Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
YouTube and Reddit roll out new restrictions including channel and sub bans
448 points by IronWolve on Mar 21, 2018 | hide | past | web | favorite | 714 comments
Today Youtube has started to roll out bans on gun sales, accessories and howto channels. Reddit followed with multiple bans on content including sales of multiple products.

Youtube policy update.

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.

This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.

Reddit policy update.

https://np.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/863xcj/new_addition_to_sitewide_rules_regarding_the_use/

We want to let you know that we have made a new addition to our content policy forbidding transactions for certain goods and services. As of today, users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services, including:

  * Firearms, ammunition, or explosives;
  * Drugs, including alcohol and tobacco, or any controlled   substances 
  * Paid services involving physical sexual contact;
  * Stolen goods;
  * Personal information;
  * Falsified official documents or currency



This is very dismaying to see

I have used Youtube in the past for seeing how to install gun accessories, put guns together, how to fix malfunctions, etc. Watching those videos has made me a more knowledgeable, and hence more responsible gun owner. This is an especially large blow for people who are part of niche communities, like reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles. A lot of historical content will be lost.

The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch)

I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual. /r/gundeals was a fantastic community and I don't know if anything comparable exists elsewhere online. There were lots of links posted by regular users, but when dealers posted themselves they really made an effort to engage with buyers. Crappy vendors/products were usually called out in the comments. Other than optics, I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.


We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this".

I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.


I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it.

To me there are two models:

- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.


What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values.

This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).


Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.


> Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.


Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.


I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.


The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising.

Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.


That was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.


What? When no advertisers Google is footing the bill. So Google having Alex Jones on YT means Google is paying the bills.

On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel.

Data does not support your post.

Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.


Or just offer 2 tranches of advertising. A higher rate for those that only want to be next to “vetted” content.

Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.


I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.


Or the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.


You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.


If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.


It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK.

The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages.

You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.


> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals.

This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.

At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.


You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.


>I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech.

That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?


I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :)

Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.

These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.


The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban.

This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts.

Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.


My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?


voat has users?


Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co


Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co


These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content).

It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.


The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.


The media companies may have killed Napster, but that had no long term effect on piracy.

1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor.

It plays out the same way every time.


It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.


The advertisers are the consumers, the users are the product.


The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?


> The web still exists very much as it was.

As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong.

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.


"Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them."

Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the most popular one in town.

(But if it's made "the official town news source" and local government makes certain posting certain things illegal, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Tangentially, there's a 4th option you don't mention for messages one disagrees with - censuring them. (As in "actively and visibly disapproving" - not "censoring"!) For some types of message, the most appropriate response is a firm, unmistakable "That isn't welcome here" / "That's a terrible thing to say" followed by no discussion whatsoever. (Eg: when arguing lends a platform / legitimacy, but ignoring implies acquiescence.)


Your fourth option is perfectly acceptable to me: exercising free speech right to say that original post is a terrible thing to say. However, we should not enforce the "no discussion whatsoever": if either the original speaker or another person wants to argue that it was not in fact a terrible thing to say, let them.


Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.

No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing something with that speech, you're speaking wrong.

I know you mention lawmakers are "pressuring" them to make this change, and if that's true, then yes, this would encroach on our freedom of speech. However, I'm having a hard time finding anything that backs up that claim, and "pressuring" is still very different from a government outright telling YT what may or may not be on the platform.


The US Supreme Court has a different opinion.

They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1]

> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....


As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years.

This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.


It’s easier to argue that YouTube, Twitter, etc. are public forums. So it seems to me that the argument would be even stronger.


Probably not. There's a reason why the decision was so narrow - they explicitly didn't want to set a widely applicable precedent.


Read the appeals cases. They curtailed spaces like Costco parking lots and strip malls without plazas or atriums, which are different than "common areas". Free speech in common areas was reaffirmed in 2012.

YouTube is clearly a common area.


> YouTube is clearly a common area.

YouTube isn't even an area, much less a common area. (Not to mention that the “common area” thing is not a federal Constitutional requirement but a judicial application of the positive rights in the California Constitution; it is not a First Amendment right.)

It's a publication in which user submissions that Google accepts will be published, possibly accompanied by ads from which revenue is shared with the submitter.


This is a weak argument, nitpicking semantics. Virtual spaces are protected, too. [1] Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment.

Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

> Our mission is to give everyone a voice and show them the world.

> We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities.

> We believe everyone should have a chance to be discovered, build a business and succeed on their own terms, and that people—not gatekeepers—decide what’s popular.

[1] First Amendment Architecture, Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2012, No. 1, 2012, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1791125


> Telephone systems and television cable systems are not technically "areas" either, yet have protections under the first amendment.

Users of telephone systems have free speech protections against the operator of those systems not because of the first amendment (and especially not because of applications of that to physical common areas against private property owners, which applications don't actually exist—the First Amendment has specifically and repeatedly been held not to apply even in that case against the property owner), but because of common carrier regulations.

> Furthermore, you contradict YouTube's own mission statement:

YouTube's PR has very little impact on how constitutional law applies to it.


You keep editing your comments, so not sure what I'm responding to anymore. Anyway, I think it's disingenuous to argue that YouTube is not a common space, given that's how they describe themselves and how any reasonable person would describe their platform. Then to argue that virtual spaces are not protected by the first amendment contradicts the principles of free speech, and recent case law.


> Then to argue that virtual spaces are not protected by the first amendment contradicts the principles of free speech, and recent case law.

Since the citation upthread notes that even physical privately-owned common spaces are not protected by the first amendment against regulation by the owner of the space [0], though the first amendment rights of the owner also do not prevent state constitutions (California's in particular) from creating free speech obligations which do bind certain private owners of an extremely narrow class of public spaces, I think it is impossible to argue that virtual spaces are somehow protected under the first amendment by analogy to private common spaces, since the latter aren't actually protected.

[0] there is, IIRC, a different line of cases applying narrowly to government's or individual government official's use of privately owned physical spaces as a quasi-official two-way channel which does create some first amendment protection in that narrow context, and these principles have been extended to online fora, but that's not germane here.


> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment

No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)


This is a tired argument. Pretty much everyone knows the legal definition of free speech, pointing it out isn't doing anyone a service on HN.

Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar.

While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society.

Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.


You are describing the First Amendment, not the concept of free speech.


You missed my point. I'm saying companies like YouTube and Reddit wanted to be those kinds of neutral platforms. They just got beaten down and that's kind of sad.


> Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?

You can believe that a private company has the right to do something but also be opposed to them exercising that right.

There's a difference between free speech as a legal principle and free speech as a moral principle. I personally support both, so while I acknowledge that YouTube has a legal right to restrict speech, I still disagree with their use of that right in this case.


That seems like a missaligned view. The internet from the 90s and turn of the century is still around; hell the tools for creating federated communities and reaching niche groups are stronger than ever. The likes of Reddit, Youtube at least on the scale to which they pivoted to companies looking to make cash, were never really part of that set.

I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules.

Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.


You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.


I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints?

What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?


If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.


>on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions

Where did I argue that?

Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.


Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.


This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from Youtube effectively means removing it from the internet for a large chunk of the population.

If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.


> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

> I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore.

I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.


The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests.

This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.)

The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice".

Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.


The first amendment does apply - just, it applies the other way around. The primary function of media sites is to broadcast their users' messages, and in doing so they're exercising their own freedom of speech. To force them to broadcast certain content would be to compel certain speech from them, which would violate their freedom of speech.

(do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)


>On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

I suppose you can say that but I don't think it's a useful definition. Censorship is a strong word, if we overuse it it's going to lose its meaning. Censorship generally has the intent of removing something from society at large because the elites deem it dangerous. Youtube isn't calling for the removal of gun content from the internet, they're just policing their platform. I mean, if what they're doing is censorship then what isn't? HN will ban/flag/delete many off-topic/controversial posts on sight, is that censorship? If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

I'm not saying that Youtube couldn't or shouldn't be criticized for their move, I was specifically replying to the parent's claim that there was a change of mentality on the internet at large. Moderation or "censorship" as you like to call it has always existed everywhere, online and off. The real problem here is that Youtube wields a disproportionate amount of power by virtue of being quasi-monopolistic.

If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono to suddenly start fighting for your ideals against what they feel is their own economic interest I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Especially if said platform has no serious competitors and knows a huge amount of its users is effectively "captive" audience.


> If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

Yes. Censorship is a neutral term.

> If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono...

I expect people to let each other say their piece. Content owners and content hosts have a partnership, and the balance of power definitely tips toward Reddit and YouTube at the moment.

We can argue that "someone can go start up a more permissive platform", but if we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, the next hosts won't have a clear understanding of what they should be doing differently. If we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, regulators trying to get YouTube and Reddit out of the moderation business will likely defer to whichever lobbyists happen to be in the room.


The only way to be sharp and clear about how Youtube and Reddit should behave is either boycotting them or having the regulators strongarm them into changing their practices. You exclude the 2nd option, that leaves us with the boycotting. We'll see how it'll turn out but I doubt the general reddit and youtube audience is mature and principled enough to drop these websites because of their idealistic goals. As long as they don't ban cat videos and videogame streaming I'm sure they'll do fine.

I expect that, as always in these situations, a minority of users will migrate to alternative websites (voat, alternative video streaming websites etc...) many of them will end up coming back to Youtube/Reddit because that's where all the content is and the network effect is strong. Repeat in one year when Reddit decides to issue a new wave of subreddit bans. I genuinely don't know how we can get out of this situation.


So can we take your argument to its logical conclusion, that you are against all content moderation on any site?

Or where exactly is the line?

This is not censorship.


That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice.

It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money.

If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org.

It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model...

People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.


Have you ever noticed that no one ever brings up a company being private until they do something that outrages the public?


> ...that's their choice...

Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too.

I said:

1. It is by definition censorship.

2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong.

I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.


Indeed. Try to get onto Fox News every day and push a pro-choice message and see how long it is before your name appears in a database somewhere with a note saying “do not let on air”. ALL media firms have a slant, bias, &c. YouTube and Reddit, by virtue of their size, _have_ to go for “acceptable to a very wide audience”.

This isn’t censorship, it’s commercial positioning. You don’t have to like it, and indeed you can pressure the firm to take a different line but centralisation is the real enemy here.

But Other Websites Are Available.


>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs

But that's also in the best interested of everyone.

Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to watch streams?

It's the natural order of things.. there's no way to have a LOT of different sites that also contain basically everything you want.


What if each subreddit was an independent forum? What if each youtube channel was a blog hosted on potentially a whole bunch of different hosts? If reddit is so much better than the alternatives what are you doing on HN instead of /r/programming or similar?

The only thing you'd lose is the unified user profile but we have the tools to have distributed identities (oauth and friends). Before the era of social networks having mililon of forums for niche topics was common. Now you just create a subreddit instead.

Want to talk about knitting? Search for "knitting discussion online". Here are a few results: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/knitting-and-crocheting https://crochettalk.com/ http://www.knittingparadise.com/active-topic-list

Each site does not contain "everything I want" but each fills a particular niche. The fact that you actually have to search for them to find them can actually be seen as a bonus, you don't have the sort of "cross-contamination" you can observe on reddit when a community is suddenly popular enough to propelled into the frontpage and you have an influx of people who overrun your community and destroy its "culture".

Should reddit disappear tomorrow I'm sure we'll do just fine. Youtube is more complex because video hosting is much more demanding in terms of resources.


On the contrary, centralization can actually reduce the amount of content, at least for certain types. For instance, nearly any automobile will have a dedicated forum, and often these forums will provide some of the most helpful information, simply because they concentrate people around a specific subject. Whereas asking a question in one of the general automotive subreddits will typically yield poorer quality answers or will simply be lost in the noise. Thankfully reddit somewhat solved this problem w/ subreddits, since it's pretty common knowledge that the default subs are complete garbage, but youtube hasn't really done much about this. Sure, if someone made a video for your exact probem it is nice, but for finding specific information youtube is pretty poor.


The latter is just getting worse.

YouTube is doing its best to demonetize content that doesn’t result in subscribing to an uploader. Ie: people posting numerous videos that are unrelated because they are so specific.


If content is centralized in this manner you should expect it to moderated and influenced from a central source.


>It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

This is doublespeak.

>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

"Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable."


You say that I doublespeak and I say that you cry "wolf". If you're willing to go full 1984 when Youtube updates its ToS where do you go from there?

Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform. That's a huge difference. It's "you can't say that here" versus "you can't say that period". If I invite you to my home and you start spewing nazi propaganda I'm going to kindly ask you to leave, is that censorship?

You can't force Youtube to host your content if they don't want to and they can't prevent you from posting your content on other websites if you want to. There's no censorship or free speech issue here, only the problem of a monopolistic centralized platform without serious competition. That's why net neutrality is important and that's why Making the Internet Decentralized Again is critical if you value freedom of speech and opinion.


I agree with you that the root problem bere is monopolistic centralized platforms without serious competition, but you misread the definition of censorship and went on to create your own definition -- this is how doublespeak happens.

It's the suppression or prohibition. Nowhere is the definition constrained by location. There has never been a case of censorship that was enforced on every corner of the globe -- only where one's scope of influence has the power to do so.


The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. In English the word has the implication of being action taken by someone who actually has the power to make moral decisions on behalf of society, such as a government. Maybe you think the word has a different meaning, or maybe you think Youtube has this power, but you should try to disagree without accusing people of being part of a conspiracy to change the meanings of words.


>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things.

Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like:

>Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge

http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c...

>Maybe you think the word has a different meaning

It was simias who thinks the word has a different meaning, which is why I cited the dictionary. Do you think the dictionary is wrong?


"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of the censors' job. But the meaning shifted in the process. The Roman censors didn't "censor" anything in the modern sense; rather, they judged people for violations of public morality.


The modern English sense of “censor”, IIRC, isn't directly derived from the as actions of the Roman official, but more from those of the Catholic ecclesiastical official of the same name (sometimes more fully “censor librorum”) who reviews books intended for publication and provides (or withholds) the nihil obstat certifying it free of anything harmful to good faith and morals, which is generally a prerequisite to the episcopal imprimatur allowing it to be published, a function which is very much in line with the modern English understanding of censorship.


I've seen many people lately try to claim that censor is solely a government-related word and censorship is only something that government officials are capable of. Every definition of the word I've seen does not say this.

Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?


>Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see the euphemization of technology in a forum full of and run by technologists.


"I have no sympathy towards gun use."

But you see you should because if the government in conjunction with private industry can ban the thing you don't like today, it can also ban the things you do like tomorrow.

You'll probably finally understand when the books start burning because that's right around the corner now.


[flagged]


I believe this is usually called the "Please think of the children" argument (or women in this case).

I imagine the person you are replying to is not a closet rape supporter, but they likely think that allowing every adult member of a population to arm themselves is not the ideal solution. I imagine you disagree with that view, but the way you have expressed yourself is the start of an emotional flame-war, not a discussion.


Arguments against guns are almost universally a think of the children argument though.


Not every argument about personal safety is a "think of the children" argument.

Guns are dangerous. Yes they can be used for self defense, but they are also dangerous on their own.

I believe that un-regulated guns are more dangerous (to everyone) than the danger of some subset of people being more vulnerable without them.

I'm not advocating for a ban, but heavy regulation about who can buy them, how, what kind of training they need, and verification of safe storage. Just like I'd expect my government to do with other highly dangerous things like explosives, some drugs, and more.


They are not dangerous "on their own" any more than an iron or a knife or an automobile or a bottle of tequila is dangerous on their on. All of those are dangerous in the hands of a bad person, an uneducated (about that object) person, or a mentally ill person. The object does not have inherent danger.


Yes and those things are (in my opinion) regulated proportionally to their "level of danger".

You can't anonymously own a car in the US, you can't (legally) buy one at a car convention then take it on the road without registering it. Larger knives have regulations and rules around who can buy them, and some are just illegal to own in many states. Tequila requires you to be over a certain age, and you can't buy it if you are visibly drunk.

These things are dangerous. Yes, they won't jump up and attack someone on their own, but even well educated sane good people have accidents with them, which is what I mean by these things being dangerous.

And just like with automobiles, I don't think banning them is the right move, but I do think requiring a "gun license" where you can prove that you know how to handle, store, and can show you have the skills to safely use a gun should be required, as well as registering and proving that you have a safe place to store them that is out of the reach of children, mentally ill adults, and theives.

Safe gun owners will need to do very little to get approved to continue owning guns, and many unsafe gun owners can be denied. Not to mention that increasing the "average" storage security would mean that less would be easily stolen reducing the number of unregistered guns available for purchase on a "black market".


One sticking point is gun owners seem completely unwilling to budge on any kind of gun registry -- which seems like a necessary starting point for any kind of accountability of ownership and an actual effective solution against straw purchases and illegal gun sales. Just putting this out here because I like how thoughtful your posts are and I am really stumped at finding a compromise -- ultimately I think there is no way to water down a gun registry (or even licensing) that the current gun lobby will accept, which is a disservice to safe gun owners.


That's what really sucks. For various reasons a gun registry will never really happen. It's too controversial due to America's past and founding.

I'm pretty sure that means we will either continue the path we are on now (which makes things "about" guns illegal, without making guns illegal or registering them), or we will leapfrog the registry and just outright ban most models or types or people from owning them.

Like you said many gun owners are letting perfect be the enemy of good here, and are unwilling to compromise on something that will allow them to keep guns for sport and self-defense in some situations. And that's going to lead to pressure building up to the point that their complains aren't going to matter, then they won't be listened to at all while the avalanche falls removing most or all gun rights.


It is usually encouraged on HN to argue with / respond to the points made by the person you in discussion with, not the vocal minority/majority out in the world who hold a different view.

