8 ms·

:%s/sex trafficking/mass shooting/g :%s/gun control laws/internet censorship/g --edit: before you reach for that downvote button - im not conflating the two c

:%s/sex trafficking/mass shooting/g :%s/gun control laws/internet censorship/g --edit: before you reach for that downvote button - im not conflating the two crimes they are both depreaved and horrible in their own way. I am noting a high degree of symmetry in the reaction of a heavy-handed government 'take away the rights of everyone' to what is isolated incidents of horror. In one case americans seems willing to relinquish their rights to the government in the name of safety. In the other americans seems to consider this overreacting yet to me they seem to have high degree of symmetry

Deestan 9y ago
> isolated incidents of horror. They are not. They happen with such regularity that you can reliably estimate them per year. They are empirically preventable.
- pweissbrod 9y ago
  by "preventable" I presume you mean prevented by relinquishing all citizens rights and the rights of their descendents permanently to the government. I'm not debating gun laws, Im pointing out how readily it seems people are willing to relinquish their rights in one case vs another which have remarkably high similarities.
  - 0xfeba 9y ago
    No, just one right?
    - nybble41 9y ago
      The one right which makes it possible to defend the rest; so in effect, all of them.
      - scotty79 9y ago
        How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army? Because them you'll be fighting, because they are the actual guvnment. And these guys train every day how to kill people armed with guns without getting shot. And they got pretty good at that.
        mieseratte 9y ago
        > How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army? One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own. One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist. Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go.
        scotty79 9y ago
        > One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own. I'd say if US gov had a plan of oppressing US citizens they'd just ban guns first. It's kinda hard to start civil war over this. So instead of civil war you'd have hundred or few hundreds nutjobs with guns vs. US Army who might not feel particularly supportive of civilians disobeying direct order to give away their guns. Obeying is kinda their favorite thing. > One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist. Let's look at more recent history of US military achievements: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-islamic-state-us-american-soldier-how-many-deaths-killed-iraq-syria-a7226061.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is... You wan't to be on the loosing side of similar conflict? > Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go. Last civil war was about right to own black people. They guys who really wanted to keep owning them actually managed to incite civil war, even had army with similar tech level and still lost. Can you imagine same thing happening about right to own guns? The reason government lets you keep your guns is not that it's afraid of you. The reason is that it is not and doesn't mind all that much if some peasants die.
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
  Are you talking about sex trafficking, mass shootings, deaths from alcohol related accidents, deaths from drug usage, sexual assault from drug usage, crimes committed by those on probation, crimes committed by people from certain cross sections of society, or crimes committed because we don't have a camera in every room of every house that is monitored? Because most every bad crime out there can be reliably estimated and has ways of being prevented. The question is at what cost? We could prevent the vast majority of crimes committed by criminals released from prison by having all felonies punished by life without parole. But is that really reasonable? We could cut down on sexual abuse of children by outlawing any single adult from ever being alone with a child, regardless of relationship. But is that really reasonable? And I highly suspect that there is no consensus on what liberties are acceptable to exchange for safety.
mattnewton 9y ago
Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech? The splash damage of these two efforts isn’t remotely comparable.
- pweissbrod 9y ago
  You're diminishing the gun control debate. It means more than the right to skeet shoot certain weapons. You're inflating the FOSTA debate, it mean less than a general attack on free speech.
  - mattnewton 9y ago
    Please enlighten me. What is the splash damage for not being to own an assault rifle vs the splash damage of making platforms responsible for their users speech (even if they don’t know it’s happening)?
    - pythonista-rf 9y ago
      Just bringing some information about "assault rifles" Assault rifles, by military definition, have selective fire. None of my AR-15 rifles, or semi automatic 10/22 have that function. I cannot have assault rifles without a manufacturer license as a civilian. "Military grade" weapons are garbage, my guns are far superior than military grade in quality and reliability.
      - mattnewton 9y ago
        So would you say the side effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible? And what would you say of the potential side effects of SESTA/FOSTA?
        nybble41 9y ago
        More to the point, the intended effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible—and not nearly sufficient to justify even minor side effects.
balls187 9y ago
> In one case americans seems willing to relinquish their rights to the government in the name of safety. Actually, in one case, the lobbying groups are weak, and localized support in coastal areas. In other case, the lobbying groups are well organized, powerful, with a lot of support from constituents across the US. Also, we (Americans) are stupid. EDITED TO ADD: We (Humans) are stupid.
whataretensors 9y ago
This is their tactic. Find edge case. Break the system massively in favor of themselves and donors while claiming to help said edge case, while most of the time not actually helping at all. Edge case can be anything that gets people worked up. Child molestation, mass shootings, overt racism, sex trafficking, transgender, etc etc. It doesn't matter what your response is, the fact is people all have strong ones and are being manipulated because of it. It's an adversarial attack vector on the entire nation.

Deestan 9y ago

> isolated incidents of horror. They are not. They happen with such regularity that you can reliably estimate them per year. They are empirically preventable.

pweissbrod 9y ago
by "preventable" I presume you mean prevented by relinquishing all citizens rights and the rights of their descendents permanently to the government. I'm not debating gun laws, Im pointing out how readily it seems people are willing to relinquish their rights in one case vs another which have remarkably high similarities.
- 0xfeba 9y ago
  No, just one right?
  - nybble41 9y ago
    The one right which makes it possible to defend the rest; so in effect, all of them.
    - scotty79 9y ago
      How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army? Because them you'll be fighting, because they are the actual guvnment. And these guys train every day how to kill people armed with guns without getting shot. And they got pretty good at that.
      - mieseratte 9y ago
        > How can you keep illussion that you'll be able to defend anything with guns against US army? One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own. One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist. Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go.
        scotty79 9y ago
        > One would assume that should things get bad enough for an actual civil war, some percentage of military would defect rather than fight their own. I'd say if US gov had a plan of oppressing US citizens they'd just ban guns first. It's kinda hard to start civil war over this. So instead of civil war you'd have hundred or few hundreds nutjobs with guns vs. US Army who might not feel particularly supportive of civilians disobeying direct order to give away their guns. Obeying is kinda their favorite thing. > One might also look to recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and even Vietnam to see what a determined populace can do to resist. Let's look at more recent history of US military achievements: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-islamic-state-us-american-soldier-how-many-deaths-killed-iraq-syria-a7226061.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is... You wan't to be on the loosing side of similar conflict? > Given there has already been one Civil War in US history, things don't look horribly great. It is also a very different country today now than it was then, so who knows how things would actually go. Last civil war was about right to own black people. They guys who really wanted to keep owning them actually managed to incite civil war, even had army with similar tech level and still lost. Can you imagine same thing happening about right to own guns? The reason government lets you keep your guns is not that it's afraid of you. The reason is that it is not and doesn't mind all that much if some peasants die.
PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
Are you talking about sex trafficking, mass shootings, deaths from alcohol related accidents, deaths from drug usage, sexual assault from drug usage, crimes committed by those on probation, crimes committed by people from certain cross sections of society, or crimes committed because we don't have a camera in every room of every house that is monitored? Because most every bad crime out there can be reliably estimated and has ways of being prevented. The question is at what cost? We could prevent the vast majority of crimes committed by criminals released from prison by having all felonies punished by life without parole. But is that really reasonable? We could cut down on sexual abuse of children by outlawing any single adult from ever being alone with a child, regardless of relationship. But is that really reasonable? And I highly suspect that there is no consensus on what liberties are acceptable to exchange for safety.

mattnewton 9y ago

Why is the right to skeet shoot with a military weapon in the same breath as forums for free speech? The splash damage of these two efforts isn’t remotely comparable.

pweissbrod 9y ago
You're diminishing the gun control debate. It means more than the right to skeet shoot certain weapons. You're inflating the FOSTA debate, it mean less than a general attack on free speech.
- mattnewton 9y ago
  Please enlighten me. What is the splash damage for not being to own an assault rifle vs the splash damage of making platforms responsible for their users speech (even if they don’t know it’s happening)?
  - pythonista-rf 9y ago
    Just bringing some information about "assault rifles" Assault rifles, by military definition, have selective fire. None of my AR-15 rifles, or semi automatic 10/22 have that function. I cannot have assault rifles without a manufacturer license as a civilian. "Military grade" weapons are garbage, my guns are far superior than military grade in quality and reliability.
    - mattnewton 9y ago
      So would you say the side effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible? And what would you say of the potential side effects of SESTA/FOSTA?
      - nybble41 9y ago
        More to the point, the intended effects of banning Assault Rifles have been negligible—and not nearly sufficient to justify even minor side effects.

balls187 9y ago

> In one case americans seems willing to relinquish their rights to the government in the name of safety. Actually, in one case, the lobbying groups are weak, and localized support in coastal areas. In other case, the lobbying groups are well organized, powerful, with a lot of support from constituents across the US. Also, we (Americans) are stupid. EDITED TO ADD: We (Humans) are stupid.

whataretensors 9y ago

This is their tactic. Find edge case. Break the system massively in favor of themselves and donors while claiming to help said edge case, while most of the time not actually helping at all. Edge case can be anything that gets people worked up. Child molestation, mass shootings, overt racism, sex trafficking, transgender, etc etc. It doesn't matter what your response is, the fact is people all have strong ones and are being manipulated because of it. It's an adversarial attack vector on the entire nation.