I'm not sure my position on 2A but it seems you're making a pretty big leap to connect them.
Guns kill others. To me, that's a big difference. Gambling does not, only indirectly, you gamble your money away your family doesn't eat. But if you're going indirect than anything fits. Cars kill more than guns.
You could argue the similarity is that some people can be responsible with guns and others can't but you're back the previous point. Irresponsible gun use directly harms others. Irresponsible gambling at most indirectly harms others.
Just some context because gun violence studies are probably the most manipulated data sets in history. The two numbers (auto deaths and gun deaths) are pretty close to each other and different policies can and do push one above the other.
- Most of those gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority would happen anyway without guns.
- This wasn't true before about 2015 and the change (increase in non-suicide gun deaths) over the last decade is largely the consequence of 'defund the police' policies.
- 90+% of gun violence happens in about 4 urban zip codes, all of which have some of the strictest gun control laws in the US.
There is a reason you have never heard a criminologist rail about guns (its usually a sociologist). The data points to problems with other policies. Also gathering the data honestly is difficult; people stop reporting types of crimes when the police stop investigating those types of crimes.
PS A "curve-off" public welfare policy is far more effective than banning guns.
Not to get into a gunfight in the gambling hall, but:
> Most of those gun deaths are suicides and the vast majority would happen anyway without guns.
Apparently any form of obstacle between a suicidal person and their gun greatly reduces successful suicides.
Things like the gun being in a safe that McSuicidepants owns, operates, and can get in with a fingerprint. Things like the bullets being on the other side of the room.
Largely a problem of VCs and shareholders. After my 12th year of "we'll get around to bug fixes" and "this is an emergency" I realize I am absolutely not doing anything related to engineering. My job means less than the moron PM who graduated bottom of their class in <field>. The lack of trust in me despite having almost a life in software is actually so insulting it's hard to quantify.
Now I barely look at ticket requirements, feed it to an LLM, have it do the work, spend an hour reviewing it, then ship it 3 days later. Plenty of fuck off time, which is time well spent when I know nothing will change anyway. If I'm gonna lose my career to LLMs I may as well enjoy burning shareholder capital. I've optimized my life completely to maximize fuck off time.
At the end of the day they created the environment. It would be criminal to not take advantage of their stupidity.
same experience here. trust deficits so rampant i question if ive ever been right once in my career. dont forget the lack of the word 'iterate' in the decision makers vocabulary. and as soon as the word sunset is uttered you know your in for a bumpy ride once again
Many of the things you mention are also tools that many people use in a professional context which mostly doesn't work if you try to be anonymous. Yes, some people choose to be pseudonymous but that mostly doesn't work if your real-life and virtual identities intersect, such as attending conferences or company policies that things you write for company publications be under your real name.
It's the anti-gun lobby. Bloomberg's band of morons who believe a government monopoly on force is good.
These bans are almost exclusively in states with already extremely strict (high rated by the gifford's law people) gun laws.
So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows. The calculus for these petty tyrants has changed from banning guns wholesale to lawfare. Make owning and purchasing firearms so burdensome the market dies, and with it, the rights. This is just another play in that strategem.
Fun fact: More people died last year putting foreign objects in their rears than by AR-15s. That is how insane the anti-gun lobby has become. They are literally barking at their own shadow these days.
No amount of FBI stats about how often "assault" rifles are used will change people's minds. They don't like them and so want to take them away.
I don't know how to square the same people saying we're living under a tyrannical government also pushing legislation that makes sure said tyrannical government is the only one with guns.
I can't square people who think owning a gun will stop or prevent a tyrannical government. Especially when the tyrannical government just leverages its supporters as a vigilante force.
An armed populace creates a huge risk for a federal paramilitary force descending on a municipality with the intent to terrorize the citizens. They're not rolling in with tomahawks and tanks, they're coming in with assault rifles and window breakers.
It won't "stop" them but having to treat everyone like they might shoot back and show up with a 10:1 manpower advantage and armed to the teeth every time you wanna subject someone to state violence really puts a damper on your ability to do tyrannical government things.
Not at all true. I haven't yet witnessed armed resistance to ICE, but it's in the cards, if the government wants to push. Given the number of veterans and folks that actually have skill with guns in the civilian populace, and the hiring standards of ICE, I think the civilian population, properly mobilized, would be incredibly effective at putting a damper on their illegal behavior.
It's an extremely dangerous line to cross, and it should be avoided if at all possible. At the same time, when no other options are available, it's better to be armed than not. I hope you never have to learn this first-hand.