Otherwise you get two people talking past each other. The fact that there are people who are fans of gun control AND express themselves immaturely with vapid politicised statements appealing to emotion doesn't excuse the almost trollish characteristic of the "do you think women should be defenseless against rapists" above.


That is a seriously BS example. If guns had an effect on reducing rape US would be much lower than Australia that has much tighter gun laws[1]. US has all the school shootings that come with gun ownership and none of the supposed benefits.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics


This is the first time I've ever heard someone suggest that easy access to guns makes rape more difficult.


I live in a country where it is quite unusual for someone to own a gun, but I can appreciate that YouTube how-tos are a great educational tool in the situation you describe. From YouTube's message though, it seemed that they were only cracking down on how-tos pertaining to specific things like magazine size or automatic fire. Would that pertain to the 100+ year old rifle and general gun maintenance/malfunctions?


I'm not too upset about them getting rid of videos on how to do things like full auto conversions [0](although I'm curious how they'll handle videos of bump firing that don't incorporate accessories like bump stocks). The language of the ban is vague enough that it could cover nearly all videos of firearms accessories.

Right now, manufacturers often put videos up on YouTube of how to install parts they sell. Like with Ikea furniture, I find these way more helpful than a paper manual. Same for videos about how to disassemble, clean, and reassemble guns (which often link to whatever cleaning products are used) [edit: BTW assembling something that already is a gun still falls under the ATF's definition of manufacturing a gun, so if Youtube uses the same definition these videos are banned even if they don't refer to specific products]

As for the 100 year gun-- let's take the M1 Garand (in WW2 movies, it's the one you hear go "ping". It's only ~85 years old, but bear with me). Over the last decade, the US government has sold off several hundred thousand of these rifles. As far as older guns go, they're fairly common. They shoot .30-06 ammunition, which can be found in most gun stores. However, 85 years ago metal was lower quality. If you use modern commercially available ammo in a Garand it will break [1]. There's a few options though. You can buy surplus ammo and hope that it was stored properly and that 40 years ago the quality control guy at the factory was having a good day[2]. Many people opt to recycle an initial batch of brass and manufacture their ammo. If done correctly this is safe, but there's a bit of a learning curve. Unfortunately the new policy bans videos that detail how to safely manufacture ammo.

[0] channels like ForgottenWeapons often describe how antique firearms work, which might run afoul of the new rules

[1] you can mitigate this with an accessory that reduces the pressure from the gasses. There's some good videos about it on youtube

[2] for more obscure weapons, I don't think this is an option


In principle, I think it would be reasonable if the ban essentially applied to conversions/repairs that normally would not legally be allowed to be done by people without a licence, since that should be the best proxy to social consensus on the limit of free speech.

However, this is presuming that the laws regarding that are reasonable and not too lax, which as I understand they aren't (yet).

In the same vein, I think YouTube should take down a lot of life-threatening "life-hack" videos. Wilfully misguiding the public into soldering wires together unsafely, and in all likelihood get yourself killed or start a fire when one plugs in the resulting mess should be illegal IMO, akin to some kind of manslaughter.


I largely disagree, but for a fairly nuanced reason. The work that it takes to get an FFL is mostly knowing what is and isn't legal, with a bit of proving that you have proper safety facilities to store what you keep on hand (proper powder magazine if you do large batch reloading, etc.) You can get one without knowing the first thing about actual physical modifications to guns. You can get one solely to carry inventory and sell it, with no services provided. Having resources for that person is incredibly useful! It's not like we're going to ban books on guns, or the blueprints that are part of 100+ year old public record. The prints for the Colt Model 1911A1 are up on the library of congress because it was designed for the military circa WWI. I'd prefer proper safety disclaimers on videos, or in books, or wherever. Preferably with a reasonably complete guide to shop safety and precautionary measures on that sort of thing, but I don't want it all banned per se.


Ahoy from across the sea!

I grew up in Port Lincoln, then moved to Adelaide, and now Launceston. Also, I have family in Queensland.

In my experience it isn’t unusual at all for someone to own a gun, or guns, in Australia.

My father had guns, my sisters family have multiple guns for pig hunting. Half the guys I work with have a veritable smorgasbord of firearms, I’m talking 10+ firearms, for hunting and just general enthusiasm. People I’ve worked with in IT in Adelaide own handguns for target shooting.

I guess it depends who you hang out with. Even some of the “hippies” I’ve known along the way own guns for pest control and dealing with injured livestock.

I guess the average city dweller in Australia probably doesn’t own firearms, but if you spend enough time in the towns and smaller cities... plenty of guns.

We do seem to mange not to shoot each other up very often. Im more worries about being punched in the back of the head.


The average city dweller in the US doesn’t own a gun either. There are plenty of guns around, but often it feels more like a boogeyman than a real threat.


Is this statistically true? It's not even slightly true in my experience, but I've lived in NY, Philly, and Texas...


Every major city in Florida and North Carolina checking in here. The majority of professionals that I have befriended over the years have gun collections and more than a few wear concealed ankle guns everyday, even in the office. These are heavily conservative finance folks though so maybe it’s a gun demographic. Surely there are stats on ownership we can see.


I made the statement based on the facts that while there are roughly 200 million guns in the US, most gun owners have multiple guns (i.e., most people don’t own guns), and guns are far more popular in rural areas. When we lived in New Jersey, the leases specifically prohibited us from having guns in the house or apartment.

According to https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-hou... , 42% of households have guns, so while it’s close, the median household does not have a gun. And, again, firearms are far more common in rural areas than in urban areas, so I believe the statement is true.


I'm extremely skeptical of any stats around firearm counts, and ownership stats. Firearms aren't registered, which means the only data we have are the amount of background checks for buying them from a dealer (which goes through a department at the FBI called NICS). The issue is:

+ Those background checks are used for lots of things other than firearm purchases

+ Firearms can be transferred legally in some cases without background checks

+ Plenty of firearms existed before the background check system and are still owned and functioning

+ Many firearms are purchased, left to rust or otherwise break, and never repaired.

+ Firearms are occasionally turned in to the police or surrendered (usually when a family member passes and their relatives don't know what to do with the firearms).

The other source of information is directly asking people, but that runs into a bunch of problems too, mostly that people will lie.

I also don't think there's any kind of remotely common pattern that lets us correct this bad data from self reporting. Liberal gun owners are likely to lie about owning a firearm since they don't want their family to know, and conservative firearm owners are less likely to trust the person they're reporting to. Many firearm owners are taught to never ever talk about being a firearm owner to avoid being a target for burglary.

My point is, we simply don't know at all. Any gross figure is extremely suspect.


Yes, I remember a friend showing me some rifles he had recently inherited, followed by the statement that as far as he knew they had never been registered and no matter how the law changed, they wouldn’t be registered while he owned them.

Still, bad numbers are all we’ve got. I’m sure most Americans have seen guns, or know gun owners, but I’m also sure most Americans — especially most urban Americans — don’t actually own guns themselves. If they did, people wouldn’t routinely confuse “semiautomatic” and “machine gun” or “submachine gun.”


You lived in Texas and didn’t notice the sheer amount of firepower people have there? I don’t think I believe you.


I currently live in Texas and the amount of firepower that any one person owns is not readily apparent. Texas is not the wild west that many think is with everyone packing heat and daily shootouts at the corner. Open carry is now legal here and I've yet to see the first person doing so.


Funnily enough, I was born in Port Lincoln. Been in Adelaide since.

My father owned a rifle for a time when I was young, but sold it probably 30 years ago. One member of my wife's family has what would be considered a hobby farm and recently bought a rifle for shooting pests. Outside of that, I'm not aware of another gun owner amongst friends and acquaintances.


I own an AR15, but I never shoot it. Truth be told, I didn't buy it and normally I wouldn't be interested in owning it. The only reason I keep it is because it's one of a very few things I built with my father, from scratch, with a bunch of parts. But while building it I gained an appreciation for the engineering behind how it functions, and the underlying mechanism behind how it works. I think that knowledge is still valuable, even if the topic isn't favorable.


While I'm a supporter of the right to have guns there is one thing I like to recommend to everyone: store it safely. If you already do this, great. If not, I'd recommend taking at least some small precautions:

It can be as little as just taking away a important part and store it in a good locker somewhere else in your house or even just hide it or you can do like me and get a weapons safe approved by the insurance industry and bolt it to the floor. (I got mine for somewhere around USD300 and it is big enough to also contain hard drives, medications, important papers etc.)

By being careful with storage and also introducing others to safe gun culture we might make a difference by preventing accidents, preventing more stolen guns on the black market etc.

Edit: It seems I'm annoying some people. Anybody see what I did wrong? Honestly more interested in the explanation than in the stupid votes:-/

Edit2: Tried to make my post less annoying. Thanks 1337biz


It comes across patronizing when you tell others what to do without having the slightes clue about their situation. His gun might not be working, he might even have no bullets at all. Still you go on about how he should by some weapons approved locker even so you have no idea where he is storing it right now. Just don't make so many assumptions about other people.


> It comes across patronizing when you tell others what to do without having the slightes clue about their situation.

Sorry for that. Will take steps to fix.

> His gun might not be working,

Based on the description it seems to be very much in working order.

> he might even have no bullets at all.

Still makes it a valuable target for criminals as ammunition might be even easier to get hold of.

> Just don't make so many assumptions about other people.

Thanks again. I'll try to fix now.

I also saw someone downvoted you and will do my part to fix that.


Don't think about the downvotes that much. They are sometimes just about timing. Around this time Europe is getting up so your post will be flooded with positive upvotes in no time.


I am not super familiar with gun channels, but I'm going to assume that they work same way as many other hobbies. Companies contact the Youtubers to showcase their new products, which are essentially adverts, which means there are always "affiliate links in the description box" to buy the stuff.

At least how I read the announcement this kind of linking will be forbidden which means that the companies making the products have no feedback mechanism on how successful the advertising is, which in turn can kill channels


It depends. Certain channels are like that, but other smaller instructional channels will also be swept up.

> Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above.

That's going to impact a lot of channels that focus on firearms/military history as well as general how-to sorts of channels. YouTube has been a great resource in the past if you're wondering "how do I properly install these trigger pins in my rifle?" or "how do I safely load this muzzle-loader in a deer stand?"


https://youtu.be/iVnihHXzuwI

Here's a video that will definitely fall under new regulations: you be the judge.


What's more, /r/gundeals was literally just a link aggregation sub. Nobody sold anything there, I don't even think many links were posted by folks with an affiliation to the linked site.

So a link aggregation site (Reddit) bans a link aggregation forum (/r/gundeals) because it doesn't like the content of the links being aggregated.


I've deleted both my YouTube and reddit accounts. I've been trying to de-Google my life, this will probably accelerate that. Just need a proper mobile Linux device and I can finally dump Android.


Going lineage OS with F-Droid for your APP needs has been quite the positive experience for me. Everything has a nice FLOSS alternative, that is sometimes better than the Google-App equivalent and the newly revamped F-Droid works great.

If you still need something from the playstore there is the "yalp-store" app, which grabs apk with a fake account from google.


Lineage is a good alternative, there's also Sailfish as a fuller Linux system. These have similar advantages and disadvantages, the major issues are the drivers are not great in particular for cameras, and the reliance of some apps on Play Services (which of course has been carefully calculated by Google for that purpose).


I hate the new F-Droid interface, honestly, and had to delete it and download an older version. Then again, I also use KISS Launcher, and I despise "tile" displays of any kind. Just give me text.


Why not an iPhone? At least Apple seems to care about privacy, and they aren't an ad-tech company like Google or FB.


Because a rooted Android device with a Google-free AOSP distribution is (mostly - radio firmware being the exception) 'my phone' while an 'iPhone' is not. On the Android I get to decide what software gets installed, what services to run and which to shun, which programs to allow network access with fine-grained control, both in- and outgoing traffic, which versions of the software to run, etcetera. With the iPhone the choice is rather limited and the controls are mostly in the hands of Apple. While some seem to consider Apple to be a benevolent dictator I'd rather avoid dictators altogether, apart from my doubts about their benevolence.


A rooted android device is still counted in their stats on phones running android. An iPhone is showing that you switched to their competition.


I don't care about stats, I care about my freedom. As to whether I'd be counted among the droids or the fruits is of no importance.


No removable battery, no headphone jack, no SD card expansion, increased difficulty installing apps not in the official store..

Apples ecosystem is a gilded ghetto


Security on most mobile devices other than those by Apple is a joke. I understand wanting features that aren’t there, but for me these things are very small and easy to work around relative to the benefits iOS provides: namely that the software is generally advanced and high quality.


So is security on Apple devices, e.g. just recent https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2018/3/21/17147572/a...

Remembering that macOS bug with empty password root access, I'd say that Apple security QC had degraded a lot.


True, those bugs are worrying. But I still feel iOS and macOS are the most secure choice because:

1. This incredibly obscure bug (in the sense that I'm surprised someone was able to find this) was found relatively quickly

2. After it was found a fix was developed and tested quickly

3. Once that fix passed QA my devices received a software update over the air and the problem was solved. One of the big problem with other mobile OSs is that the OS updates are often going through the carrier or device manufacturer and it takes time or you don't get it at all.

I don't expect a device that's perfectly secure. I'm sure there are hundreds if not thousands of undiscovered vulnerabilities on the device I'm using to type this to you right now. But that's not the whole picture on security.


There are blunders - but the difference is that there is a lot of scrutiny on iOS and macOS compared to other more niche options. But I guess security through obscurity is not too bad. Apple did benefit from it for many years.


Indeed they have. Apple also agreed there is a problem, and they are apparently trying to fix it. Better answer to the problem than I expected, honestly.


Aside from android being easier to root, don’t the top-tier android phones have all of the other problems too?

Genuine question.


Is there any reason you need exactly these "top tier" devices? For under $200 there is well-built Xiaomi devices with 3-4GB RAM, powerful CPU and everything except for removable battery.

Of course you should never use firmware from Chinese company, but it's true for 98% of other Android devices too and LineageOS + microG work great on these phones.


Because mobile phones are complex beasts hardware- and software-wise, and going top tier makes it much more likely you'll have a fast device for years, that works with whatever random idiosyncratic software and hardware you throw at it.

Like, e.g., last year my SO was changing phones, and we didn't have much budget left, so we went with then-recommended Huawei P8 Lite. Almost good enough, except it seems to have its Bluetooth stack broken in a very specific way that renders her Pebble almost useless. Oh, and every other day, it randomly drains battery very fast. It's those kinds of things you generally don't have to deal with when you go with higher-end devices.


Might be I was just lucky with few devices I owned over last 5 years, but I only got problems with them after putting them in some insane conditions like living in Asia with constant overheating, sand and sea all around. Though I only ever used Cyanogenmod / LineageOS and specifically was looking for older, but tested devices that work well with custom firmware.

Also when it's $160 device I don't need to worry about randomly died battery because I can always get new phone.


No, not really. I'm personally an iPhone user, but my wife has a really nice Android phone. I like top tier phones even though they're more expensive. That said, I didn't want to spend so much (or wait) for an iPhone X, so I updated my iPhone 6 to an iPhone 8.


Top-tier Samsungs have it all, LG as well, in "upper midrange" Oneplus and Huawei have it.


> no headphone jack

I thought that would be a big deal when I purchased my iPhone 8, but using the AirPods, I've never once felt the urge to plug in wired headphones. Wireless headphones really are better.


Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.


I still prefer that though.

It seems quite clear to me. No-one cares about users, they care about customers. Apple care about their customers. Google care about their customers. Facebook care about their customers.

I am an Apple customer. I am a Google user. I am a Facebook user. See the difference? So do they.


I don't think there's anything wrong with preferring that.

I just don't like that they try to give the feeling of being "pro-privacy", when their actions speak otherwise. I find it very deceptive.


Could you explain what you mean? I’m genuinely curious if Apple has taken an anti-privacy stance.

From what I can tell, they’re the best tech giant for user privacy. They’ve fought the FBI in court to not put in a government backdoor to unlocking user’s devices. Lawyers ain’t cheap.


We don't know what Apple does with their data. They might print it out and make paper airplanes with it. They might use it to test their backups. And yes, they even might sell it. Or, they may do nothing with it at all. We just don't know.

I'm not accusing them of misusing our data, but I do know that they have, in the past, chosen to do something that looks like they are disregarding their user's privacy in order to make a buck (https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-moving-icloud-encryption-key...).

And they can set up their systems in a way that ensures they aren't violating our privacy or trust, but they choose not to do that. That to me, is very suspicious.

I do agree that they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy, but that is a super low bar. Just because they are "the best", doesn't mean they are good at it.


Apple devices can be used without iCloud.


Can it work without any connections to apple? It's not just iCloud.


If you want software updates, you can get those through your computer rather than connecting to Apple directly. I'm not sure what would be involved in opting out of Apple's iMessage system. Edit to add: looks like that's an option as well in the settings. (https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6430569)

Are you asking rhetorically? For someone who repeatedly, adamantly, and assuredly posts about Apple and security, I'd be surprised if you don't already know the answer to your question.


I mean most of the apps, like Maps, Email, GPS, etc.

And I don't know the answer to that, because I haven't used an Apple product since the original iPhone. If I'm misunderstanding how they work, then, please, inform me as to what I'm missing. I'm very willing to admit I was mistaken if they don't work the way I think they do.

I try to keep up with the basics of how they work, I have my friends show me things, etc. But I in no way want to paint myself as an Apple expert.


Then perhaps dial back the anti-Apple rhetoric, or at least post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do. You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections. It’s tedious and boring to see the same arguments again and again.

Mail is a mail client: if you use an Apple domain, you’ll use their servers. If not, then not. And you don’t need to use the built-in mail client. If you use Apple Maps, yeah, you’re using their service. You can use Google Maps or Waze or other alternatives if you choose. GPS is a radio: it doesn’t involve any service provider other than the satellites it receives information from, same as any other GPS radio.


> Then perhaps dial back the anti-Apple rhetoric, or at least post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do.

I don't have to be a mechanic to know when a car is broken, just like I don't have to know how all of Apple's software works to know that they don't actually value privacy. Please, prove me wrong. I'd love it if Apple actually put their money where their mouth is. Until then, I know enough about their stack to know that they don't build it in a way that ensures privacy.

> You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections.

And? I can anticipate objections as to any argument. That doesn't change the validity of either side. I don't think I get what you mean by this.

> It’s tedious and boring to see the same arguments again and again.

Once those arguments become invalid, I'll stop. If I'm saying something that isn't true, please point it out. Until then, I'll will proudly correct the lie that "Apple cares about privacy". I'm sorry that the truth is tedious to you, but there's not much that I can do about that.

> Mail is a mail client: if you use an Apple domain, you’ll use their servers. If not, then not. And you don’t need to use the built-in mail client. If you use Apple Maps, yeah, you’re using their service. You can use Google Maps or Waze or other alternatives if you choose. GPS is a radio: it doesn’t involve any service provider other than the satellites it receives information from, same as any other GPS radio.

But they could build their systems so that I don't have to go through Apple to use their app, just in the same way that email works. They choose not to. My point is that, until they design their systems so that I can use all of the standard functionality without going through their servers, they aren't taking privacy seriously.


When asking you to "post something more substantial and thoughtful when you do. You’ve seen enough responses from people to anticipate objections.", I'm asking you to do more than repeat "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line." to start out. From what I gather, your complaints with respect to Apple and privacy center around the source code not being open and you'd like them to provide more choice. Those are reasonable and understandable positions. I'm not trying to build a straw man here, so please correct me if I'm misreading you. When you start a conversation with only "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line", that's indistinguishable from trolling, when you can easily sum up your issues there as well and encourage a substantive conversation.

From that, you make an absolute claim that "Apple cares about privacy" is a lie. I think a more accurate description is "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to." The latter is a perfectly valid, understandable opinion. The former is not. Apple has sunk substantial resources into privacy; you may feel that the Secure Enclave isn't really, because it's not open, but it's wrong to deny that they've put money into developing it. That's an example of putting their money where their mouth is. Likewise refusing to assist the FBI in unlocking their phones. That cost them money (if only in legal fees), and raised the ire of some in law enforcement and the government.

You can point to decisions Apple has made to operate in China, and reasonable people can disagree about their decision there. It's fair to also hold other companies to the same criteria when doing so. It'd also be helpful to point to examples of what you think are good examples of privacy.

You also mention "I do agree that they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy, but that is a super low bar. Just because they are "the best", doesn't mean they are good at it." Can things be better? Sure. If you care about privacy and "agree they seem like the best tech giant for user privacy", do you use Apple devices? Not since the first iPhone, you say. Then, why not? Are you working to improve security on other platforms? It's understandable if you're not: security is tough, and I don't necessarily expect everyone to contribute to open source. Are you evangelizing for those platforms? That sounds like something you could be doing, along with making reasonable arguments about issues you see with Apple.

Similarly "they could build their systems so that I don't have to go through Apple to use their app". Are you referring to the App Store? Getting software updates through Apple? As for other software, as far as I know, there are alternatives you can use. If you've got specific examples, please do provide them. Again, people can reasonably disagree about these. For a counterpoint, by controlling the marketplace, Apple has more control over quality and security, as well as the responsibility when something goes wrong. One can reasonably argue that they prefer this over letting anyone provide apps because they're concerned about malware being loaded, that other providers won't be paying as close attention. You may reasonably disagree that that's the best way to handle it.

On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data: they make money through hardware. The way they've had a hard time providing a good ad platform is an example of this: if they were really interested in selling Apple customers to advertisers, they would have figured this out. A customer benefit of this is that Apple can take privacy seriously: they don't have a motivation to make user data accessible. The other big player here, Google, is in the business of advertising. That's very much not to my liking, but I don't go around commenting only "Google doesn't care about privacy": I know the discussion is more nuanced that that, and to do otherwise is just encouraging flamewar.

All of this comes down to "Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to". Perfectly reasonable. The absolute "Apple doesn't care about privacy", not so much.


I don't feel like anticipating arguments is very helpful, as much as it just adds noise. I could anticipate that someone will argue that because the sun is round, it proves that Apple can do no wrong, yet I don't bring that up, because until someone does, it seems to me to be a waste of time. In short, I am trying to be succinct rather than waste everyone's time arguing over something that nobody wants to argue about.

I don't view "Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line" to be trolling, though I do admit I could phrase it better. Possibly "We don't know how much Apple cares about privacy, but they have taken a lot of actions that suspiciously point to them not caring about it more than they care about their bottom line. They also refuse to take actions that would prove to us that they do take privacy seriously.".

In trying to be succinct, it seems that I lost a lot of the important nuance, which I agree is important.

I would like to point to tech-giants that are pushing good security/privacy, but unfortunately, I don't know of any. I think the best I can point to might be Librem, but they don't have a functioning phone AFAIK.

> For a counterpoint, by controlling the marketplace, Apple has more control over quality and security, as well as the responsibility when something goes wrong. One can reasonably argue that they prefer this over letting anyone provide apps because they're concerned about malware being loaded, that other providers won't be paying as close attention.

I get this concern, but until they let go of that control, they are not enforcing reasonable privacy. It's a trade-off, and it's totally Apple's decision to make, but that means that they aren't doing "privacy right" if they choose the option that disregards privacy. Maybe that's better for their users, maybe not, but they have chosen the side that disregards privacy either way.

> On the other side, Apple doesn't have an business model where they make money from user data

That you know of. Unless you know something that I don't, you don't have access to see where all of their money is coming from. I agree it provides them a better incentive, but incentives don't mean anything.

I don't like comparing Apple to Google, because I find it irrelevant what Apple does. Google is an entirely different business. I dislike Google, and I believe that in many ways they are worse than Apple, but that's irrelevant to the discussion.

"Apple doesn't care about privacy as much as I want them to" doesn't accurately represent what my issue is. My issue is that the statement "At least Apple seems to care about privacy" is true, but the statement "Apple cares about privacy" is not true based on the decisions they make. They may care about it but their actions speak otherwise, and it doesn't matter what groups say, it matters what they do. Just because they "seem" to care about privacy doesn't mean that they do, and I don't want unaware users to support a company that, based on their actions, is likely lying to them.


What would satisfy you that Apple takes privacy seriously?

- Open source the enclave?

- Open source the OS (be it macOS, iOS)?

- Allow you to install your own OS and software?

- Refuse to do business in China?

- Open all of their books so you can view the revenue stream?

If this is wrong or incomplete or to expansive, please do clarify, but also please be specific. I want to understand in detail what your reservations are.


All of the above would be great, obviously, but for me to take Apple seriously, I'd say that they'd need to:

Open source pretty much anything that they can, allowing me to compile and install my own os and software. And this would have to be without having to contact apple's servers in any way.

There might be more that I can't remember ATM, but I think that's the main gist of it.

By not allowing me to see how the code works, I can't know what they are doing with my data. And by designing a system where I could set up as much of the stack as possible without having to contact any central source, would ensure that everyone could use it without fear of that data being mis-handled.


What phone and OS do you currently run? How does it meet all of these criteria?


I use cyanogenmod. But I never said I had a phone that meets all of this criteria.


That's not the intent of my question. I'm asking "how" in the sense of explain (as opposed to just a "yes" or "no" answer). I'm asking you to apply those same criteria to the system you're using with the same critical eye and see how it stacks up. I don't know you system and I want to learn more about it.


Oh, my apologies then for assuming the intent of your question.

My current phone is somewhat open-source (cyanogenmod), though I think Google's version of "open-source, but you totally need to rely on our stuff to get basic functionality" is fairly bullshit.

I can compile my own OS and additional software

I can put tools on my phone that severely limit it's contact with Google's servers, although I suspect that there is an underlying system that ignores those tools.

As for my computers, I use Linux. I typically run them on Thinkpads, but I've tried a few other systems as well. My next computer will be a Purism or System76 laptop.

All in all, I'm not happy with any phone that I've seen. I can't think of any that I believe has taken legitimate action to show that they care about my privacy.

As far as computer OS's, I think Linux has strongly taken action to ensure my privacy.


Thanks for elaborating. Where do you get your software? Do you compile it all yourself? Have you audited the code? Which servers do you connect to using your devices? Which services do you use? Do you run the tools you mention that limit network access to specific servers?


I typically download it from the official website or a mirror. Sometimes I compile it, sometimes I don't. I typically only try to connect to my own servers, but I obviously connect to the open web in some circumstances. I sometimes do audit the code, but not always. I run a bunch of my own services, including a mail-server and some social-media stuff. The tools that I use to limit connections typically just turn off access to the internet as a whole, rather than to specific servers, though some of my firewall rules only allow certain things to hit certain servers.

You can sideload .IPAs. It's a bit inconvienient but it's better than nothing.

If you're jailbroken, there's always Cydia, which is a Linux-like package manager.


You can even deploy your own code, or others directly through Xcode...


Can I compile my own iOS or MacOS? Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors to me.


If you want to block all connections to Apple, configure an always-on VPN to intercept all network traffic, then use a firewall to stop all Apple connections.

If you want to minimize connections to Apple, don't use Apple apps or services. Wire replaces iMessage. 2doapp replaces Notes.


And if Apple wanted to prove that they actually care about privacy, they would design their apps in a way that I wouldn't have to connect to their servers in any way. This is true even when talking about their apps and services.


Can you recommend a vendor who meets these criteria?


There are a ton of them. Look at any open-source email/dav/webserver/etc projects.

As an example: Dovecot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dovecot_(software)) doesn't require me to connect to their servers for anything. They have no idea what I'm doing with my data, and they've designed their software so that they can't violate my privacy.


FOSS projects are not "vendors". Nobody sells a smartphone that meets the criteria described.


Why not? I can buy FOSS products, so I don't see how that wouldn't apply. Would this work for you then?

https://www.pfsense.org/

I also don't see why it matters whether or not nobody else sells a smartphone like that. Just because everyone else is doing shady shit with their products doesn't mean Apple gets a free pass.


You can buy Android phones like the Fairphone where removing the Google services is officially supported, that comes pretty close.


Yes, just like you can use a car without gas.


Not true. Even with the latest iOS 11, iCloud is opt-in, and not required. https://www.macworld.com/article/3252170/data-center-cloud/d...

Clearly, there are some features that rely on iCloud, but you can choose not to use those features and still have a functioning device.


Incorrect. You can use apps which have other synchronization mechanisms, including competitors to iCloud. With "document provider" apps, you can use SSH as a transport mechanism for files.


> Apple pretends to care about privacy as long as it is good for the bottom line.

I don't care why Apple's interests are aligned with mine, as long as they are. When it comes to corporations, dealing with one whose bottom line is aligned with my interest is exactly what I want.

Also, Apple is not 'pretending' to care about privacy. While they have had some embarrassing bugs, they do put privacy as a high priority. Many speculate that Apple is behind in the assistant category because of privacy concerns.


> I don't care why Apple's interests are aligned with mine, as long as they are. When it comes to corporations, dealing with one whose bottom line is aligned with my interest is exactly what I want.

Agreed! I have no problem with that either, and I think it's great when it happens!

> Also, Apple is not 'pretending' to care about privacy. While they have had some embarrassing bugs, they do put privacy as a high priority. Many speculate that Apple is behind in the assistant category because of privacy concerns.

Just because you don't like the fact that they are pretending, doesn't make it untrue. I'm sure that to a certain degree they do care about privacy, but when push comes to shove, they choose money over privacy. They have the ability to design systems with privacy inherent in them, yet they choose not to.


Sure. And as it is likely to continue to be good for their bottom line for the forseeable future, I continue to benefit from patronizing them. See what's happening here? It's a selfish economic system whereby we both benefit. I guess capitalism works sometimes, at least for (relatively) short periods of time. Who knew?


The problem is that you don't both benefit in the ways you think you are. Apple is pretending to be pro-privacy, but they actually aren't pro-privacy. You think you are getting a privacy-oriented device, but you are not.

I would love it if Apple did build privacy oriented systems. I would be their biggest supporter, and I would spend mountains of money on their products. And I do think they would make good money from it from everyone. But until they do design their systems correctly, all we have evidence of is that they can make money by deceiving their users.


If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place.


> If you want purity of intent in every transaction or contract you ever enter into then the world is going to be a very frustrating place.

I do, and it is. I don't think I get what you mean. Just because a lot of groups choose to lie about their intentions means that it's OK that Apple does the same?


But they aren't lying are they? "We care about your privacy" is not a lie just because they care out of necessary for their share price, it's just not the unreasonably ideal situation you want. You cannot reasonably expect everyone with the same goals to have perfectly aligned intent, and you certainly cannot expect a company of tens of thousands of people to all completely align their intent not only as a collective but also with you as an individual.

If their goals shift, forced by their intent, you drop them. I can't see any other way to pragmatically get along or make progress in life.


I'd strongly argue that my view isn't about being ideal, it's the minimum.

Fact: We don't know what they do with our data

Fact: They refuse to show us what they do with our data, even though they could

Fact: They have taken actions that, while I obviously don't have direct evidence of this, looks extremely like they are handing over control of other people's data to someone else, who is known to be abusive with it

Fact: They can design their system in a way that avoids all of this, yet they continually choose not to

All of this points in one direction, and there's very little evidence pointing in the other direction. It seems pretty obvious to me that their pro-privacy standpoint is all just smoke and mirrors. I'm sure they care to some extent, but they clearly value money over their user's privacy.

If I say that I care about my health, but I eat terrible quality foods, don't exercise, and ignore people who try to encourage me to be healthier, then it it obvious that I don't care about my health, despite what I say.


Apple wants 30% of all the money spent on iPhone apps. This alone is the reason enough to never support them. If they win and it becomes the only option it will be a disaster for developers. Can you imagine a world where there is a 30% tax on all the sales generated in our profession going to a private corporation?


Reddit and Youtube are becoming more and more draconian for one reason. They REALLY need people to stay on their advertisement platform. For instance Reddit has always had issues with its content clashing with advertisers. Youtube I think has gone into rougher times with its relation to advertisers (I remember proctor and gamble pulled their ads). When your advertisers complain about your platform having content they don't want they will remove it with extreme prejudice.

As an aside I am also dismayed in the fact that I find videos like these interesting but I will never own a gun but I like watching reviews and demos of them.


I have my doubts. It's not rocket science to introduce a mechanism which lets the advertisers choose what kind of videos are acceptable for their ads to appear in.

Don't like guns or beer? Tell Youtube not to displays the add on guns/beer related videos. Problem solved. Same goes for Reddit. Would advertisers care that there is gun related subreddit their ad never appear on?

I feel the decision is ideological and will hopefully hurt them in the long term.


The point that I was trying to make was the advertisers dictate what is on the platform and not the content creators .

Also I beleve that advertisers had that power but it wasn’t enough for them.


This is indeed an alarming move of trying to censor gun information online is by far the most miguided approach to regulating guns I've seen thus far. There aren't inherent risks to knowing the mechanics of physical items much less channels that deal with proper handling of guns or gun communities online. You are literally moving their communities further into the deepweb and making gun ownership a nefarious thing! Optics based bans are extremely frustrating and dissapointing to memembers of both reddit and youtube.


Yeah, in my country you can own hunting or sporting weapons, e.g a rifle or shotgun, but it's almost impossible to posess a handgun for example, or a high capacity semi automatic weapon.

But I have a tradition with my son of sending each other links of people in other countries shooting things up with their 50 cal machine guns and the like.

I can't imagine why anyone would think that watching such things constitutes any kind of risk to anyone.


Because such decisions are often based on emotion and not logic.


Emotion is as much a part of the human decision-making process as logic, and it's sociopathic to act as though logic is the only part that matters.

My favorite for-example: one of those old great libertarian thinkers applied libertarian principles to the parent-child relationship and decided that a law that compels a parent to feed a child is an immoral law; parents should be free to let their children starve to death.

A triumph of logic over emotion? I guess, if you're okay with a society that permits parents to let their children starve to death without consequence.


While a valid point, there are times when we need to recognize that emotional reactions are best ignored. If I get cut off in traffic, the initial emotional response might be to ram the other person's vehicle or some other violent act. While anger is perfectly valid, in this situation it would be best avoided. I mean, the recent focus on violent video games is an entirely emotional reaction, but at this point there's been enough studies conducted that we can safely conclude that no, playing violent games doesn't contribute to real world violence, so we should let logic inform our emotional reactions.


Indeed, emotion is part of decision making and is often the cause of the wrong decision to be made.

It is not logical to allow a child to starve to death. Using an argument that a law is immoral is more about emotion than logic.


> You are literally moving their communities further into the deepweb and making gun ownership a nefarious thing!

For some, this is the intended outcome.


> This is very dismaying to see

This is the chilling effect from the attack on Section 230 safe harbor protection (an attack which was largely “justified” by conduct which was already found to be outside of the pre-existing safe harbor, and so which needed no modification to deal with.)

Companies that are being responsible to their shareholders are going to change behavior to minimize exposure to content which is likely to draw civil litigation when their protection from that risk is weakened.


We're also seeing corporations removing discounts for NRA members. I don't see a link between that and legal fiduciary duty in those actions. They seem to be reactions to social pressure.

That's speaking as someone who would like to see clearer legal protections for content-neutral hosting platforms.


