4 ms·

>If you tell people you don't know what causes their respiratory illness, they may think you are incompetent, and feel helpless. Agreed, on the medical front t

>If you tell people you don't know what causes their respiratory illness, they may think you are incompetent, and feel helpless. Agreed, on the medical front this also leads to a focus on sophisticated diagnostic tools and numbers versus a 'true' cure. >Call something a democracy, and nobody will check if it is. >Call something a privilege, and people will start to want it, working hard for it. Let me add one more to the list. Call something a 'right' and people feel denied if they are not given it. Eg. voting rights. Even where one can vote, consent is generally manufactured but people feel empowered when they vote.

earthboundkid 7y ago
"Gun rights" are totally bogus. Let's enumerate rights: "Life." Okay. "Liberty." Gotcha. "Pursuit of happiness." Yep. "Private property." Might need some asterisks on that one, but sure. "Carry a weapon around in case I might need to murder another human being very quickly." ??? It's been this incredible PR campaign based around the fact that people are illiterate and don't know what "bear arms" means (jargon for "serve in a militia"[1].) [1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559
- dennis_jeeves 7y ago
  Not sure if you were in agreement with me, being sarcastic, or nitpicking. But the history of comments is certainly not dull. Look at my profile, and see if the link mentioned in it catch your fancy, if it does, shoot me an email.
- int_19h 7y ago
  The actual right is to self-defense - itself a derivative of other fundamental rights. Access to effective means of self-defense follows from there, just as abstract freedom of speech has many derivative rights like freedom of the press.
  - earthboundkid 7y ago
    An abstract right to freedom of thought allows for extensive time and place restrictions plus libel laws, etc. The right to self-defense (which I will concede) allows for restrictions on weapon ownership and usage.
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Of course it does. But it doesn't allow for arbitrary restrictions - a restriction has to be justified, and not just on the basis that it seems like it might help. In legal terms, the standard for restrictions on free speech in US is "strict scrutiny" for this exact reason. So while we have time and place regulations, there are also many safeguards in place to ensure that those aren't abused. To give one example, permits can only be required once disruption reaches a certain level (e.g. a solo demonstration on a sidewalk shouldn't need one), and for cases where fees are associated with said permit, it cannot be imposed on somebody unable to pay, or for whom it would be a considerable burden. I can assure you that the vast majority of proposed gun control legislation would not pass strict scrutiny. This is evident even from the degree to which policies vary in other countries - for example, when it comes to "assault weapons", the definitions vary significantly even in US state laws. Yet there's no obvious correlation with any practical effects if you compare, say, UK (which bans all semi-autos) and Germany (where you can own an AR-15). The laws that do seem to matter are mostly those regulating the owners directly, and even then it depends a lot on the policy. E.g. universal background checks for each purchase sound rational in theory, but evidence on their effectiveness is lackluster. OTOH a license to possess, that has to be periodically renewed, has a much more profound effect. Czechia is a particularly interesting case, being very permissive wrt "what" - comparable to US, even with shall-issue concealed carry! - but much more stringent on "who", and this seems to work just as well as UK's tight-fisted approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#Current_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#...

earthboundkid 7y ago

"Gun rights" are totally bogus. Let's enumerate rights: "Life." Okay. "Liberty." Gotcha. "Pursuit of happiness." Yep. "Private property." Might need some asterisks on that one, but sure. "Carry a weapon around in case I might need to murder another human being very quickly." ??? It's been this incredible PR campaign based around the fact that people are illiterate and don't know what "bear arms" means (jargon for "serve in a militia"[1].) [1] https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559 https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=43559

dennis_jeeves 7y ago
Not sure if you were in agreement with me, being sarcastic, or nitpicking. But the history of comments is certainly not dull. Look at my profile, and see if the link mentioned in it catch your fancy, if it does, shoot me an email.
int_19h 7y ago
The actual right is to self-defense - itself a derivative of other fundamental rights. Access to effective means of self-defense follows from there, just as abstract freedom of speech has many derivative rights like freedom of the press.
- earthboundkid 7y ago
  An abstract right to freedom of thought allows for extensive time and place restrictions plus libel laws, etc. The right to self-defense (which I will concede) allows for restrictions on weapon ownership and usage.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    Of course it does. But it doesn't allow for arbitrary restrictions - a restriction has to be justified, and not just on the basis that it seems like it might help. In legal terms, the standard for restrictions on free speech in US is "strict scrutiny" for this exact reason. So while we have time and place regulations, there are also many safeguards in place to ensure that those aren't abused. To give one example, permits can only be required once disruption reaches a certain level (e.g. a solo demonstration on a sidewalk shouldn't need one), and for cases where fees are associated with said permit, it cannot be imposed on somebody unable to pay, or for whom it would be a considerable burden. I can assure you that the vast majority of proposed gun control legislation would not pass strict scrutiny. This is evident even from the degree to which policies vary in other countries - for example, when it comes to "assault weapons", the definitions vary significantly even in US state laws. Yet there's no obvious correlation with any practical effects if you compare, say, UK (which bans all semi-autos) and Germany (where you can own an AR-15). The laws that do seem to matter are mostly those regulating the owners directly, and even then it depends a lot on the policy. E.g. universal background checks for each purchase sound rational in theory, but evidence on their effectiveness is lackluster. OTOH a license to possess, that has to be periodically renewed, has a much more profound effect. Czechia is a particularly interesting case, being very permissive wrt "what" - comparable to US, even with shall-issue concealed carry! - but much more stringent on "who", and this seems to work just as well as UK's tight-fisted approach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#Current_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic#...