Super cool... for a single person that doesn't spend a lot of time in their apartment and has no hobbies whatsoever.

@jimnms

I'll address by paragraphs:

(1)

The reason I suggested that you are implying that the US is more violent by nature is because statistically it is far more murderous than a country of its socio-economic development should be. Have a look at Nationmaster tables of GDP/capita and compare than to murders/capita in terms of where the US sits.

If we take the view that you are suggesting that we should simply reduce violence globally then that is a laudable goal but it would suggest that the US is abysmally failing at this currently. I happen to believe this reason is gun availability. I see no reason to believe this abysmal failure comes from gross police incompetence or any other plausible factor, rather the gun ownership and availability that sticks out like a sore thumb when you compared to other countries such as those in the G8.

(2)

I think that we would be both agree that there are more gun enthusiasts in rural areas. Many of those would also own collections of guns for recreation rather than merely what self protection would require. The article below cites a study from 2007 by Harvard that says 20% own 65% of the nation's guns.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/19/tragedy-stresses-multiple-gun-ownership-trend-in-us/1781285/

There is no reason to suspect that these people are any more violent than your non gun-owning folk. The issue is not so much ownership levels, but the availability that feeds a would-be criminal's capacity to carry out a crime.

While actual ownership levels might be lower, guns can no doubt be purchased for cheaper and within a closer proximity in densely populated cities. This availability feeds the likelihood of them being employed as a tool to facilitate a crime.

This is also incidentally a key misunderstanding of the whole gun debate. No one is (or should be at least) implying that recreational gun owners are the problem. It is the necessity for guns to be freely available to gun enthusiasts among others for them to enjoy this hobby that causes the problems.

(3)

Building on my above point above, gun control shouldn't be seen as a punishment. There is no vidictiveness to it, merely a matter of weighing up the results of two courses of action. On the one hand there is diminished enjoyment of legal and responsible gun owners. On the other hand there is the high murder rate I discussed earlier, which really can't be explained away any other way than gun availability.

Let's do a back of the envelope calculation. Australia and the US are culturally relatively similar Anglo-Saxon societies. Let's assume for the sake of argument that my suggestion is true. Referencing wiki here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The homicide rate in Australia is 1.0/10K/year and 4.8/10K/year. Let's say that gun availability explains 2/3rds of the difference. So we're talking about a 2.5/10K/year increase. Taking this against the US's 310M population this represents 7,500 more deaths.

Now to me, the issue is clear cut. The lives lost outweight gun enthusiast enjoyment.

And it's not just to me. There is a very clear reason that the vast majority of developed countries have made gun ownership incredibly difficult. I can guarantee, at some point they have done this back of the envelope calculation for their own country.

(4)

You raise the comparison to cars. See my workings above. With cars, they obviously provide a fundamentally invaluable benefit to society. The choice every society has made is to instead heavily regulate them. The reason there is no outcry to impose heavy restrictions on them is because there already are.

- Being required to pass license tests.
- Strict driving rules to follow.
- Speeding cameras everywhere.
- Random police checks for alcohol.

Can you think of any further regulations plausibly worth trying with cars that could reduce the accident death rate? I struggle to think of anything else effective that hasn't already been implemented.

With guns there are dozens of options not yet tried.

- Rigorous background checks.
- No gun show exemption.
- Assault weapon restrictions.
- Restrictions of ammo such as cost tariffs.

The list goes on. Imagine if we lacked the regulations we do on cars and there was a NCA (National Car Association) that was equating requiring to pass a driving test to tyranny.

(5)

I don't think there's much irrationality here. The US is clearly more murderous than other G8/OECD countries. To me, Occam's Razor explains why.

As for the comment on focussing on tragedies than the large issue, see my previous comment. You're missing the point that it's not just the gun sprees that are the problem, it's the steadily high murder rate. Mass shooting are just blips in this.

(6)

I will have a read through this.

People don't just collect them. They enjoy shooting them. I don't own any, yet I can see why firing some FMJs from a Bushmaster would be fun. Similarly, people like to get drunk (a much more common hobby). I can also see why that might be fun. As you might expect, that hobby results in many more fatalities than all gun related deaths, yet the prohibition of alcohol is not on the table.

This myth that guns only exist to kill things needs to go. Most guns never kill anything. They are fun to shoot, just like slingshots and boomerangs. I would never say the only purpose of a boomerang is killing. For all of the above the primary purpose is entertainment. I'm of the opinion that methods of entertainment should not be forcibly banned by the government unless they represent a significant problem. I won't be convinced that ARs have crossed that threshold until everyone is willing to kiss off their liquor as well.

doesn't anyone else think that stopping mass shootings is just a side benefit of working to fix the larger problem? VERY few people in the US are killed in mass shootings (compared to other sources of death), but we do have millions of people obsessed with implements of death. The collection of tools for killing is one of the biggest hobbies in this country. That's messed up! We are messed up.
And on a deeper level, why are we more prone to random mass murder than are other populations? Only a few may do it.. but do you really think that the underlying sickness is limited to those that act on it in this way? These people are mushrooms poking out here and there from the huge rotten mass underneath.