> We're also seeing corporations removing discounts for NRA members. I don't see a link between that and legal fiduciary duty in those actions. They seem to be reactions to social pressure.

Thats a slightly different, but related [0] effect. The NRAs own PR approach has made special deals with the NRA a PR liability for many businesses. Public relations aren't something companies burn money on for entertainment value, they do it because corporate image impacts the bottom line, because it has a direct effect on things like consumer choices and ability to attract and retain talent.

[0] related in that lawsuits are also used to address political issues (and targeting tangentially-involved businesses formgun violence is a well-known example of that), so that the public mood on gun policy that shapes the reaction to NRA PR efforts also is a factor in the legal risk that firms face with Section 230 being weakened.


>The new youtube rules will also get rid of entertainment channels like Hickock45 and Demolition Ranch (the proceeds of which help subsidize the creator's other channel, Vet Ranch)

Also, channels like Forgotten Weapons which are non-political and just provide really great information on old or obscure guns.


> I'm also pretty disappointed in Reddit. They made a new admin account yesterday to anonymously post the new rules. I believe this is the first time that's been done for an announcement, usually they're posted by a CEO or a specific individual.

Probably because they don't want to be the target of personal abuse.


gundeals was the only sub that I had ever actually made a direct bookmark too. I've never seen another community quite like it.


As long as actual hosts allow you to put your stuff online I see no harm.

The internet worked perfectly fine before YouTube and Reddit, it’ll work perfectly fine after.

I mean, I understand the problems this poses for people, but I just don’t see how taking ownership of your own platform is a bad thing, even if it is forced.

Nobody is stopping gun fans from building their own social network for guns after all.

If people did that, quality would probably even increase. I mean, just look at HM. Even if HN is another centralized social network it still managed to become much better than anything tech related on Reddit or YouTube.


>I can't imagine why reddit would ban strictly law-abiding communities while allowing illegal and toxic ones to flourish.

To be cynical, why offer a seller access to a market for free when you can charge for it?


gtlondon, it's BECAUSE of gun use that you and I may freely post on websites and not fear totalitarian hot breath down our backs.


[flagged]


> Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence. Does the pleasure you get from learning about "reloading ammo for 100+ year old rifles" does not outweigh my desire for my son to not be shot at school?

You're presenting a false dichotomy. I have seen no proven link between YouTube videos showing proper gun handling and gun violence. I say this as someone who hates guns, but most of the points you raise are not logically sound.


especially the 100year old rifle. Noone is going to shoot up a school with a karabiner


I have a very strong suspicion that the videos which lead to violence don't have to show any guns; it's more the conspiracy-theory and highly polarising right-wing politics stuff that leads to school shootings.

The blog of the Austin bomber is a good example of all the "red flags".


The parent did not complain about the ban being ineffective. He complained about it hurting his niche hobby. That's selfish.

As for the argument that the ban is a bad idea because it is ineffective. I don't know if the ban will help. I'm not an expert, though it seems pretty obvious that our current situation isn't working so well. Do you think a ban will increase gun violence? How sure are you?


It's only selfish if the ban actually achieves some important social objective. But it doesn't, not really. You don't need any of that content to buy a gun and shoot up a school.


I have seen no proven link between YouTube videos showing proper gun handling and gun violence.

The suggestion that Youtube should wait until there's proof that videos they host cause harm is nonsense. A private corporation needs to be cautious otherwise they're opening themselves up to unnecessary risk from being sued by a plaintiff who manages to demonstrate harm (within the limits of a single specific case). YouTube doesn't have a moral duty to uphold freedom. They have a duty to protect their shareholders value.

The government shouldn't ban things until there's proof that the thing is harmful to society (and even then there's a good argument that they shouldn't), but that's got nothing to do with what's happening here.


You should be deeply concerned that any topic could be banned without much oversight, as a lot of the banned subs were never informed ahead of time, and were never given an opportunity to comply with the new rules. I think stuff like this is easy to turn into a slippery slope. If we ban firearms outright, should we also ban the simulation of firearm usage? If so, you could go ahead and ban /r/gaming. What about movies with gun violence? Where is the line here, and where is it moving?

This is why I honestly think this move is not really about protecting a community, I think it's about image for advertisers. Facebook is getting reamed for it's lack of data control, so lets ban some hot topics and make it look attractive for advertisers looking for somewhere else to go.


> Please weigh your own personal hobby against our society's clear dysfunction when it comes to gun violence.

What do you think about prohibiting drugs and alcohol? Like another commenter was a victim of gun violence in his family, I'm a victim of alcohol abuse in mine. Yet, many people enjoy these substances recreationally without problem.

It's hard to weigh a purely "for fun" activity against something with dire consequences. It feels selfish to say, "my hobby is more important than your life" but that's ultimately what the 21st amendment repealing Prohibition said. And it's not an entirely unfair argument when the people safely enjoying the activity are in the tens or hundreds of millions, and the ones harmed by it are a tiny fraction.

I like guns. I don't love them. But it's a fun activity like darts, but with "cooler" machines. I could be persuaded that my hobby is net-negative for society, but it's hard to give up a clearly safe, fun, activity because of an abstract notion that somewhere else in this country of 100s of millions of people, someone is using it for evil, especially when it's fairly rare.

And liberals aren't totally blameless when it comes to the "coolness" factor of guns, either, if you look at essentially any modern movie or TV show, in which they're fairly well glorified. If the solution is to make people not want to have this hobby - and I think that's probably best bang-for-your-buck (heh) solution - then maybe Hollywood should self-censor like YouTube here and not have guns in their movies (or blur them out like in Korean dramas).


For me the difference is that drugs and alcohol usually predominately affect the user. This obviously isn't always the case...

Guns aren't toys. Yes, they can be used for hunting or just shooting stuff, and most guns aren't especially more effective at killing people than a variety of other household items, but assault rifles were actually designed to kill people, to assault entrenched positions (the stg-44 in WW2). It's not made for hunting or anything else, it's made to kill people.

The consumer ar-15 is just a variant of the m-16. With a bump stock it becomes fully automatic, easily getting around any laws. I posted this in another comment, but the Vegas shooter had 14 of those modded up. 14! Why does anyone need one of those killing machines for fun, much less 14? It's easy to see how he killed fifty people in a crowd.

I don't understand the justification for that. When your ability to have fun with a "toy" which is actually a killing machine makes it easy for dozens of people to get murdered while they are out having a good time, it's an issue. Seems like a warped sense of priorities. Yet you'll find people (many here) who believe that even limiting them to one (or god forbid anyone even suggest it) is some kind of assault on their liberties. That's not reasonable. The Bill of Rights wasn't written with anything beyond the notion of hunting rifles and muskets. It doesn't say "all citizens should have the right to fire 90 rounds per 10 seconds to defend themselves or have a good time".

Should attacks like that continue to occur, it's going to be that complete lack of moderation by gun users themselves which is going to get their rights taken away. I don't say that as wanting that to happen, but it seems obvious.


> I really hope that as a society we can find some way to back away from extremism.

That would include backing away from extreme censorism. Banning everything that could potentially lead to your child's death would result in banning... everything!


You can probably make this argument for car/bike racing and tuning, fast food or a number of hobbies and "correlated" deaths. Luckily this restriction seems to be about weird stuff like bump stocks.

And as for the "Blumph!" comment, we still have yet to see Syria driven to the state of Libya so that's at least quite a few kids saved from getting shot right there.


Mass shootings are a drop in the bucket in terms of gun deaths, vast majority are either suicides or inner city gang violence. Majority of homicides are committed with handguns rather than assault rifles. If you account for demographics the US has lower gun violence than many European countries.

Personally I think it's funny how the left and right are so illogical on their chosen issues. When the right doesn't want to take refugees they stoke fears about Islamic terrorism. When the left wants gun control they stoke fear about mass shootings, despite the relative rarity of both.

Both sides of the aisle prefer emotional manipulation to actual facts when it suites them.


I actually had this discussion with someone who is very pro-gun earlier. To me the reasonable position is it's absurd when people can buy weapons made to kill (the AR-15, for example) for funzies. The Parkland shooter was 19, clearly off his rocker, and had multiple semi auto rifles. If you listen to the shooting, you're talking weapons that can fire killing/maiming shots every second. These are essentially the same assault weapons (trivially modified) that were designed by the Germans in WW2 to assault positions. They aren't toys. The only reason they aren't full on assault rifles is because of law, but that didn't stop the NRA from crying like the Constitution was getting pissed on.

That you can't ask "why does someone need to own 3 semi auto rifles?" without the NRA freaking out or unwilling to even discuss it over some absurd slippery slope like "if the government tries to attack its own people and they are dying in the streets, we need our weapons" is absurd. That doesn't give me any comfort. How about you not let your country turn into a hellhole and then you don't need that. But right now people are dying, why do people need those guns again?

Anyway, while I'm inclined to agree with what you are saying, you also gotta be realistic in that nobody is shooting up schools with 100 year old weapons and people discussing that isn't the same thing. That's an extreme position. Practice what you preach.

I can't tell who I pissed off, but based on you getting downvoted as well, I'm guessing it's the pro gun people. You're right, you can't discuss this reasonably... It's behavior like that which makes it hard to give the pro gun people the benefit of the doubt. People are more important than guns, that should be obvious.

My family is a victim of gun violence. You never get the victims back.


We are still not addressing root issues - mental health and inaction of law enforcement on credible tips.

Taking guns away helps reduce damage, but those intent on doing harm will still find ways to take at least one life (or at least attempt to). One too many for my taste.

I really wish we could get people help before we have to worry about them picking up weapons of any kind. Probably wishful thinking.


I don't see why we can't do both. Mental healthcare is one of the main needs in this country, but the Las Vegas shooter was also not classically mentally ill, just nihilistic and evil. He also had 23 guns, some of them full on assault, some of them modified.

That's absurd. Why does it always have to be a dichotomy? Surely a nation of 300 million people can address multiple issues at once? All we've got going on is people doing this tribal bullshit while we kill each other.


"full on assault"

Which means? Too many bullets? Wrong color? Too accurate? Too easy to use? It's a meaningless term unless you interpret as a positive attribute.


You're right.

What's important is he had 24* weapons, 14 of which were AR-15s with bump stocks which allowed them to fire at 9 rounds per sec (easily Googleable).

So not technically assault rifles but practically he had 14 assault rifles. Which is crazy. How can you even purchase that many?

Do those who resist gun control believe arsenals like that are reasonable? This question is in good faith. I just don't understand it.


He can only shoot one gun at once. It's (much) faster to change a mag than to switch guns. Think harder about why he may have had so many. Maybe look into his very unusual non-history and the people around him.

If it's not obvious, officially what happened in Vegas is a coverup.


Do you frequent conspiracy forums, because thats where I've heard that?

The most hilarious scenario is the suggestion that he was actually doing an arms deal with bad guys who were planning on assassinating some Saudi nearby. The arms deal went wrong so they murdered him and to cover that up they shot up a crowd. Which you know, makes more sense than walking away or buying your guns in the desert anywhere within 100 miles around there.

The easier thing to believe is the guy loved guns and decided to kill people. You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got, that's why he had multiple weapons.

I'd love to hear an explanation that isn't crazy and actually has some evidence behind it, but otherwise Hanlon's Razor and all...


ah, ya, "conspiracy forums" with a "crazy" tossed in. Welp, no point in discussing it then. Case closed. "Hilarious" even... Clearly he needed all those guns for...

"You can't keep up that rate of fire no matter how many mags you've got"

Citation needed. You could make shot timeline with the audio. It's 101 that changing mags is faster than switching guns. I have most if not all of the footage, there is nothing there that makes me suspect he needs more than one gun, I have extensive experience shooting similar weapons.

Did anything remotely interesting happen in SA soon after?


Just saying, the only place the cover up story goes around is conspiracy forums.

If you've got a non-crazy story (didn't call you crazy, you didn't provide anything but a vague suggestion), have at it.


Since you are the authority on what is "crazy" and seem to think someone needs more than one gun to fire that many rounds, there is no way I can have a real discussion, it's "crazy" by def.

Did anything remotely interesting happen in SA soon after?


Yes they are reasonable. I have more than 24 guns, most of which are so called “assault weapons”. You are not taking them.


Maybe I misread the parent. It sounded like parent was very "dismayed" at youtube's effort to ban videos about exactly the kind of horrifying weapons you mention, just because the ban also happens to impact his hobby with 100yo rifles. To me, banning some videos isn't extreme, even if it does have some overreach in some cases. It's just an oversight that could be fixed.

Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that.

I was trying to specifically call out the parent's reaction. Not "youtube is part of the problem and yes we should do something about and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable but but maybe youtube could carve out some careful exemptions for my harmless hobby". It seemed dismayed at even the concept of any limitations whatsoever.


> Can't we all agree to get the extreme videos off youtube, before we worry about some corner cases with niche communities? Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that.

We can't. Because some guy posting videos about historical weapons doesn't mean that has anything to do with your kid being safe.


> Because if some random guy's fascination with 100yo rifles means kids in my son's classmates are more likely to shoot the place up, then screw that.

Do you support banning violent movies and video games?

I mean I love gta but I couldn't in good faith make the argument that it's less harmful than videos on making ammo for 100 year old rifles.

> and yes banning most of this stuff is reasonable

Why is it reasonable? Show me the clear evidence that banning this kind of content leads to less violence.


It's a complex topic (obviously). I won't attempt to figure out what they were saying, but some of the issue (and maybe annoyance) is that companies like Google and Reddit are spineless. They'll host stuff all day when it makes them money, but as soon as there is public outcry, they get scared and you can tell where their bread is buttered. There's no real principle there (whether it be free speech or some liberal values), it's just cynical money grabbing as long as they can get away with it.

It's not like this stuff is new. These same attacks have been going on for decades, only now does Google decide they've had enough. It's the reversal of position which is strange. Reddit's had videos of people getting chopped up and flayed for years now, it's only now they're cutting down on it. That seems strangely connected to them getting $200 million in funding and chasing after Facebook's tail. Maybe that's not strange, just obvious.

I'm ranting a bit, but the problem is how top down these decisions are. These companies build up communities then pull the rug out from under them. Either support that stuff or don't, but this wishy washy nonsense where they only react is lame. What do these companies really beleive in? $.


Excellent points and a shame you’re being downvotes.


Also look at the timing of it: They did this when the people most likely to object are both preoccupied with Faceboook and Mark Zuckerburgs statement as well as the Count Dankula trial verdict.

Looks to me like they don't want scrutiny.


Doesn't that argument apply universally?

Whenever something happens, people can point to whatever was on the headlines during the last week and say "see, they're trying to sneak in while everyone's preoccupied with this!"

Unless we're talking, like, 9/11-level media preoccupation, I don't put much stock in claims like this.


I'm not a gun owner. Indeed I'm very much opposed to people being able to own guns and hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S. I do understand your perspective and why this is upsetting to you.

For me I see it as a step toward people being more anti-gun ownership. Societies evolve and social views change. Our views on marijuana, smoking, etc. have changed over the decades. I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.

While we are on opposite sides of this issue I encourage you to continue to stand up for your rights and fight for what you believe in. Let Reddit and Youtube know you are upset about this. Be active and vigilant. I will too.


> Societies evolve and social views change.

That's why we have principles and constitutional rights. So that our rights aren't taken away on a whim of societal change.

I'm from NY and I've never owned a gun and I probably will never do so. But even I would be against repealing the 2nd amendment.

The fact that people here are so openly talking about repealing the 2nd amendment and taking away more of our rights is really concerning. And it's self-defeating. It'll only make americans more wary of losing our 2nd amendment rights and increase gun sales.


The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.

Conservatism, I though, was all about making slow and slight tweaks to society, rather than radical changes. But refusal to allow even the slightest evolution or deviation on some issue, like gun rights, leads to the opposite: at times it feels like we are heading towards outright civil war.

In the face of an obvious societal problem like gun violence, real conservatism would say sure, lets make some small changes to gun regulation, see how that goes for a few years or decades, then re-evaluate our position to see if society is better or worse off. Instead, seemingly obvious minor tweaks to gun regulation get cast as the first giant step towards impending repeal of the 2nd amendment. Maybe we are past the point of no return, I don't know.


The "sensible gun regulation" isn't, that's the thing. Indeed, the people calling for it are so proud of being so ignorant about guns and gun laws that they often can't even accurately say what class of guns they want banned, they've coined a term - "gunsplaining" - to mock those who point out when they don't know what they're talking about.

Features of the current US pro-gun-control movement include the notion that it's somehow absurd handguns, which are used in the vast majority of US gun homicides, are more tightly restricted than rifles. The idea that the gun used in your deadliest school shooting, the VA Tech massacre, is basically useless and ineffective. The belief that the AR-15 is some kind of super-powerful danger rifle too powerful for anything but murder (it's actually a tad underpowered as hunting rifles go). Also unyielding, full-throated defence of the elected official in charge of the police department which ignored all the warning signs about the Parkland shooter. Pretty much only pro-gun folks seem to be questioning any of this.

To give some idea about the quality of this debate, the founder of gun control group Moms Demand Action literally pointed her followers at a photo of a scary-looking black gun, trying to make it look like some incredibly dangerous killing machine, and demanded they pressure the retailer into not selling it to under-21s https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/969572513154936833 It was actually a .22 LR bolt-action rifle, probably the least effective long rifle in widespread use it you want to kill anyone or anything, that was optimised entirely for competitive target shooting. I can't think of any other country off-hand that considers 18 year olds incapable of buying and owning those. Her follow-up was to accuse the NRA of misogyny for pointing out how stupid and clueless this was, with the help of Media Matters for America.

