3 ms·

> What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Funny, that: school shootings seems to share two t

> What's next? Putting a chip that can monitor everyone's thoughts in real-time to prevent school shootings? Funny, that: school shootings seems to share two traits with CSAM: they are salient (horrible, traumatic, publicised…), but they are also fairly rare. I admit that for CSAM I only suspect it, but school shooting represents a very small fraction of all gun deaths in the US. Which represent only a fraction of violent deaths. Which represent only a (small?) fraction of all deaths. Making a priority of reducing school shootings at the expense of other death reduction policies sounds… somewhere between irrational and dishonest. It seems to me that trying to ban guns in the name of reducing school shootings is like trying to ban encryption to reduce CSAM: it's fundamental rights (self defence, privacy) vs greater good (school shootings, CSAM). And while many "greater good" people clearly mean well (heck, some even have a point), for others it really is about power and control.

crtasm 4y ago
Campaigns focus more on what people care about, it's easier to get people to care about children they don't know than adults they don't know. Unsure what point you're trying to make about them being a fraction of all gun deaths, a ban would obviously reduce those as well.
- loup-vaillant 4y ago
  Yes, campaigns use the emotions and biases of people to push whatever political agenda they set out to push. That's the way it is, even though I don't like it. Yes, banning guns would reduce gun deaths. However, the problem is not gun death here, it's violent death: suicides & murders mostly. It's not clear to me that banning guns would reduce those deaths. People can use ropes, clubs, and knives instead. And while mass shootings would no longer happen, we need to remember that they only represent about 0.1% of all gun deaths. They almost don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Finally there are two little snags: first, can we even ban guns for real? Black markets are a thing. Second, taking guns away from people could be a risky business if not handled with extreme care, especially in the US where second amendment advocacy resonates with so many people.

crtasm 4y ago

Campaigns focus more on what people care about, it's easier to get people to care about children they don't know than adults they don't know. Unsure what point you're trying to make about them being a fraction of all gun deaths, a ban would obviously reduce those as well.

loup-vaillant 4y ago
Yes, campaigns use the emotions and biases of people to push whatever political agenda they set out to push. That's the way it is, even though I don't like it. Yes, banning guns would reduce gun deaths. However, the problem is not gun death here, it's violent death: suicides & murders mostly. It's not clear to me that banning guns would reduce those deaths. People can use ropes, clubs, and knives instead. And while mass shootings would no longer happen, we need to remember that they only represent about 0.1% of all gun deaths. They almost don't matter in the grand scheme of things. Finally there are two little snags: first, can we even ban guns for real? Black markets are a thing. Second, taking guns away from people could be a risky business if not handled with extreme care, especially in the US where second amendment advocacy resonates with so many people.