SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the anthropogenic-population-change dept.
We have a recent report by the US government that climate change is almost certainly caused by humans. However, we don't have the same rigor in gun death statistics; instead policy debate can rely only on FBI crime statistics which aren't directly comparable year-over-year due to changing measurement methodology (see "Caution to users").
This is because the NRA put pressure on the CDC through a Republican Congress to halt this research, under the logic that it promotes the cause of gun control.
But how likely is it that this is intentional, to use the US Second Amendment as an ongoing lightning rod for public attention (in a "bread and circuses" sense) while political business continues as usual on the back end (e.g. Paradise Papers)? Obama and a Democratic congress had the opportunity to restart this, which would presumably be just as "common sense" as the actual reforms they have been promoting on this issue, since whoever was actually supported by the facts would presumably have a motivation to set the program back in motion to improve support for their proposals.
(Score: 1, Troll) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:00AM (10 children)
Are you stupid or trolling? I really can't tell. Have you studied history at all? Quick quiz: what does a tyrannical government always do before it starts ethnic cleansing? I'll give you a hint: they disarm the people.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:16AM (5 children)
You define a necessary condition (render them to be killed defenseless).
To say "controlling my guns means it automatically results in you killing me", defines a sufficient condition. If you can't tell the difference, think some more.
Further more, "gun control" does not mean "population has no guns" it means gun possession is controlled. See the case of Switzerland for "gun control" - the gun control is strict and there currently exist an average of 0.5 guns for every Swiss citizen.
Then, it amuses me to no end the position of "guns are a guarantee of my liberty".
You can have no matter how many guns and:
- NSA is still going to intercept your communication - bye-bye the right to private life
- the banks are still going to take extra "administration fees just because..." and you can't sue them (just get them into private arbitrage) - opps, the freedom to enjoy your possession is no longer whole
- much good it would do you your gun in the face of a drone raining bullets or rockets on your head from 2 km away.
Should I continue or you did you get my drift?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:40AM (1 child)
Stop saying "control" when you mean "confiscation". And yes, if you manage to get 99% of civilian guns confiscated, then you will put many lives in danger. An armed populace increases the cost and risk to a tyrannical government and as such acts as a deterrent. As an example, look how much it's costing the US to impose control over the armed populace in the Middle East despite tanks, planes, missiles, and drones.
Regarding your "necessary condition" argument, consider Russian roulette. Pulling the trigger may not mean that you'll die, but you have a much higher chance if you do. Disarming the populace is akin to pulling that trigger. That is a chance I'm not willing to take, and that you do not have the right to force me and everyone else to take just so you can feel more comfortable.
You are obviously not a student of history.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:52AM
It's obvious your critical thinking ability is weak, and 'the free and the brave' in you just let some yellow matter into his underwear.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday November 09 2017, @02:25PM (2 children)
By that definition the US already has gun control. You can't walk into any gun store and walk out with a weapon right there on the spot. You have to go through a background check and jump through other hoops like waiting periods, etc.
So what your interlocutor has said seems to be true. It's not gun control you want, it's gun confiscation.
As for the NSA, et al, what you said is true when it's them against one or a handful of people. What about when it's 1/3 of the population? Will they be able to rain down those hellfire missiles on gun owners mixed in with the other people at your kids' school, because those gun owners are your neighbors? How about when you're trying to drive into your desk at Ft. Mead? Think somebody can't set up in the trees outside that super-secret exit ramp on the highway? In short, it's one thing to rain down fire and death on goat herders in some country whose name nobody can pronounce. It's quite another thing when you're talking about doing that to the people who keep your lights on or do everything your cushy government job depends on. It's not so cut and dried as you make it sound.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by etherscythe on Thursday November 09 2017, @03:41PM
Except it has glaring holes in it, such as no background check between private (non-dealer) parties, no waiting period at gun shows, etc. We might want to think about that when we talk about implementation, because there was definitely an implementation problem with Devin Kelly.
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 09 2017, @11:05PM
Yeah, right, awesome control [go.com]: "Texas shooting suspect escaped from mental health hospital in 2012, attempted 'to carry out death threats': Police report"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @07:18AM (3 children)
You surely can back up that claim with hard data? (And no, a few examples of where tyrannical governments indeed did that is not sufficient for it. To validate your claim, you have to consider all tyrannical governments that ever have done ethic cleansing).
And even if that should be the case, it doesn't imply gun control as such being bad. For example, since the mass media existed, any tyrannical government talked to the people through them on them, and that was indeed a big part of their strategy of staying in power and manipulating the people. Does that mean politicians talking to the people through mass media is inherently evil, and necessarily leads to tyranny?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:42AM (2 children)
Surely you can come up with a counter example then.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Touché) by maxwell demon on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:47AM (1 child)
It is you who made the claim, thus it is your job to provide proper evidence.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0, Troll) by mhajicek on Thursday November 09 2017, @08:56AM
Okay, here it is: Google.com
Or you could study history.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek