Date: Dec 17, 2012 11:58 PM
Author: GS Chandy
Subject: Re: Would effective gun control laws be 'unacceptable social engineering'?
Robert Hansen (RH) posted Dec 18, 2012 8:16 AM:
> On Dec 17, 2012, at 8:08 PM, GS Chandy
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > The point at issue, viz., "gun control" - by which
> >I really mean the elimination of such weapons in
> >private hands - is, I believe, entirely achievable
> >over time, given much determination (even though Haim
> >and his cohorts and consorts will most likely
> >consider this to be 'unacceptable social
> I thought the issue was to reduce violence.
It is, indeed. See below.
> You haven't made the connection.
No? I believe it is you who suffers, quite seriously, an inability to 'make connections'. To make some essential connections as abundantly clear as possible:
There are many things that we have to do in order to 'reduce violence'.
One of the things is to curtail (later, perhaps, to eliminate) access to tools that make mindless violence all too simple to those so inclined. Easy access to guns is actually an invitation to those so inclined to go out and be violent - as Adam Lanza demonstrated with utmost clarity on those 20 Newtown children and on the 6 adults he slaughtered last Friday.
Remove the access to guns, and you'll surely remove at least some of the easy opportunity these sick individuals have to indulge in their sick violence.
Is the connection now clear enough for you?
There are, of course, MANY other things to do: such as, for instance, reduce the potentially violent individual's propensity to violence by gaining access to his/her inner psyche (enabling him/her to gain access).
But psychology (and psychiatry) are only now beginning to understand the workings of the human mind. It would most likely take at least one or two more generations (or longer) to gain adequate understanding of the human psyche and human mind - the level of understanding that's needed to identify potentially dangerous people and then to prevent them from becoming dangerously violent.
Meanwhile, it IS possible, much faster, to prevent easy access to killing weapons such as guns. That this *simple* step actually does prevent much violence of the sort that occurred in Newtown has been demonstrated in many countries.
Of course, effectively putting into place well-designed laws to prevent easy access to guns will require that people's representatives in the US (senators and members of the House of Reps and the gun aficionados and the others involved) will have to be convinced that it is in their essential interest to impose strict gun control (for a beginning) - despite any resistance from the NRA, the gun manufacturers, the gun aficionados, etc. That does seem to be happening, to judge from the TV news and views that I happened to watch. At least, since the Newtown killings, most of the opponents of gun control seem to have fallen uncharacteristically silent.
Are 'the connections' now at least becoming clearer to you?
>I think Gary has made
> the connection, but he forgets. Your logic reminds
> me of the the gnomes in a South Park episode
> describing their plan to make money by collecting
> PS: I know you won't get this, but the others will,
> including Gary.
> Bob Hansen
I 'got it' - about the South Park gnomes and the underpants and their scheme to make money from underpants - but your understanding of logic and inference is, I'm afraid, rather poor. The tools described at the attachments to my message at http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2419536 could help - if you are able to overcome your logically irrational hatred of boxes and your fixation on "PERT Charts'. If you're able to get over this irrational hatred and this fixation, you may even be able, one day, to make needed 'connections'.
("Still Shoveling Away!")
Message was edited by: GS Chandy