zlacker

>>KenCoc+(OP)
Listen, there are two parts to this: 1. The horrible tragedy, and 2. The hopes to prevent this from happening again. If we are going to talk about this, we need to all fall under the assumption that we agree that this is both a very tragic act perpetrated by someone who is obviously disturbed/mentally ill, and that it is all of our desires to do what we can to make sure senseless acts of violence like this never happen again.

So where do we go from here? How do we prevent this from happening again? It seems that there are two schools of thought (generalizing obviously): 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons. Regardless of which side you fall in, neither work perfectly unless they are complete (i.e. all weapons are gone thus criminals don't even have access, or everyone is armed and no one has the upper hand). The problem with both absolutes, is a deranged person will always find a means to carry out their ill will, whether that's a gun/knife/driving a car into a crowd.

The safest computer is encased in concrete, and buried 6 feet underground. Much in the same way, the safest society would have each of us locked in a room, with no interaction. What we have to figure out is this: How much liberty do we all give up, to limit the devastation of the senseless acts of a few?

>>JoeCor+B5
> 1. Disarm everyone, and 2. Allow everyone to carry weapons.

Nice strawmen. There are obviously options in the middle, namely, increasing traceability of weapons and ammo and shutting down channels that where weapons are allowed to change hands anonymously.

The proliferation of weapons is one thing, but the fact that these tragedies occur and we don't have a way to follow the chain back to the disreputable dealer who sold these armaments - and shut them down - is just non-sensical.

The 2nd amendment fundamentalists who don't even want question how these weapons can get in the wrong hands - often use that same strawman you pose above - which is rediculous - many folks support the 2nd amendment yet find the need for further action to prevent these events from happening.

>>r00fus+k6
I think you mean false dichotomy, not straw man.

>>baddox+O7
No, they're strawmen. Extreme positions that a very small percentage of people support - so you can knock them down and look like a reasonable figure as long as you don't support the extreme.

Look at example 2.5 here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Structure

By reducing the argument to one extreme vs. another extreme, these are strawmen arguments... very few support either extreme, so the commenter can then knock down the arguments and look reasonable saying pretty much anything.

>>r00fus+8c
It's not a straw man. Go back and read JoeCortopassi's comment [0]. He didn't propose the argument then knock it down. He genuinely presented the argument as his own. He says neither will work unless implemented completely, then he recognizes that there are problems with either and that some crazy people will always be able to commit heinous crimes.

Your argument is that the two absolutes are not the only options, which is pointing out a false dichotomy. Of course, even that's not an appropriate response, since JoeCortopassi had already pointed out the potential problems (like excessive loss of personal liberty) with absolutes.

[0] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4922651