The campaigns for "sensible gun control" basically just use the term as a talking point that avoids having to actually explain and justify what they're calling for; after all who could be against sensible, common-sense restrictions other than some gun nut whackjob?


I don't think this is a terribly good counterargument, personally. To me, the gun control movement is basically reacting to several high profile mass shooting cases. Your argument to me seems to be the equivalent of countering, say, a mother who lost a child to a drunk driver, with an argument that they shouldn't be concerned, because they don't know about the technical details of engine displacement or the neuropharmacology behind ethanol. That would be nonsense.

Obviously, with drunk driving, no one tends to blame the tool, either, as gun control movements often are doing. It is worth pointing out that automobiles are fairly regulated, though. There is a "street legal" definition for a car, you have to have an operator's license, and there are things you cannot do in a car -- elsewise, your license gets taken away. For better or for worse, America's one of the few places out there with a relatively high minimum age to purchase alcohol -- 21 -- and drunk driving was one of the reasons it ended up this way (https://www.boston.com/culture/health/2014/07/17/why-21-a-lo...).

I personally think it's fine to counter over-emotional focus on the tool (after all, 99% of AR-15 owners are just normal, average folks who don't commit mass shootings or indeed violence of any kind). Ultimately, though, "what they're calling for" is a reduction of gun violence. If "they" don't get a reasonable counter-answer to their concerns (and in my opinion, the NRA is doing a poor job here, themselves often being overly-emotional in response), it's entirely possible the regulations "they" want will result in the end.


Well, people who get caught driving drunk a few times can have their license taken away or a blood alcohol interlock put on their car.

What if gun owners who didn't keep their guns locked in gun safes had their bullets replaced with rubber ones, or had mandatory trigger locks installed on their guns?

I dunno, I'm just spitballing here, but cars are heavily regulated, licensed, the whole nine yards, and if we had a tenth of that applied to guns, we could probably do a lot to reduce gun deaths and gun violence across the country.


One of the ideas floating around after Parkland that seems to have gotten bipartisan support (even the National Review warmed up to it! -- https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republica...) is a "gun violence restraining order". This provides a framework for those close to someone, and law enforcement, to temporarily restrict their ability to purchase weapons. I think (as the National Review columnist says) there is broad conceptual agreement that someone can demonstrate through their conduct that they should not possess a weapon. Parkland was a clear failure in this regard -- the perpetrator was this close to being "Baker Acted" (Florida's involuntary institutionalization law).

From my perspective, I welcome ideas like these. Limited access control ideas along the line of this framework is where I think the focus needs to be.

Some discussion also could be reserved for equipment like "bump stocks", that at first glance seems to solely be designed to circumvent existing law (it is highly illegal to modify a semi-automatic into a fully-automatic gun). Again, treating these type of equipment like the extremely highly regulated machine gun class is something even the National Review agrees with. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/10/bump-stocks-machine-g...)


The 5.56 round is designed to tumble upon impact to maximize internal damage. It really is a poor choice for anything but warfare.


This is an old misconception, and incorrect. All Spitzer-tip (pointed) boat tail bullets are prone to destabilization upon impact with anything hard in their path, deflecting easily off of surfaces (eg. wood, metal, bone). They were not designed to tumble on impact, but to fly straight, fast (high ballistic coefficient).

The same shape (Spitzer-tip boat tail) is used for virtually all modern target and hunting rounds. 5.56 (and .223) is basically a glorified varmint round. Certain 5.56 rounds, however, are designed to be frangible, which causes the bullet to break up on impact and causes more wound channels. Hunting ammo in 5.56/.223 does not do this, as it is designed to stay in one piece.


You're mocking the intelligence of gun control supporters and doubting their sincerity and credibility. As you seem to be knowledgeable about the subject, and seem to believe that only persons such as yourself are qualified to have an opinion on the matter, what would you consider to be actually sensible gun regulation?


I don’t know if OP is stating that only s/he is qualified. But that if someone wants to explain knowledge of guns enough to control them, they should spend some time understanding their subject.

And saying someone is stupid isn’t mocking. (Although it can be)

It’s like old men legislating abortion laws who know nothing about female specific health topics.


Pointing out ignorance is not mocking intelligence.


The tone of the comment seems intended to dismiss through ridicule, but that's beside the point. Its thesis that that one should have knowledge of guns and gun culture to have a credible opinion on gun legislation, so I'm merely asking that be followed up on, with an opinion on gun legislation from those with credible opinions.

I see a lot of dismissal of gun control advocates in threads like these, but arguments regarding gun control from those who claim authority on the matter tend to devolve towards strident defiance - "if you try to take my gun I will shoot you with it." That doesn't make for constructive discussion.


Most firearm violence is committed using handguns and most illegal guns are obtained through straw purchases. The best thing we could do would be to implement universal background checks (i.e. require background checks for private sales) but in a privacy-conscious and convenient way that will maintain support from the pro-gun side. Some kind of app or mobile website that allows the background check to be conducted for free on a smartphone, perhaps using token-based authentication to avoid the need to share personal information.

People who sell guns want a way to perform background checks on the people they sell to, but there's no way to do it because only licensed dealers can access NICS. As long as the private background check system has the same privacy invariants as the existing paper system for dealers (primarily that it is not possible to look up which guns someone owns, only to take a serial number and see who owns it) there won't be significant opposition.


Still waiting for the answer here.

What the NRA is doing is a disservice to gun owners. They are making a gun ban more likely by not offering any reasonable alternatives.

My opinion is we need state run (but federally funded) gun licensing to ensure safe owners and gun registry to ensure the guns stay with those owners.

Other countries do it. It works just fine. We are not having that conversation in America today in part because of the extremist views of the NRA.


The registry is a non-starter. A significant fraction of gun owners will see registration as a precursor to confiscation. A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.

Given what New York has done recently, I presume that a lot of gun owners will also simply refuse to comply with any registration orders. And, as usual, the black market guns will remain nigh-untraceable, especially among those who are barred by law from owning them.

The best you could do is a database of last-known locations, maintained entirely without cooperation by owners, that will probably consist mainly of business locations of licensed firearm dealers and crime scenes.


> A smaller fraction fear that the registry will either be public from the start or significantly breached within a short time frame, such that gun owners will be selectively targeted for harassment or burglaries.

Gawker is well ahead of you here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-09/gawker-po...


It's not clear whether there is, in fact, any obvious or easy improvement on what the US has already. If there was it'd likely have happened already. I mean, I live in the UK which has outright banned handguns and doesn't consider self-defense justification for gun ownership, but that won't fly in the US - it's unconstitutional and goes against the principles the country was founded on, and it'd require an lot more trust in your police force and a much less rural population - and probably wouldn't be enough to satisfy gun control supporters anyway.

Surely the burden for coming up with a reasonable, sensible gun control proposal should be on the people who're insisting we could have one if it wasn't for the pesky NRA and their gun nut supporters?


I already put it out there. Gun licenses and gun registry.

Without that there is no room to enforce regulation. The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable.

People can call things reasonable or unreasonable, that's fine but try to argue that registering a gun or obtaining a license is such an undue burden for the individual gun owner vs the harm of vast unchecked gun profileration for the rest of society.

NRA supporters are gun nuts. I am a gun owner.

There is a difference.

Here is a recent ad from the NRA,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrnIVVWtAag

That doesn't come off as at least a little unhinged to you?

The NRA does a disservice to gun owners and the whole country with their amped-up, violent rhetoric.


> The NRA and the gun culture will never budge on these two items, so they make an outright ban inevitable. > ... > NRA supporters are gun nuts. I am a gun owner.

Well I don't want to give an inch more to gun control proponents because they have already made their intent clear, they believe that a completely gunless society is much more admirable than what we have today.

It's like this, imagine if a British politician Nigel Windsor calls for the 'assassination of the Queen' and overthrowing of Monarchy. Upon failing to achieve support on that, he proposes bill such as "Full budgetary accountability of Queen's security" or "Transparency of Queen's Expenditures" where Queen's security details be made published or "How about we reduce the number of Queen's guards by just one".

Who in their right mind would believe that Nigel Farage wants "sensible expenditure on Queen's security" since we know that at the end he wants to overthrow the British Monarchy?

This is the same case with gun control. We know that most gun grabbers don't own guns, have never owned guns and will never own guns, it's not in their culture. They also fantasize European countries regarding Healthcare, gun control, hate speech, discrimination laws and Australian style complete gun confiscation. Now they say "Come to a reasonable gun reform or a complete ban is inevitable", which to gun right proponents sounds like "Publish Queen's security detail or else an assassination of the Queen is imminent", I'd say if they could ban guns, then they would have.


> Well I don't want to give an inch more to gun control proponents because they have already made their intent clear, they believe that a completely gunless society is much more admirable than what we have today.

This is exactly my point. You point to extremism as justification for yet more extremism in the opposite way. This won't end well for anyone. I'm not sure how, but as a society we need to find a way just sit down and walk things back. I'm willing to work towards a compromise. It seems you would rather not budge, and so the extremism continues.

There are plenty of people like me who don't care about 100yr old rifle historians, or hunters, or sport shooting, or the rest. We just want our kids to not get shot, and think that the current level of gun violence is far too high. Where can we turn to? Gun lovers and the NRA specifically don't seem to be able to offer any response at all beyond "my cold dead hand" and "don't give an inch".


Bump stocks are likely on their way out. They seem to be only suited for throwing a lot of bullets around indiscriminately.


In some states, sure.

At a federal level, it's not that easy. If there was an easy way to ban them, the ATF would have already. It's really hard to define a bump stock in a way that wouldn't either ban a lot of other things, short of classifying them as machine guns. If you classify them as machine guns, at this point, you pretty much have to let people who already have them enroll them on the NFA registry (federally, there is no legal basis to confiscate property that was legally acquired and legal to acquire when acquired), which is not necessarily what you want either.


I would view it as a fundamental parts of the system not to be flexed with. You're also never going to get back anything you give up.

You could easily live through 50+ years of incrementally handing over bits and pieces of your right to bear arms to the government before things turn ugly. It's San Francisco relaxing its building codes since it hasn't had a big earthquake in 100 years.


>NRA won't budge an inch. Extremism begets extremism. If people can't get sensible gun regulation, extreme gun regulation starts to seem more attractive.

You realize that "sensible" is both subjective, and cuts both ways, right? Have you ever noticed that the "compromise" touted by gun control advocates is always, 100% of the time, entirely one-sided?

That isn't compromise, that's capitulation. Compromise would be "Okay, universal NICS checks for all gun sales, but private citizens can access it for free". Compromise would be "per the full faith and credit clause, CCW permits are now legally recognized in all 50 states and become shall-issue, but there will be a standardized framework to get them".

Compromise is unambiguously not "ban bump stocks" and everyone who disagrees going "okay!".

So long as gun control compromise is a one-way street, I remain a dues-paying NRA member.


Requiring citizens to ask permission for a sale means they don't really own their firearms. It also breaks plausible deniability in a confiscation scenario.


NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.


As mentioned, the NRA did not support those initiatives, secondly the NRA today, right now, is not willing to compromise. As a gun owner, this hurts us all.

Common sense gun regulation is a benefit to safe gun owners and less people will die from misuse, less criminals will have access to guns, less mentally unstable people will be able to go on killing sprees.

This is all in benefit to gun owners. How does sensible gun control (not bans) hurt a legal and safe gun owner?


This is false, the NRA has compromised as recently as last year. Here's an article from their website congratulating the concealed carry reciprocity act being coupled with the background check fixing bill - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That's what a compromise looks like, gun owners get easier concealed carry rules and everybody gets safer gun purchases via enhancements to the NICS system.


> NRA won't budge an inch? What do you call the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Hughes Amendment of 1986, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994, not to mention all the state based bans on everything under the sun from a pistol grip to a "shoulder thing that goes up to two year waiting periods to possess a simple handgun.

Not sure of the first two off the top of my head, but the other two of the named examples are things that the NRA vociferously opposed, and (especially Brady) fought to repeal after they were adopted, so not exactly examples of the NRA budging. Ditto with many of them state laws you wave your hand at.

The NRA may lose sometimes, but thats different than budging.


Last year they allowed Fix NICS to be coupled with the concealed carry reciprocity act, so one side gets enhanced background checks and the other side gets an easier time concealed carrying - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171206/house-passes-concea....

That sounds like budging to me.


> The reason I think people are talking about repealing the 2nd is because the NRA won't budge an inch.

Because the anti-firearm crowd won't budge an inch either.

All the evidence points towards gun-free zones failing to reduce violence. Will the anti-gun crowd work with gun owners to expand where law abiding citizens can carry?

> If people can't get sensible gun regulation

Without making this partisan - you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.

Should we try and meet the conservatives in the middle and help them secure our southern border?


This isn't a game or a horse trade, I win one, you win one.

"I'll agree not to shoot your kids today, but only if you let me beat up your cousin instead." That's more or less what your argument sounds like to me. Can we agree that gun violence is a problem in the US, on a level vastly higher than many other parts of the world? Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence? Let's work together to find things that will help reduce gun violence. I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way. You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return. And it's especially jarring when the thing you want in return seems a to always move things back in the exact opposite direction, expanding access to and availability of guns.


> Can we talk about how to move towards a society with less gun violence?

Yes - by implementing proven policies and removing ineffectual ones.

> You seem to only be willing to head that direction if you get something else you want in return.

Because we don't trust anti-gun people.

> expanding access to and availability of guns.

^ and this is why we don't trust anti-gun people.

Like I said above gun free zones have been shown to be ineffectual.

Yet you don't want to remove this ineffectual policy and try a different approach. You just want stricter and stricter gun control.

> I'm willing to give up a lot of things I care about to move that way.

Are you?

So if the evidence supports arming teachers and reducing the number of places that qualify as gun free zones will you support these changes?


You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence? You seem to be saying you'd rather have more gun violence than work together with "anti-gun people". I don't understand that, on a fundamental level.

I never said anything about "gun free zones". I'm not sure what they are, I don't know how effective they are, but I don't see how they hurt either. To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence. That's why I'm against those things. I'm willing to change my mind. But the NRA is too busy disparaging victims of gun violence.

I really don't see how arming teachers helps. I've heard arguments for it, but those arguments really just don't ring true to me, and it seems that more guns will lead to more violence. I haven't read studies that seem credible and support what you are saying. Do you have any? I've looked, and there is a lot of really contradictory stuff out there. I'm willing to support anything that will reduce gun violence, in general.

I've been thinking about this thread for a while, and I think what bothers me is this. If you think expanded background checks (for example) will help reduce gun violence, why will you only support it if you get something else in return? Why can't we find things both sides thinks will help, and enact those things? Why must you hold those things hostage until you get some other thing that the other side fears will make the situation worse?


> You don't trust "anti-gun people" so you therefore don't want to enact policies that you think will reduce gun violence?

You have it all wrong. I don't believe they will reduce gun violence.

I'm saying if anti-gun people were trustworthy I'd be willing to try some of these policies - then if they didn't work we could just stop them - no harm done.

> but I don't see how they hurt either.

And that's the problem: You are happy to infringe upon a fundamental right without clear evidence that it's a big win for society.

That mentality needs to be opposed at every step.

> To me, it seems like more guns, easier and cheaper availability of guns, more destructive guns, less strict and less comprehensive / universal background checks are all things that lead pretty clearly to more gun violence.

But the actual evidence for these is not at all conclusive.

What is conclusive is firearms are used for self defence all the time: https://fee.org/articles/defensive-gun-use-is-more-than-shoo...

Your anti-gun policies can just as easily ensure more women are raped and sexually assaulted.


> you can't have strict gun control without strict border control.

The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall to protect them from illegal US guns?

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/border-issues/...


> The irony of your statement when guns flow from the US to Mexico, not the other way around.

Does it make my statement any less true?

Does the current direction of gun flow matter when we are talking about a future US gun ban?


I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US.

The logic that makes more sense to me is gun control in the US would result in less guns going over the border to Mexico.


> I'm not sure how guns flowing from the US to Mexico hurts the prospect of gun control in the US.

With strong gun controls in the US what will stop guns from traveling in the other direction from Mexico to the US?

The only reason they don't today is because nobody in the US wants lower quality firearms from Mexico.


To expand upon my above comment:

Basic firearms are significantly less complex than you would think.

Any one of the cartels is big enough and rich enough to make hundreds of thousands of firearms/year.

But why do that when you can get them dirt cheap and higher quality from the US?


Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this.

Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.

We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.

If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.


> so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does

The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand.

> it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.

They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder.

> If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.

Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border.

Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective?

It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.


the constitution allows itself to be changed. ultimately it comes down to the whims of society.


It takes more than a whim to change it.


Hacking apart the constitution because it is too hard to persuade people to amend it is a bigger problem than videos about AR-15s.


All you have to do is appoint the right judges.


The 2nd Amendment does speak of a well regulated militia and it being necessary for the defense of the United States. I'm in favor a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer and have no expertise on the legalities but I do know that amendments can be repealed. There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.


This podcast episode on the Second Amendment was fascinating as it discusses how the US Courts interpretation of the second amendment changed http://www.radiolab.org/story/radiolab-presents-more-perfect...


Thank you for the link. I'll listen to it later.



> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

I didn't say it was unconstitutional. The constitution makes it very difficult to repeal for a reason.

It's why only 1 amendment has ever been repealed and that amendment was written nearly 150 years after the founding of the country.

I'm fairly certain that the 1st and 2nd amendment are pretty much untouchable.

But I wish you the best in trying to get it repealed. The more you try to get it repealed, the more people will support the 2nd amendment and remind people that we actually have rights that we need to protect lest it be taken from us.