It kind of is in that they're picking the easy targets. They're not being sloppy in places where wrong address has an unacceptably high (but still small) chance of having them confused for the DEA and shot back at by someone who isn't going to prison one way or another.
The problem with that thinking is that you have to have the will to act to stop tyranny, and no amount of armament will give you the will or the foresight to see it.
> So far, there is zero evidence in the last 30 years more strict gun laws have curbed crime. The states with the strictest laws conveniently have the highest proportion of gun crime. The same people writing these laws don't understand what "per capita " means. Nor are they willing to confront the reality of what the data shows.
I’ve seen this claim from a few people in this thread but everytime I look up gun deaths per capita Massachusetts and California are low on the list and both have strict gun laws compared to red states
Long gun homicides (justified and unjustified, "assault weapons" and grandpa's 30-06 combined) are typically sub-500 per year, see: FBI crime stats for the last N decades.
Pick whatever demise: falling off of ladders, roofs, etc. - it's not hard to exceed this number in any given year.
> In 2023, the most recent year for which the FBI has published data, handguns were involved in 53% of the 13,529 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available. Rifles – the category that includes guns sometimes referred to as “assault weapons” – were involved in 4% of firearm murders. Shotguns were involved in 1%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (42%) involved other kinds of firearms or those classified as “type not stated.”
Interesting findings:
Most gun deaths are suicides with handguns.
Assault weapons are used in less than 5% of deaths.
So basically the comparison to foreign body objects (of any type) to a single type of gun- which represents a tiny fraction of all gun deaths- is not a convincing comparison.
The point was that all the regulation on assault weapons doesn't have a meaningful effect. At best, you could reduce gun violence by 4%.
I wouldn't over-rotate on the comparison to foreign body objects: the point is, if you rely purely on the media to inform you about gun violence, you're going to get a funhouse mirror version of reality. It's way more exciting to write about the 40 school children killed in the last two years in mass shootings than the 16,000 depressed dads that blew their heads off in their garage with a handgun in the last 12 months (spitballing a bit, but 40,000 deaths, 50% of which are suicides, 80% of those are men).
I disagree- this subthread was not about assault weapons, it was about gun-control laws. But yes, if you limit yourself to assault weapons (itself a somewhat nebulous term that just muddies the discussion IMHO), then yes, you're not going to have a huge impact.
No argument that the media produces inaccurate representations about guns. I spend a fair amount of time reading articles and also spend a lot of time reading into the facts that they report.
Upvoted; I think this is a case where we are genuinely focusing on different aspects, and I see your point. My concern is that laws are often too performative. There's probably a lot to discuss there, but I suspect we largely agree.
Moms Demand Action and the Bloomberg troll syndicate would have you believe guns are manufactured to walk out of gun safes and shoot themselves.
We have plenty of bad actors in our country seeking to reduce or eliminate fundamental rights through lawfare. The anti gun trolls blame the gun and the manufacturer because their brain is so well rendered into dust by authoritarian socialism they don’t recognize humans as capable actors.
It's really remarkable to me how a certain subset of American ideologues can look out at the rest of the democratic nations - all of them - and call them authoritarian regimes where the citizens have "dust" for brains.
It's particularly poignant nowadays to see any American citizens painting the rest of the western nations as authoritarian.
Look at those libtard euros! They'll put up with anything their government tells them to - mandated vacation time, sick days, health care, work-life balance. But not me, I'm a FREE THINKER. I have RIGHTS, like the RIGHT to get fired out of nowhere for no reason, or the RIGHT to lose my health insurance if I lose my job. Thank god there are no AUTHORITARIANS here in AMERICA where people are FREE to get SHOT IN THE STREET for DRIVING THEIR CARS or TAKING A PICTURE or BEARING ARMS WHICH IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT THAT ONE GUY DID IT AND DESERVED TO GET MURDERED THIS ONE TIME.
Just a slight correction in case anyone is reading this who loses their job:
In most states, if you lose your job your income is now $0 and you will be eligible for Medicaid and free medical care. Immediately go apply and see a social worker if you lose your job - it could be life saving!
Really sorry in advance, but I thought this whole HN thread could use a bit of positivity. I turned your satire into a mad-lib and asked AI to fill it in in a happy way.
But not me, I’m a dreamer. I have gifts, like the courage to kindle hope, or the patience to lose
track of time if I am laughing with friends. Thank god there are no
frowns here in this sun-drenched park where people are gathering to get
together for picnics or music or stargazing.
Does it matter? The problem is that everyone uses discord for everything. It's not an isolated platform, it's THE platform if you want to have friends.
If you don't access adult stuff, you don't need to verify age. I'm not giving them my ID, I'm not expecting anything to change about my Discord experience.
Finally I feel validated complaining for the last decade about the move away from IRC/teamspeak to centralized services. I've been called all kinds of names.
Now those same people are complaining they're gonna have to submit their faces to discord. Which will eventually be used to prosecute or commit fraud. I'm left wondering if "tech enthusiasts" are ever actually correct.
Heh, that happened with phony nostalgic gen-z kids trying to recreate 'old times' with Discord and turd themning for Windows AKA called 'Frutiger Aero' while bitching against XMPP calling it 'malware'.
Unless of course you’re training practical, useful strength. Which requires intense bursts of weight training, and balance between tempo runs, rucks with 35-40% of body weight, and slow run/jogs. Weightlifting is a small part of a larger picture of strength and being able to put it to use. Cardio is the single most important thing you can train because without a gas tank you’re just a fat, slow, strong slob.
You don’t need to be elite nor on juice to do this. All you need is a purpose. I do this all the time, am over 35, and not on juice. My fitness is great but no where near elite.
Rippetoe is an obnoxious jackass and you can venture to his forums (cult) to see it. He’s great at making fat, out of shape, strongmen. He’s not great at producing a fighter, tradesman, or operator. When you want to know what works look to the people actually using their fitness not morons like him who proselytize and look like the hardest thing they do all day is eat a pack of bon Bons.
Strength on itself is already functional and useful. I kind of agree with you, its why i have been moving away from the strongmen stuff, more into kettlebells, calisthenics and walking during lunch and/or post dinner.
This is quite obviously written by someone with no intelligence experience.
> On the face of it the Greenland situation makes no sense on a national security level regarding a non-existent, fabricated Chinese or Russian threat, nor related to the fantastical grift of the "Golden Dome" that is even more useless against what Russia has recently developed, than it was for things prior to about 3 years ago.
Power projection in the arctic is weak. Russia has made multiple tactical movements towards soft projection in the arctic. You have zero idea what submarines are on station. Taking greenland is arguably stupid, boosting it's defense to prevent a Russian incursion is not.
> What we are looking at here (you can tell your children that you heard it here first) is a strategic move to essentially take Canada and all of the NA continent, and eventually all of the Americas. Yes, Canada, you are indeed in danger as well as Mexico. I don't see how it could be any other way in the face of current developments; remember Trumps USMCA, i.e., a de facto North American Union?
No evidence. Unless you're arguing while NAFTA was around this was a way to create a "United America".
> That also doe not take into account the Wizard of the USA wanting to take over all of South America for positive control eventually
No evidence. Most think-tanks have recognized that maintaining positive control of south america would be disastrous. If anything, Maduro and his friends were probably happy the US decided to black bag him. It is well known that whoever was going to attempt control over Venezuela in particular was going to be responsible for spending the money to rebuild it.
> These are real tabletop calculations and how things are seen at the top and discussed amidst cocktails
>> Yes, Canada, you are indeed in danger as well as Mexico.
> No evidence. Unless you're arguing while NAFTA was around this was a way to create a "United America".
Trump recently posted an image on Truth Social of a White House meeting in which a map is displayed, of north america with the US flag superimposed on Canada, Greenland, and Venezuela. [1] He has repeatedly suggested that Canada is the 51st American state. [2]
1. Entering a country without proper documentation is a crime. Therefore all "undocumented immigration" is by definition criminal.
2. Removing criminals is paramount to a safe society and a justice system that is respected.
3. "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork. These legal immigrants have stringent reporting requirements, need to be careful about even minor crimes (excessive speeding tickets even!) etc. How is your proposal remotely fair to them?
I don't understand why this is a controversial opinion at all. I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out. A country without border control is NOT a country.
> "Documenting them and letting them live" undermines legal immigrants who likely worked very hard to integrate culturally, establish themselves, and do the proper LEGAL paperwork.
It's a shame those people had to work so hard to be treated like their neighbors. That's not a reason to deny others that treatment though.
> I have yet to meet a legal immigrant that isn't okay with booting anyone that isn't legal out.
Yeah they tend to skew pretty reactionary. That tends to sort itself out after a generation or two.
> A country without border control is NOT a country.
I didn't say we shouldn't have border security. In what universe is a goon squad going door to door checking for undesirables "border control"?
reply