It's not limited to there. Perhaps that is the limit of your experience (or the time you noticed it most starkly), but it's something that keeps repeating throughout life. Move to a new city, start a new job, take a holiday in another country... The point of small talk is to find commonalities. It's a way to find out if you share enough with a person to continue to invest your social energy in them.

Why and how would you spend endless hours talking to someone that can in no way relate to your culture, your family situation, your intellectual interests, your hobbies, your food preferences, and on and on. Small talk is a way to fire as many questions through a filter and see where you can link up with someone else. I think it is actually extremely useful, if a bit tedious at times.

Hey, everyone needs a hobby, right?

>> ^L0cky:
I'm not sure who's disagreeing with who here.
The fact that you can teach a child in order to make their access to guns safer doesn't mean that every child that has access to guns will be taught this in a sufficient way. Besides, how many children had lots of training and still ended up shooting themselves or someone else.
You can get very detailed statistics from the CDC, unfortunately I can't link to them because they are generated by a search and the URLs generated are session specific. The statistics, as detailed as they are, don't state weather the child was educated in the use of firearms, but accidental firearms death in children is quite low. According to the CDC, between 1999 and 2010 the leading cause of accidental deaths to children ages 1-4 is motor vehicle accidents (28.9%), poisoning is 8th (2.4%) and firearms is 12th (1.0%). Going up to the 5-9 age range MVA is still the leading cause of accidental death (46.7%), with poisoning still 8th (1.8%) and firearms still 12th (1.5%). You can look them up yourself at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention & Control.

>> ^L0cky:
If you don't think having a gun in your home would automatically make it the most dangerous thing in that home then you're either being disingenuous or you have some freaky shit going on in your house.
Having a gun in your home does not make it the most dangerous thing in the house, and the statistics I posted above back me up. There are plenty of things even in a gunless household that are lethal if a child gets its hands on it. I would argue that a gun is far safer because it can be unloaded and therefore be rendered harmless if a kid gets a hold of it. A bottle of drain cleaner, bug spray, bottle of medicine, etc. is always going to be dangerous if a child gets a hold of it. With those items, all you can do is lock them away in a safe place where a child can't get them until they are old enough to understand that they are dangerous. Any responsible gun owner would treat a gun the same as any other dangerous object in the home, by unloading it and/or locking it up until the child is old enough to be taught that it's dangerous and not something to play with.

I don't understand your objection to teaching a kid how to properly operate a firearm when the're old enough. I was taught by my father as his father taught him, and I've never killed anyone on purpose or accident.

>> ^L0cky:
So my question is: despite the fact that some kids can be taught to be careful with a firearm, what is the justification of owning one...
I can't speak for every gun owner, but I have several reasons. I personally own four guns, two rifles and two pistols. It's a hobby, I like to shoot them, but I also own them for self defense. I also like archery and own a bow. A bow is also an instrument of war and designed for the taking of human life as well as hunting, just as a rifle, but how come no one pitches a fit about bows like they do guns? I don't hunt, but I have friends that do, so there's another reason for you.

I also have gone through the steps to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm in my state. I think of it as insurance. I have car insurance, but I don't intend to get in a wreck, and I also have home owners insurance though I don't intend for my home to get damaged or destroyed. I don't carry a gun intending to kill someone, but just like car and home insurance I have it just in case.

>> ^L0cky:
I'll play devil's advocate and say 5: to defend your property and family against an armed burgler. Yet if you take a look at the rest of the world, at countries where guns are not prolific, gun assisted burglaries are so rare that it doesn't even bear thinking about.

The fact that you need a gun to defend yourself against someone with a gun is because you both have guns. - Captain "Circular" Obvious

From everything you've posted, you seem to be thinking that someone needs a gun to defend oneself from an attacker with a gun. The majority violent of crimes do NOT involve the use of a gun, and up to 2.5 million reported crimes (many are unreported) are prevented by lawful gun owners each year, most of which do not involve discharging the weapon.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired." [source]

>> ^L0cky:
I can't really budge on this unless you can somehow convince me that it's not preferable to live in a western society where almost all people have never even seen a real gun, therefore removing all their associated problems.
That's not an idealism, that's pretty much most of Europe.

Personally I would rather live in a society where people are educated and non violent so that we can own guns for sport, collecting, hunting, etc. and not have to deal with people's irrational fear of them. You seem to have some delusional idea that removing guns from society is going stop crime and violence. Removing guns isn't going to magically stop people from being violent and committing crimes. The UK and Australia did ban personal ownership of guns and their crime rates went up because the only ones left with guns were the criminals. [1][2][3][4]

lol,
Ya, I'm a crazy star wars fan and collector.
I'm feigning mock disassociation.

