Objects can change the way humans feel, act, and interact

[Puffnstuff]

When trying to understand conservatives, just think of a liberal, and then take away reason and accountability.

Don't forget to remove all shreds of decency while adding in a super sized portion of ethical egoism along with a seared conscience.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, because a pipe empowers people the same way guns do Yeah you can beat the crap out of someone with a pipe, but when was the last time someone killed a whole group of strangers with a pipe?

Regardless, you are basically agreeing my point, give someone a tool that empowers and enables them and likelihood of them doing it goes way up. The problem is guns make people feel much more empowered and gives them much more killing power, than any other commonly available weapon.

BTW: You have a scar on your hand from a non-gun, as opposed to a 12 square-foot plot of land with your rotting corpse in it.

I would not use a pipe if I wanted to kill a bunch of people. I am saying that every physical object that can be used since humans picked up their first rock or stick empowers.

The reason I'm not dead is that I was lucky. Death was one slice away. Now if you want to discuss certain scenarios yes a gun is more advantageous but it is not some magical compelling object and I would be amenable to certain regulations.

Nevertheless, a pipe does empower people to kill and you mentioned a specific scenario yourself then switched the goalposts. Out of curiosity, what was your socioeconomic status and area of residence when you were a child?

 

[MrSquished]

here we are comparing guns to pipes. wtf. not even in the same category of objects. you can kill with pretty much any decently strong enough object with blunt force trauma. comparing any of them to a gun is just stupid.

 

[aigomorla]

BB Gun from Christmas story scene anyone?

 

[Zorba]

I would not use a pipe if I wanted to kill a bunch of people. I am saying that every physical object that can be used since humans picked up their first rock or stick empowers.

The reason I'm not dead is that I was lucky. Death was one slice away. Now if you want to discuss certain scenarios yes a gun is more advantageous but it is not some magical compelling object and I would be amenable to certain regulations.

Nevertheless, a pipe does empower people to kill and you mentioned a specific scenario yourself then switched the goalposts. Out of curiosity, what was your socioeconomic status and area of residence when you were a child?

I agree with you that any object can empower people, just guns do it at a different level than any other available weapon or object.

I used a specific example of the Trayvon Martin case. Yes, Zimmerman may have followed him with a pipe, but I have serious doubts he would've followed a stronger opponent with only a melee weapon.

I can see why it looks like I moved the goalposts, but it is part of my larger point even if a pipe enabled you to kill one person a gun empowers you to kill many.

The fact that you got lucky shows the big difference in melee weapons and guns, it's a lot easier to get lucky and get away.

Not sure why were I grew up matters, but I grew up in Oklahoma, lower middle class.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

here we are comparing guns to pipes. wtf. not even in the same category of objects. you can kill with pretty much any decently strong enough object with blunt force trauma. comparing any of them to a gun is just stupid.

I'm comparing reality to possible associations apparently taken as significant gospel. Car colors impact psychology. You could paint guns "yucky" colors, or maybe blue. Heck, there's a whole industry which in part evaluates color in decorating.

Everything has an impact in one way or another with varying degrees. Tell me, how much more likely are you likely to pick up and kill someone with a gun because of its shape? To what degree?

Want to lower violence of all kinds including guns? Ban rap music. Yes, that's scientifically a thing.

Next, we stare into navels.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I agree with you that any object can empower people, just guns do it at a different level than any other available weapon or object.

I used a specific example of the Trayvon Martin case. Yes, Zimmerman may have followed him with a pipe, but I have serious doubts he would've followed a stronger opponent with only a melee weapon.

I can see why it looks like I moved the goalposts, but it is part of my larger point even if a pipe enabled you to kill one person a gun empowers you to kill many.

The fact that you got lucky shows the big difference in melee weapons and guns, it's a lot easier to get lucky and get away.

Not sure why were I grew up matters, but I grew up in Oklahoma, lower middle class.

For the last it matters because upbringing influences perspective. I grew up on the "inside" of the violent , dysfunctional world and if the gangs were disarmed then I do not believe there would be a significant change in killing. Why? Because killing is cool. It brings you into an exclusive society in gangs. It's culture. Guns? Having a full auto weapon is awesome and I'll not deny it's a lure. But those an all else were gone, the structure, the culture, what it means to be a man would continue. You hear about Zimmerman and you may have arguments in your favor. Quick, how many people were knifed to death in Philly last week? Damned if I know and that's where I grew up. So I did a search for "death by +knives philly"- note the +.

I got this as the top result.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/364274961.html

How many deaths by stabbing? Hell if the Inquirer or Google cared. What I can tell you by way of an anecdote from my living there is people die of guns but most of my acquaintances bled out from a silent attack, not a gun.

