8 ms·
Same thing happens with firearms yet no one seems to care, or actively promotes, the methods "policy groups" use to strip rights away from citizens. Now, the sa
by Test0129 4y ago
Same thing happens with firearms yet no one seems to care, or actively promotes, the methods "policy groups" use to strip rights away from citizens. Now, the same tactics are being used here. I suspect many commenters will suggest these cannot be compared but I suggest generalizing a little:
The government and people interested in stopping this sort of thing realize there's no legal easy-button they can press to make it all go away. Firearms won't go away, neither will piracy. But, they can do the next best thing. Inundate the companies in the middle with lawsuits, mostly frivolous in nature, in order to tie up and burn capital and (they hope) bring the demise the companies allegedly "involved" in the "crime". This doubles as something that has a tremendous chilling effect on other related services. It starts with DNS, goes to VPNs, etc. It's so effective the government does not even need to enforce laws to make it happen. All it takes is a little encouragement of the right groups of people and the lawsuits take care of the rest. It is de-facto illegal to do something because the alternative is to be mired in billions of dollars worth of lawsuits for any perceived mistake.
This is why it's so important to support all forms of freedom. The tactic used to bring one to it's knees will be used to stifle other freedoms as well. In this case, they're now coming after information. Use your imagination to figure out what is next.
- Roark66 4y agoOne could argue this is a fault of the juidicial systems involved. Laws should be written clearly enough for any judge on whose desk such lawsuit lands to throw it out or face ridicule from their peers.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago> This is why it's so important to support all forms of freedom. So you agree we should stop people from having free and easy access to guns? Because I'm all about the freedom to send my children to school without worrying they're going to get shot.
- hnov 4y agoI don’t think children get shot at school often enough for that to be a realistic worry
- Gordonjcp 4y agoInteresting take. So you'd say that a non-zero amount of child murders is good? Something to be maintained?
- hellojesus 4y agoRestricting freedoms to make everyone free-er doesn't actually increase freedom. Your children already are covered by laws against murder. Banning guns may decrease the rate of school shootings, but it won't guarantee they cease. You'll never live in a world worry-free of gun violence, especially now that anyone can 3d print them at home.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoAnd yet the country I live in has had exactly one school shooting, and has a fraction of the murder rate of the US per capita. You can't then say "aha but the UK has more knife crime", because again, per capita, the UK has a tiny fraction as much knife crime as the US.
- hellojesus 4y agoMy point still stands: society doesn't become free-er by restricting freedom.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y agoif you agree to my state seceding from the union, sure.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoI don't really care what your backward country does.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y agok
- collegeburner 4y agoyou should be more worried about your kid walking by a busy street to and from school. people have wanted to take our guns for a long time and this is just the latest cause to hang it on. ronald reagan tried it with racism. roosevelt and company tried it with mob violence. this is just the latest excuse.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoSo you think that murdering children in schools is acceptable?
- collegeburner 4y agono, i favor keeping murder criminalized.
- Gordonjcp 4y agoOkay, so why are you in favour of letting people carry murder weapons around with them?
- jokowueu 4y ago
- the_gipsy 4y agoNonsense. There is no equivalent of MPAA etc interested in taking away guns - on the contrary, firearms is a billion dollar industry with more than enough lobby power to convince everybody to stock up on guns. Nice conversation derailer, though.
- hoseja 4y agoHahaha, totally, People's Republic of Caliphornia totally isn't interested in taking away your guns.
- cle 4y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "equivalent of MPAA", but there are plenty of well-funded anti-gun lobbying groups who fund lawsuits against the gun industry. Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown for Gun Safety are some major ones. But OP was talking broadly about lawsuits, not lobbying groups specifically. Example: California recently enacted a law to "create a powerful incentive for the firearm industry" by allowing citizens to sue them for "failured to implement 'reasonable' controls", by using a similar mechanism as Texas' bill that enables people to sue doctors who perform abortions. Senator Portantino: "If Texas can outrageously use this type of law to attack a woman’s reproductive freedom, we can do the same thing in California to hold gun dealers accountable for their actions." OP said: > The tactic used to bring one to it's knees will be used to stifle other freedoms as well. Which seems to be exactly what was done in California with its lawsuit legislation that was modeled after Texas'. I can't help but agree with OP that this is a similar tactic of using lawsuits to bully people into compliance by draining their resources. It's an old tactic, but it's still unjust, regardless of the particular legal issue.
- the_gipsy 4y agoYou can't really compare a public health & safety issue with piracy. Firearms are not freedom of speech. Guns kill. Just like vehicles kill and are therefore subject to regulation (or outright prohibition in many spaces) above individual freedom.
