6 ms·

Sorry, that isn't what I asked. The OP didn't respond. Perhaps you can? How, specifically, would you define "gun control"? We throw this terms around but no

Sorry, that isn't what I asked. The OP didn't respond. Perhaps you can? How, specifically, would you define "gun control"? We throw this terms around but nobody bothers to define it. What exactly does "Gun control is the elephant in this particular room." mean? Again, I ask, how, specifically, would you define "gun control"? I am not refuting anything you are saying. I am simply asking a question.

dalke 11y ago
As a reminder, you recently said ' Every time I get sucked into a political discussion on HN I hate myself so I am as guilty as anyone else' at participating in the non-tech threads you think should be banned from HN. ;) Quoting from Wikipedia, "Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." This is general agreement with how others use. For example, this more policy-oriented survey of small gun laws in different countries ( http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2011/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2011-Chapter-09-EN.pdf http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/201... ) breaks the regulations down into: > "how states regulate the firearm ... what types of firearms civilians may be authorized to possess and which states keep centralized records of firearms in civilian hands", "how states regulate the civilian user, including the criteria used to determine eligibility to possess a firearm, how the licensing process works, and whether states permit private sales of firearms", and "how states regulate the use of civilian firearms, including the extent to which states require a reason to possess a firearm and the conditions that apply to firearm ownership." I see nothing particularly ambiguous in how the term is used for you to call for a need for the us, the hoi polloi, to help you understand it better. Gun control laws fall on a spectrum. Typically people say "we need more gun control" to mean that the laws should be more restrictive on what is allowed, while "we need less gun control" means the laws should less restrictive. Wikipedia explains the phrase "elephant in the room" well: > The term refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue which is obvious to everyone who knows about the situation, but which is deliberately ignored because to do otherwise would cause great embarrassment, or trigger arguments or is simply taboo. The idiom can imply a value judgment that the issue ought to be discussed openly, or it can simply be an acknowledgment that the issue is there and not going to go away by itself. > The term is often used to describe an issue that involves a social taboo, such as race, religion, or even suicide. This idiomatic phrase is applicable when a subject is emotionally charged; and the people who might have spoken up decide that it is probably best avoided.[8] The phrase "Gun control is the elephant in this particular room" refers to the top-comment's list of "tangentially relevant facts". One inference is that the stricter gun control laws of Germany mean that fewer people have guns, so police are less likely to use methods which presume the civilians are both armed and likely to response with a gunfight. However, saying that directly brings in well-worn nearly deadlocked arguments about changes to gun control laws, Second Amendment, etc. Hence, the top-comment's indirect reference, which avoids discussing gun laws by talking about possible effects - hence, the topic of gun control is "the elephant in the room" that is being avoided, for reasons Wikipedia illuminated. Note that "I am simply asking a question." is often used by people who are derisively said to be "JAQing off". In order to avoid that accusation, I suggest you do some research first, rather than ask Wikipedia-level questions. You say that people do not define it; what is wrong with the definition from Wikipedia? Is it incompatible with how most people use the term?
- rebootthesystem 11y ago
  > As a reminder, you recently said <snip> "so I am as guilty as anyone else' at participating in the non-tech threads" Well, I am flattered to have a loyal follower! :) I've already admitted guilt. Note that my comment about political discussion not belonging on HN got down-voted with some passion. The conclusion being: I am wrong. People want these discussions on HN. And so, here we are. Who am I to argue with that? By "sucked into a political discussion" I think I mostly mean getting sucked into the kind of pointless back and forth that can happen when one (me included) resorts to attacking an idea rather than discussing it. When I do that I find I am never happy with the results. It has nothing to do with the childish idea of winning an argument but rather the concept of going about exploring something using exactly the wrong approach. I am personally going to try to change my approach when participating in these kinds discussions on HN. Going back to the question I asked. No, this isn't about JAQ-ing off. This is about asking someone what they mean when they use the term. And no, this isn't about a Wikipedia or dictionary definition either. And it certainly isn't about what the definition of the term might be in Germany or anywhere else. Unless that is what the person using the term meant. I feel that lots of people use the term "gun control" out of frustration. Why? Because when asked what exactly they --that person, not Wikipedia-- means by "gun control" they have a hard time answering the question. And the context has to be right. If I am working with a friend in the garage and, in the course of our banter, I say something like "hey, asshole, hand me a 1/2 inch socket", what did I mean? Am I insulting him or is it actually a friendly jab? Should someone ask, giving them a link to the Wikipedia definition of "asshole" would not answer the question. I am not attacking you or putting down your answer. I am simply pointing out that I was not looking for a universal definition of the terms but rather for what someone means when they use it. Do they mean "disarm the entire population", "disarm all criminals", "disarm the mentally unstable", "institute severe penalties for doing X, Y or Z with guns", or something else? So, again, I don't know what this person meant with "Gun control is the elephant in this particular room". In the next sentence they are talking about cops not having to worry about people shooting them. He says: "A cop who isn't expecting his next public contact to shoot him". That, to me, implies that, to this person, "gun control" might mean something approaching total disarmament of the population, criminals included. What else could it mean to the person using the term? How does the elephant in the room, gun control, if addressed, create a situation where a cop will never be worried about someone shooting them? What form would addressing the elephant in the room take? Again, to the person using the term. I don't want to make any assumptions or use the dictionary because that is not likely what they meant. That's why I asked for a clarification of "gun control". Another way to put it might be: In your opinion, what form would gun control have to take in order to provide cops with the assurance that they will not be shot the next time they have contact with civilians? I hope that clarifies what I am asking. I am not challenging anyone, I simply want to understand how this person (or anyone else for that matter) thinks of gun control in the context of the problem he posed. I think the question is simple. The answer, likely not. EDIT: To clarify further. "What do you mean by gun control?" means "How would you propose to implement gun control in order for the scenario you are painting to become reality (cops not afraid of getting shot when making contact with civilians)?". Perhaps that clarifies why me looking up the Wikipedia definition would be pointless. I want to understand what this man is thinking would create that reality. Thanks for you input.

dalke 11y ago

As a reminder, you recently said ' Every time I get sucked into a political discussion on HN I hate myself so I am as guilty as anyone else' at participating in the non-tech threads you think should be banned from HN. ;) Quoting from Wikipedia, "Gun control generally refers to laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms." This is general agreement with how others use. For example, this more policy-oriented survey of small gun laws in different countries ( http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2011/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2011-Chapter-09-EN.pdf http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/201... ) breaks the regulations down into: > "how states regulate the firearm ... what types of firearms civilians may be authorized to possess and which states keep centralized records of firearms in civilian hands", "how states regulate the civilian user, including the criteria used to determine eligibility to possess a firearm, how the licensing process works, and whether states permit private sales of firearms", and "how states regulate the use of civilian firearms, including the extent to which states require a reason to possess a firearm and the conditions that apply to firearm ownership." I see nothing particularly ambiguous in how the term is used for you to call for a need for the us, the hoi polloi, to help you understand it better. Gun control laws fall on a spectrum. Typically people say "we need more gun control" to mean that the laws should be more restrictive on what is allowed, while "we need less gun control" means the laws should less restrictive. Wikipedia explains the phrase "elephant in the room" well: > The term refers to a question, problem, solution, or controversial issue which is obvious to everyone who knows about the situation, but which is deliberately ignored because to do otherwise would cause great embarrassment, or trigger arguments or is simply taboo. The idiom can imply a value judgment that the issue ought to be discussed openly, or it can simply be an acknowledgment that the issue is there and not going to go away by itself. > The term is often used to describe an issue that involves a social taboo, such as race, religion, or even suicide. This idiomatic phrase is applicable when a subject is emotionally charged; and the people who might have spoken up decide that it is probably best avoided.[8] The phrase "Gun control is the elephant in this particular room" refers to the top-comment's list of "tangentially relevant facts". One inference is that the stricter gun control laws of Germany mean that fewer people have guns, so police are less likely to use methods which presume the civilians are both armed and likely to response with a gunfight. However, saying that directly brings in well-worn nearly deadlocked arguments about changes to gun control laws, Second Amendment, etc. Hence, the top-comment's indirect reference, which avoids discussing gun laws by talking about possible effects - hence, the topic of gun control is "the elephant in the room" that is being avoided, for reasons Wikipedia illuminated. Note that "I am simply asking a question." is often used by people who are derisively said to be "JAQing off". In order to avoid that accusation, I suggest you do some research first, rather than ask Wikipedia-level questions. You say that people do not define it; what is wrong with the definition from Wikipedia? Is it incompatible with how most people use the term?

rebootthesystem 11y ago
> As a reminder, you recently said <snip> "so I am as guilty as anyone else' at participating in the non-tech threads" Well, I am flattered to have a loyal follower! :) I've already admitted guilt. Note that my comment about political discussion not belonging on HN got down-voted with some passion. The conclusion being: I am wrong. People want these discussions on HN. And so, here we are. Who am I to argue with that? By "sucked into a political discussion" I think I mostly mean getting sucked into the kind of pointless back and forth that can happen when one (me included) resorts to attacking an idea rather than discussing it. When I do that I find I am never happy with the results. It has nothing to do with the childish idea of winning an argument but rather the concept of going about exploring something using exactly the wrong approach. I am personally going to try to change my approach when participating in these kinds discussions on HN. Going back to the question I asked. No, this isn't about JAQ-ing off. This is about asking someone what they mean when they use the term. And no, this isn't about a Wikipedia or dictionary definition either. And it certainly isn't about what the definition of the term might be in Germany or anywhere else. Unless that is what the person using the term meant. I feel that lots of people use the term "gun control" out of frustration. Why? Because when asked what exactly they --that person, not Wikipedia-- means by "gun control" they have a hard time answering the question. And the context has to be right. If I am working with a friend in the garage and, in the course of our banter, I say something like "hey, asshole, hand me a 1/2 inch socket", what did I mean? Am I insulting him or is it actually a friendly jab? Should someone ask, giving them a link to the Wikipedia definition of "asshole" would not answer the question. I am not attacking you or putting down your answer. I am simply pointing out that I was not looking for a universal definition of the terms but rather for what someone means when they use it. Do they mean "disarm the entire population", "disarm all criminals", "disarm the mentally unstable", "institute severe penalties for doing X, Y or Z with guns", or something else? So, again, I don't know what this person meant with "Gun control is the elephant in this particular room". In the next sentence they are talking about cops not having to worry about people shooting them. He says: "A cop who isn't expecting his next public contact to shoot him". That, to me, implies that, to this person, "gun control" might mean something approaching total disarmament of the population, criminals included. What else could it mean to the person using the term? How does the elephant in the room, gun control, if addressed, create a situation where a cop will never be worried about someone shooting them? What form would addressing the elephant in the room take? Again, to the person using the term. I don't want to make any assumptions or use the dictionary because that is not likely what they meant. That's why I asked for a clarification of "gun control". Another way to put it might be: In your opinion, what form would gun control have to take in order to provide cops with the assurance that they will not be shot the next time they have contact with civilians? I hope that clarifies what I am asking. I am not challenging anyone, I simply want to understand how this person (or anyone else for that matter) thinks of gun control in the context of the problem he posed. I think the question is simple. The answer, likely not. EDIT: To clarify further. "What do you mean by gun control?" means "How would you propose to implement gun control in order for the scenario you are painting to become reality (cops not afraid of getting shot when making contact with civilians)?". Perhaps that clarifies why me looking up the Wikipedia definition would be pointless. I want to understand what this man is thinking would create that reality. Thanks for you input.