That brings us to a discussion of risk assessment. How likely is someone to die of X? If I died because of a gun or a knife or baseball bat, which is objectively worse? How much does looking at a gun make a shooting more likely?

It's all valid for discussion but that's hard to find. Guns are fine. Guns are evil. That's often the basis for a thread. Pick a conclusion and work to find the means for justification. Sometimes valid points are blown up in significance to become "score one point for the team".

I shall now ponder angels on the head of pins.

 

[MrSquished]

For the last it matters because upbringing influences perspective. I grew up on the "inside" of the violent , dysfunctional world and if the gangs were disarmed then I do not believe there would be a significant change in killing. Why? Because killing is cool. It brings you into an exclusive society in gangs. It's culture. Guns? Having a full auto weapon is awesome and I'll not deny it's a lure. But those an all else were gone, the structure, the culture, what it means to be a man would continue. You hear about Zimmerman and you may have arguments in your favor. Quick, how many people were knifed to death in Philly last week? Damned if I know and that's where I grew up. So I did a search for "death by +knives philly"- note the +.

I got this as the top result.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/364274961.html

How many deaths by stabbing? Hell if the Inquirer or Google cared. What I can tell you by way of an anecdote from my living there is people die of guns but most of my acquaintances bled out from a silent attack, not a gun.

That brings us to a discussion of risk assessment. How likely is someone to die of X? If I died because of a gun or a knife or baseball bat, which is objectively worse? How much does looking at a gun make a shooting more likely?

It's all valid for discussion but that's hard to find. Guns are fine. Guns are evil. That's often the basis for a thread. Pick a conclusion and work to find the means for justification. Sometimes valid points are blown up in significance to become "score one point for the team".

I shall now ponder angels on the head of pins.

knives can be very dangerous but they are also useful for a lot of day to day things that have nothing to do with their power to cause bodily harm - from cooking to utility to the workplace to the outdoors. that differentiates them from guns.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

knives can be very dangerous but they are also useful for a lot of day to day things that have nothing to do with their power to cause bodily harm - from cooking to utility to the workplace to the outdoors. that differentiates them from guns.

They have other uses true but that's rather beside the point that the form of a gun is a significant contributor to killings.

 

[MrSquished]

They have other uses true but that's rather beside the point that the form of a gun is a significant contributor to killings.

You brought up knives so I just keep pointing out the differences.

Yes the form of a gun can be a significant factor in contributing to killings because it is so efficient and 'cold' at doing it. That's all it's designed to do actually.

Guns, like most objects, can empower and enable humans to feel certain things and/or to act out on certain things. And the end result is not putting holes in paper, but holes in actual living beings.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You brought up knives so I just keep pointing out the differences.

That's fair enough.

Yes the form of a gun can be a significant factor in contributing to killings because it is so efficient and 'cold' at doing it. That's all it's designed to do actually.

There's some confusion on my part. Your thread title and original post deals with the psychological effect of the form of a gun. They are efficient to be sure but I'm seeing evidence of "This is effective, look at it. I'm going to shoot someone". Naturally we'll allow for ideation below the top level of awareness, but there's a rational process of recognition of effectiveness in the emotional component. To state more clearly, if the most attractive woman that could exist acted in the most obviously provocative way I could imagine, Sex personified if you will, I may think of many things, but how efficient she is wouldn't be among them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest an emotional response akin to lust, not an evaluative measure of functionality.

You also say that form can be a substantial motivator, but that leads to the question "The idea may be valid but what objective casual statistics have been reliably established?"- That is, what is the actual quantitative science which demonstrates causation and incidence.

I will not argue that somewhere in the world there are people who have done as you say, but while a thing happens is it a major contributor? I have no conclusive answers but I'd like to know.

Guns, like most objects, can empower and enable humans to feel certain things and/or to act out on certain things. And the end result is not putting holes in paper, but holes in actual living beings.

See my above response in this post. A thing can happen without an understanding of what it means, what does it mean?

One might fall back on "if it saves one life" as a type response (and I'm not predicting what you will do), but I am leery of such thinking. If it saves one terrorist attack we should surrender our freedoms. If it saves one life we should not make risk assessments and do make unverified claims.

I'm fussy perhaps but I like to be informed by relevant and properly vetted statistical science. Then I have a means to objectively make a judgment.

 

[OutHouse]

Why do conservatives not understand this simple concept of reality?

They keep saying that duh - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Duh. Nobody is saying that a person is not ultimately responsible for pulling the trigger. But objects do change the way we feel emotionally, how we act, and ultimately interact with our environment in various situations. This is true with objects of all kinds, from cars to slim-fit suits, from dinnerware to a floor vase.

What is so hard to understand about this?

Why are liberals whiny ass bitches??

 

[cytg111]

Why are liberals whiny ass bitches??

