IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New A couple of points...
Addison writes:
In fact, I'm pretty reassured when the citizens around me are armed. (Gets back to that trust issue.... obviously, you don't trust the people around you with that degree of authority
Oh, come ON!

If people all around me are armed all the time, there is *some* larger-than-zero probability that someone will go nuts and start shooting.

If they aren't, it's zero. Nothing to do with how much I "trust" them; just a simple matter of what's *possible*.


And I don't understand why people presume that all of us (gun owners) are lying all the time.
Huh?!? Why the F are you telling *me* this? Have I accused you of lying, or anything???

(All I can imagine this being in response to, would be the "grabbing" thing -- which was no accusation against *anyone*, in either direction. It's just that when I realized I had read it backwards, I thought it was rather funny.)
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New The irony continues. :)
I'll have to start from the end and work forward.

Huh?!? Why the F are you telling *me* this? Have I accused you of lying, or anything???

Yep, you *DID IN THAT POST*. Allow me to point out:

Oh, come ON!
If people all around me are armed all the time, there is *some* larger-than-zero probability that someone will go nuts and start shooting.


This is after I told you that *I* don't have that fear. You just said "that's impossible [you're lying]".

I'm not. I don't have that fear. I don't see people "going nuts" around me on a daily basis. The likelyhood of that is *unchanged* if they have a gun or not.

*AND IF I, and EVERYONE ELSE AROUND HAS ONE, THEN ONE PERSON "going nuts" DOESN'T SCARE ME."

People don't start twitching in the gunstores, and eyes turn red.. and if they did, they'd be most likely VERY quickly dispatched.

Wheras, if I'm on the street (unarmed), and somebody's gone nuts, and has a weapon, a knife, their granddad's old goosegun... *THEN* I'm worried.

If they aren't, it's zero. Nothing to do with how much I "trust" them;

The odds that they'll go "nuts" is unchanged.

The odds that someone will go nuts, *AND* start shooting lowers (but you're presuming perfect knowledge, and that there are no guns to get to "zero") - but there are lots of OTHER things that crazy people can do. And ones bezerking out like that, running through schoolyards with a ninja sword, for instance..... Ramming their car into a daycare... there are lots of *weapons* out there.

But trust me, *I* don't have fear, That concern DOES NOT BOTHER ME. Please stop telling me that it does. :)

The likelihood of it is LESS than someone attacking me OUTSIDE. The odds drop dramtically when law abiding citizens are armed. The random abberation is more easily dealt with in that case, than running away (which is about my only other options if a guy starts waving a sword or knife at me)

And it is a matter of trust. You're scared that your peers are not able to control themselves, that they'll "go nuts". What is that, if its not lack of trust?

Addison
New Oh, bullshit.
Me: If people all around me are armed all the time, there is *some* larger-than-zero probability that someone will go nuts and start shooting.

Addison: This is after I told you that *I* don't have that fear. You just said "that's impossible [you're lying]".

Nope -- I'm saying, if *anything* like that, "that's irrational [you're stupid]".

Because, if you "don't have that fear", then you ARE being irrational: The probability -- however vanishingly low -- *does* exist.


Addison: I don't see people "going nuts" around me on a daily basis. The likelyhood of that is *unchanged* if they have a gun or not.

Don't preted to be so fucking stupid, please. The likelyhood of someone going nuts AND START SHOOTING is ABSOLUTELY changed by whether they've got a gun or not.


Addison: People don't start twitching in the gunstores, and eyes turn red.. and if they did, they'd be most likely VERY quickly dispatched.

But *if* they do, *before* they're "most likely VERY quickly dispatched", someone else is pretty damn likely to get hurt or killed.

And are you prepared to SWEAR that it has NEVER, EVER, happened? And that it *will* NEVER, EVER, happen (again?)?

No? Didn't think so... The probability *is* greater than zero.


Me: If they aren't, it's zero. Nothing to do with how much I "trust" them;

Addison: The odds that they'll go "nuts" is unchanged.

But not the odds that they'll go nuts AND START SHOOTING. Sheesh!


Addison: The odds that someone will go nuts, *AND* start shooting lowers (but you're presuming perfect knowledge, and that there are no guns to get to "zero")

Why, how mysterious... Not.

Not when I *postulated*, in this *example* of the *difference* between an armed and an UN-armed society, that there are no guns. Sheesh and double-Sheesh!


