers allowed for constitutional changes because they realized that times change.  

The historical reasons which made the 2nd Amendment appropriate in the 18th century are no longer true-the 2nd Amendment is obsolete.

Indeed, you could even say that it threatens other of our constitutional rights.  The preamble:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Given that there are 88 guns for every 100 Americans, and that Americans have the highest gun-related homicide rate in the developed world, I suggest that an individuals 2nd Amendment right to bear arms comes into conflict with everyone's communal right to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility provide for the common defence and promote the general welfare."  The question follows- when we have to choose between an individuals right and the rights of a society as a whole, which is more important?

I say the rights of society as a whole.

. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

 

Sure

 

And they also have a suicide rate that's twice that of the United States. As I said, different countries and different cultures. Apples and oranges.

 

 

No, they are not. 

 

Make up your mind- are we including suicide in this conversation or not?

I'm a good listener- tell me if an intruder breaks into your home what scenari would place it outside the four listed below?  1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed.

. But ask yourself whether you really believe that the government needs to know your medical history.

 

Not a problem. 

Apples and oranges; you can't compare 2 countries with vastly different demographics, morals, traditions, etc., but I'll bet Japan's numbers would look just like ours if we shipped them a couple million gang bangers and street thugs. And let's not forget that little thing called the Second Amendment.

 

Incorrect, unless you are a mind reader you have no way of knowing the intruder's intentions. I will always assume that someone who breaks into my home is armed and will injure and/or kill me if confronted rather than risk being identified and thrown in jail. I will do my best to kill the intruder before the intruder has a chance to harm me. I'm not going to worry about statistics, I'm going to do my best to prevent injury to myself.

In Japan there is plenty of organized crime.  And the 2nd Amendment is exactly what needs to be repealed.

If the intruder enters with intent to harm, it is likely that he will harm you regardless of whether you have a weapon or not, as he will have the element of surprise.  Do you watch t.v. holding your gun?  do you sleep with your gun? does it sit on the bathroom counter when you are in the shower?  

If the intruder enters with any other intent, such as intent to rob, it's unlikely that he will hurt you.  

And incidentally, the four possible scenarios you said were incorrect are incontrovertably true.  I suggest you choose your quotes (and your arguments) more carefully.

 

That figure includes suicides, which are typically about double the number of gun murders. Suicides have no place in the discussion of gun violence.

 

Protecting myself and my loved ones from other people intent on launching lead pellets at us is the most valuable thing in the world to me.

I assume you're talking about the info in the link.  You didn't respond to the Japan reference.  here's another link which deals directly with that: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

regarding personal security, i don't don't that it makes you FEEL safer, but when put to the test of logic, we can see that it does not, in fact, make us safer.  . Let's say an intruder eners your home. There are four possible variations to this scenario. 1) both you and the intruder are unarmed 2)you are armed and the intruder is not 3)the intruder is armed and you are not 4)both you and the intruder are armed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the situation which will most likely result in a firearm-related injury or death is number 4, and the situation which is least likely to result in a firearm-related injury or death is number one. If the intruder is armed and you are not, you are likely to say something like "take what you want, just don't hurt us, which would be the likely outcome.

by the way, the statistics also show that having a gun in the home makes you less, not more, safe.

Maybe I can summarize:

 

There seems to be an effort to close some loopholes and reduce the statistical probability for violent crime using guns by a few percent, you know tens of lives a year.  Not sure what's threatening about it. 

 

There is also a more radical vision for a U.S. without guns.  I think all sides recognize it as a long-shot.

 

Then there is the radical pro-gun side.  Aside from quipping about how misguided a bureaucrat's view of an 'assault rifle' is, I'm seeing a counter argument as insane as the "defense against tyranny, American values, bald eagle" approach, or as shallow as the "dude I just like guns for fun, so no you can't take them away."  I realize these two caricatures are over-reaching and less than flattering- but I want to insight a clearer defense.  Strip away emotion, vague concepts about America, what is really so essential about the right to launch lead pellets with deadly force out of a metal barrel.  How valuable is that?

I must spend too much time on Facebook because i was looking for the "like" button.

No and no.

 

My thinking is quite rational and that petition is full of crap. It claims that there are hundreds of deaths each day due to gun violence; the actual number is less than 25.

gee there's a statistic to be proud of.  takes japan what, ten years to reach that noble number.  get a grip.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/20/more-americans-have-died-from-domestic-gunfire-than-all-wars-in-u-s-history-is-that-true/

i liken the struggle to the civil rights struggle.  No, it won't be achieved over night.  These might be days of slavery, so to speak, but eventually it will happen.  The truth will eventually prevail, it always does.

If your revolution will be bloody it will be my blood and it will be on your hands.

Write your representatives in Washington and tell them that.  We need the 2nd Amendment repealers to come out of the closet.

Would you give them up if they became illegal?  Would you sell them to the government as part of a buyback scheme if they did?

Anyway, it's no use preaching to the unconvertable on this issue.  I would advise those of you who DO think rationally to save your breath for people who agree in theory but can't be motivated to get off their butts to do anything about it.  

here's a link to an online petitionsponsored by "The Nation" to suppport the bill: http://salsa3.salsalabs.com/o/50923/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=9267

The Feinstein law includes some good common sense measures (like universal background checks) but it does not go nearly far enough  One problem with it is that it bans certain assault weapons by name, not by the characteristics that make them dangerous (such as how rapidly they can fire).  So a manufacturer only has to change the name, and the gun is once again legal.

We need to look at some of the models of other countries who have a fraction of a fraction of the gun crime we have.  In Britain, they have introduced measures making it virtually impossible to get ammunition for assault weapons.  In Japan guns are for all practical purposes illegal.  They average under 10 gun-related homicides a year.

As I stated in an earlier post, I believe the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  Though I hold no illusions about the likelihood of this happening, there is perhaps some outside-the-box thinking that could be done.  What if the production, import, and sale of all existing calibre weapons was made illegal, as well as the production, import, and sale of ammunition for those weapons? Getting existing guns off the street would be a non-issue, they would be obsolete. In addition, you could heavily regulate the production and sale of new calibre weapons and ammunition. Introduce a permit-to-own, background check which includes interviews with the applicant and acquaintances of the applicant (i think they do something like this in Australia) a six-month waiting period, etc. Effectively, start over.