5 ms·

I have no problem, in principle, with the prevent strategy. If impressionable children are at risk of being brainwashed into a dangerous ideology, then the stat

by biofox 9y ago

I have no problem, in principle, with the prevent strategy. If impressionable children are at risk of being brainwashed into a dangerous ideology, then the state should step in, just as it does with any other form of abuse. Hasn't "pre-crime" always been a part of policing, in the form of intelligence gathering and crime prevention? My main concern is schools, and (increasingly) the police acting irrationally and disproportionately.

openfuture 9y ago
I feel it is the government that are brainwashing impressionable children with dangerous ideology and I'd prefer it if the stepped out.
J-dawg 9y ago
That's an interesting counter-argument, thanks. But I still don't think I agree with you. The problem here is that it's left up to police to decide what is a "dangerous ideology". It's not something that you can decide in advance and make objective criteria for. The potential for police to abuse these powers (either through corruption or simply being over-zealous) is enormous. This is how you end up with a Green Party politician being added to the register of "Domestic Extremists", to give one of many examples.
Jedd 9y ago
How do you feel about the banning of toy weapons - including water pistols, plastic swords, bows & arrows, rubber knives? (Personally I think it's a fine idea, but many of my thoughts are easily taken out of context.)
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Next they take your car. Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. Often not because of a need to get from a to b but because of reckless driving just for the fun of it. So - you could argue - you should not only need to have a drivers permit but a driving permit for your actual trips. Ok. Maybe cars should be banned. Or at least restricted to people with a legitimate reason like politicians and doctors. But do you think it will end there? If we give up cars then air traffic would be a natural next step... You see? This is why I defend the right to have guns, the right to modify cars, have real crypto, say almost[0] anything you want. Because it is a cheap insurance against a society that we really really want to avoid. Because the majority of people who have been killed have been killed by their own or a neigbouring country - not by their neigbours who happened to have a personal gun. [0]: including: "I belive the person behind reitanqilds account is stupid" Not including: "Hi guys! Lets start a fundraiser to kill <anyone>"
  - Jedd 9y ago
    > Next they take your car. But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter. > Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. I know it's a pithy aphorism, but in the same way that guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people either. It's a matter of mitigating the risk of misuse of one or the other (or both). And, as I say, cars have a very important benefit for a lot of people. Guns ... less so. In any case you've missed my point. We don't have toys that we hand out to toddlers and < 10yo's that encourage the emulation of lethal activities by means of turning a vehicle into a weapon -- but we do with plastic facsimiles of weapons. I was asking should we be discouraging the latter. You turn that into a 'if the kiddies don't have plastic semi-automatic weapons, then we'll have to give up private transport, and then we won't be able to use commercial airlines'. Aside: there's sufficient natural experiments out there that demonstrate the benefits of gun control compared to, say, the USA's approach. While I respect your preferences here, it's difficult to make a compelling argument.
    - genon 9y ago
      > Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. To be fair, I don't think many people are killed by toy guns. One thing I'll never forget from the land of Orwell is this from 15 years ago (virtually to the day, ironically enough): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm Three 12-year-old children were arrested by five police officers who then fingerprinted them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters were seen playing with a toy gun.
      - Jedd 9y ago
        And equally, that wasn't my point -- I am not suggesting toy guns are responsible for many deaths (though there are stories of people using fake guns and being shot by the police 'in good faith'). It's the normalising of 'playing with guns' by handing over toy guns to children that I suspect is something a healthier society could happily eschew without losing much in the way of civil liberties. In Australia accurate replicas are illegal IIRC - toy weapons are necessarily brightly coloured, to reduce the risk of being mistaken as a real weapon.

by biofox 9y ago

openfuture 9y ago

I feel it is the government that are brainwashing impressionable children with dangerous ideology and I'd prefer it if the stepped out.

J-dawg 9y ago

That's an interesting counter-argument, thanks. But I still don't think I agree with you. The problem here is that it's left up to police to decide what is a "dangerous ideology". It's not something that you can decide in advance and make objective criteria for. The potential for police to abuse these powers (either through corruption or simply being over-zealous) is enormous. This is how you end up with a Green Party politician being added to the register of "Domestic Extremists", to give one of many examples.

Jedd 9y ago

How do you feel about the banning of toy weapons - including water pistols, plastic swords, bows & arrows, rubber knives? (Personally I think it's a fine idea, but many of my thoughts are easily taken out of context.)

reitanqild 9y ago
Next they take your car. Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. Often not because of a need to get from a to b but because of reckless driving just for the fun of it. So - you could argue - you should not only need to have a drivers permit but a driving permit for your actual trips. Ok. Maybe cars should be banned. Or at least restricted to people with a legitimate reason like politicians and doctors. But do you think it will end there? If we give up cars then air traffic would be a natural next step... You see? This is why I defend the right to have guns, the right to modify cars, have real crypto, say almost[0] anything you want. Because it is a cheap insurance against a society that we really really want to avoid. Because the majority of people who have been killed have been killed by their own or a neigbouring country - not by their neigbours who happened to have a personal gun. [0]: including: "I belive the person behind reitanqilds account is stupid" Not including: "Hi guys! Lets start a fundraiser to kill <anyone>"
- Jedd 9y ago
  > Next they take your car. But cars are useful and, on average safer, for many / the majority of people that use them. Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. Note that I'm averaging this across the planet, not just across one small (5% of global population) country with a lot of strong opinions on the matter. > Why? Cars kills way more people than guns. I know it's a pithy aphorism, but in the same way that guns don't kill people, cars don't kill people either. It's a matter of mitigating the risk of misuse of one or the other (or both). And, as I say, cars have a very important benefit for a lot of people. Guns ... less so. In any case you've missed my point. We don't have toys that we hand out to toddlers and < 10yo's that encourage the emulation of lethal activities by means of turning a vehicle into a weapon -- but we do with plastic facsimiles of weapons. I was asking should we be discouraging the latter. You turn that into a 'if the kiddies don't have plastic semi-automatic weapons, then we'll have to give up private transport, and then we won't be able to use commercial airlines'. Aside: there's sufficient natural experiments out there that demonstrate the benefits of gun control compared to, say, the USA's approach. While I respect your preferences here, it's difficult to make a compelling argument.
  - genon 9y ago
    > Guns are, on average, not so useful / safe. To be fair, I don't think many people are killed by toy guns. One thing I'll never forget from the land of Orwell is this from 15 years ago (virtually to the day, ironically enough): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2168430.stm Three 12-year-old children were arrested by five police officers who then fingerprinted them and took DNA samples, after the youngsters were seen playing with a toy gun.
    - Jedd 9y ago
      And equally, that wasn't my point -- I am not suggesting toy guns are responsible for many deaths (though there are stories of people using fake guns and being shot by the police 'in good faith'). It's the normalising of 'playing with guns' by handing over toy guns to children that I suspect is something a healthier society could happily eschew without losing much in the way of civil liberties. In Australia accurate replicas are illegal IIRC - toy weapons are necessarily brightly coloured, to reduce the risk of being mistaken as a real weapon.