Addison: but there are lots of OTHER things that crazy people can do. And ones bezerking out like that, running through schoolyards with a ninja sword, for instance..... Ramming their car into a daycare... there are lots of *weapons* out there.

Yup.

And removing guns makes it one *less* kind of weapons out there.


Now, I never said it was a *high* probability, or that you did (or even *must*) fear everybody else... But this sub-discussion, you better just give up, Addison.

There's NO WAY IN HELL you're going to logically convince me that the likelihood of getting hurt by a gun is no bigger when there ARE guns around, than when there AREN'T.

Because that just isn't so.
   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
New No.
Me: If people all around me are armed all the time, there is *some* larger-than-zero probability that someone will go nuts and start shooting.
Addison: This is after I told you that *I* don't have that fear. You just said "that's impossible [you're lying]".
Nope -- I'm saying, if *anything* like that, "that's irrational [you're stupid]".
Because, if you "don't have that fear", then you ARE being irrational: The probability -- however vanishingly low -- *does* exist.


I said I don't have that fear, that the odds are so low as to not be worth worrying about.

You said that I was wrong, of course I worried about it. I don't know how else to interpret that.

The possibility exists, yes.

Are you worried that someone will bury you with a snowplow? Put poison in your vodka? maybe spike your chewing tobacco? What about that someone in your workplace will pull a gun in the next week and shoot you?

You *must* be, because those *are* possibilities, right?

That's the argument you've presented. If its possible, you must worry about it, or else be irrational.

Its irrational to worry (more) with probabilities of a LOWER ORDER of things that you accept on a daily basis, wouldn't you say?

I would. So no, I don't worry when I'm in a gunstore. I'm safer in there than outside. The likelyhood is LESS. So I worry less (ie, none)

Don't preted to be so fucking stupid, please. The likelyhood of someone going nuts AND START SHOOTING is ABSOLUTELY changed by whether they've got a gun or not.

Yes, and I said as much. You've created a false comparision. I worry about people going nuts. Secondarily, I worry with what they're packing.

Additionally - if they *DO* go nuts and "start shooting", and more than 1 person SHOOTS BACK, who wins?

But *if* they do, *before* they're "most likely VERY quickly dispatched", someone else is pretty damn likely to get hurt or killed.

And are you prepared to SWEAR that it has NEVER, EVER, happened? And that it *will* NEVER, EVER, happen (again?)?


Perhaps. But the odds are that LESS PEOPLE will be hurt/killed in that situation, than in a situation where there is just ONE CRAZY PERSON with HOMICIDE.

Additionally, and I can't find a link to it online, there was a incident of workplace violence last year I heard about. Guy got fired, few days later walks into the office carrying some number of weapons. Yells "I"m going to kill all you &*#@*". Someone was chatting with the receptionist. He pulled his CCW .45 and shot once.

Now, how many people would have been hurt/killed without that? What if he'd walked in tossing Molotov Cocktails? Fireworks with nails around 'em? pipe bombs?

The gun isn't the problem, the gun in the hands of the nut is, and more specifically, the *nut* is the problem.

No? Didn't think so... The probability *is* greater than zero.

Yes. But so's the probability that the sun will Nova in the next 60 seconds. So's the probability that I'll have a heart attack this week. So's the probability that a metorite will hit me in the head. They're *SO CLOSE* to zero that I consider them zero, and spend my time worrying about MORE LIKELY probabilities.

But I grant you, the probability is greater than zero.

What you're not granting me is your scenario is leaving a lot out.

And removing guns makes it one *less* kind of weapons out there.

At one point, I could reccall in debating, what you call it when someone says something factual, that's wrong. That was too many years ago. But this is the sort of thing.

Sure. And if you get rid of the guns, the likelihood of shootings disappears, you're absolutely right.

But the likelihood of *crime, assault, and violence* goes UP. And my ability to stop it also disappears. Well, diminished to near zero.

So if you've got a maniac running through a schoolyard with a ninja sword, or toward you, and no guns, how are you proposing to stop him?

There's NO WAY IN HELL you're going to logically convince me that the likelihood of getting hurt by a gun is no bigger when there ARE guns around, than when there AREN'T.

Nope. I didn't say that. I said the probability was so low it didnt' concern me.

Because there are guns out there. Lots of them. Billions of them. And criminals have 'em. You are ignoring this.

There are lots of other weapons out there. You ignore that.

