5 ms·

Exactly. Going on a tangent here but this is exactly what I tell gun control proponents. Deal with the root cause of the problem and leave gun owners be.

jezclaremurugan 8y ago
This was a lightbulb moment, and I realized the contradictory stance I have - no oversight on social media but I believe in gun control/regulation. People and tools.. and what tools are dangerous enough to be regulated, the thing with social media regulation and censorship is that seems so closely tied with free speech and free market enterprise so any oversight is revolting to me, but given the effect fake news has - I realize it can be as dangerous, if not more, than guns.
- andromedavision 8y ago
  > This was a lightbulb moment I knew it from the get go. I also know most people here are left leaning but that people haven't really thought about why they take the positions they take. There is a lot of indoctrination. This is by no means an attack on OP or you personally. Survey most people here (HN) without bringing up guns and they will agree with what OP said; people are the problem and not the tools. Bring up the issue of guns and because it is the 'progressive/liberal/democrat' thing to do, guns(tools) become the problem. If we weren't polarized politically and instead took time to think about issues for ourselves, then our convictions would be consistent and hold true across the board. I am a black non-american who absolutely agrees with and loves Trump. I look at the data on economics and what he's done for America and wish more people could see the same and forget about what the media says about him. His policies on immigration are common sense and exactly what I would want for my country; people have to come in the right way and some places have to have more scrutiny than others. That doesn't mean I hate humans but rather that I understand that people are different and some worse than others.
  - tempestn 8y ago
    Of course people entering the country from some places require more scrutiny than others. But, it's not like that hasn't always been done. People coming from the countries on Trump's travel ban list face extreme scrutiny to get US visas. What Trump decided to do was ban anyone coming from those countries altogether. Including people who had already gone through that vetting process and obtained visas. Even including permanent residents of the US, initially! Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. There was already a common sense policy in place; Trump employed a policy sledgehammer. (With little to no evidence that it would even achieve the stated goal of increasing security.) I would debate your other points as well, but I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is that often what is sold as a "common sense" policy is in fact an overly simplistic one—the policy already in place may have had a great deal of sense behind it, but the world is complicated, and so, so are most sensible policies. Taking rash actions like barring all travel from a list of countries is more likely to do harm than good. (As would an extreme policy on the other side, like opening borders completely. Again, the world is complicated, and difficult problems require thoughtful solutions.)
    - andromedavision 8y ago
      > Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. Well obviously this isn't very useful and may need to be rethought if true. I don't know much about this claim though so I'll read more on it. > Trump employed a policy sledgehammer Look, these things aren't easy. May be it is a disproportionate response but I've lived through a period of fear when muslim terrorists bombed/shot up malls and universities in my country. In one incident, two armed civilians (an Israeli and a native) were able to shoot some terrorists and save some innocent lives. A once safe country ended up with us having to lock our offices during the day when business should be conducted. I am a lottle biased on the issue and that's why I took such a hardliner position on it.
      - tempestn 8y ago
        I'm sorry, that sounds terrible, and certainly does help explain the position. In a way, I see this as a mirror to our freedom vs security discussion down thread. In this case, I feel what's being given up in the name of security is too great. Most people in the world are decent. It does us harm if we learn to fear whole groups of people—or in the extreme case, all people who we consider outsiders to our group—due to the radical acts of a few. While there certainly are people who society needs to be protected against, and it certainly does make sense to carefully vet people coming from countries that are known to harbor terrorists or other enemies, I feel heavy handed policies like the iterations of the travel ban both encourage these feelings of fear and distrust in members of the population, and worsen feelings about the country from people on the outside (and even citizens who identify with people in the targeted groups). Ill will is increased on all sides, to everyone's detriment. Perhaps that would be justified if the security threat was sufficient, which obviously many Trump supporters feel it is. But the evidence doesn't support that. For example, here's an article from the Cato Institute demonstrating that the travel ban would not have prevented the entry of any terrorists since 9/11: https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-entry-no-terrorists-911 https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-e...
tempestn 8y ago
Unfortunately, the root cause in that case is unstable people getting a hold of guns and then killing people with them (themselves or others). (Leaving aside gun accidents, which are also a problem.) While we should certainly do everything we can to help prevent and treat mental illness, it will never be possible to eliminate it completely. Therefore we should also make it as unlikely as possible that such a person would have access to a gun. That's not to say that people should not be allowed to own guns, but I believe it does follow that very careful standards should be in place to ensure that licensed gun owners will use, transport, and store their weapons with the due level of care. Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be, in terms of licensing, restrictions, education, storage and transportation requirements, etc., but given the evidence that availability of firearms contributes to deaths by homicide and suicide, the issue certainly seems worthy of investigation.
- andromedavision 8y ago
  > Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be Sounds reasonable to me. I would however, also ask you to consider that excessive control leading to difficulty in accessing guns for personal protection is dangerous as well. The question becomes how much power do you want to give government over this issue. A lot of gun owners cite the concerns that they have over the emergence of a tyrannical government. With guns, these citizens can protect themselves more adequately. You don't want a scenario where the government of the day rounds up a bunch of deplorables/undesirables and sets out to massacre them. This has happened before and I'd bet that guns in the hands of each of these individuals would have accorded them a fairer chance at defending themselves. As far as deaths go, governments have killed more people than a few gun toting individuals who clearly have mental issues have. Governments are more dangerous.
  - tempestn 8y ago
    I don't think it's fair that you're getting down votes here without replies. I didn't down vote, but I'll explain why I disagree. It is most likely true that governments have killed more people than individuals with guns acting alone, although I don't think it's as lopsided as you suggest. As an example, the United States death toll in all of World War II was about 400,000. Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year. The more significant issue though, is the claim that a prevalence of guns would prevent government tyranny to the extent that it outweighs the damage they cause. Speaking of the US specifically, that would first require that the US would have a government at some point that was intent on killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. But not only that, it would require an armed insurrection against that government to actually be successful in stopping it. I'm no fan of the current US government's policies or effectiveness, but both of those events seem astronomically unlikely anytime in the foreseeable future. It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime. And if that somehow did happen, it is also unlikely that individual citizens with guns could do much to stop it. On the other hand, it's a fact that access to guns causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year. I just can't see any reasonable argument that the likelihood of the emergence and defeat of a tyrannical government is so great that it is remotely likely to outweigh the existing annual gun death toll. Not to mention that I'm not even suggesting preventing gun ownership, just sensible restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to prove that you know the rules of the road and that your vision is sufficient (or that you will wear corrective lenses). Your car must be registered and in good working order. I'm in favor of a similar licensing process for guns: a thorough, standardized test to prove that you are of sound mind and are aware of proper safe use and storage. Registration so that law enforcement can be aware of potential threats, and can track weapons used in crimes. Restrictions on how guns can be legally stored and transported, and where they can be taken. I'm not an expert, and I could certainly be convinced I'm off on the specifics, but opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.