I grew up a Reagan Republican in the Canal Zone. At that time I never thought I would see the U.S. (much less conservatives) embrace torture, mass surveillance, things like the Patriot Act, renditions, and other such things that have become commonplace. People haven't been particularly assertive of their right to free speech. Few complained when Clinton instituted "free speech" zones at major political events. Now such is commonplace.

It does not stretch my imagination to see people being fed up with it being legal to own firearms with the lethality that is currently allowable. I may be wrong. Fight for your rights. Be vigilant. I will continue to advocate for repealing the right to own guns. I may never see my vision come to fruition.


"well regulated" meant "well functioning". Like "a well regulated clock".

> There is nothing unconstitutional about repealing an amendment. The Constitution details the mechanism for amending it.

You really think you can get 34 states to vote to repeal something from our bill of rights?

If you are a democrat mastermind and want to do that then your best bet is to get more and more states created out of the blue states to get more than 2/3rd of the states to vote to repeal 2nd Amendment.


> I'm in favor a well regulated militia.

So people can have guns as long as they're in a "well-regulated militia"? Do we want all gun owners to be in self-governed militias? I don't follow this line of thought.


The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I’m no expert on the legalities and legal interpretations of the 2nd amendment but it seems to me a case could be made that well regulated gives the government broad regulatory powers. The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns. Of course a repeal of the amendment would be fine with me too.


The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought to keep "the military" (British troops) from taking weapons away from arguably "self-regulated" militias. I think it's a tough case to make if you're arguing that the Constitution was referring solely to current members of armed services commissioned by the government.


Those militias were under the control of the colonial government. Indeed one of the colonials killed at Lexington was an ensign. That militia was the army at the time.


To complete the thought experiment, what would we have to do to form our own militia? Have a charter and elections? The colonial army at the time was not sanctioned by the king to bear the arms it did.


My interpretation of the second amendment is that the government has broad regulatory powers when it comes to gun ownership. Furthermore that the right applies only to militias and that in the present day militia would be an organization under government control.

Times change and interpretations change. I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant. But for people who are originalists the well regulated meaning in the wording of the second amendment should imply broad government powers of regulation. It’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that grants a right to both the government and the people. It’s an oddly worded amendment. I imagine that the founders understood that a broad, unregulated right to own guns might not be the best public policy and hence threw in the well regulated wording. Also they mention it being necessary to a free state. If it is no longer necessary to a free state what then? Can a ban be placed on ownership? I don’t know how they would answer the question. I do know how I answer it.


> I do not feel bound to interpret the Constitution by only considering what the founders meant.

That's probably the place to end this back-and-forth. We aren't going to hash out "rule by men" versus "rule of law" a thread about banned subreddits. But I think the right way to be unbound from what the Constitution means is to actually convince people to amend it. There are significant justice implications to ignoring the laws of a country in service of realpolitik.


I go by what the Constitution means. It’s meaning changes from person to person. And from era to era. I don’t feel bound to interpret it according to how the founders would interpret it.

The second amendment means to me something different from what it means to you. As I’ve said all along In these threads, fight for your rights. Advocate for your position. I will fight to change public perception.


The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all. It's not reasonable to say that the meaning of that rule is allowed to change over time. And that standard has to apply for every part of the Constitution for the 13th amendment to have actual impact, otherwise it's just another holy text and can be ignored has a nice myth for simple people. But instead of people sinning by unclean food, the government is allowed to hold citizens indefinitely without trial because the constitution means something else now.


You can't seriously believe that the words of constitution have the same meaning and interpretation for everyone. Clearly what people think the words mean changes from person to person and even from era to era. Peoples' views change over time. The words don't change but how people view and understand the meaning of those words change. This is not disputable or revelatory.


I don't believe everyone reads the words the same. That's why the only objective way to read the words is to understand what they meant when they were ratified.

If the text becomes too arcane or unclear, the correct remedy is to amend the constitution, not backfill the meanings of the words from outcomes we already have in mind.


I don't think this is a slope you want to go down because the constitution is law. Do we want people to view the law subjectively, especially juries that decide on cases? "When the government is acting in your best interests unwarranted searches and seizures are ok, therefore we can come into your home any time we want as long as we are acting in your best interests." I doubt you would be ok with that. Sadly we have laws in place for exactly that sort of thing, and people are ok with it because are we are really scared of terrorists.


> The point of the 13th amendment is to eliminate legal human trafficking once and for all.

No, its not, otherwise it wouldn't explicitly allow penal slavery.


The second amendment states that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

you misquoted it the text reads: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

emphasis mine, It is the right of the people that will not be infringed.


> The mention of militia could be interpreted to mean only members of the militia, clearly under the command of the military, can own guns.

Rhode Island's 1842 constitution starts like this:

> The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .

So according to you, if the 'security of freedom in a state' is threatened, then the government can suspend the freedom of the press?

Or take 1784 New Hampshire constitution:

> In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed . . . .

So according to you, 'if the trial of the facts in the vicinity where they happen is not essential to the security of the life' (again, in wartime or any exogenous circumstances like 9/11 attacks) then this right of citizens to be tried in the county where the crime was committed can be suspended by the govt whenever they deem fit?

Or maybe, this 'justification clause' which was written in many different ways at many different places by the people of that time is actually 'one and the most important justification' for a right and not 'If and only if trial of the facts in the vicinity ...'.

Let me explain another scenario. The first amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law...". Today we clearly understand it to mean 'US Congress', but in the year 2256, People have created a new legislative body called Congress-22 and now they claim that first amendment only restricts Congress's power to restrict speech. On the other hand Congress-22 still has the power to restrict speech and religion.

Same thing goes with 'militia'. It used to mean "pretty much all able-bodied men from age eighteen to forty-five". This does not mean that it ONLY protects the right of 18-45 men to keep and bear arms, but it cover everyone's right to keep and bear arms.


The basic answer is no. I was referring only to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. I have a view of what that amendment means and how it ought to be interpreted in the present era. I don't think I'd answer yes to your questions on interpreting the various texts you quoted.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They left out part of it


Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?

> First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the __right of the people__ peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Does that mean that first amendment is not an individual right to free speech, press or religion?

> Fourth Amendment: The __right of the people__ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How about now? You don't have the individual right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

> Ninth amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained __by the people__.

Again, the 9th amendment which claims that there are rights outside of constitution and they are retained by the people, just because they are not written in the constitution. Are these all the 'right of the states'??

Or my favorite one, the tenth amendment:

> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or __to the people__.

Here, it uses "the states" and "the people" separately. Clearly if second amendment meant it is a right of the states to keep and bear arms, then it would have mentioned it so, and not said "right of the people".


> Are you implying that "right of the people" implies that it is not an individual right?

I think you had me wrong it is an individual right. They neglected to include the of the people part in their quote. The 2A applies to the people not the militia

I pretty much agree with you on the rest


The reading of ehmu's comments doesn't make it clear that he/she probably agrees with your position on the second amendment? It's seems obvious to me. If it's easy to get confused with the intent of ehmu's two comments then it should be understandable that reasonable people can interpret the meaning of the 2nd amendment in different ways.


It is the right of the people I didn't think I was ambiguous


> That's why we have principles and constitutional rights.

You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm. This is legal nonsense put together relatively recently, starting as answer to the Black Panthers arming themselves and then later some politics. Please look at https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-sec...

> From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.

And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.


> And, in light of recent events: everyone not turning in their own guns and campaigning strongly for reversing this nonsense is an accessory to the mass murder of children. Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Do you support women’s right to terminate their pregnancy? Assuming you do, what would you think of similarly worded pro-life argument?

I think you’ll find such emotionally charged arguments are never effective and will convince no one.

It’s also uninformed, as there’s plenty of objective evidence to suggest that guns save more lives than they take[1–2].

[1] recent study: https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-...

[2] more via: https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp


I would recommend reading this article. It was written in 80s, when NRA was just gaining political steam, and long before Heller v. DC (after which, like it or not, there is definitely a constitutional right). And it's written by an unsympathetic liberal law scholar.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html


> Everyone who used their money to support the proliferation of guns have blood on their hands.

Note that among US states, there is no correlation whatsoever between gun ownership and gun homicide.


If only guns respected state lines.


"You never had a constitutional right to owe a firearm."

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise. District of Columbia vs. Heller.


...because the text is in the Constitution in very clear wording. Trying to use syntax tricks to explain an alternate meaning for the second amendment results in nonsense, really. People who are against gun rights aren't for "well-organized militias" in general.


Very clear wording that took over 200 yeas for there to be a Supreme Court willing to agree with that interpretayption. Previous courts disagreed. Given this no one can reasonably think it’s very clear wording.


Guns were not banned for 200 years. D.C. vs. Heller in particular overturned parts of a law passed in 1975.


Getting really obvious that you haven't taken a moment to listen to the Heller decision.


I have not read the Heller decision in its entirety. I do know that there are Supreme Court rulings that Heller contradicts. I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded. I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time. I do know that it's not an obvious amendment. There is no such thing as we have lawyers arguing the meaning of the Constitution all the time. Nothing is very clear cut. Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.


> I do know that some legal scholars say the 2nd Amendment is poorly worded... Language is nuanced, intent is nuanced, and there are a ton of gray areas.

Can I ignore or rewrite the 14th amendment because I find it confusing?

> I do know that views on how the Constitution should be interpreted have changed over time.

Yeah, people started ignoring parts they weren't comfortable with and finding new parts in prenumbras.

Your argument boils down to, "I don't know, everyone. There are a lot of gray areas, so we better just agree to do what I want."


That is not my argument at all. I have an opinion on what the 2nd amendment ought to mean. I advocate that others share my position. I've acknowledged numerous times that others don't share my opinion and I've suggested that they keep vigilant to maintain their rights. That's the whole point of politics. This is a political issue and people advocate for/against positions all the time. Sometimes attitudes that once were accepted become repugnant.

We best not just agree to do what I want. That would be absolute power and that would be horrible. No one deserves that much power. No one should be so arrogant that they think they are always right or that their opinions are beyond reproach.

I welcome discourse and debate. It's necessary for a properly functioning society.


The NRA/Republican Party's interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a total fabrication. The amendment was meant to apply to a standing militia organized by a state (potentially in opposition to the federal government).

The Founders weren't stupid. They did not intend for any random nut to have the right to carry a gun. The lethality of weapons available at the time the 2nd amendment was introduced is not even remotely comparable to that of the puniest modern handgun. Simply put, an armed individual didn't pose much of a threat back then. They could hardly envision the nightmares we have to endure today, or else they might have been more precise with the language in order to preclude exactly this sort of Al-Qaeda-esque interpretative perversion of a 'sacred text'.

That you're dispensing the carefully-crafted bile conservatives have vomited into our society is little more than a testament to their capacity to brainwash the masses.


> A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

IANAL but it seems like it applies to people not militias

Wikipedia gives some historical context which makes it seem more clear that it's about people not state-run militias:

> Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution: "Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures."


The reasons are clearly enumerated as to why it is an individual right in Heller vs DC: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/...

If "inalienable" means "when you have met some specific requirements" then the term is meaningless btw.

I hope the NRA folks also take a look at GOA.


The object is, that every man should have a gun - Patrick Henry

You might well be a member of your state militia and not even be aware of it...


There is an interesting section that goes into the scholarly interpretation of the 2nd amendment in the Wikipedia article on it, and it's only been in the 20th century and after that we have gotten into what militia, well regulated and whether or not the people have the right or militias.

The main point the founding fathers had for the militias was to defend the country from foreign invaders and from a tyrannical government. I know people think we don't need to worry about tyrannical governments these days, but what if what happened in Libya, Syria and Egypt started happening here? How would we fix that kind of a situation?


the hypothetical tyrant just wins over the gun nuts who shoot up the regular folks. tidy.


The more people that own guns the better, then. That way a minority can't run things.


This is certainly the position of the NRA, but it is not a position that has been leading to good results for society here, up to now.


except for all the negative consequences of everyone owning guns.


>hope that someday they will be banned in the U.S

How would something like that possibly be carried out?


Just like drugs. It’s easy.


Exactly! No one would break the law, that would be illegal!

And while we're at it, we can use it as an opportunity to crack down on minorities we don't like, and maybe do some good old selective enforcement, genius.


In the same way other countries who've banned firearms have carried it out? It's not like there's no precedent for this if you look outside of America.


America isn't other countries. Guns are as ingrained in rural America's culture as lifted trucks and beer. There would literally be armed revolts if the government tried taking peoples' guns away en masse.


"Don't take guns away from people to protect the populace because if you try to do it nutters with guns will shoot people"?

That sounds like justification for taking people's guns from them.


Every time I see this argument come up people always try to frame it like it will be ‘nutters’ shooting ‘some’ people. You are very wrong, and that is the attitude that will get a lot of innocent people killed. This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.


> well organized people who will kill before being disarmed.

The collective noun for people who will kill rather than obey the law is "terrorists".

One of the conditions for peace in Northern Ireland was that political groups had to disarm in order to enter politics, because you can't do politics with people who are threatening to murder you. That's not a democracy.


One of the founding principles of the US was the right of its citizenry to protect itself from the overreach of the government, which was enabled partly through the right for citizens to own firearms and other weapons. They're a means of self defense, but more importantly as a way to keep the gov in check. No government can control millions of armed citizens--which is exactly the point.

Killing in response to being disarmed is probably one of the most "American" things its citizens could do.


It would be nice if all these gun owners were interested in defending rights other than owning guns.


Gun ownership is a right in the US.


You don't think trying to murder policemen because your country enacted gun controls to protect schoolchildren would be "nutters trying to shoot people"?

"Oh but I need this 1000 round per minute gun for pest control in my apartment! I'll murder people to protect my right to have it."??


I'm not sure where you got 1000 rounds per minute from, even a fully automatic rifle generally cannot fire that quickly (it would probably need to be belt-fed or you would be changing magazines more than thirty times per minute).

A semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 is unlikely to surpass 100 rounds per minute.


The 1000 rounds per minute was intended to show that the post was knowingly exaggerated, however in part it was inspired by a "girl fires minigun" post I saw on Reddit. I can't truly recall but I think it was an M134 and that it did maybe 3000 rounds per minute.


Oh, well that sounds _much_ safer and more reasonable then.


[flagged]


Did you read the start of the thread that I was responding to.

The whole thread is reference to the parent saying people would rise up in armed revolt if the law was changed to tighten gun controls.

Assuming the national guard weren't sent in then as I understand it regular police would be charged with arresting those who refused to follow the legislation.

To me the meaning of that is clear - if the law is changed people will shoot (at) those who oppose them.

In this hypothetical case that would be police attempting to arrest them for unlawfully keeping controlled firearms.

You appear to be saying if tighter gun controls were enacted your family members who are policemen would leave their jobs in order to shoot anyone attempting to confiscate their controlled weapons? Do you think that's a reasonable position? Kill your own countrymen now in order to protect your right to more efficiently kill others in some intangible imaginary future scenario?


I think the implication was that a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law, if not join the rebellion itself. Indeed, I've never met a more adamant group of 2nd amendment supporters than my military friends.

But should such a dire scenario occur, I have always wondered how these small arms would fare against UAVs. The trouble is that we have precedent in this country that in a large-scale rebellion, it is taken out of law enforcement's hands and put into the military's hands.


>a very large fraction of police/national guard/US armed forces would at least refuse to enforce such a law //

Anything to support this? It's very sad to imagine that not being allowed automatic weapons at home, say, would turn LEOs in to outlaws. Do they perceive an actual threat? Do they not care about all the school massacres?

Are this large proportion of armed personnel in rebellion against the bump stock rulings that I understand were enacted recently?


The original context of this thread (starting with user yequalsx's comment) isn't about "tighter gun controls", but rather the a complete ban of all guns ("I hope I am now seeing the beginning of the end of acceptance of gun ownership.") I think that is the scenario -- actual confiscation of all guns -- user purple-again was addressing ("This country is filled with rational, professional, well organized people who will kill before being disarmed").

This is different from outlawing or more tightly controlling certain classes of weapons, which seems to be what you're talking about. I think not being able to easily purchase fully automatic weapons or crazier stuff like rocket propelled grenades, stingers, 20mm cannons, etc is something a minority of gun enthusiasts grumble about but pretty much everyone basically accepts. Nobody that I know of is revolting about that, cops/feds have no problem enforcing it, etc.


Taking guns away from people =/= complete been of all guns.

Tighter gun controls requires taking guns away from people (or people giving up their guns willingly).


Right, but if the type of people having their guns taken away (say repeat violent offenders) or the type of guns being taken away (say automatics) are reasonable enough in the eyes of the people, you don't see a ton of resistance. Gun laws have been incrementally tightened many times in the past. It's lobbied against, voted against, and there is outcry by some gun owners, but not mass rebellion.

I think banning bump stocks, which are just a crude workaround of the longstanding automatic gun restrictions, are something we'll probably see without mass revolt or officers refusing to enforce.


I wasn't really attempting to express an opinion on how valid or likely this claim is, just to clarify what I took to be GP's point.

But for fun, I'll try to address the question. I live in a conservative state and do some work with public health policy, working with local politicians and have friends in LEO and military. Here are the common arguments/viewpoints (I am not endorsing them):

- The biggest proportion of gun deaths are suicides, so focusing on random massacres or inner-city violence, which are tiny blips on the mortality radar, is not a productive or a good-faith basis for banning guns.

- There is a (somewhat justified IMO) fear of a slippery-slope approach to gun regulation. It is not controversial or speculative to say there is a large contingent on the left that would like to totally ban them if it were possible.

- Guns are very limited in the damage they can do. A bomb in a high-school assembly could do a lot more damage than the most well-prepared shooter, and with much less risk to the perpetrator. At best, guns are not the most dangerous thing to be focused on and at worst, banning them could push psychopaths into more dangerous alternatives.

