naraburns nihil supernum
6mo ago
(text post)
28878 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
Yes, it is from 1992, but things changed little since then. Israel has strict gun laws and they work as intended. Israel has 6,7 guns per 100 inhabitants, very good 108th place in the world. Just 2.1 more than David Hogg heaven land England and Wales, considered to be gun control movement dream and aspiration.
People who do not like guns usually do not like Israel either and would loathe to praise anything coming from there. The same reason why we never heard about Israeli health care or Israeli abortion laws despite that they would make excellent talking point for Blues against Israel loving Reds.
And people who like guns usually like Israel too (while knowing about it only from dank memes that show it as tough nation armed to the teeth).
So, you want to ask, you are blaming the victims? How dare you?
The Israelis were told by their government: "Millions of people who want to kill you live near your homes separated by wire fence. Do not panic and do not prepare to defend yourselves. Your government and your army will protect you, nothing can happen. Fear that they will cross the fence and slaughter you in your own homes is absurd and delusional. Do not be conspiracy theorist, do not be extremist, trust the plan". And, being normal human beings, they trusted because the government was right so far, because nothing happened so far. This is normal human nature, no one to blame.
Now, when something happened, and if nothing changes and Israelis will continue trusting their government as previously, yes I will blame them, and you shall too.
Any citizen who meets the detailed tests for carrying a private firearm due to self-defense and serving the security forces and is without a criminal or medical record will be required to undergo a telephone interview instead of a physical interview
What are the tests?
Residence in an eligible settlement, rifle veterans 07 and above, officers in the rank of lieutenant and above and combatants in the rank of major and above in the IDF and the security forces, service in special units, firefighters, policemen, and workers and volunteers in the rescue forces
So very generous. And, in addition, citizens will be able to purchase, instead of previous fifty, whole ONE HUNDRED rounds of ammo! Yay!
I think that for Israeli Jews, trying to make it easier for citizens to own guns would put them between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, they would be loath to let ethnically Arab citizens of Israel have guns because that would make it much easier for those of them who want to kill Jews to actually do it.
On the other hand, there is no way to write a gun control law that takes ethnicity into account without making it completely obvious that you are running an ethno-state and thus looking really bad to a lot of people in the broader world.
On the other hand, there is no way to write a gun control law that takes ethnicity into account without making it completely obvious that you are running an ethno-state and thus looking really bad to a lot of people in the broader world.
Easier than you might think, and Israel is already doing it. To get a gun license in Israel you need to have completed a certain degree of military training (among other requirements). Non-Jews (Druze, Bedouins, some Christian Arabs) who serve in the IDF are not those that you need to worry about starting a riot at the behest of Hamas or Hezbollah.
On the other hand, there is no way to write a gun control law that takes ethnicity into account without making it completely obvious that you are running an ethno-state and thus looking really bad to a lot of people in the broader world.
But they are already running an ethno-state. No outsider considers it not to be an ethnic state unless they are making PR mouth noises pretending to the contrary.
,Yes, but bringing it to the arena of gun laws would take it up a notch and look particularly ugly because it basically would look like "we are going to make it legal for any of our random vigilantes and paramilitary groups to easily buy guns while at the same time we will ensure that it is illegal for the Palestinians to defend themselves from such violence".
The gun control policy works well for Israel. They have low crime. They have low suicides.
They do have a very significant problem with Palestinian terrorists, but it's obvious that simply ending gun control would not be a sufficient response to that problem - large scale military action is required. So there is no problem that could actually get solved by a change in gun policy, and several significant problems that could easily be created by it.
Omitted from The Reload is that they are limited to a single firearm that is not a semiauto rifle. So most typically a semiauto pistol like a Glock. And absent the "Short Barreled Rifle" and "Short Barreled Shotgun" NFA restrictions (that existed to close a loophole during drafting when pistols were going to be similarly restricted but when pistols were removed from the bill, the loophole closure was not), has led to the amusing product design space of pistol chassis systems. Americans answer for short carbines working around their laws was the pistol brace, for Israelis the microroni.
The microroni is just a rifle attachment for a handgun. I suppose you're more accurate with it, but the ballistics of it are still shitty compared to a real rifle.