jezclaremurugan 8y ago

This was a lightbulb moment, and I realized the contradictory stance I have - no oversight on social media but I believe in gun control/regulation. People and tools.. and what tools are dangerous enough to be regulated, the thing with social media regulation and censorship is that seems so closely tied with free speech and free market enterprise so any oversight is revolting to me, but given the effect fake news has - I realize it can be as dangerous, if not more, than guns.

andromedavision 8y ago
> This was a lightbulb moment I knew it from the get go. I also know most people here are left leaning but that people haven't really thought about why they take the positions they take. There is a lot of indoctrination. This is by no means an attack on OP or you personally. Survey most people here (HN) without bringing up guns and they will agree with what OP said; people are the problem and not the tools. Bring up the issue of guns and because it is the 'progressive/liberal/democrat' thing to do, guns(tools) become the problem. If we weren't polarized politically and instead took time to think about issues for ourselves, then our convictions would be consistent and hold true across the board. I am a black non-american who absolutely agrees with and loves Trump. I look at the data on economics and what he's done for America and wish more people could see the same and forget about what the media says about him. His policies on immigration are common sense and exactly what I would want for my country; people have to come in the right way and some places have to have more scrutiny than others. That doesn't mean I hate humans but rather that I understand that people are different and some worse than others.
- tempestn 8y ago
  Of course people entering the country from some places require more scrutiny than others. But, it's not like that hasn't always been done. People coming from the countries on Trump's travel ban list face extreme scrutiny to get US visas. What Trump decided to do was ban anyone coming from those countries altogether. Including people who had already gone through that vetting process and obtained visas. Even including permanent residents of the US, initially! Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. There was already a common sense policy in place; Trump employed a policy sledgehammer. (With little to no evidence that it would even achieve the stated goal of increasing security.) I would debate your other points as well, but I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. My main point is that often what is sold as a "common sense" policy is in fact an overly simplistic one—the policy already in place may have had a great deal of sense behind it, but the world is complicated, and so, so are most sensible policies. Taking rash actions like barring all travel from a list of countries is more likely to do harm than good. (As would an extreme policy on the other side, like opening borders completely. Again, the world is complicated, and difficult problems require thoughtful solutions.)
  - andromedavision 8y ago
    > Even people fleeing from countries like Iraq, because their lives were in danger due to helping the US. Well obviously this isn't very useful and may need to be rethought if true. I don't know much about this claim though so I'll read more on it. > Trump employed a policy sledgehammer Look, these things aren't easy. May be it is a disproportionate response but I've lived through a period of fear when muslim terrorists bombed/shot up malls and universities in my country. In one incident, two armed civilians (an Israeli and a native) were able to shoot some terrorists and save some innocent lives. A once safe country ended up with us having to lock our offices during the day when business should be conducted. I am a lottle biased on the issue and that's why I took such a hardliner position on it.
    - tempestn 8y ago
      I'm sorry, that sounds terrible, and certainly does help explain the position. In a way, I see this as a mirror to our freedom vs security discussion down thread. In this case, I feel what's being given up in the name of security is too great. Most people in the world are decent. It does us harm if we learn to fear whole groups of people—or in the extreme case, all people who we consider outsiders to our group—due to the radical acts of a few. While there certainly are people who society needs to be protected against, and it certainly does make sense to carefully vet people coming from countries that are known to harbor terrorists or other enemies, I feel heavy handed policies like the iterations of the travel ban both encourage these feelings of fear and distrust in members of the population, and worsen feelings about the country from people on the outside (and even citizens who identify with people in the targeted groups). Ill will is increased on all sides, to everyone's detriment. Perhaps that would be justified if the security threat was sufficient, which obviously many Trump supporters feel it is. But the evidence doesn't support that. For example, here's an article from the Cato Institute demonstrating that the travel ban would not have prevented the entry of any terrorists since 9/11: https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-entry-no-terrorists-911 https://www.cato.org/blog/new-travel-ban-wouldve-prevented-e...

