3 ms·

Once you invent the gun you can't really stop them proliferating though, people with the means and determination will own them. Allowing one group of people to

by Dig1t 2y ago

Once you invent the gun you can't really stop them proliferating though, people with the means and determination will own them. Allowing one group of people to own them and not others is just asking for the group of owners to dominate and rule over the ones who do not own them.

silverquiet 2y ago
Yeah, in the last few years I realized somewhere along the way that I stopped believing in laws. It's a strange feeling and hard to think about how I used to feel in retrospect; it's like I used to believe there was some force that existed throughout the country that should control our behavior, but at some point I realized that there just isn't anything there. It's a bit like losing religion I suppose.
- itishappy 2y ago
  Spirit or letter? Is it fair to assume you agree killing other human beings is still bad? Is there an alternative system you prefer?
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    Reading back my comment, I probably should have said I have lost faith in "the law". In this context, I mean the idea of gun control, but it's just generally a feeling that there really is no one in control of (American) society at this point. Without getting into a whole thing about the context of killing other human beings and how that matters, I'll just say I know what you mean and say yeah, it's bad to kill people. I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do).
    - itishappy 2y ago
      Great response, and you're definitely not alone there, that's why I ask! I too find that the intent of "the law" is noble, but it seems to collect hard edges in practice. > I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do). Well now I'm interested!
    - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
      You might be interested in Bruce Schneier's take on trust and what prevents predatory behaviour. In his book Liars and Outliers he gives a taxonomy of 4 elements: law, reputation, morality, and security. Reputation and law are similar in that they're imposed by a community, but differ in that law follows a formally codified code, and of course the consequences imposed tend to differ. Morality is the internal motivation not to wrong others. Security describes physical/electronic measures that cause the predatory behaviour not to be practical in the first place, or at least raise the bar. Schneier's own summary: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/liars_and_outli_5.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/liars_and_out... A review, hosted on Schneier's site: https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2012/12/liars-and-outliers-by-bruce-schneier-review.html https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2012/12/liars-and-out...
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You’re losing touch with reality if you actually don’t think laws modify people’s behaviors, at least in most of the developed world.
  - silverquiet 2y ago
    Reality and I have had a pretty tough relationship, I'll concede that. I think my problem is that I've often seen the other way around - that peoples' behaviors modify the laws. I'm sure quite a bit could be written on that about Donald Trump who is currently in a trial that everyone knows cannot enforce any consequences to him, but for me I think the real moment it came apart was during the pandemic when I was struggling through some bureaucracy to update my car registration. I had the thought that I couldn't believe that the people who refuse to put on a mask to get groceries or whatever actually go do the nonsense that I was trying to get through right then. In contrast, covering your face with a piece of paper seemed really trivial, and yet to so many it was an affront to their identity, and so the mask mandates were ultimately rendered toothless.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      You’re definitely onto something there. I highly recommend the book The Metaphysical Club which follows a specific group of thinkers (the Pragmatists) who formed much of the foundation of American legal theory. The TLDR: Every legal system is governed primarily by the “moral culture” and constructed to defend/enact/perpetuate that culture. When the moral culture changes enough, the laws will change (or the interpretation or application of the laws for the same de facto effect). So the question for all of us is how to steer the moral culture in preferred directions, which is why I was calling out your initial comment! It’s not good for people to come to the belief that laws don’t matter — such a belief is self-fulfilling at certain scale.
llamaimperative 2y ago
This is literally empirically false. Guns haven’t proliferated across the world. There are countless examples of locales that decided to and succeeded in not having guns proliferate in their region.
- Out_of_Characte 2y ago
  What do you mean? Name 'countless locales' without guns. The only one that comes to mind are things like freight ships preferring water cannons over guns. There's also countless of examples where not having apropriate self defence is a death sentence to a culture, country or person living in a dangerous area
  - janice1999 2y ago
    Not OP by there are 18 countries that have mostly unarmed police forces [1]. I live in one of them - Ireland. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-d...
    - Dig1t 2y ago
      Maybe the patrol cops, but your rulers still keep heavily armed SWAT teams ready to be deployed in case the patrol cops encounter real resistance. Every country, including democracies, have deployed surveillance against their own people. Giving your rulers, and big companies, exclusive access to this technology is just asking for an authoritarian nightmare.
      - llamaimperative 2y ago
        > Giving your populace easy, uncontrolled access to this technology is actually causing rampant shootings. Notice how one is “just asking” for a hypothetical risk while the other is an everyday fact of life. The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. I personally am sympathetic to the view that an armed population is a meaningful deterrent against tyranny, but it’s hard to compare a hypothetical to a growing number of deaths. And the odd fact that firearms’ primary political role in our society is to intimidate people while voting doesn’t help either.
ninininino 2y ago
Do you feel the same way about nuclear weapons? How about engineered viruses and pathogens? This argument will fall apart when school shooters gain access to deadlier weapons. There are (at least, partial) solutions, we just don't like them and they are really really hard: 1) totalitarianism and top-down technology control (and knowledge proliferation control) 2) scientific (prob through genetic engineering) or cultural attempts to alter human species to be more non-violent / more peaceful / abhor conflict, or resolve social conflict / scarcity / prevent the means by which people _want_ to kill each other.
- impossiblefork 2y ago
  Engineered viruses and pathogens are very simple to make. Within reach of PhD students in biomedicine fields, probably many physicians. I believe that simpler variants are within reach of skilled hobbyists and particularly able high school students. Totalitarianism won't protect from these things. They are remarkably straightforward. What has protected us from these things is the fact that people who like biology and medicine are typically relatively nice. This isn't some deep secret knowledge, these are things so easy and un-novel that you can't publish a paper on them.
peterashford 2y ago
I live in New Zealand. Plenty of people are allowed to have guns (those with gun licenses) and plenty of people are not allowed to have guns (those without gun licenses). However, it does not appear to me that we are ruled by a gun-toting minority.

by Dig1t 2y ago

silverquiet 2y ago

Yeah, in the last few years I realized somewhere along the way that I stopped believing in laws. It's a strange feeling and hard to think about how I used to feel in retrospect; it's like I used to believe there was some force that existed throughout the country that should control our behavior, but at some point I realized that there just isn't anything there. It's a bit like losing religion I suppose.

itishappy 2y ago
Spirit or letter? Is it fair to assume you agree killing other human beings is still bad? Is there an alternative system you prefer?
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Reading back my comment, I probably should have said I have lost faith in "the law". In this context, I mean the idea of gun control, but it's just generally a feeling that there really is no one in control of (American) society at this point. Without getting into a whole thing about the context of killing other human beings and how that matters, I'll just say I know what you mean and say yeah, it's bad to kill people. I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do).
  - itishappy 2y ago
    Great response, and you're definitely not alone there, that's why I ask! I too find that the intent of "the law" is noble, but it seems to collect hard edges in practice. > I'm not talking about personal morality; I live by one that many people would probably find overly restrictive (I certainly do). Well now I'm interested!
  - MaxBarraclough 2y ago
    You might be interested in Bruce Schneier's take on trust and what prevents predatory behaviour. In his book Liars and Outliers he gives a taxonomy of 4 elements: law, reputation, morality, and security. Reputation and law are similar in that they're imposed by a community, but differ in that law follows a formally codified code, and of course the consequences imposed tend to differ. Morality is the internal motivation not to wrong others. Security describes physical/electronic measures that cause the predatory behaviour not to be practical in the first place, or at least raise the bar. Schneier's own summary: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/liars_and_outli_5.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/03/liars_and_out... A review, hosted on Schneier's site: https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2012/12/liars-and-outliers-by-bruce-schneier-review.html https://www.schneier.com/news/archives/2012/12/liars-and-out...
llamaimperative 2y ago
You’re losing touch with reality if you actually don’t think laws modify people’s behaviors, at least in most of the developed world.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  Reality and I have had a pretty tough relationship, I'll concede that. I think my problem is that I've often seen the other way around - that peoples' behaviors modify the laws. I'm sure quite a bit could be written on that about Donald Trump who is currently in a trial that everyone knows cannot enforce any consequences to him, but for me I think the real moment it came apart was during the pandemic when I was struggling through some bureaucracy to update my car registration. I had the thought that I couldn't believe that the people who refuse to put on a mask to get groceries or whatever actually go do the nonsense that I was trying to get through right then. In contrast, covering your face with a piece of paper seemed really trivial, and yet to so many it was an affront to their identity, and so the mask mandates were ultimately rendered toothless.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You’re definitely onto something there. I highly recommend the book The Metaphysical Club which follows a specific group of thinkers (the Pragmatists) who formed much of the foundation of American legal theory. The TLDR: Every legal system is governed primarily by the “moral culture” and constructed to defend/enact/perpetuate that culture. When the moral culture changes enough, the laws will change (or the interpretation or application of the laws for the same de facto effect). So the question for all of us is how to steer the moral culture in preferred directions, which is why I was calling out your initial comment! It’s not good for people to come to the belief that laws don’t matter — such a belief is self-fulfilling at certain scale.

llamaimperative 2y ago

This is literally empirically false. Guns haven’t proliferated across the world. There are countless examples of locales that decided to and succeeded in not having guns proliferate in their region.

Out_of_Characte 2y ago
What do you mean? Name 'countless locales' without guns. The only one that comes to mind are things like freight ships preferring water cannons over guns. There's also countless of examples where not having apropriate self defence is a death sentence to a culture, country or person living in a dangerous area
- janice1999 2y ago
  Not OP by there are 18 countries that have mostly unarmed police forces [1]. I live in one of them - Ireland. [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-do-not-carry-guns.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-where-police-d...
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    Maybe the patrol cops, but your rulers still keep heavily armed SWAT teams ready to be deployed in case the patrol cops encounter real resistance. Every country, including democracies, have deployed surveillance against their own people. Giving your rulers, and big companies, exclusive access to this technology is just asking for an authoritarian nightmare.
    - llamaimperative 2y ago
      > Giving your populace easy, uncontrolled access to this technology is actually causing rampant shootings. Notice how one is “just asking” for a hypothetical risk while the other is an everyday fact of life. The relationship between availability of guns and the amount of gun violence is extremely well-established. I personally am sympathetic to the view that an armed population is a meaningful deterrent against tyranny, but it’s hard to compare a hypothetical to a growing number of deaths. And the odd fact that firearms’ primary political role in our society is to intimidate people while voting doesn’t help either.

ninininino 2y ago

Do you feel the same way about nuclear weapons? How about engineered viruses and pathogens? This argument will fall apart when school shooters gain access to deadlier weapons. There are (at least, partial) solutions, we just don't like them and they are really really hard: 1) totalitarianism and top-down technology control (and knowledge proliferation control) 2) scientific (prob through genetic engineering) or cultural attempts to alter human species to be more non-violent / more peaceful / abhor conflict, or resolve social conflict / scarcity / prevent the means by which people _want_ to kill each other.

impossiblefork 2y ago
Engineered viruses and pathogens are very simple to make. Within reach of PhD students in biomedicine fields, probably many physicians. I believe that simpler variants are within reach of skilled hobbyists and particularly able high school students. Totalitarianism won't protect from these things. They are remarkably straightforward. What has protected us from these things is the fact that people who like biology and medicine are typically relatively nice. This isn't some deep secret knowledge, these are things so easy and un-novel that you can't publish a paper on them.

peterashford 2y ago

I live in New Zealand. Plenty of people are allowed to have guns (those with gun licenses) and plenty of people are not allowed to have guns (those without gun licenses). However, it does not appear to me that we are ruled by a gun-toting minority.