3 ms·

This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's

This cliché bugs me, because it is repeated so much, and it is generic - you can say "if you make X illegal, only criminals will have X" about anything and it's just as obtuse. Making something illegal for law abiding citizens is the point! When someone (either in authority or anyone) sees a person with X, and it's legal, then they don't know if it's a criminal or not without further investigation. When they see a person with X, and it's illegal, then they do know it's a criminal. This is an enormous advantage to enforcement, if that is the goal. Obviously you can, and many people do, make arguments based on crime statistics that outlawing guns works, but I prefer a logical approach.

torstenvl 5y ago
It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?
- perl4ever 5y ago
  You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate. A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.
    - perl4ever 5y ago
      I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

torstenvl 5y ago

It isn't obtuse. Maybe you could try making your argument in a less inflammatory way, and those with a different view from yours could see if there's a way to understand one another?

perl4ever 5y ago
You seem to be objecting to both the tone and the actual meaning of the word. Since I stand by the meaning, perhaps there is a better way to express it. But if you still disagree with the meaning, perhaps you could elaborate. A phrase I've seen on HN is "thought terminating cliché". Would that be a better way to express my opinion, by calling it that?
- torstenvl 5y ago
  You are interpreting the phrase specifically in a way as to make it a tautology, rather than responding to the "strongest plausible interpretation" as required by the site guidelines. Currently both anti-social and pro-social individuals possess firearms. If possession of firearms is criminalized, those who tend toward pro-sociality will give them up disproportionately. Such a policy would therefore tilt the balance of power toward those with anti-social inclinations. This is a bad outcome.
  - perl4ever 5y ago
    I didn't mean to express that the outcome was good or bad. And I don't take a position on whether the authorities are grouped with the "anti-social" crowd. Some people would say they are. Purely for the sake of discussion, I presumed the conceit that there is a "justice system" which is "pro-social". In that context, it seems clear to me that criminalizing things is a very useful tool. If you reject the premise, you might be perfectly correct, yet I would still expect people to be addressing those who believe there is a "justice system". Surely all sensible anarchists can imagine believing in "law and order", and assume that a random person probably does? Even if one doesn't believe there is a justice system, one might believe there could be. I automatically assume anyone who wants to discuss topics like crime and justice believes in the concepts. The judgement "obtuse" comes with the sense I have that the context is otherwise violated.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]