tempestn 8y ago

Unfortunately, the root cause in that case is unstable people getting a hold of guns and then killing people with them (themselves or others). (Leaving aside gun accidents, which are also a problem.) While we should certainly do everything we can to help prevent and treat mental illness, it will never be possible to eliminate it completely. Therefore we should also make it as unlikely as possible that such a person would have access to a gun. That's not to say that people should not be allowed to own guns, but I believe it does follow that very careful standards should be in place to ensure that licensed gun owners will use, transport, and store their weapons with the due level of care. Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be, in terms of licensing, restrictions, education, storage and transportation requirements, etc., but given the evidence that availability of firearms contributes to deaths by homicide and suicide, the issue certainly seems worthy of investigation.

andromedavision 8y ago
> Reasonable people could certainly debate what sort of standards those would be Sounds reasonable to me. I would however, also ask you to consider that excessive control leading to difficulty in accessing guns for personal protection is dangerous as well. The question becomes how much power do you want to give government over this issue. A lot of gun owners cite the concerns that they have over the emergence of a tyrannical government. With guns, these citizens can protect themselves more adequately. You don't want a scenario where the government of the day rounds up a bunch of deplorables/undesirables and sets out to massacre them. This has happened before and I'd bet that guns in the hands of each of these individuals would have accorded them a fairer chance at defending themselves. As far as deaths go, governments have killed more people than a few gun toting individuals who clearly have mental issues have. Governments are more dangerous.
- tempestn 8y ago
  I don't think it's fair that you're getting down votes here without replies. I didn't down vote, but I'll explain why I disagree. It is most likely true that governments have killed more people than individuals with guns acting alone, although I don't think it's as lopsided as you suggest. As an example, the United States death toll in all of World War II was about 400,000. Currently there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US every year. The more significant issue though, is the claim that a prevalence of guns would prevent government tyranny to the extent that it outweighs the damage they cause. Speaking of the US specifically, that would first require that the US would have a government at some point that was intent on killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. But not only that, it would require an armed insurrection against that government to actually be successful in stopping it. I'm no fan of the current US government's policies or effectiveness, but both of those events seem astronomically unlikely anytime in the foreseeable future. It is incredibly unlikely that the US government would morph into a murderously tyrannical regime. And if that somehow did happen, it is also unlikely that individual citizens with guns could do much to stop it. On the other hand, it's a fact that access to guns causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US every year. I just can't see any reasonable argument that the likelihood of the emergence and defeat of a tyrannical government is so great that it is remotely likely to outweigh the existing annual gun death toll. Not to mention that I'm not even suggesting preventing gun ownership, just sensible restrictions. In order to drive a car you need to prove that you know the rules of the road and that your vision is sufficient (or that you will wear corrective lenses). Your car must be registered and in good working order. I'm in favor of a similar licensing process for guns: a thorough, standardized test to prove that you are of sound mind and are aware of proper safe use and storage. Registration so that law enforcement can be aware of potential threats, and can track weapons used in crimes. Restrictions on how guns can be legally stored and transported, and where they can be taken. I'm not an expert, and I could certainly be convinced I'm off on the specifics, but opposing any restrictions on ownership whatsoever seems an untenable position to me.