![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 16th, 2017 07:58 pmLet's forget about politics and consider the right to bear arms from a CT point of view.
Basically, providing a person with a weapon, e.g. a rifle, is an arrow (Functor) that maps the person from one "set"* of killing capabilities to a greater "set" of killing capabilities. Also, there are arrows that map the person between states "unknown guy", "good guy", "bad guy." Once the person is mapped to "good guy", s/he is upgraded to a greater set of killing capabilities.
The fundamental design flaw is that there's no arrow that un-equips a person when s/he intentionally changes state from "good guy" to "bad guy." Three most recent mass shootings exploit this bug in the system.
* I use "set" here to denote a category that can be mapped to sets of killing characteristics, e.g. killing X people at Y distance per minute for Z minutes.
Basically, providing a person with a weapon, e.g. a rifle, is an arrow (Functor) that maps the person from one "set"* of killing capabilities to a greater "set" of killing capabilities. Also, there are arrows that map the person between states "unknown guy", "good guy", "bad guy." Once the person is mapped to "good guy", s/he is upgraded to a greater set of killing capabilities.
The fundamental design flaw is that there's no arrow that un-equips a person when s/he intentionally changes state from "good guy" to "bad guy." Three most recent mass shootings exploit this bug in the system.
* I use "set" here to denote a category that can be mapped to sets of killing characteristics, e.g. killing X people at Y distance per minute for Z minutes.