I have to agree though, there was nothing special about those Slave Leia clips - I saw those clips many years ago, even have them on an old "behind the scenes" VHS tape I have.

I think people cling to clips like those just for nostalgia's sake.

Growing up with Star Wars, I've been collecting SW stuff ever since. It's an ingrained part of my life. I'm not freaky crazy about it. You'd never know from meeting me but my friends know about the 500 or more Star Wars figures I have still in packages - (oh, and so much more - to my wife's dismay and constant face-palming)

It's not like religion for me or anything just a fun pastime/hobby


In reply to this comment by MonkeySpank:
I honestly can't tell if this was sarcasm or not...

In reply to this comment by Sagemind:
Ya, why are you guys all obsessed with Star Wars - Geez...
>> ^MonkeySpank:

Why is this footage important? Maybe I missed out on that whole Startwars thing. Seen the movies; I still don't get the obsession.

>> ^raverman:

Humans are evolved to be social animals. I think they are also evolved to be religious animals. It doesn't make any of it true, and it doesn't matter what religion it is. It makes sense: hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and belief in magic, witch doctors, animal spirits, priests, gods and angels, - all of which binding the rules of the social group, rejecting or killing those who don't believe... is bound to reinforce some biological traits. It's even proven that these traits can be artificially triggered through strong magnetic fields or even drugs.
So... a diet of religion is good for you... has a biochemical effect creating a sense of well-being and belonging.
@shinyblurry 's personal relationship God is no different than that of a Hindu, Buddist, Tao or Mormon... i'm sure it feels good.
I think people get too obsessed with being intolerant of religion just to hurt others and feel superior. But it's like telling a child there's no santa or magic... why ruin something nice just because facts get in the way?
Reality is all subjective. If you like your's please enjoy but keep it to yourself.


It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but another standpoint is that we were all created to worship. Even people who do not subscribe to any particular belief have something in their lives that they pay homage to, be it money, power, celebrity, their hobbies, or even themselves.

I also appreciate your sentiment about trying to be superior but I think your point is somewhat undermined when you contrast disputing with people who are religious to taking candy away from children who don't understand what facts are.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^schlub:
Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?

I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.
There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.
Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.
Good question BTW


This is fantastic, thank you!

>> ^schlub:

Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?


I'd recommend looking up "Theory of Mind" because generally autistic people have an impaired theory of mind. A basic explanation of this is summed up by a difficulty to guage/recognise other people's emotional responses to given situations - it's very difficult to perceive what it's like for other people. This can make social interaction very awkward, since conversation is hard to follow unless there is some first-hand experience of the topic being discussed. Think of a lack of empathy except in situations where prior experience allows the autistic person to recall how it affected them. This is a very rudimentary explanation and there is much more to theory of mind and I'd definitely encourage reading a bit more about it since it affects everyone, NT and aspie alike.

There's lots more to Asperger's Syndrome than just an impaired theory of mind. The way the brain files information is another example of a significant difference. Recollection of prior events is a very different process when comparing NT people to aspies. Another difference is the way a lot of background processing of information for most people is actually foreground processing for aspies (i.e. direct awareness of the information being absorbed and how it relates to existing knowledge). An example of this could be the observation of body language - most people absorb that info subconsciously whereas an autistic person has to be trained or train themselves to be aware of the signals and then actively calculate what those signals can potentially mean about the person exhibiting the behaviour.

Hope that offers some insight, just bear in mind that there's no single diagnosis for Asperger's. It's a collection of symptoms that are considered and when enough boxes are ticked the diagnosis can be confirmed. Not all criteria are essential for the diagnosis and it's entirely possible for two aspies to have a number of different symptoms out of the overall list of criteria. That's the way of it, and justifies the use of the word "spectrum" when referring to autism in general.

Good question BTW

Ok, I'm ignorant. Can someone explain Asperger, clearly? Everything I've read (which is like, two things) makes it sound like it's just someone who is socially inept... Honestly, the guy in this video is like several people I've encountered in my lifetime... so, I don't get it. What differentiates someone with Asperger from someone who just sucks at talking to people and has what some consider weird hobbies/interests (like 'Bronies')?

@HadouKen24

Thanks again for the detail. I'll just accept that it's complicated. I don't like theories from: "It's complex and we don't know how it's possible, therefore it's not true," any more than: "My faith requires X to exist, therefore it's a good theory/true". As a philosophical hobby, OK, go down that hypothetical rabbit hole and see where it leads, but not as a serious discussion of the way things are.

Ah, blaming the victim.

It's practically the only hobby American's agree on.

couldn't find better clip

but Charlies favorite hobby is Magnets......oh and Milksteak

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxszvrUeluE