4 ms·

> It seems like the 2nd and 4th Amendments may end up mutually exclusive Whole point was neither should be impeded... Living in a society has risks. Overall it

> It seems like the 2nd and 4th Amendments may end up mutually exclusive Whole point was neither should be impeded... Living in a society has risks. Overall it looks worse recently, but deaths from mass shooting are still well below just Chicago's murder rate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-shootings-in-america/?utm_term=.a7cc4c4e818c https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/mass-s... https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/us/chicago-murders-drop-2018/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/us/chicago-murders-drop-2018/... Personally, I'm not at all afraid of gun violence (perhaps because I've used a gun). Bombs, poisons, etc. and the like are way scarier, as they can kill way more people. Honestly if the occasional mass shooting happens every few weeks, it's a pretty low price to pay (as callous as that sounds). With scanners and what not there's such a high potential risk of abuse that it's not worth it. If someone randomly elected can decide to imprison million of people they don't like. We probably don't want them to have said technology already in place (and probably want guns).

jetpks 7y ago
> Your kids will pay for my freedom in blood, but it's worth it because they're statistically insignificant anyway.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  And at least they'll be free. After all, your kids will pay for our gun registry with confiscation, and the religious census with death camps. No one ever said that the tree of liberty could survive on water.
  - jetpks 7y ago
    They're certainly not free from dying at school.
    - citilife 7y ago
      As I have several children I feel the concern. I feel the same concern when they ride in a car with friends... which they are way way more likely to die from. Do I stop them from riding with friends? No, because it's in their best interest. Freedom and growth comes with a necessary risk. Instead of worrying about the weapon of choice, I'm more concerned about why people want to murder. Let's try to fix that.
      - dao- 7y ago
        So just because riding in a car with friends is a fine tradeoff to make, gun violence must be too? How exactly is it a necessary risk? Most other civilized countries seem to do fine without it.
        _red 7y ago
        Would you support a targeted form of gun control? For instance, if statistically it could be shown that 13% of the population were responsible for >50% of all gun crimes, wouldn't it make sense to focus on removing access to guns on that group first?
        dao- 7y ago
        No, that would conflate socioeconomic factors with race and be unconstitutional, for good reasons. I would get rid of the second amendment. There may have been good reasons to introduce it back in the day, but at some point it's time to move on. As I said civilized countries don't need this.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        What chance of government-mediated genocide does it take before accepting an extra ~8000 murders/year makes sense? Not very high, in my opinion. (And that assumes that half of all gun homicides go away, and aren't replaced by other weapons) One genocidal government killing 0.5% of the US population every 250 years is 8000 deaths per year if my math is correct. With how everyone seems to be complaining of the US's recent descent towards fascism, I find it rather disingenuous to argue that a genocidal government is less likely than that.
- snorlaxle 7y ago
  I know it's really hard to wrap our head around the idea of objective worth of human lives but we already have calculations for the statistical value of life[1]. We only need to do a similar calculation for our freedom and then we can objectively determine when it's worth it to trade lives vs freedom. At some point (if not there already) a few lives is going to be statistically worth less than the freedom of the entire population. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life)
  - ofcourseianal 7y ago
    Oh, well, if we already have the calculations (and a Wikipedia page!), they must be right.
    - snorlaxle 7y ago
      Would you rather we don't have these numbers help us with decision making? Do you have a better system in mind? Should we just never discuss or think about risk/reward trade-offs as soon as it involves a single life at risk? I also don't get where the Wikipedia snark is coming from. I know that Wikipedia pages are not perfect but It's still a pretty good reference for a lot of things. I often trust Wikipedia articles for any given subject as long as it is well-sourced and not political just like this one.
  - dao- 7y ago
    Not gonna get into discussing the objective worth of a human life, but I'll note that the entire population cares about their kids, not so much about their freedom to carry guns. Those caring about the latter are a vocal minority (or at least a subset, I don't have the statistics at hand).
    - snorlaxle 7y ago
      That's 1 of the reasons kids are usually valued more with these calculations. I'm not advocating for gun rights here. I'm not from the US and I prefer that civilians don't carry guns at all. Maybe I should have said that outright first so I don't just get down-voted and dismissed. I'm talking about freedom in a more general sense. Gun rights is not even the freedom being taken away by this type of surveillance.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Everyone's kids are (statistically) paying for everyone's freedom in blood - for example your freedom to drive a car, use encryption and speak in public places could be used to run them over, exchange child porn, and teach them swear words respectively.

jetpks 7y ago

> Your kids will pay for my freedom in blood, but it's worth it because they're statistically insignificant anyway.