You're worried about the low-order probability stuff, instead of the much more likely stuff. *THAT*'s irrational.

Sure, if you could get rid of guns, nobody would be shot. You're entirely right, but you can't, you won't, (the probablity is infintemsmal) and its silly to make your stand on a "fact" that's irrelevant.

You've created a false situation. I'm talking about the real world.

Guns exist. Crazy people exist, whethere there are guns or not. Criminals exist, guns or not.

The likelihood of me encountering someone crazy or criminal, and suffering at their hands GOES UP without me ahving a weapon. That's reality.

I don't care what you want to think, I'm not going into your imagined situation and telling you you're wrong. Go back and read what I said.

In situations where the populace is armed, I feel safer, because these false situations don't happen.

In short, its not me being irrational.

But to continue this, when you're being Brycian, attempting (and almost succeeding) to redefine the "debate" into "your terms" isn't worth it. (Go back and look at how you've progressed from reality to nitpicking on "close to zero", etc).

Hang loose, and keep the powder dry, bro.

Addison
New OK.. is it alright to change the scale, now?
Final er Concluding Unscientific Postscript (thanks S\ufffdren!)

Addison, I believe you have indeed made a rather sane exposition of "why you feel safer, armed - in America (!) and on 7/11/01". And too - Christian doesn't live here.

Nor am I in any way ridiculing your above 'weighing of the probabilities' as you deem them. This screed is about that which we have a dearth of in Murica: a generalized overview without the omnipresent Slogans. If I'm lucky, that is. (The Murican Peepul is however, so omnipresent a shibboleth here - I simply cannot dispense with it and its implications. See?)

In Murica the barn door is not merely open: all its contents have been dispersed to the masses, so long ago and ongoing - there simply is not the slightest hope of ever, restoring the barn's contents.

In Finland (?) or at least in - most other so-called 'civilized' and wealthy Western countries (not to mention virtually All Eastern countries.. not currently fighting a guerrilla war, or getting ready for one):

The barn door was never opened. Not that there haven't always been weapons, just - not a massive preoccupation of the populace that - somehow it is an Allah- Krishna- God- given Important Right. Thus not: a fixation on the idea, then a fixation on the getting.. and all which has followed *here* from both.

Both CRC and I assert (not his words - maybe he shall demur on my version) - to *Liking The Feeling* that, I do not need to consider the pros/cons of arming myself in the company of the Gaussian distribution of my fellow country inmates. Not yesterday, not today - hopefully (never Certainly!) not tomorrow.

Conversely: we two at least, would assert (in each's unique choice of words) ~~ For me to have to adopt a Feeling that I Should next be armed: would constitute a reduction, of both subtle and overt dimensions, but a palpable Reduction in what I deem the Quality of life I would experience, henceforth.

If you are correct that such a Feeling has now been lost in many, in Murica (as you argue persuasively IS the case on 7/11/01) - then I say: Yes, for certain definitions of 'a felt need for personal security 24/7 in all locations', this may be so. For some, as of today.

But if you are arguing - and I think you have been - that *this situation* is not a Bad thing, is ~OK; 'don't worry pretty-little head' about it ? Then I reply: Oh No! - it is a very Big Thing. And that 'Big' is on a scale which shall not yield to mere stats or rationalizations or arrest records. Nor homogenization of the Large idea of Quality of a Life.

Lastly: I want to see occur.. increasing recognition of the mess we have made, thus awareness of the dimensions of the many 'messes' so that as many as possible ~"face what this Feeling IS, which they walk around in the penumbra of.." Then I want, and for all good reasons following from realizing what this Feeling IS:

That we gradually, painstakingly reach enough of an awareness and thus (plurality?) such that: we use our homo-sap minds to begin restoration of, a saner less dangerous citizenry and thus - place to live in:

Like most of the other rich and equally intelligent citizenries in the world, who have not bought our rationale - nor want to emulate "how we live" (though they like our toys - perhaps Too much - thus may.. follow us in other devolutionary ways. Dunno about that last. Everything future is unknowable.)



Ashton
Who, living in Murica-2001, just might ought to keep..
that cute SS S&W Captain's Special buried in the closet.. handier?