- 4y ago
- _joel 4y agoStrange. Sometimes I'm glad I live in the UK (not often, mind)
- stockerta 4y agoYes, looking over to the US the gun fetishism over there is creeping me out. I'm glad we have strict gun ownership. The small number of accidental shootings while hunting is more than enough.
- rs999gti 4y agoIs it really more random shootings in the US, or more media reporting on shootings? Edit: seems to be the latter https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2020/october/study-medias-reporting-on-gun-violence-does-not-reflect-reality https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/news-releases/2020/october...
- dubya 4y agoThe numbers I could find are 0.24 firearm-related deaths/100K population for the UK vs 10.95/100K for the US. (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...) By this metric, the US is better off that much of South and Central America. I bet if the stats were normalized by deaths/100K guns instead the US would look pretty good. (~17% drop for US, as we have more guns than people, but every other country has significant increases)
- nucleardog 4y agoIt's more gun deaths in the US. If you compare to Canada which, compared to all Western countries besides the US, has comparatively lax gun laws and high firearms ownership rates and a similar overall culture: * US sees 12.21 firearms deaths per capita per year to Canada's 1.94. * US sees 4.46 homicides via firearm per capita per year to Canada's 0.52. (The UK stacks up at 0.20 and 0.02, so significantly lower still.) This pattern holds over basically all numbers relating to rates of violence at every level of division.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoI would happily trade my dns freedom and piracy for the prevention of school shootings and I don’t even live in America.
- hoseja 4y agoSee, I would rather dismantle the school/social system that produces them.
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoSo you think schools are the problem and not the guns?
- nix23 4y ago> I would happily trade my dns freedom and piracy for the prevention of school shootings and I don’t even live in America. That has nothing to-do with each other. It's like saying i would happily trade the idea of country's to prevent wars. For the simpletons it makes sense, for everyone else not.
- hsbauauvhabzb 4y agoThey don’t have to, I’d give up apples if it meant gun violence would stop’ is a perfectly valid statement. Cute that you tried to call me simple, I guess.
- nix23 4y ago>I’d give up apples if it meant gun violence would stop’ is a perfectly valid statement. Gun-Violence have other root's, the constant fear of being threatened, the media and the country who is the only one with a declining lifespan[1] (exceptions are country's with war). The Gun's are not the problem, the state of mind of this country is. Howto change the US mindset to a positive future instead of a "near in the future zombie apocalypse's and jeff bezose's at the helm of it" i don't know. But i know that having constant fear to have a "safe" life is not a good way of living, and maybe have look at you...your fear of schools shooting's...that would never come to my mind (for example in Switzerland...with full automatic military riffles in nearly every 20-35yo men closet). It's the Culture (Dog eat Dog?), Media and Mind plus the politicians and the "military complex" because they LOVE IT! [1] The US is between Ecuador and Malaysia year 2020 so without real Corona impact: https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php
- mistrial9 4y agothis is a stretch but let's assume the post is in good faith, and that the post-writer does care deeply about their issue. The tactics described here do make some sense. It may be that proponents in political-marketing and policy-activism do in fact, plan and execute this kind of thing. But let's be more specific. It is a sophisticated legal action, takes patience to implement in steps over months and years, requires valuable know-how to execute the lawsuits, and for all of those reasons requires funding over time and planning. Let's notice that groups of lawyers are needed for this.. and that groups of lawyers seek paying work. Average active citizens and wage-workers, people with young families, peoples with chronic distress, primary caregivers, lots of others .. can't think of and execute these plans. This is specialists work and there are a finite number of specialists in even large society. I propose that daylight rules, disclosure of funding and declaration of activity, would do quite a bit to take the threatening nature of this kind of thing away. Let groups work toward their political goals, yes. But in the open.
- wing-_-nuts 4y agoThe right to bear arms is absolutely not under threat. Gun rights are the strongest they've been in decades, and that will not change until the supreme court drastically changes. Changes to the 2a would take groundswell of political support (super majority in congress or 2/3rds of states ratifying an amendment? but I forget the specifics). Given the political divide in the country, I do not ever expect to see the day. If this law has any teeth I fully expect it to be defanged as soon as they 'break the skin'. I don't like this; I grew up with guns, but even I find the rabid fetishization of guns to be a sad reflection on our society, but I have precisely zero allusions of any change, any time soon.
- collegeburner 4y agothere's absolutely people pushing for stricter gun laws especially at a state level. things are getting better but have a long way to go, we still have the FOPA, NFA, GCA and tons of other awful laws on the books.