LEOs and military folks lean conservative. That means they tend to generally distrust or even fear the very government they work for. LEOs in particular are well acquainted with the damage guns do on a daily basis but frequently do not see banning them as a solution because:

- It is impractical

- The people killing each other with them are for the most part poor or (by definition) criminals, so no one cares about them

- The original intention of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the people from the government that, again, they distrust and fear, so even if banning guns would save lives, which they would dispute, it is a worthwhile cost to pay to protect against tyranny.

- There is a viewpoint that gun control actually increases violent crime, and therefore deaths, because guns serve as a deterrent. I have been in an extremely long-running debate with a local politician about whether this is the case.

As a result of all these arguments, I think a serious effort to confiscate guns would make many, many people in conservative states, including LEOs and military, very highly irritated. Irritated enough to rebel? I have no idea.

Again, I am not endorsing most of this, but there is one argument that resonates with me from a public health perspective. Gun homicide is an extremely rare cause of death. I personally feel that it would be orders of magnitude more helpful if the left would channel its energy into increasing funding for your friendly neighborhood National Institutes of Health.


It isn't clear who you're threatening to shoot. All you've said is "There is an organized group of citizens ready to carry out extrajudicial killings if gun laws change."

To the rest of us, that sounds like the violence threatened by a terrorist group--and maybe you shoot policemen, maybe you shoot your neighbors, I dunno, I'm not the one talking about keeping my guns around to be able to shoot my fellow citizens.


No, you pawn it off on the police and military to do the dirty work for you.


What's interesting is that rural America was in favor of increased gun control in the 1960s when blacks started to assert their right to own guns. Ultimately peoples' attitudes can be swayed and changed and it isn't really hard to do it. Witness our embracing of torture, taking shoes off to board an airplane, fear of sharia law, etc.


Yes, and blacks were taking up arms because they were literally being bombed. The whites wanted to control their rights to have guns so they could continue controlling the black populations with violent force.

So you highlight how gun control has been used as an oppressive tool in the past. What are we do to when only our corrupt government is allowed to have guns?


If you're going by second amendment rights, at this point it's more to the spirit of it for civillian fighter jets and tanks to be legalized than guns.

To some extent, I actually imagine it'd be safer for the average citizen.

* * *

From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0]

[0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s...


> From a more protectionist standpoint, you could say that an AR-15 or an AK-47 will allow you to stand up against your government. This isn't really realistic, however - no civillian weapon, especially not a semi-automatic rifle, will reliably take care of a tank, fighter jet, drone or military robot. [0]

It gives you some leverage however if you need to get some ingredients for your IEDs.

A few guns might make the difference between efficient large scale killings like Auschwitz and a case where a large number of civilians get away and hide until the international community can come and help.


Yep, people with rifles and improvised explosives are completely ineffective against a modern military force. That's why the US was in and out of Afghanistan in less than a year!

Oh wait.


Our "corrupt government" would crush us with jets, tanks, nukes, laser weapons, missiles, helicopters, drones, ships, chemical weapons, smallpox, and probably many more things regardless of whether we had AR-15s or not.


Libya and Syria are probably good examples of this not being the case. Libya had the benefit of NATO coming to the aid of the rebellion and stopping the airstrikes, Syria also had outside involvement. When a government goes to war with it's civilians other nations tend to get involved.

Even if that isn't the case, all those weapons are on the ground or in port at some point. Meaning an attack with small arms to get in there and preemptively blow them up will work. These weapons also have to be maintained meaning they need a base. You have millions of citizens with weapons and a military that's a much smaller fraction of that, with bases that have a much smaller fraction of personnel. The base is going to be overrun. There is also the chance of military personnel defecting, so that some of these weapons never get fired.

Chemical and biological weapons are a really bad idea. The problem is a civil war isn't going to be geographically defined in this case. There is no polarization along something like a Mason-Dixon line. You will end up killing people that don't revolt, which will probably make them rethink their not revolting. How would you feel if your family and friends were killed in an attack, and they weren't on the rebel side?

The other problem is even if you increase the military's size to win the civil war, you have the second problem of the very people that you could grab immediately to fight are probably going to be a majority of people who have been opposed to gun ownership, don't have weapons and don't know how to use them. It will take time to become proficient and the other side has both the weapons and training.

Even with advanced military tech, the numbers game combined with a guerrilla approach, and the fact these are civilians and it would be hard to identify civilian combatants from non-combatants, will make it a losing battle. We already haven't done well in Afghanistan or Iraq for similar reasons, and despite the enemy being technologically inferior, we have never been able to secure those regions.


You would have probably been against the American Revolutionary War then? Meh, let's let the British tax us. They're big and powerful. They're the Government.

And what about something like Vietnam? Who won that one?

And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt?

People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking.


Generally I am against loss of human life, be it in war or gun violence, but I'm not sure how I would have felt at the time of the Revolution, and I'm not sure you do either.

But really, that is just a weak strawman. The US government/military is MANY orders of magnitude more powerful than the British vs the colonists. The US military could nuke every single state capital in a few minutes, for example. If you take the argument to it's logical conclusion, we should have legal access to weapons equivalent to that of the military, which we already definitely do not.

I am just pointing out that an untrained populace armed with even military-style assault weapons is really just laughable if your enemy is the largest military that has ever existed with technology and weapons that could annihilate humanity. I just don't agree that it is productive to use that as an excuse against thoughtful regulation in the face of the actual, currently occuring epidemic of gun violence (accidents, suicides, school shootings, domestic violence, gang violence, etc) where people are really losing their lives.


You missed the part where I mentioned Vietnam, and the part where I asked what if half the military defects?

I'm against loss of human life too, that's why I'm pro-2nd Amendment. People can defend themselves. People can fight off tyranny. Given enough time, people will need to do that again.


what if half the military and all the gun nuts decide this country is for whites only? the people can fight for tyrrant as well as against it.


Well, that would be why we have an amendment to the constitution that says 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' As long as we follow that, guns won't be whites only.


what kind of magical thinking is that, that what the constitution says determines who has guns? anyway, it isn't the point. the point is that the majority are if anything more likely to support a tyrant than not, so the idea that gun nuts will save us from a tyrant they have at least a 50/50 shot of supporting is silly, and that's without considering the possibility that they'll save us from a tyrant who actually isn't a tyrant at all.


Pretty much anyone can get a gun, right? Because of the Constitution, right? Where's the magic thinking?

You say most people would support a tyrant, which may not be true but let's go with that. Given that, why wouldn't you want the opposition to that tyrrany to have guns? Your take seems defeatist. You want to just try to live peacefully as tyranny spreads?


One doesn't need a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms in order to keep and bear arms, only to do so legally. Expecting a tyrannical US regime to respect the 2nd Amendment in order to legitimize the means of its own demise seems shortsighted, and other countries manage to have revolutions and coups without a legal firearms market.


"It was good to have a gun when the Clansmen came." -Antonin Scalia

You really should take a moment to listen to Heller(2008).


> I am just pointing out that an untrained populace armed with even military-style assault weapons is really just laughable if your enemy is the largest military that has ever existed with technology and weapons that could annihilate humanity.

Tell that to the Nazis. They were the military superpower of their time.

Except for the nuclear option every armed enemy can tie up >10 soldiers if they are going to try to keep people alive for slave labour/selective genocide/etc.

Edit: my point is that the Nazis had a giant technological advantage as well as a giant army and even powerful allies and still they were vulnerable to all kinds of sting operations.

Edit2: a little more context.


Third reich army was trained. It was army. This is not an example of "untrained populace". This is example of well trained army from country with great military tradition.

The fight against nazi was ultimately won by armies, not by "untrained populace".

All in all, this is really odd example.


> Third reich army was trained. It was army. This is not an example of "untrained populace".

Yep. That is my point.

> The fight against nazi was ultimately won by armies, not by "untrained populace".

Also true. But local groups (and of course SOE operations) helped tying up their resources so they couldn't help on the eastern front or start the invasion of Britain.

From Wikipedia[0]: The following afternoon, on 8 May, ... At this time there were no fewer than 400,000 German troops in Norway, which had a population of barely three million.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_occupation_of_Norway


I don't really find this convincing as far as original discussion goes.


The Brits weren't actually that far ahead of the civs in the ARWar, it was mostly a numbers issue, not a tech issue.

Vietnam wasn't on US soil, home-base would be infinitely cheaper.

> And even if you're right, that the US government is just that big and bad. What if half the military defects and joins the revolt?

The higher up they are the more nonexistant that chance gets, and the higher up you are the more likely it is that you have a kill-switch to any devices that can be used against the nation.

> People have the right to defend themselves, and must be trusted to do so. Otherwise you get something like England. Say the wrong thing and you go to jail. The 2nd Amendment keeps the government in check. Eventually, given enough time, it will need checking.

Actually, you have the US. People have been arrested for bible burning, [1] promoting Communistic views, [2] Japanese Internment Camps, [3] and more. It's absolutely anti-democratic, but the 2A supporters never will speak against these practices.

[0] http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150715-killer-robots-the-s...

[1] http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/23/bible-burning-incident-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_America...


I don't think it's fair or accurate to say folks wouldn't speak out against those things.

Your argument is that people shouldn't have guns because we probably couldn't beat the government. I'll take my fighting chance. It's better to die free.


Soviet and later USA didn't crush Afghanistan easily in a few months.

The Nazis had quite a lot of soldiers tied up in already occupied countries because of sting operations.

Edit: remove stupid snark


Can't win if you don't play.


And what are we to do when half the population is armed and wants to install an authoritarian regime?


It's never going to be en masse. Australia enacted sufficient gun control to drastically limit mass shootings by introducing licensing, purpose and registration requirements as well as banning semi-automatics. There was a buyback scheme which most people complied with.

I do wonder if American resistance to sensible gun control will cause a flip straight over into hard restrictions, but it's difficult to see what the trigger event for that would be. Left-wing paramilitaries? (right-wing paramilitaries are seemingly tolerated!)


"sensible"? Since massive amoutns of guns have found their way to the public since the 1990s the crime rates across the US have been dropping dramatically. And even so the US isn't even close to the top of the list worldwide in per capita murder rate even though lots of people have weapons.

If anything those numbers show that there is at the very least no correlation between numbers of guns and crime, and may well indicate more guns means less crime. Since the US constitution protects ownership with the "shall not be infringed" clause and the stats show there's little downsides why stomp on people's rights?


Gun ownership rates have been falling, not rising.

http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun...


At one point (1920 I think) there was an amendment which made alcohol illegal. It went on for 13 years and then was removed.

So there is a legal framework to add/remove amendments from the US Constitution, they are amendments after all, they were not there originally (I think 3 years after).


It was removed, but also (and maybe because) it was nearly impossible to effectively enforce. Gun restrictions would very much experience the same problems. There are millions of guns and gun owners in the US and many of those people are firm believers in their right to own a gun. They'd likely bury them in the yard or, as the old joke goes, "lose" them in a boating accident, before turning them over to authorities.

I personally would _never_ willingly turn mine in--they're for my and my family's protection and have saved my life before. I am certain many gun owners feels this way as well. Trying to enforce such a rule would be difficult, if not impossible.


I didn't really comment on if it was enforceable, just that in a logical manner there is a path for amendments to be removed, added or changed.

Doing minimal research on prohibition since I had no context into what triggered it: "Prohibition also united progressives and revivalists. The temperance movement had popularized the belief that alcohol was the major cause of most personal and social problems and prohibition was seen as the solution to the nation's poverty, crime, violence, and other ills." [0]

You could replace alcohol with firearms and the part about removing them being "solution to the nation's poverty, crime, violence, and other ills". I bet there are a lot of people that would believe that prohibiting firearms would help solve those issues.

Just because laws are not easy to enforce doesn't mean they can't happen. There are still counties in some states that are 'dry'.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_in_the_United_Stat...


I think he was alluding to the fact that although there is a legal way to make guns illegal, it won't actually get rid of guns, in much the same way making alcohol illegal didn't prevent people from drinking.


Yeah, and look at how well that whole experiment turned out.


Similar to how other bans get carried out. Make it illegal and send those who violate the law to jail.


Worked for drugs, and tax evasion, and human trafficking, and alcohol for awhile.

Simply make it illegal and it goes away!


The logical conclusion from that train of thought is that laws have no meaning if people break the laws. So why have any laws?


Do you understand that outside of obvious moral ethics - that a law against murder doesn't stop someone from murdering. It only gives lawyers a way to punish it.

It's the punishment that is the deterrent.

Why should law abiding gun owners be punished again?

Adding punitive laws is not a deterrent. Enforcing those laws is. We don't enforce many guns laws, then you come in yelling about adding more laws.

The logical conclusion isn't that laws have no meaning if they're broken, it's that they have no meaning if they aren't enforced, and we're not.

Parkland could have been avoided in at least 6 different ways. So tell me how your new-laws that make illegal things illegal-er would stop people with no criminal record from being bad.


A person is law abiding until they aren’t. It’s about keeping people from having ready access to so much lethality when that person decides to become a bad actor. Banning guns would lower the likelihood of a bad actor having as much lethality as they currently are easily able to acquire.

Parkland could have been avoided in a 7th way too. Without access to guns it wouldn’t have been as lethal.


Why have a society if you cannot trust the people in it to defend themselves?


Because when we organize a society, we can specialize into roles like policing and become more effective at defense as a whole?


Police in United States do not have to protect you:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-pol...

Average national response time is 10 minutes, even in cities the median is 5min, but can be as high as 30min for some remote areas.

In certain situations there may be no police response at all, as was the case in 1992 Los Angeles riots or practically any major natural disaster.

The ‘let the police do it’ argument would only logically work with incredibly pervasive and invasive surveillance technology and/or police robots (https://goo.gl/wpMV8).

Even so, 2nd amendment would be even more relevant to balance the killer robots.


> In certain situations there may be no police response at all...

This more or less describes the Parkland shooting.


That might be a good argument in theory, if it wasn't for the part where US police don't have to protect citizens and all the population that are outside of effective police coverage. It's not the argument gun control campaigners seem to be making right now. They mainly seem to have gone for the approach of supporting police officers standing by and doing nothing as kids are murdered one by one. Given that, I suspect you're going to have a hard time convincing people who don't already agree with you that they should give up their guns and let the police take care of everything.


This isn't like organizing roles at a startup company. We're talking about an individual's right to defend themselves against someone bigger and stronger, someone with a weapon who wants to take your shit or fuck you or just fuck you up.

You put much faith in the Government, and I put it in the individual.

What happens when your police force is turned against you, becomes incompetent, gets lazy, or just doesn't show up?

It's idealistic. Life is a struggle for the individual, no matter how much we'd like to forget it or offload our worries.


Guns also equalizes the power disparity between a man and a woman. I see gun ownership as female empowerment, but the left never seems to mention that.


So ask the threat to wait a 5+ minutes while you call the cops?

Should we DRM 3D printers (DMLS@home is coming) to a walled garden of things? The 2nd Amendment is not separable from general purpose computing. Who needs "assult crypto" anyway?


why not defend yourself with something less likly to accidentally kill some random people?


It's a valid question. If we had something like phasers instead of firearms, I'd be more than happy to use those exclusively. The problem is we don't really have a good alternative. Tasers that shoot tend to be one shot solutions, and even then they don't always bring down targets, or they might prove as lethal. Rubber bullets you can fire multiple of, but they could cause serious damage too, especially if shot in succession, and there is no guarantee of taking the target down. There just isn't a solid alternative right now.


Not to offer a complete solution: Lasers, and pervasive societal warnings about the danger of lasers.


Why not defend yourself with a towel??


a towel isn't a good defensive weapon. a firearm isn't so good either. it's a great offensive weapon though.


That is too simple. The conclusion is the laws only work as long it is percieved better to follow than not, either by force, violence or social coercion or their actual concequences.

Drug laws for example does not really work, since some people self medicate no matter if there is a death sentence. Others don't care since they probably wont get caught.

While other laws kind of does work, people can rationally choose to follow them because the concequences of doing so are the "best" available option.


Laws have no meaning if [most] people can break the laws without consequences. The ability to enforce is important.


People do illegal things. This isn’t surprising nor an argument against making something illegal. If it could be shown that banning guns and making it illegal to sell guns didn’t decrease the frequency of their usage to commit crimes then I would no longer be advocate for banning guns.


Except that there is no correlation to gun ownership and crime.

We know the places that have more guns don’t have more crime, we can’t call correlation to that, but we do know adding guns doesn’t increase crime - because that’s been true since the high crime peak of the early 1990s where crime has been falling with guns skyrocketing.

It’s painfully childish to claim that it’s some surprise that where guns are that there is more gun-crime. Something can’t be abused where it doesn’t exist - the joke is that people look at gun-crime compared to overall crime.

Rape rates in Australia are 40-45% higher than the USA. If you’re a rapist, it’s much safer to “work” in Oz, does the rapist getting shot in the USA contribute to “gun-crime”? On paper, yes.


Adding guns probably doesn’t increase crime rate. It does the mass murder rate. It is precisely gun crime that I abhor. Thus I'm opposed to their availability.


Can't wait for the citation from an actual study (try the CDC, they've put out at least 3 since 2013)!

You should be able to easily show that rural USA with it's murder rate on part with Europe is definitely not the place where all our guns are... oh wait...


I don’t understand your sarcasm. I agreed with you that the crime rate has not gone up due to an increase in gun ownership. But guns in their current form certainly increase the lethality of those with bad intent. This isn’t deniable.

My claim is that the mass murder rate, the rate at which we have mass killings in the U.S. would go down if buying/selling guns were illegal.