There IS no telling when, the DEA and Mr. Ashcroft and that military tactician guy decide - maybe to test my Saab for 20-yr. old flecks of unPharm-Chem-Taxed substances? which might.. be left over from the days? of <40-year prison sentences for personal usage in the privacy of one's home. A mass spectrometer - wouldn't be so Large an invasion of my privacy. Would it? Just in case I have been deviant, of course.

After all, if I'm not guilty and can simply document the entire history of every occupant of that car.. (and it's too old for the DEA to Really want it er 'confiscated for my safety and protection' without due process - they Like new BMWS, actually) -- well,

For not bein guilty and stuff: what do I have to fear in Murica 2001?

(Nope: the above scenario is palpable and not even exaggeration, from actual cases read about. People ARE now locked up for 40ish years for the crime of carrying a week? month? supply of fav EvilSubstance not Trademarked\ufffd. 3X will do it. (Er, do you doubt the veracity of this report? Lazy as I am I could likely find links - the new Source of Truth, we see))

Does this overt, daily injustice by the Govmint Armed Troops and their ovine supporters of Safety from 'Crime' for All cause me, in Sonoma County, to feel a er 'need to pack'?

Not Yet. (Hope I'd move to Helsinki or Paris or Oxford the very day I decide: I Should. And that would be: my present plan for future exigencies.)

A.
Stop Lying at its Source:
Resign your Corporate Job for a genuine life, no matter what.
Bonus: a longer, more beauty-filled life..
New Precis:
You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube :-)

Although it's interesting to discuss what it would be like if you *could*.
--
Peter
Shill For Hire
Expand Edited by pwhysall July 12, 2001, 03:02:12 AM EDT
     LP Release: Doctors &amp;amp;amp; Guns - (Fearless Freep) - (46)
         Ain't that the truth. -NT - (bepatient)
         Funny how.. - (Ashton) - (11)
             Maybe I missed the joke. - (addison) - (10)
                 Er.. 'victims' Meant: of the non-policed MDs - (Ashton) - (9)
                     Noise levels - (mhuber) - (7)
                         Or maybe... Conspiracy!! to off gun-owners! - (Ashton) - (6)
                             When you say it like that.... - (addison) - (5)
                                 It's called______satire. - (Ashton) - (4)
                                     Believe me, I understand satire. - (addison) - (3)
                                         A couple of points - (ben_tilly) - (2)
                                             Why restrict to wheeled projectiles? - (Ashton)
                                             I rode that - (drewk)
                     Its a contextual issue. - (addison)
         The IoM report is here. - (Another Scott) - (1)
             Re: Nurses giving the wrong meds - (drewk)
         Reply from the DSGL - (addison) - (30)
             Swell.. yawn. But you still don't get the irony? - (Ashton) - (29)
                 Yes, I *get* the irony. The Irony is that you don't. :) - (addison) - (28)
                     Polarization is so easy. Thus popular. - (Ashton) - (27)
                         Sorry, but that's not consistent - (drewk) - (5)
                             Downward spiral? - (Ashton) - (3)
                                 But which is the "reasonable" fear? - (drewk) - (2)
                                     Re: But which is the "reasonable" fear? - (addison) - (1)
                                         Heh.. find self in basic agreement with Both of you,here:-\ufffd -NT - (Ashton)
                             Except... - (addison)
                         Which has nothing at all to do with this subject. - (addison) - (20)
                             While it all 'has to do with this subject' - our filters - (Ashton) - (11)
                                 No, Ash, it doesn't. - (addison)
                                 Let us parse, despite the 90\ufffd polaroid filter pair: - (Ashton) - (9)
                                     180 Degrees apart. - (addison) - (3)
                                         Uhh... - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                             yup, dont see many fist fights - (boxley)
                                             Re: Uhh... - (addison)
                                     Well Addison, you make your points here well enough that, - (Ashton) - (4)
                                         Thank you. Let me try to make at least one more. - (addison) - (3)
                                             En passant - (Ashton) - (2)
                                                 I believe your anger is misplaced. - (addison) - (1)
                                                     camels nose under the tent :) - (boxley)
                             Could be, but I doubt it. - (CRConrad) - (7)
                                 Its not fear. - (addison) - (6)
                                     A couple of points... - (CRConrad) - (5)
                                         The irony continues. :) - (addison) - (4)
                                             Oh, bullshit. - (CRConrad) - (3)
                                                 No. - (addison) - (2)
                                                     OK.. is it alright to change the scale, now? - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                         Precis: - (pwhysall)

Carpe per diem.
246 ms