Their military was apparently caught with their pants down, why would you expect civilians to do better instead of just becoming tasty weapon lootboxes?
Because if you own a gun you're already in your house...with the gun. So when you hear your neighbors getting executed, you take out your gun and stop the person doing the executing.
If they had looser gun control laws, I’d expect just as often those looser guns end up in the hands of terrorists as in the hands of people using them for self-defense.
The festival was one small part of the attack. Technicals stuffed with gunmen were shooting at civilians in urban centers, with many of the videographers within range and great firing positions to respond.
My impression while watching them was almost 100% "Damn, a rifle instead of a phone would be really nice for these guys".
The Israelis were told by their government: "Millions of people who want to kill you live near your homes separated by wire fence. Do not panic and do not prepare to defend yourselves. Your government and your army will protect you, nothing can happen. Fear that they will cross the fence and slaughter you in your own homes is absurd and delusional.
About a billion plus Indians and a sizeable hundred millions of Pakistanis accept the same deal from their governments without complaint. So do South Koreans, and even their stunted northern cousins. In the former case, there are entire border states where there's a very real risk of Jihadists slipping under the fence and shooting up your village. No demands for guns, just better security from the BSF and Indian Army.
I would be rather concerned if the government was demanding I arm myself to do the job I pay them taxes for, even if I'm a gun nut, and if I ever make it to the US and the decent guns aren't banned, I intend to buy several.
You're observing the very much discussed to death notion that people get along and cheer more for a far-group than they do their far more similar peers who hold much more similar cultural and political views. The Leftists celebrating Palestine don't all want to wear hijabs or ban alcohol, even if a few of them get signal boosted.
About a billion plus Indians and a sizeable hundred millions of Pakistanis accept the same deal from their governments without complaint
Does indians and pakistani hate each other or only their governments? AK 47 doesn't do much good against an army. Against people in toyota trucks they are good enough. A couple of well places snipers could have reduced the festival casualties and probably prevented some of the rapes.
Does indians and pakistani hate each other or only their governments?
Depends. As you'd expect but for a question covering >1.5 billion people.
I didn't notice any animosity from the Pakistani doctors I befriended in London, barring a few jokes about some poor pilot who got shot down in Pakistani airspace and was mildly roughed up before being exchanged. I suppose the fact that I didn't give a shit made them warm up even faster, I'm no nationalist, at least except when I pine for the US.
You will find hundreds of millions of hardliners, and hundreds of millions more who are indifferent or outright alarmed at the idea of war. If war happens, it's most likely going to be because the US and China kickoff and allies and associates get drawn in. Or an inciting event beyond my power to predict.
I think there's more bellicosity on the Pakistani side, their military relies on fear mongering about India to justify their occasional coups. And the ISI, they need something bigger than Afghanistan to show they're worth more than the damage they deal, which isn't really true itself.
AK 47 doesn't do much good against an army.
I would hope not even the Palestinians are using something as antiquated as a genuine AK-47, or at least the modernized (so early it's hardly modern) AKM. But I get your point.
About a billion plus Indians and a sizeable hundred millions of Pakistanis accept the same deal from their governments without complaint.
There's been a whole lot of complaining. And it's not "a billion plus Indians", it's only the relatively few near the hot borders.
So do South Koreans
No, there's more than a fence between the South and the North; there's a 4km wide demilitarized zone with minefields and military bases just south of it (and, I presume, north of it)
Bizarre that you think gun control is the most inflammatory issue. Is it a joke? Far and away the most inflammatory issue would be Israel's right to exist and segregate the Arabs and whether that justifies atrocities against Israeli civilians. Literally every discussion online about this, if it goes on long enough, will go back to 1948 or earlier. This is a classic culture war issue.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I am surprised that no one yet opened the most inflammatory aspect of the latest events in Israel. So I am going to do it.
Who if not me, when if not now?
So why it happened? It happened as it happened because, in words of our friends in US Dept of Justice: Israel Has a Successful Gun Control Policy.
Yes, it is from 1992, but things changed little since then. Israel has strict gun laws and they work as intended. Israel has 6,7 guns per 100 inhabitants, very good 108th place in the world. Just 2.1 more than David Hogg heaven land England and Wales, considered to be gun control movement dream and aspiration.
