3 ms·

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (

I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same assault weapons (trivially modified) that were designed by the Germans in WW2 to assault positions. They aren't toys. The only reason they aren't full on assault rifles is because of law, but that didn't stop the NRA from crying like the Constitution was getting pissed on. That you can't ask "why does someone need to own 3 semi auto rifles?" without the NRA freaking out or unwilling to even discuss it over some absurd slippery slope like "if the government tries to attack its own people and they are dying in the streets, we need our weapons" is absurd. That doesn't give me any comfort. How about you not let your country turn into a hellhole and then you don't need that. But right now people are dying, why do people need those guns again? Anyway, while I'm inclined to agree with what you are saying, you also gotta be realistic in that nobody is shooting up schools with 100 year old weapons and people discussing that isn't the same thing. That's an extreme position. Practice what you preach. I can't tell who I pissed off, but based on you getting downvoted as well, I'm guessing it's the pro gun people. You're right, you can't discuss this reasonably... It's behavior like that which makes it hard to give the pro gun people the benefit of the doubt. People are more important than guns, that should be obvious. My family is a victim of gun violence. You never get the victims back.

kevhito 9y ago
Maybe I misread the parent. It sounded like parent was very "dismayed" at youtube's effort to ban videos about exactly the kind of horrifying weapons you mention, just because the ban also happens to impact his hobby with 100yo rifles. To me, banning some videos isn't extreme, even if it does have some overreach in some cases. It's just an oversight that could be fixed. Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. I was trying to specifically call out the parent's reaction. Not "youtube is part of the problem and yes we should do something about and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable but but maybe youtube could carve out some careful exemptions for my harmless hobby". It seemed dismayed at even the concept of any limitations whatsoever.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  It's a complex topic (obviously). I won't attempt to figure out what they were saying, but some of the issue (and maybe annoyance) is that companies like Google and Reddit are spineless. They'll host stuff all day when it makes them money, but as soon as there is public outcry, they get scared and you can tell where their bread is buttered. There's no real principle there (whether it be free speech or some liberal values), it's just cynical money grabbing as long as they can get away with it. It's not like this stuff is new. These same attacks have been going on for decades, only now does Google decide they've had enough. It's the reversal of position which is strange. Reddit's had videos of people getting chopped up and flayed for years now, it's only now they're cutting down on it. That seems strangely connected to them getting $200 million in funding and chasing after Facebook's tail. Maybe that's not strange, just obvious. I'm ranting a bit, but the problem is how top down these decisions are. These companies build up communities then pull the rug out from under them. Either support that stuff or don't, but this wishy washy nonsense where they only react is lame. What do these companies really beleive in? $.
- emanreus 9y ago
  > Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. We can't. Because some guy posting videos about historical weapons doesn't mean that has anything to do with your kid being safe.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. Do you support banning violent movies and video games? I mean I love gta but I couldn't in good faith make the argument that it's less harmful than videos on making ammo for 100 year old rifles. > and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable Why is it reasonable? Show me the clear evidence that banning this kind of content leads to less violence.
psergeant 9y ago
Excellent points and a shame you’re being downvotes.
sologoub 9y ago
We are still not addressing root issues - mental health and inaction of law enforcement on credible tips. Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste. I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  I don't see why we can't do both. Mental healthcare is one of the main needs in this country, but the Las Vegas shooter was also not classically mentally ill, just nihilistic and evil. He also had 23 guns, some of them full on assault, some of them modified. That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is people doing this tribal bullshit while we kill each other.
  - jakeogh 9y ago
    "full on assault" Which means? Too many bullets? Wrong color? Too accurate? Too easy to use? It's a meaningless term unless you interpret as a positive attribute.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      You're right. What's important is he had 24* weapons, 14 of which were AR-15s with bump stocks which allowed them to fire at 9 rounds per sec (easily Googleable). So not technically assault rifles but practically he had 14 assault rifles. Which is crazy. How can you even purchase that many? Do those who resist gun control believe arsenals like that are reasonable? This question is in good faith. I just don't understand it.
      - jakeogh 9y ago
        He can only shoot one gun at once. It's (much) faster to change a mag than to switch guns. Think harder about why he may have had so many. Maybe look into his very unusual non-history and the people around him. If it's not obvious, officially what happened in Vegas is a coverup.

kevhito 9y ago

Maybe I misread the parent. It sounded like parent was very "dismayed" at youtube's effort to ban videos about exactly the kind of horrifying weapons you mention, just because the ban also happens to impact his hobby with 100yo rifles. To me, banning some videos isn't extreme, even if it does have some overreach in some cases. It's just an oversight that could be fixed. Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. I was trying to specifically call out the parent's reaction. Not "youtube is part of the problem and yes we should do something about and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable but but maybe youtube could carve out some careful exemptions for my harmless hobby". It seemed dismayed at even the concept of any limitations whatsoever.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
It's a complex topic (obviously). I won't attempt to figure out what they were saying, but some of the issue (and maybe annoyance) is that companies like Google and Reddit are spineless. They'll host stuff all day when it makes them money, but as soon as there is public outcry, they get scared and you can tell where their bread is buttered. There's no real principle there (whether it be free speech or some liberal values), it's just cynical money grabbing as long as they can get away with it. It's not like this stuff is new. These same attacks have been going on for decades, only now does Google decide they've had enough. It's the reversal of position which is strange. Reddit's had videos of people getting chopped up and flayed for years now, it's only now they're cutting down on it. That seems strangely connected to them getting $200 million in funding and chasing after Facebook's tail. Maybe that's not strange, just obvious. I'm ranting a bit, but the problem is how top down these decisions are. These companies build up communities then pull the rug out from under them. Either support that stuff or don't, but this wishy washy nonsense where they only react is lame. What do these companies really beleive in? $.
emanreus 9y ago
> Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. We can't. Because some guy posting videos about historical weapons doesn't mean that has anything to do with your kid being safe.
sheepmullet 9y ago
> Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that. Do you support banning violent movies and video games? I mean I love gta but I couldn't in good faith make the argument that it's less harmful than videos on making ammo for 100 year old rifles. > and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable Why is it reasonable? Show me the clear evidence that banning this kind of content leads to less violence.

psergeant 9y ago

Excellent points and a shame you’re being downvotes.

sologoub 9y ago

We are still not addressing root issues - mental health and inaction of law enforcement on credible tips. Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste. I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
I don't see why we can't do both. Mental healthcare is one of the main needs in this country, but the Las Vegas shooter was also not classically mentally ill, just nihilistic and evil. He also had 23 guns, some of them full on assault, some of them modified. That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is people doing this tribal bullshit while we kill each other.
- jakeogh 9y ago
  "full on assault" Which means? Too many bullets? Wrong color? Too accurate? Too easy to use? It's a meaningless term unless you interpret as a positive attribute.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    You're right. What's important is he had 24* weapons, 14 of which were AR-15s with bump stocks which allowed them to fire at 9 rounds per sec (easily Googleable). So not technically assault rifles but practically he had 14 assault rifles. Which is crazy. How can you even purchase that many? Do those who resist gun control believe arsenals like that are reasonable? This question is in good faith. I just don't understand it.
    - jakeogh 9y ago
      He can only shoot one gun at once. It's (much) faster to change a mag than to switch guns. Think harder about why he may have had so many. Maybe look into his very unusual non-history and the people around him. If it's not obvious, officially what happened in Vegas is a coverup.