Offtopic: What legal mechanism do you propose to use to ban the private ownership of firearms in the United States of America?

Edit: Additionally, what do you want done about all of the currently legal guns that exist in this country when this ban goes into effect?


A constitutional ammendment is the most straightforward way.


Bumpstocks were banned in multiple steps, here in MA where they have a list of ALL people registered to own a firearm they sent a letter out "if you own a bump stock after x date, you're committing a felony". They got back 4 devices. In the WHOLE state. Even though everyone received a letter.

It's not going to be easy.

source: http://boston.cbslocal.com/2018/02/02/bump-stock-massachuset...


Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.


> Not everyone owns a bump stock. Anyway, you can also destroy it yourself.

This is an absurd comment. The parent stated that four units were returned state-wide. Asserting the ability to manually decommission them attempts to give the appearance of undermining the parent’s statement without actually addressing the issue.

I don’t think anyone here, even you, likely believes that even a majority of these were destroyed by the owners, let alone all but four.


Parent makes it sounds that most gun owners are not law abiding when they are. A gun ban will effectively confiscate guns from good people. Like it did in other countries.


Law abiding to not law abiding if new law / repeal of amendment happens, and they gave an example of a relavent instance.

Is your argument that you believe most/all law abiding citizens that currently own guns will willing destroy/turn over their guns of new laws pass against ownership?

Looking at reports on Australia it seems the effectiveness on turning in guns was anywhere from 40-80 percent. Effectiveness for prohibited guns was at 70%, so ~30% went from law abiding to not law abiding.

Page 11 of 36 is most of the stats for this: http://faculty.publicpolicy.umd.edu/sites/default/files/reut...


When we say majority of gun owners are ‘law-abididing citizens’ we mean they’re good and moral people, and not that they’re obedient subjects.

Your argument seems to be focused on semantics, which is fine, except you’re missing the point of this statement.

There’s very much a difference in disobeying a natural law like murder and an arbitrary, reactionary, and most of all, unconstitutional, law that’s designed to limit freedom and achieve nothing.

Civil disobedience is amoral. In fact, when the law in question is unjust or unconstitutional to disobey it is a virtue.


agree on the latter statements.

definition of words matter, word choice matters to avoid confusion it may cause.

if the original argument is that mostly good/moral people are the gun owners, i wouldn't know where to start on how they got that data, and came to that interpretation as both words are relative.


How about starting with the fact that are more guns than people in United States, and yet gun violence (excluding suicides) is on similar level as other developed countries, and on constant decline?

Major sources of gun violence are no different than in any other developed country, which unfortunately is in a big part fueled by the global failed drug prohibition, and committed with very much illegal firearms.

UK, for example, despite its strictest gun control, has much of the same problems, committed with more primitive tools, only leaving you to bleed out slower, but ending up just as dead (stab wounds are often more lethal than handgun calibers).

The surplus or deficit of guns does not affect the number of people already predisposed to capital crime. The law, unsurprisingly, only affects those that are willing to abide by it. Left defenseless, suspect by default and at mercy of the King.

Clearly, by the way of deduction, legally owned guns must then be in the hands of good & responsible people, for the most part. That, btw, includes 22% of Democrat voters (to 35% Republicans).

I don’t actually think that guns magically make people good or responsible (though they make other people more polite).

It’s likely just a correlation having to do with how firearm owners autoselect, based on range of personality traits and other criteria (like gender).

The statement “401(k) owners are on average good people” is probably equally true, though we don’t collect any data to disprove it, as far as I know.

Nevertheless, there’s some comfort in the fact that of the 370 million guns in United States, all but very few will more likely be used to save lives, rather than take them.

A grand experiment in freedom & liberty, nothing alike anywhere else in the world.


> Nevertheless, there’s some comfort in the fact that of the 370 million guns in United States, all but very few will more likely be used to save lives, rather than take them.

That's based on a false dichotomy; many won't be used at all, and many of the rest will be used for entertainment, not to save or take lives. And some will be used for multiole purposes (often simultaneously), potentially including both saving and taking lives. (A criminal who fatslly shoots a cop to make his escape from arrest on a capital offense, is, after all, both saving and taking a life, as is the cop who, being slightly faster in the same situation, fatally shoots the criminal first.)


I’ve tried to word around it carefully with ‘will more likely to be’, but obviously that’s true.

I think the number of firearms in US is quite remarkable, considering the fact that in my home country, Poland, only a single person in hundred owns a firearm.

If gun control was in any way effective at reducing crime, it should be very easy to demonstrate, with such significant differences in saturation.


I'm sure plenty of them were sold out of state or shipped to friends/family out of state as well. There are more options than destroy/turn-in/felony.


Or... you can keep it and ignore the law. The above comment was highlighting the futility of this kind of ban, so I don’t see what voluntary disposal would do to realize it.


So a repeal of the Second Amendment to the Constitution?


Yes, just as the 21st amendment repealed the 18th. I'm not suggesting this is easy, but any other method gets messy due to the 2nd.


I would like it to be illegal for people to own guns. Those who violate the law (as the ban would be in the form of a law) would go to jail. Current owners would turn in their guns and those guns would be destroyed.

The 2nd Amendment is oddly worded. It does speak of a well regulated militia. I'm not a lawyer or a legal expert but it seems to me that banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia should be constitutional. I could be wrong. It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets. So I could see a law saying that we can own guns but they are quite limited in comparison to what is currently legal to own.

There are far more people in the country now versus 250 years ago. The population density is far greater. We are much more of an urban society. In such circumstances I see no necessity for allowing gun ownership. I don't think the propensity to assholeness has increased but by virtue of having far more people now than in the past the number of assholes has greatly increased. It's best that the lethality of devices we can carry be very much curtailed than what it currently is.


> It also seems to me that for those who tend toward original intent interpretations (majority of current Supreme Court) would agree that the founders only saw it fit that people be able to own guns with similar firepower and lethality as muskets.

You'd be wrong there. The Supreme Court agrees that the founders saw fit that people are armed with weapons similar to those used by the military, with certain restrictions.


And those weapons at the time were....muskets, bayonets. They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia..." So let's well regulate it.

According to Wikipedia:

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government.[11] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".[12][13]

As I stated, I have no expertise in this matter. If it requires a repeal then that is what I would favor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...


"They had no vision of the M-16, AK-47, etc. "

They also had no vision of the Internet.

So, obviously, the First Amendment only applies to quill pens and manually-operated printing presses. Right?

"The statement of the 2nd Amendment begins with, "A well regulated militia...""

If the First Amendment had read "A well-educated legislature being essential to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" you would argue, what? That only well-educated people should have books? That only the legislature should have books?

No, you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else, because that would be a contrived and nonsensical interpretation of the language.


That's a clever analogy.


Well if the first amendment were stated differently than what it is then people would interpret it differently. I fail to see your point on that.

There is much that the writers of the constitution didn’t foresee. I think it’s ridiculous, in many cases, to try to seek what they originally intended. Society is far more complex now than it was then. I mentioned their views for the self described originalists. These people tend to have a very broad interpretation to what the second amendment means but narrowly interpret other parts of the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment has had many cases before the Supreme Court. It wasn’t until 2008 with Heller that it was interpreted to mean an actual right to own guns. As far as I understand the history of the legal interpretation if the second amendment. It appears the modern interpretation is out of sync with what the founders intended.


My interpretation of the 2nd is that not only does it make explicit the right to own and carry arms, but also the right to own any and all arms of military relevance. You can't fight off King George XXIII if he has war machines imaginable only by the likes of Tyssot, Swift, Mercier, or Restif, and you still only have your musket from the 1770s.

At the time of drafting, the founders hadn't yet encountered the Pawnee vs. Cheyenne/Lakota style of total warfare, and had barely even invented hit-and-run tactics. As such, it would have been prudent to amend the amendment at least once in the last 230 years. I'd prefer that laws banning chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological weapons would have constitutional backing, that torture and other war crimes be banned explicitly, and there be some concession for denying deadly munitions to antisocial maniacs and bellicose outlaws.

Reinterpretation is not the proper channel towards rational arms policy, or to resolve any other problem with the document not anticipating societal progress. Amendment is the prescribed remedy. There have been calls in the past to convene an Article 5 Amendments Convention, as it is the only way to propose an amendment when the Congress won't, but we've never actually had one. Perhaps it is time?


This sounds reasonable. For a variety of reasons I think the U.S. constitution is badly in need of being updated.


The Second Amendment did not limit the type of arms it applied to, and the reason that it's preamble referred to the dependency of the security of a free state on a well-regulated militia was because it was in the context of the best universal opinion at the time that large standing professional armed forces for either internal security or international conflict were a mechanism of tyranny, and that having a free country absolutely required a dependency on avoiding those and instead relying on mobilizing the armed populace (with all the weapons of war) to deal with internal and external threats.

Leaving aside gun laws, we've long since completely abandoned the premise of the second amendment on a far more fundamental level with our professional militaries and paramilitary police forces.


According to the quote I have of the Wikipedia article there are Supreme Court cases that say it does limit the type of arms.


Yes, you can't have sawed-off shotguns, for example, because those are not a military weapon and cannot contribute to the common defense.


Only because Miller was not properly heard almost 100years ago.

Short barrel shotguns were extremely common in world war 1 trench warfare, and that’s what Miller was charged with. Too bad he was dead before the supreme court heard that case.


Please man, the pre-Heller 2008 argument of “well regulated” where you need to pretend means “lots of regulations” and not the real meaning of “well trained and in good working order” is tired.

Leave that nonsense at Reddit.

I used to... I still find it interesting how the “collective right” angle is pushed post Heller and MacDonald with the obviousness that’s always been there of “can you read the rest of the right past the first few words?”


So where's the training?


Well, there used to be some YouTube videos on proper firearm maintenance and safety...


Are you advocating for government subsidized ammo and training? That's something I could get behind!


How would you regulate the training---what if you fail the training that's required to be part of a well-regulated militia? If the right to bear arms would be only contingent to being part of a militia, would the failure void your right to bear arms? (serious question)


Why in your interpretation of government subsidized training/ammo is it a requirement?

If the constitution is a document that explains the natural rights of citizens, and is restrictions on the government (which it is)... Then saying A well-regulated militia being necessity to a free state - would imply that government is obligated to train and supply ammo - any requirements for this to be part of your rights would be null considering the next words are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Note that it says "the right of the people" (as a whole), not the right of "people" (all of them).

The right is not there for everyone. It's only applicable inasmuch as you are part of the militia, and can be restricted if you're not.

Regulating the militia (just like saying what e.g. is due process) is up to the law, and can be arbitrarily restrictive as long as the overall right of the American people to form an armed militia is not infringed. For example, prohibiting hunting would be just fine.


I’m not a lawyer, never claimed to be an expert. Heller is a recent ruling. Previous rulings contradict Heller in some aspects. See, the way the Cinstituion is interpreted over time changes. It’s not like we are bound by a ruling for all eternity.

The reasoning is not tired. It’s how I interpret the text. Fortunately for your position my interpretation doesn’t matter since I’m not on the Supreme Court. Indeed, even decades after Roe v Wade people still argue against the reasoning used in that ruling and desire change.

It’s not nonsense to advocate for one's position just because there is a Supreme Court ruling against that position.


Using words that don't mean what you think they mean is a bad argument.

Sorry, well-regulated means well trained and in good working order.

Militia - is you and I, and anyone else of able body that can fight for defense of self and country.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - that's the part you apparently didn't read. Of all the bill of rights, they all apply to people directly - except of course 2A where you say "people" is collective inexplicably.

Hey, I'm not arguing. Keep using arguments that very old, very tired, well defeated by logic and precedent. It makes my job as someone who cares about civil rights easier.


I quoted a Supreme Court ruling in which the justices said there was no such right enshrined in the 2nd amendment. Thus there are people who are learned in the law who disagree with your position. Is it really hard for you to imagine that well educated, knowledgeable people can come to a different conclusion than you on what the 2nd amendment means?

I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership.

As I’ve said through these posts, fight for your rights. Be vigilant. We are on opposite sides but open debate and discussion is good for a democracy. Maybe my view will prevail in the coming decades. Maybe not. Societies evolve and views change. Only by people of like mind to you being willing to advocate for your rights will my position be prevented from becoming normative.


> I’m claim neither to be well educated or knowledgeable. I do claim that when I read that amendment it seems to give the government broad powers of regulation over gun ownership.

I highly recommend that you either stop holding these ill-informed opinions by your own admission or stop prefixing your every post with the same disclaimer.


I doubt that you are an expert on all topics you post about. I'm actually well educated. So now I am claiming this. Mostly in mathematics, physics, logic, and history. I'm not an expert in any area outside of mathematics.

However, just like you, my lack of expertise does not preclude me from having an opinion and stating those opinions. Since there are experts who agree with me that the 2nd amendment gives the government powers of regulation it's hard to credibly claim that my position is ill informed. Even if my reasons are ill-informed why should I stop from engaging in conversation? That's the best way to learn.

I've not denigrated anyone or suggested that anyone was ill-informed or otherwise try to diminish those who disagree with me. I'm not so full of myself that the act of dissent from my position causes me to lash out or attempt to quash said dissent. In fact the contrary is true. Several times in these threads I've said to those with whom I disagree that they should fight for their rights and remain vigilant.

Stand up for your beliefs. I will stand up for mine. I hope someday that gun ownership will be viewed with horror by the general populace. My position will not win out if well reasoned individuals who disagree with me remain vigilant and proactive.

Keep fighting the good fight!


While the military arms at the time were muskets and bayonets, that was not the only technology available. Many colonial troops had rifles of their own that they used. These rifles were superior to the British musket in many regards and helped the colonial troops win.

Surely the founding fathers were aware of this and knew that the second amendment would allow citizens to have weapons that were more deadly than the standard military firearm at the time. In fact, this trend even continued well into the Vietnam war. It was really only in the past 50 or so years that the military has eclipsed the citizens in terms of standard issue firepower.

So no, the founding fathers were not aware of the M-16 and AK-47[0], but they also had more than muskets and bayonets, and were perfectly content to have a citizenry that outgunned the military.

[0] - I should note that the M-16 and AK-47 are essentially illegal in the US at this point, along with any weapons of similar firepower, so that point seems moot anyway. The only people able to acquire them are incredibly rich collectors.


Many, many more recent cases have conflicted with Cruikshank and chipped away at its jurisprudence. The court was not well run or fair in those days.

Miller is especially bad case law too, he was dead by the time it was heard and essentially no one even argued that side of the case - it was a total sham.


"banning the ownership of guns except for members of the militia "

The definition of militia is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

There are two "militias", the national guard, and the unorganized militia...

When I read the Federalist papers, I interrupted it as Hamilton and Jay were trying to describe a defense strategy of the country, which included internal, and external threats. When I read it, I got the feeling they both were very much against the state of affairs we have today. They advocated for a small professional army, and a large reserve of men if needed.

I personally feel this is the right model, today our DoD budget is 600 BILLION dollars! Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending. If we spent less getting into conflicts we probably don't need to be involved in (I still do not understand what the national interest in Afghanistan and Iraq is), and we had a very large reserve of men. We could maintain the defense readiness we have today, but also have publically funded education, healthcare etc.

I do concede that the requirements of training are much different though. A model like Switzerland's militia might be preferable. In their model, each citizen has 1 year of conscripted service. It's spread out a bit but is an adequate amount of time to train someone properly. It also provides a method for "weeding" out individuals who should not be a part of this reserve. Their gun laws are also far more strict. Gun ownership is more of a privilege there. I don't know how much of that we can do here, but I think it's a good example of how to build a militia in modern times.


> Every social service other first world countries have, we can't afford. That is directly a result of our military spending.

The US spends a lot on its military, but it's only about 15% of central government spending. When you look at spending as a percentage of GDP, we (3.3%) are not that far off from European powers like France (2.3%) or the UK (1.9%) whose defense we essentially subsidize through NATO. We just have a much larger economy so that 3.3% turns out to be a really big number.

There's no obvious (to me) fiscal reason why our social services have to be so poor, so I have to assume we just suck at allocating the money (possibly intentional).


I can't recreate your math, but I don't think that's important for the point.

By your numbers, there's a 1% difference. On the scale of the GDP, that is a HUGE number. I think looking at the absolute numbers matters. Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion (according to Bernie Sanders). Trump asked for an additional $116 billion dollars for defense. I don't see the logic in arguing if we can afford $600 billion, and another $116 billion, while at the same time arguing $75 billion is impossible and would bankrupt the country. We're clearly making priorities.


the 15% turned out to be a lowball, it's more like 17% if you use the 2015 numbers from wikipedia[0]. I got the %GDP numbers from wikipedia as well[1].

> Free higher education for everyone would cost $75 billion.

this I find hard to believe. the US government estimated that ~20 million students would be enrolled in college/university in fall 2017. assuming enrollment would not increase if college were free, that $75 billion works out to about $3750 per student. this substantially undercuts even in-state tuition at the average community college, which already receives significant funding from the government.

although I pushed back on that particular claim by Sanders, I still maintain that we have an allocation problem, not a money problem. according to 2012 data[2] the US government spends almost exactly the same percentage of its GDP on education as the UK, and we are in the high range of money spent per student in primary and secondary education[3].

i'm no expert, but this doesn't look like the kind of thing where you can just throw money at it and expect it to work. we should figure out how to use the money we already have to produce more similar outcomes to those in Western Europe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_...

[3] https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cmd.asp


The original question was about your legal mechanism for implementation of a ban on private ownership on weapons. What change would you make to existing laws to enact this ban?

Additionally, what is your plan to deal with the potential for violent, armed resistance to this ban, and in what facilities would you put all of the violators of this ban?


Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: