PJ @pj@qoto.org

@admitsWrongIfProven

To what purpose would one have to register their religion?
Unlike a gun that can harm others, one's beliefs are a deeply personal thing.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere

Yes, a little bit of an agitated reaction from @admitsWrongIfProven but nothing so overblown or any major excalation as the two of you are presenting it.

And you may agree that a heavily armed person with unresolved issues and no social support or interactions is a very scarry proposition.

@mike805 @lmrocha

@mike805

Well, we all know how things turned out at the end for *that* particular government in Germany. And I'm not sure they had to consult the gun registry much to find the people they didn't like (or that didn't like them).

And, I'm not proposing the confiscation of all legally owned guns like in the UK. Quite the contrary. I want more legally owned, registered and responsibly used guns, but I'm against the return to the Wild West where everyone carries a gun and the one who draws faster gets to stay alive.

If you feel like you need a gun please feel free to (legally) get one, but in these days and age, I should not be ***required*** to carry one to feel safe. I believe some of my tax dollars should go for ensuring that, don't you think?

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @thatguyoverthere @lmrocha

@admitsWrongIfProven

It was was "triggered" by @mike805 mention of "extreme cases" needing guns and the example of Switzerland where (if understand that correctly) each canton (state) has its own "well-regulated militia" (or was so in the past?) not sure.

Anyway, responding to nothing in particular. Just a general observation, as having a gun registry seems to be a big issue in the US.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @lmrocha

@mike805 @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo @thatguyoverthere @lmrocha

The proponents of "guns for all" cite two reasons as far as I can understand:

1️⃣ Protection from violent ***individuals*** with or without guns, and
2️⃣ Protection from a rogue ***government*** that wants to take your guns.

In the first case, the ***regulation*** of gun ownership is not an issue, while in the second it is irrelevant because you are already in the middle of a civil war and, one way or another, you'll find or be given a gun soon.

@thatguyoverthere

If your goal is really to deal with all categories of violence, I don't think that indiscriminately giving everyone a gun is helping at all. I wonder if the fact that there are so many unregulated guns on the streets has any influence on why the police shoot first and then ask questions. I also don't believe they are too happy with the expansion of the, no questions asked, *concealed carry* in some states.

Also, @freemo still didn't convince me that guns have any positive impact on other kinds of violence. If this was true, with the number of guns per capita in circulation, the USA would be the least violent country on the planet. Do you have any indication that the rate of other violent crimes is higher in countries with fewer firearms?

@mike805 @lmrocha @admitsWrongIfProven

@freemo
Oh, there are plenty of countries like that. I believe you are in one right now. Didn't bring a gun with you, did you? @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

Yes. That's exactly my point.

You ***should*** be, as an individual, protected from being killed, raped, or prevented to use a gun for legitimate reasons, but in this imperfect world you are ***not***, so joining a group or club or some other kind of people's #system gives you more protection than if you are facing all of that alone. In some way, these community-sanctioned associations can become a replacement for gangs.

I think this applies to 2) as well. Instead of just shoving a gun into the victim's hands and calling it done, set up a women's shelter or some other safe community place they can use, or get a GPS tracker on the bozo. Yes, it will violate his human rights and hurt his feelings, but who cares.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

No worries. The "shut up" part was a figure of speech😀. Many tried, unsuccessfully.

"legal requirement" vs. "strong suggestion"? I can work with that as long as it minimizes the chances of "bad guys" legally getting their hands on guns (e.g. more than a dozen AR-15s)

Specifically:

1) Not if being part of a club, who is a member of the NRA means you are ***more*** protected than as an isolated individual.

2) If you need to arm the victim to protect themselves from being raped by someone they have a restraining order on, that order and the agency that issued it is worth as much as the paper the order is written on.

3) See 1)
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

One more thought about the analogy between ISPs and gun clubs with regard to privacy, and then I'll shut up.

Long ago, I received a letter from my ISP that they got a request from an entertainment company to get my ID because they want to sue me for downloading one of their pirated series from somewhere (which I did). They were just informing me of that fact and that they won't comply with the request if I stopped.

Well, I'm not downloading anymore (streaming is better) and even if I moved a couple of times, I'm still with the same ISP.

So being a member of a good club (who knows who you are) sometimes also means you can protect your #privacy better.

@freemo

Yes. That would be a good start. My suggestion was though to try seeing things from a larger perspective.

I believe that one of the problems is that too many individuals are #alienated from their immediate local (physical) #community while fulfilling their "communal needs" primarily with strangers over the Internet except for #Work and maybe #Church, which is obviously not enough, and sometimes even adds to further alienation.

I think people should be free (or even encouraged) to form their own local societies with real people they get to know because of things they feel strongly about, and guns seemed like one such catalyst to increase the number of "good guys" and minimize the harm done by "bad guys" with guns.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo
Yes, I've said it is not the same. @thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo

Buy how, in cash?
@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@freemo
The problem is that you don't need a gun shop to buy a gun or the shop doesn't care who they sell their guns to.

This is the same as if you could access the internet from your computer without an ISP. Imagine what a shitshow the Internet would be then compared to what it is already is now.

If you could only buy a gun from a gun shop, I believe more than half of all the problems we have now with gun violence would go away.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

No, but your ISP always knows who you are.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@freemo Same answer as to @thatguyoverthere

@mike805 @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

Attacking a person is in this analogy akin to physically harming a child as opposed to "just" downloading child porn.

Ideally, you would want to prevent evil or sick people to harm anyone.

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

Yes. you can do it all by yourself, but you need an ISP to access the Net, don't you?

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@thatguyoverthere

No *you* don't have to interact with the NRA, your club will be doing it for you.
You are welcome to start your own club, get an IP address, and start shooting.
Yes, the NRA has nothing to do with your natural right to self-defense. So what is it for then?

@mike805 @freemo @lmrocha

@freemo

Oh, it can.
Try downloading child porn or other shit and look how fast it will be denied.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha