Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
But, you can't deflect criticism of guns by denying that they're weapons by design.
Yes. I already conceded that my initial statement was incorrect and didn't stand up to my own scrutiny once I thought about it some more.
The usefulness of a gun as a tool stems from the fact that it is a weapon by design.
As someone who comes from a completely different culture, I'm mystified by the obsession many Americans have with guns, especially the more obsessive, fetishistic approach taken by many.
I think this difference is rooted in the fact that when Americans pioneered our wildernesses guns were the weapon of choice for protection. I don't know where exactly you are located, but perhaps it would be akin to someone wanting outlaw all swords in your culture.
Re: Re: You're going to have to explain that to me.
Ok, so those quoted facts obviously prove that you think that drinking alcohol is immoral and that's fine. It, however, still doesn't prove that me or anyone else or even society as a whole thinks drinking is immoral (which it obviously doesn't since I see no slowdown alcohol consumption). Morals are subjective, plain and simple. What you think to be immoral isn't always what other people think is immoral.
Wow. That last sentence doesn't really make much sense. Let's try this again:
What I'm trying to ask (poorly, I know) is if the studies compare bad situations where guns are involved to the same situation where no weapons are available and also compare them to the same situation where a weapon other than a gun is available?
It seems to me that the results of bad situations where any weapon is available would be similar whether it's guns, knifes or baseball bats. To compare just the ones with guns to the ones with no weapons would seem disingenuous to me.
The chance of the victim ending up dead in the first version is much, much higher; there are tons of studies demonstrating this.
Do you have any citations for these studies? I would be interested in looking at them and their methodologies.
Do the studies differentiate between situations where a gun is available and no other weapon is available or where a gun is available and other weapons (like say a baseball bat) are also available?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Personal beliefs are personal and subjective, but "the degree to which something is right and good" is most definitely not.
It's not? Then why the hell are we arguing over different opinions of whether alcohol use is immoral or not? You have one opinion concerning it and I have another. That seems like the very definition of subjective to me.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
It's an absurd argument. Guns are weapons and nothing but weapons.
Fair enough. But the bottom line of argument still stands - guns are simply tools, whether you classify them as weapons or not the responsibility still lies with the person holding the gun, not the gun itself nor the manufacturer of the gun.
Has any society, anywhere, ever held the blacksmith responsible for everyone killed or maimed with the swords he made?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Like I said, Mason, I'm neither a hunter nor a gun supporter, so I'm not really interested in getting into a debate over this.
My point really boils down to the fact that a gun is still just a tool and how it is used is up the person holding it. Blaming gun manufacturers just because they make pistols instead of hunting rifles is as stupid in my mind as blaming hammer manufacturers because sometimes people hit other people with them.
Booze has no other use than to make someone intoxicated. [...] When you're creating and selling a product that has no other use than something immoral and harmful...
Immoral to whom? You? Because it's not me.
I made a choice to stop drinking alcohol and have been sober for over 10 years now, but that still does not give me the right to determine the morals of other people. Why do you think you can or should dictate what other people choose to put into their own bodies?
I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.
Essentially, you can say anything on the internet and not be responsible for it. Yet in real life, if you said those things, you would be taken to task for them.
Bullshit. Anonymity has always been an integral part of our society here in the US. From the founding fathers all the way up to the Supreme Court, the importance of anonymity in our society has been reiterated over and over again:
Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. [...] It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995)
You seem to want to remove this very important safeguard just because "it's on the internet". That's stupid and dangerous.
If a crime becomes popular enough, should we just revoke the law? If enough people get murders (say Chicago level all over the US), should the laws against murder be rescinded? When you start making laws based on popularity rather than what is better for society as a whole, you quickly turn towards anarchy.
Shouldn't ALL of a society determine what is "better for society as a whole"?
In regards to the specific examples I highlighted, I think disrespect for these laws is rooted in the perception of them being "victim-less crimes". (I'm not looking to get into an argument about drug use being a victim-less crime here, I'm just acknowledging that the the perception of it being a victim-less crime exists). If you asked 100 people if the crimes you listed in your first line were immoral you will get an overwhelming majority saying "yes". Ask 100 people if smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is immoral and you'll get a drastically lower number saying "yes".
The confidence in police dropping is in no small part in a shift of much of the US towards a "me" mentality, where people break the law all the time and don't expect to be held accountable. Law enforcement are left in the unhappy situation of enforcing laws that people refuse to respect - because their personal needs are way more important than societal peace and harmony.
I disagree with your correlation here. The disrespect for overreaching laws stems from a smaller segment of society attempting to force their morals upon everyone else.
If you notice, both of those upticks correspond to attempts to impose the moral values of a few upon society as a whole. The first was Probation and the second was the beginning of the War on Drugs. In both cases, what was generally considered socially OK was all of a sudden prohibited. Neither actually stopped the activity, only drove it further underground which enabled the organized crime syndicates to move in and profit.
Re: Section 230 Protections exist only because courts haven't yet trimmed it to existing over-arching law.
Also, if a site, say, offers a public comment box, but actually allows only one kind of speech (*cough* piratey) and never "moderates" those who conform to its own views, while doing all it can to prevent other points of view from even being seen despite dozens of attempts that rule out all possibility of usual problems, then it has forfeited all Section 230 Protections.
You keep repeating this and you are still dead wrong, Blue. You cannot redefine a Federal statute just to sooth your butt-hurt at being shown the door by the Techdirt community every time you post a comment. Here's what an actual lawyer has to say about comment moderation and Section 230 protections:
The device has a range of about 300 feet and can be attached to a directional antenna to allow police to determine where the signal is coming from and obtain a warrant.
If that signal happens to originate within a person's residence then any warrants or evidence collected based on the usage of this device would be fruit of the poisonous tree, in my opinion.
The majority opinion in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) didn't allow the use of a device to detect heat levels emitting from a house where marijuana was being grown, so why would radio signals emitting from a private residence be any different?
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Too Funny
It never even crosses Chu's mind that the majority here might think his notions are so idiotic that there's not that much to actually discuss.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Yes. I already conceded that my initial statement was incorrect and didn't stand up to my own scrutiny once I thought about it some more.
The usefulness of a gun as a tool stems from the fact that it is a weapon by design.
As someone who comes from a completely different culture, I'm mystified by the obsession many Americans have with guns, especially the more obsessive, fetishistic approach taken by many.
I think this difference is rooted in the fact that when Americans pioneered our wildernesses guns were the weapon of choice for protection. I don't know where exactly you are located, but perhaps it would be akin to someone wanting outlaw all swords in your culture.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: You're going to have to explain that to me.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Gun panic is still moral panic.
What I'm trying to ask (poorly, I know) is if the studies compare bad situations where guns are involved to the same situation where no weapons are available and also compare them to the same situation where a weapon other than a gun is available?
It seems to me that the results of bad situations where any weapon is available would be similar whether it's guns, knifes or baseball bats. To compare just the ones with guns to the ones with no weapons would seem disingenuous to me.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Gun panic is still moral panic.
Do you have any citations for these studies? I would be interested in looking at them and their methodologies.
Do the studies differentiate between situations where a gun is available and no other weapon is available or where a gun is available and other weapons (like say a baseball bat) are also available?
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Excuse me? We all have facts concerning it. What you are expressing is your opinion based on facts and so am I. Get off of your high horse, Mason.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Yeah, when I thought about it a little more, I had to concede that to be a truism.
I was initially thinking in terms of someone like an early settler, where a gun was a necessity for everyday survival.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
It's not? Then why the hell are we arguing over different opinions of whether alcohol use is immoral or not? You have one opinion concerning it and I have another. That seems like the very definition of subjective to me.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Fair enough. But the bottom line of argument still stands - guns are simply tools, whether you classify them as weapons or not the responsibility still lies with the person holding the gun, not the gun itself nor the manufacturer of the gun.
