Once we have laser guns there will be no more mass shootings.
-
Features
Interesting Article About Mass Shooters
- Thread starter TSwizzle
- Start date
But then everyone will just complain about all the massless shootings.
Manure. (this is stolen from the show Silicon Valley, and I don't know if this is actually a true story)
What?
Manure.
When NYC started seeing serious population growth before the turn of the 20th century, the sheer number of horses and carriages in the streets of the city were getting completely out of hand. It was predicted that if something.. ANYTHING... wasn't done within the next 5 years, NYC would be completely buried in horse shit 16 feet deep. The infrastructure could not keep up with transportation demands.
No one had a solution. For years, panic that population centers would be disease ridden piles of manure were very real. Still, no solution could be found to deal with the waste of our primary transportation means.
And then, at the turn of the century, the Automobile became an affordable, viable means for horseless transportation. Within a very short time, the manure problem simply solved itself.
The "gun problem" will eventually solve itself. Maybe not soon enough to prevent many more mass shootings... But the solution may be some miraculous medical breakthrough that (a la Minority Report) identifies or prevents that type of mental illness... or the invention of personal deflection shields, rendering physical assault on individuals impossible... or the invention of a new type of weapon that is 100% effective at stopping violence, but impossible to permanently harm (a la "phasers on stun")... or any number of possible disruptive technologies that can displace or obsolete lead-chucking guns.
Until then, it does not sound to me like anyone is having any good ideas that actually addresses the root cause of the problem (because cars are not the root cause of drunk driving.. and neither is alcohol - It's the people that do dumb / harmful things).
What?
Manure.
When NYC started seeing serious population growth before the turn of the 20th century, the sheer number of horses and carriages in the streets of the city were getting completely out of hand. It was predicted that if something.. ANYTHING... wasn't done within the next 5 years, NYC would be completely buried in horse shit 16 feet deep. The infrastructure could not keep up with transportation demands.
No one had a solution. For years, panic that population centers would be disease ridden piles of manure were very real. Still, no solution could be found to deal with the waste of our primary transportation means.
And then, at the turn of the century, the Automobile became an affordable, viable means for horseless transportation. Within a very short time, the manure problem simply solved itself.
The "gun problem" will eventually solve itself. Maybe not soon enough to prevent many more mass shootings... But the solution may be some miraculous medical breakthrough that (a la Minority Report) identifies or prevents that type of mental illness... or the invention of personal deflection shields, rendering physical assault on individuals impossible... or the invention of a new type of weapon that is 100% effective at stopping violence, but impossible to permanently harm (a la "phasers on stun")... or any number of possible disruptive technologies that can displace or obsolete lead-chucking guns.
Until then, it does not sound to me like anyone is having any good ideas that actually addresses the root cause of the problem (because cars are not the root cause of drunk driving.. and neither is alcohol - It's the people that do dumb / harmful things).
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
I disagree that it will solve itself. For now, it's a problem that needs to proactively managed through strict gun control as to who has access to guns, the types of guns and ammunition available. Also use of "red flag" type laws.
I think there have been some interesting ideas talked about but the pro gun people are too terrified to even discuss in a rational manner.
That analogy was around waaaay before Silicon Valley.
But anyone who defines "the gun problem" in terms of "mass shootings" is not well calibrated anyway.
You can generally assume they are using the sensational to drive their political agenda.
But anyone who defines "the gun problem" in terms of "mass shootings" is not well calibrated anyway.
You can generally assume they are using the sensational to drive their political agenda.
Elixir
Made in America
Yes you can make the same argument, if you're stupid enough:
"People who want to have surface-to-air missiles can choose to buy them. Just because you don't want them doesn't mean anyone else wouldn't want them."
"Who in their right mind would need have surface-to-air missiles? Maybe not you, but others choose to..."
Last edited by a moderator:
Elixir
Made in America
{{{{"shudder}}}}
I'm sure that white supremacists will be delighted to learn that they are mentally ill, and will respond by voluntarily giving up their rights and freedoms.
Oh wait - they're already doing that. But right now they think they're just supporting a very fine dear leader. What you suggest would let the cat out of the bag.
I can't imagine that the entire future of technological advances have already been made, and that no further advances in personal safety can possibly be made, so I can't imagine how anyone could disagree that the problem will go extinct, so to speak.
That said, I do agree that that "red flag" laws (if they are what they appear to be - means to limit access to weapons for people deemed a real threat) are appropriate. I do not believe that the 2nd amendment is all-encompassing. I actually hold the opinion that only active and honorably retired military and police are covered by it.
Want to play with guns? join the police or military. I am neither, so that would exclude me from ownership (!!!)
Until then, I continue to enjoy this hobby. If the laws were to change, then I would acquire the required training (such as through military reserves or auxiliary police training) if I wanted to continue it.
I don't think that people that simply hold (unreasonable, disgusting, or just flawed) opinions are mentally ill. No one I know ever said that. I am positive.... I know for an absolute fact... that people who commit acts of violence upon others BECAUSE of their opinions (not facts... opinions - or are unable to tell the difference) are certainly, unquestionably, mentally ill and should never be allowed to own any weapon... especially not highly available, no background check required, long kitchen knives. or guns.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
You are being inconsistent when you say the problem will "solve itself" and then start talking about things that may solve the problem. Either the problem solves itself or action is taken to at least lessen the frequency and destruction of mass shootings.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Well, all law enforcement requires the threatened use of violent force, Thus, support for laws is support for the use of violence, that can and often is little different than hiring a hit man or mob muscle. They are only meaningfully different to the extent that the government force is based upon objective facts that such force it is neccessary defense (and thus analogous to self-defense) of people's material well being, and if such application of the law is applied equally and similarly to all. IOW, if we apply your criteria of "commit acts of violence upon others BECAUSE of their opinions", then political efforts to deny homosexuals full equal rights are acts of violence based upon hateful opinions. Thus, anyone with such views is mentally ill and should not own a gun. Anyone who justifies different criminal justice outcomes based upon beliefs in the innate criminality of blacks is supporting violence based upon their hateful opinions and is mentally is and should not be allowed to own a gun. That alone covers a large majority of Trump supporters and members of the NRA.
for something to "solve itself", it does not require that the solution is entirely encompassed in the domain of the problem... just like the analogy... no one was trying to solve the manure problem by inventing the car. They just invented a better solution than the previous, so the associated problems with the old technology just "went away"... that is part of what "solving itself" may entail.
It is pedantic and useless to argue literal meanings of idioms... argument by Webster, I call it.
But feel free to be outraged by people driving on parkways and parking in driveways all you want.
The clear meaning that everyone else understood is that the problem will (Eventually, even if nothing else is intentionally done) go away without effort to specifically make it go away.
I do not subscribe to your definition of violence that is implied in your post.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
It was a shit analogy (see what I did there?) to begin with.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Great, so if I pay someone to come and forceably take you from your home to lock you up in their basement, and shoot you if you resist, then I have not engaged in or supported any violence against you.
Please describe how this is objectively any different than voting for laws that are enforced by imprisoning people (and note that all "fines" are only collected via threat of imprisonment). Is it b/c you got a group of other people to agree with you? (aka Democracy). Great, so I just need to get others to agree and magically it is no longer violence. Is it b/c the violence is sanctioned by law? Great, so then the Nazis committed no violence against the Jews, b/c it was sanctioned by law.
well, I completely disagree with you (and the two positive reps I received from other posters in this thread, compared to your one negative speaks for itself).
But, yes, I do see what you did there and that was pretty funny anyway.
22 Obsolete technologies that people thought would last forever: https://io9.gizmodo.com/25-obsolete-technologies-that-future-generations-will-n-1526922030
Is it so hard to imagine that hand-held projectile weapons will ever make that list? That is just a failure of imagination.
You may have... it depends. Are you a member of the government executing existing laws (i.e. their "basement" is the penal system)?
Are you performing a citizens arrest because you caught me raping your daughter?
Are you kidnapping me under threat of violence because you disagree with my political views?
It is different because you want to extend the meaning of "violence" to "execution of democratically enacted laws"
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
I didn't negative rep you on this thread.
Blind links are discouraged on this forum and I doubt it is relevant. But your "solution" to the problem with mass shootings seems to be that we just wait until guns become obsolete ? How long may that take ? Six months, 18 months, two, ten, twenty years ?
22 Obsolete technologies that people thought would last forever
In case you just missed it. That's not a blind link. I said what it is. I even exposed the URL rather than enclose it with a URL tag (i.e "click HERE") which reveals it is from Gizmodo, a popular and trusted site (Security-wise, at least).
Why are you being so aggressively difficult with simple things like that?
Elixir
Made in America
You can take my slingshot when you blast my arm off with a short burst from your full-auto AR-15!