6 ms·

> 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 fo

> 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
> 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? "Gun control", in a policy sense that you want, where people define their terms, does not mean that. I gave you two sources with similar definitions. It means simply the laws related to the the production, sale, ownership, use, etc. of a gun and its ancillary components. If your example regulations were in place, they would be considered part of gun control. Even if they are not in place, there can still be gun control. The question I think you want to ask is "what gun controls do you want"? Not "what is gun control." For purposes of this discussion, define "gun control" as having policies which are essentially identical to those of (your preference) Australia, or Sweden, or Japan. I think that's as simple and unambiguous as you are going to get, and will satisfy most people interested in stricter laws. > In the next sentence they are talking about cops not having to worry about people shooting them That comment is a continuation of the thread, which started with statistics of the number of civilians killed by police officers. > That, to me, implies that, to this person, "gun control" might mean something approaching total disarmament of the population, criminals included. Again, "gun control" here is a synecdoche to mean "stricter gun control." Countries with strict gun controls, like Australia and Sweden, have a lot of private gun ownership, for hunting and target shooting. So no, it doesn't necessarily mean 'total disarmament of the population'. Here's a hypothetical that might help understand the difference. Suppose hunting rifles are allowed, but hand guns are not. It's pretty hard to conceal a rifle as you go around town, especially since the law requires that it be locked up in a case when in transit, or stored in the house. This means it's less likely that a petty thief will be carrying a gun to commit a crime. This means it's less likely that a drug dealer will be carrying a gun as protection against potential thieves. In general, many police reports which involve the forceful police attack on what turns out to be the wrong person are justified because of the likelihood that the actual criminal is likely to have a gun, and may respond with a gunfight. For example, SWAT teams are often called out for low-level drug dealers. The assumption is that a dealer is likely to be armed. The team is figuratively armed for bear; expecting the worst possible case. Sometimes they end up killing or seriously injuring innocent people, including by forceful entry of the wrong house. If years of SWAT team calls were go out, where no one ever has a gun, then it will be increasingly hard to justify the expense of a SWAT team and the deaths that sometimes occur when in a hair-trigger mode. That was the statistics that the OP was referring to. That was the gun control style that the earlier poster was referring to. Very few seriously propose a 'total disarmament of the population', and if you had researched the topic you would have quickly learned that.

dalke 11y ago

> 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? "Gun control", in a policy sense that you want, where people define their terms, does not mean that. I gave you two sources with similar definitions. It means simply the laws related to the the production, sale, ownership, use, etc. of a gun and its ancillary components. If your example regulations were in place, they would be considered part of gun control. Even if they are not in place, there can still be gun control. The question I think you want to ask is "what gun controls do you want"? Not "what is gun control." For purposes of this discussion, define "gun control" as having policies which are essentially identical to those of (your preference) Australia, or Sweden, or Japan. I think that's as simple and unambiguous as you are going to get, and will satisfy most people interested in stricter laws. > In the next sentence they are talking about cops not having to worry about people shooting them That comment is a continuation of the thread, which started with statistics of the number of civilians killed by police officers. > That, to me, implies that, to this person, "gun control" might mean something approaching total disarmament of the population, criminals included. Again, "gun control" here is a synecdoche to mean "stricter gun control." Countries with strict gun controls, like Australia and Sweden, have a lot of private gun ownership, for hunting and target shooting. So no, it doesn't necessarily mean 'total disarmament of the population'. Here's a hypothetical that might help understand the difference. Suppose hunting rifles are allowed, but hand guns are not. It's pretty hard to conceal a rifle as you go around town, especially since the law requires that it be locked up in a case when in transit, or stored in the house. This means it's less likely that a petty thief will be carrying a gun to commit a crime. This means it's less likely that a drug dealer will be carrying a gun as protection against potential thieves. In general, many police reports which involve the forceful police attack on what turns out to be the wrong person are justified because of the likelihood that the actual criminal is likely to have a gun, and may respond with a gunfight. For example, SWAT teams are often called out for low-level drug dealers. The assumption is that a dealer is likely to be armed. The team is figuratively armed for bear; expecting the worst possible case. Sometimes they end up killing or seriously injuring innocent people, including by forceful entry of the wrong house. If years of SWAT team calls were go out, where no one ever has a gun, then it will be increasingly hard to justify the expense of a SWAT team and the deaths that sometimes occur when in a hair-trigger mode. That was the statistics that the OP was referring to. That was the gun control style that the earlier poster was referring to. Very few seriously propose a 'total disarmament of the population', and if you had researched the topic you would have quickly learned that.