Has any society, anywhere, ever held the blacksmith responsible for everyone killed or maimed with the swords he made?
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
My point really boils down to the fact that a gun is still just a tool and how it is used is up the person holding it. Blaming gun manufacturers just because they make pistols instead of hunting rifles is as stupid in my mind as blaming hammer manufacturers because sometimes people hit other people with them.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
What dictionary are you using? According to Webster it's:
Those sound very personal and subjective to me.
Knowing that, how could any reasonable person say it's not inherently immoral?
Because I don't impose my personal beliefs onto others. You should try it.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
Immoral to whom? You? Because it's not me.
I made a choice to stop drinking alcohol and have been sober for over 10 years now, but that still does not give me the right to determine the morals of other people. Why do you think you can or should dictate what other people choose to put into their own bodies?
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
I'm not a hunter or even a gun supporter, but even I can see the stupid in that remark. Guns are simply tools and have wide range of uses beyond hurting other people. Hunting for food comes to mind. Protection while out in the wilderness is another.
On the post: The Increasing Attacks On The Most Important Law On The Internet
Re:
Bullshit. Anonymity has always been an integral part of our society here in the US. From the founding fathers all the way up to the Supreme Court, the importance of anonymity in our society has been reiterated over and over again:
You seem to want to remove this very important safeguard just because "it's on the internet". That's stupid and dangerous.
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Re: Re: Excelllent piece
Shouldn't ALL of a society determine what is "better for society as a whole"?
In regards to the specific examples I highlighted, I think disrespect for these laws is rooted in the perception of them being "victim-less crimes". (I'm not looking to get into an argument about drug use being a victim-less crime here, I'm just acknowledging that the the perception of it being a victim-less crime exists). If you asked 100 people if the crimes you listed in your first line were immoral you will get an overwhelming majority saying "yes". Ask 100 people if smoking a joint in the privacy of your own home is immoral and you'll get a drastically lower number saying "yes".
On the post: In The Post-Ferguson World, Cops Are Now Victims And It's The Public That's Going To Pay The Price
Re: Excelllent piece
I disagree with your correlation here. The disrespect for overreaching laws stems from a smaller segment of society attempting to force their morals upon everyone else.
If you notice, both of those upticks correspond to attempts to impose the moral values of a few upon society as a whole. The first was Probation and the second was the beginning of the War on Drugs. In both cases, what was generally considered socially OK was all of a sudden prohibited. Neither actually stopped the activity, only drove it further underground which enabled the organized crime syndicates to move in and profit.
On the post: UK Copyright Group Plans Heavy Anti-Piracy Measures For Bond Film Because Of How Successful It Will Be
Re: Re: We need centralized planning, yes?
I agree that is bullshit. It's about as stupid as saying that only pirates are allowed to have opinions concerning piracy.
On the post: Court Order Takes Another Stab At Stripping Away Ripoff Report's Section 230 Protections
Re: Section 230 Protections exist only because courts haven't yet trimmed it to existing over-arching law.
You keep repeating this and you are still dead wrong, Blue. You cannot redefine a Federal statute just to sooth your butt-hurt at being shown the door by the Techdirt community every time you post a comment. Here's what an actual lawyer has to say about comment moderation and Section 230 protections:
https://randazza.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/no-section-230-does-not-prohibit-you-from-bein g-responsible/
Because you keep repeating this bullshit about Section 230 and comment moderation, I will now direct a quote by Marc from the linked article at you:
On the post: Cop Invents Device That Sniffs MAC Addresses To Locate Stolen Devices
Re:
On the post: Cop Invents Device That Sniffs MAC Addresses To Locate Stolen Devices
If that signal happens to originate within a person's residence then any warrants or evidence collected based on the usage of this device would be fruit of the poisonous tree, in my opinion.
The majority opinion in Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001) didn't allow the use of a device to detect heat levels emitting from a house where marijuana was being grown, so why would radio signals emitting from a private residence be any different?
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
Next >>