Maybe cause for some reason you need them to be? - and maybe they're not but then who would you be angry at? Damson, so many questions!

 

[Moonbeam]

It's very easy to understand.
What I don't understand is why you think conservatives don't know that, and why you feel the need to discuss this shortcoming. Could it simply be a way of jumping on the bandwagon and receiving positive feedback from others to reinforce your self image? Do you need the affirmation of others to feel good about yourself? Or do you simply enjoy feeling superior and need someone to denigrate to maintain that feeling?

How about the ability of conservatives to live in an altered reality terrifies liberals because they see the tremendous danger that represents to the nation and terror produces its own kind of irrationality despite the terror itself being rational in that the threat is real.

 

[MrSquished]

That's fair enough.



There's some confusion on my part. Your thread title and original post deals with the psychological effect of the form of a gun. They are efficient to be sure but I'm seeing evidence of "This is effective, look at it. I'm going to shoot someone". Naturally we'll allow for ideation below the top level of awareness, but there's a rational process of recognition of effectiveness in the emotional component. To state more clearly, if the most attractive woman that could exist acted in the most obviously provocative way I could imagine, Sex personified if you will, I may think of many things, but how efficient she is wouldn't be among them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to suggest an emotional response akin to lust, not an evaluative measure of functionality.

You also say that form can be a substantial motivator, but that leads to the question "The idea may be valid but what objective casual statistics have been reliably established?"- That is, what is the actual quantitative science which demonstrates causation and incidence.

I will not argue that somewhere in the world there are people who have done as you say, but while a thing happens is it a major contributor? I have no conclusive answers but I'd like to know.



See my above response in this post. A thing can happen without an understanding of what it means, what does it mean?

One might fall back on "if it saves one life" as a type response (and I'm not predicting what you will do), but I am leery of such thinking. If it saves one terrorist attack we should surrender our freedoms. If it saves one life we should not make risk assessments and do make unverified claims.

I'm fussy perhaps but I like to be informed by relevant and properly vetted statistical science. Then I have a means to objectively make a judgment.

Objects definitely don't all make us all act a certain way. We don't all get cars, for example, and then instinctively race them to their max MPH. Nor do we buy a gun and start shooting people. But in situations it can change us. I like the Zimmerman example Zorba gave, it's very powerful and it translates to a myriad of probably similar situations. Having a gun has definitely given people the balls to inject themselves into situations they otherwise wouldn't have before. I would argue sometimes that injection was positive, but in many cases it was negative. But the point is, they do change situations, actions and results. Just like a lot of other things do. Some big some small, some huge and some minuscule.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Objects definitely don't all make us all act a certain way. We don't all get cars, for example, and then instinctively race them to their max MPH. Nor do we buy a gun and start shooting people. But in situations it can change us. I like the Zimmerman example Zorba gave, it's very powerful and it translates to a myriad of probably similar situations. Having a gun has definitely given people the balls to inject themselves into situations they otherwise wouldn't have before. I would argue sometimes that injection was positive, but in many cases it was negative. But the point is, they do change situations, actions and results. Just like a lot of other things do. Some big some small, some huge and some minuscule.

I understand your argument. What I'm looking for is the quantitative impact of what you suggest. I accept Zimmerman as being a likely case, but we don't seem to have any proper analysis beyond individual examples, and that would determine significance.

 

[Greenman]

How about the ability of conservatives to live in an altered reality terrifies liberals because they see the tremendous danger that represents to the nation and terror produces its own kind of irrationality despite the terror itself being rational in that the threat is real.

I'm not sure what altered reality you're talking about. Conservatives have been around for a very long time, and while I don't know it for a fact, I don't believe they've declared war on liberals.
I find the notion of living in fear of a political party a little on the ludicrous side. Extremists are what you should be cautious of. Those faceless few whose minds are broken and convince themselves that their beliefs are natural laws. Those are the dangerous people. Those are the people that see death as a step towards a goal.

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm not sure what altered reality you're talking about.

M: that would indicate to me you live in an altered reality and have in common with others who do, no awareness of your condition.

G: Conservatives have been around for a very long time, and while I don't know it for a fact, I don't believe they've declared war on liberals.

M: That definitely sounds like an alternate reality viewpoint, bot not one anything I said is related to. That is not the threat I see.

G: I find the notion of living in fear of a political party a little on the ludicrous side.

M: conservative reality denial is a threat to humanity. It’s not ludicrous, it’s terrifying.

G: Extremists are what you should be cautious of. Those faceless few whose minds are broken and convince themselves that their beliefs are natural laws. Those are the dangerous people. Those are the people that see death as a step towards a goal.

That would be conservatives, all right. There are many who would be terrified you don’t see any of this.