4 ms·

If only they'd realize the same thing in regard to gun ownership.

devrandomguy 9y ago
Gun control is a completely different kettle of fish, because it is so unlikely for someone to recover from an attack; these aren't beanbag shotguns we're talking about. Also, there are no procedures that you can follow to prevent an unexpected bullet from quickly killing you, whereas with, say, an unexpected DoS, you can take measures to mitigate it after it has already started to hit you. With a security breach, you can lock down, wipe and recover from backups. But that bullet, it is just so uniquely final (and therefore, off topic, hence the downvotes).
- microcolonel 9y ago
  The National Research Council conducted a thorough review of evidence some years ago and found no correlation between the introduction of gun control measures and reduction in violent crime. In certain jurisdictions, there is a negative correlation (probably unethical to do a RCT, so we'll never know if causal) between certain thresholds in gun ownership rates and the rate of violent crime. The accidental injury and death figures are not convincing when compared with other common risks. If your respirator monitoring machine gets hacked, or your records can not be retrieved to show a drug sensitivity, you could die from complications in an ER. I know for a fact that the hospitals near me run Windows XP, connected to the public internet, on mission critical systems. If a system which controls a switchable lane freeway signal gets hacked, even with generic malware which accidentally causes a crash, a distracted driver could plow into another. P.S. I'm facinated by your turn of phrase kettle of fish, here it would be a can of worms. Especially strange to me considering what I would think a kettle is [0][1][2][3][4]. Turns out there's such a thing as a fish kettle [5]. [0]: https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [2]: https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [3]: https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [4]: https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [5]: http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-kettle.jpg http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-kettle.jpg
  - orf 9y ago
    I think that study found that there was no correlation between the introduction of right to carry laws and gun violence. They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      > They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data. If the effects of gun laws can be lost in noise among crime statistics, and the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, it seems pretty outrageous to suggest that there is any reason to introduce equivalent laws which a) infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms and b) have had no effect that can be detected in the statistics in any implemented form. Vital records and the corresponding court records are an excellent, high-quality datasource. If your "life saving" laws can not be detected in vital statistics, then you have failed.
kbenson 9y ago
I've always wondered why we don't just put restrictions on hand guns, but leave rifles fairly unrestricted. It seems like the majority of problems gun control advocates have with firearms is because of hand guns, which are small enough to be easily concealed by people that shouldn't have them in places they shouldn't have them. It also seems like the majority of the practical arguments that control rights advocates have center around the utility of firearms. And if you're making a case for firearms as a check on the government and military, you really want rifles over hand guns anyway. If the major problems with guns are that they are easy to conceal and transport surreptitiously to locations they should not be, focusing on those attributes makes sense.
- jonny_eh 9y ago
  Your mistake is that you've brought reason to a gunfight. The NRA's response would be to say that banning handguns is a slippery slope to taking all the guns.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Yeah, I understand the NRA's expected response, but that doesn't account for the other side not attempting the argument. Unless they do and I just don't see it.
    - barry-cotter 9y ago
      The NRA has the response it has because banning pistols as a prelude to banning or licensing all guns has already been tried. They're not idiots, many of them have lived through most of the history of the gun control movement, some have lived through all of it. Also, they can read. They know the aim is banning all guns. The '60s NRA was willing to meet gun control people in the middle. Now they're not because they've learned that the gun control people are not willing to stop there.
      - kbenson 9y ago
        > They know the aim is banning all guns. But it's not, for all people, and framing the discussion that way is very disingenuous of them. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want to address the problem (because I do think there is a problem), so not everyone wants that.

Gun control is a completely different kettle of fish, because it is so unlikely for someone to recover from an attack; these aren't beanbag shotguns we're talking about. Also, there are no procedures that you can follow to prevent an unexpected bullet from quickly killing you, whereas with, say, an unexpected DoS, you can take measures to mitigate it after it has already started to hit you. With a security breach, you can lock down, wipe and recover from backups. But that bullet, it is just so uniquely final (and therefore, off topic, hence the downvotes).

microcolonel 9y ago
The National Research Council conducted a thorough review of evidence some years ago and found no correlation between the introduction of gun control measures and reduction in violent crime. In certain jurisdictions, there is a negative correlation (probably unethical to do a RCT, so we'll never know if causal) between certain thresholds in gun ownership rates and the rate of violent crime. The accidental injury and death figures are not convincing when compared with other common risks. If your respirator monitoring machine gets hacked, or your records can not be retrieved to show a drug sensitivity, you could die from complications in an ER. I know for a fact that the hospitals near me run Windows XP, connected to the public internet, on mission critical systems. If a system which controls a switchable lane freeway signal gets hacked, even with generic malware which accidentally causes a crash, a distracted driver could plow into another. P.S. I'm facinated by your turn of phrase kettle of fish, here it would be a can of worms. Especially strange to me considering what I would think a kettle is [0][1][2][3][4]. Turns out there's such a thing as a fish kettle [5]. [0]: https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.ca/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [1]: https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [2]: https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.com.au/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [3]: https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.nz/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [4]: https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle https://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=isch&q=kettle [5]: http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-kettle.jpg http://www.phrases.org.uk/images/fish-kettle.jpg
- orf 9y ago
  I think that study found that there was no correlation between the introduction of right to carry laws and gun violence. They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    > They also found it was pretty hard to study general trends, due to an overwhelming number of factors and poor quality of source data. If the effects of gun laws can be lost in noise among crime statistics, and the right of the people to keep and bear them shall not be infringed, it seems pretty outrageous to suggest that there is any reason to introduce equivalent laws which a) infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms and b) have had no effect that can be detected in the statistics in any implemented form. Vital records and the corresponding court records are an excellent, high-quality datasource. If your "life saving" laws can not be detected in vital statistics, then you have failed.

kbenson 9y ago

I've always wondered why we don't just put restrictions on hand guns, but leave rifles fairly unrestricted. It seems like the majority of problems gun control advocates have with firearms is because of hand guns, which are small enough to be easily concealed by people that shouldn't have them in places they shouldn't have them. It also seems like the majority of the practical arguments that control rights advocates have center around the utility of firearms. And if you're making a case for firearms as a check on the government and military, you really want rifles over hand guns anyway. If the major problems with guns are that they are easy to conceal and transport surreptitiously to locations they should not be, focusing on those attributes makes sense.

jonny_eh 9y ago
Your mistake is that you've brought reason to a gunfight. The NRA's response would be to say that banning handguns is a slippery slope to taking all the guns.
- kbenson 9y ago
  Yeah, I understand the NRA's expected response, but that doesn't account for the other side not attempting the argument. Unless they do and I just don't see it.
  - barry-cotter 9y ago
    The NRA has the response it has because banning pistols as a prelude to banning or licensing all guns has already been tried. They're not idiots, many of them have lived through most of the history of the gun control movement, some have lived through all of it. Also, they can read. They know the aim is banning all guns. The '60s NRA was willing to meet gun control people in the middle. Now they're not because they've learned that the gun control people are not willing to stop there.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      > They know the aim is banning all guns. But it's not, for all people, and framing the discussion that way is very disingenuous of them. I don't want to ban all guns, I just want to address the problem (because I do think there is a problem), so not everyone wants that.