4 ms·

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 talki

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.

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.