DuskStar 7y ago
And at least they'll be free. After all, your kids will pay for our gun registry with confiscation, and the religious census with death camps. No one ever said that the tree of liberty could survive on water.
- jetpks 7y ago
  They're certainly not free from dying at school.
  - citilife 7y ago
    As I have several children I feel the concern. I feel the same concern when they ride in a car with friends... which they are way way more likely to die from. Do I stop them from riding with friends? No, because it's in their best interest. Freedom and growth comes with a necessary risk. Instead of worrying about the weapon of choice, I'm more concerned about why people want to murder. Let's try to fix that.
    - dao- 7y ago
      So just because riding in a car with friends is a fine tradeoff to make, gun violence must be too? How exactly is it a necessary risk? Most other civilized countries seem to do fine without it.
      - _red 7y ago
        Would you support a targeted form of gun control? For instance, if statistically it could be shown that 13% of the population were responsible for >50% of all gun crimes, wouldn't it make sense to focus on removing access to guns on that group first?
        dao- 7y ago
        No, that would conflate socioeconomic factors with race and be unconstitutional, for good reasons. I would get rid of the second amendment. There may have been good reasons to introduce it back in the day, but at some point it's time to move on. As I said civilized countries don't need this.
        DuskStar 7y ago
        What chance of government-mediated genocide does it take before accepting an extra ~8000 murders/year makes sense? Not very high, in my opinion. (And that assumes that half of all gun homicides go away, and aren't replaced by other weapons) One genocidal government killing 0.5% of the US population every 250 years is 8000 deaths per year if my math is correct. With how everyone seems to be complaining of the US's recent descent towards fascism, I find it rather disingenuous to argue that a genocidal government is less likely than that.
snorlaxle 7y ago
I know it's really hard to wrap our head around the idea of objective worth of human lives but we already have calculations for the statistical value of life[1]. We only need to do a similar calculation for our freedom and then we can objectively determine when it's worth it to trade lives vs freedom. At some point (if not there already) a few lives is going to be statistically worth less than the freedom of the entire population. [1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life)
- ofcourseianal 7y ago
  Oh, well, if we already have the calculations (and a Wikipedia page!), they must be right.
  - snorlaxle 7y ago
    Would you rather we don't have these numbers help us with decision making? Do you have a better system in mind? Should we just never discuss or think about risk/reward trade-offs as soon as it involves a single life at risk? I also don't get where the Wikipedia snark is coming from. I know that Wikipedia pages are not perfect but It's still a pretty good reference for a lot of things. I often trust Wikipedia articles for any given subject as long as it is well-sourced and not political just like this one.
- dao- 7y ago
  Not gonna get into discussing the objective worth of a human life, but I'll note that the entire population cares about their kids, not so much about their freedom to carry guns. Those caring about the latter are a vocal minority (or at least a subset, I don't have the statistics at hand).
  - snorlaxle 7y ago
    That's 1 of the reasons kids are usually valued more with these calculations. I'm not advocating for gun rights here. I'm not from the US and I prefer that civilians don't carry guns at all. Maybe I should have said that outright first so I don't just get down-voted and dismissed. I'm talking about freedom in a more general sense. Gun rights is not even the freedom being taken away by this type of surveillance.
whatshisface 7y ago
Everyone's kids are (statistically) paying for everyone's freedom in blood - for example your freedom to drive a car, use encryption and speak in public places could be used to run them over, exchange child porn, and teach them swear words respectively.