It is easy to understand why we do not hear about Israeli gun laws.
People who do not like guns usually do not like Israel either and would loathe to praise anything coming from there. The same reason why we never heard about Israeli health care or Israeli abortion laws despite that they would make excellent talking point for Blues against Israel loving Reds.
And people who like guns usually like Israel too (while knowing about it only from dank memes that show it as tough nation armed to the teeth).
So, you want to ask, you are blaming the victims? How dare you?
The Israelis were told by their government: "Millions of people who want to kill you live near your homes separated by wire fence. Do not panic and do not prepare to defend yourselves. Your government and your army will protect you, nothing can happen. Fear that they will cross the fence and slaughter you in your own homes is absurd and delusional. Do not be conspiracy theorist, do not be extremist, trust the plan". And, being normal human beings, they trusted because the government was right so far, because nothing happened so far. This is normal human nature, no one to blame.
Now, when something happened, and if nothing changes and Israelis will continue trusting their government as previously, yes I will blame them, and you shall too.
Are there signs that something is changing?
Looks like it.
https://thereload.com/israeli-loosens-gun-carry-rules-after-unprecedented-terror-attack/
What are the tests?
So very generous. And, in addition, citizens will be able to purchase, instead of previous fifty, whole ONE HUNDRED rounds of ammo! Yay!
I think that for Israeli Jews, trying to make it easier for citizens to own guns would put them between a rock and a hard place.
On the one hand, they would be loath to let ethnically Arab citizens of Israel have guns because that would make it much easier for those of them who want to kill Jews to actually do it.
On the other hand, there is no way to write a gun control law that takes ethnicity into account without making it completely obvious that you are running an ethno-state and thus looking really bad to a lot of people in the broader world.
Easier than you might think, and Israel is already doing it. To get a gun license in Israel you need to have completed a certain degree of military training (among other requirements). Non-Jews (Druze, Bedouins, some Christian Arabs) who serve in the IDF are not those that you need to worry about starting a riot at the behest of Hamas or Hezbollah.
More options
Context Copy link
But they are already running an ethno-state. No outsider considers it not to be an ethnic state unless they are making PR mouth noises pretending to the contrary.
,Yes, but bringing it to the arena of gun laws would take it up a notch and look particularly ugly because it basically would look like "we are going to make it legal for any of our random vigilantes and paramilitary groups to easily buy guns while at the same time we will ensure that it is illegal for the Palestinians to defend themselves from such violence".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The gun control policy works well for Israel. They have low crime. They have low suicides.
They do have a very significant problem with Palestinian terrorists, but it's obvious that simply ending gun control would not be a sufficient response to that problem - large scale military action is required. So there is no problem that could actually get solved by a change in gun policy, and several significant problems that could easily be created by it.
More options
Context Copy link
Omitted from The Reload is that they are limited to a single firearm that is not a semiauto rifle. So most typically a semiauto pistol like a Glock. And absent the "Short Barreled Rifle" and "Short Barreled Shotgun" NFA restrictions (that existed to close a loophole during drafting when pistols were going to be similarly restricted but when pistols were removed from the bill, the loophole closure was not), has led to the amusing product design space of pistol chassis systems. Americans answer for short carbines working around their laws was the pistol brace, for Israelis the microroni.
The microroni is just a rifle attachment for a handgun. I suppose you're more accurate with it, but the ballistics of it are still shitty compared to a real rifle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Their military was apparently caught with their pants down, why would you expect civilians to do better instead of just becoming tasty weapon lootboxes?
Because if you own a gun you're already in your house...with the gun. So when you hear your neighbors getting executed, you take out your gun and stop the person doing the executing.
More options
Context Copy link
Seems it worked for a few communities.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/defenders-of-kibbutz-nir-am-say-they-killed-2-terrorists-saturday-preventing-takeover/
The military was mostly absent and then playing catchup. Civilians were not absent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they had looser gun control laws, I’d expect just as often those looser guns end up in the hands of terrorists as in the hands of people using them for self-defense.
More options
Context Copy link
I’m going to guess that whatever the gun laws were, a (presumably drugged-to-gills) trance festival would have a strict no guns policy.
The festival was one small part of the attack. Technicals stuffed with gunmen were shooting at civilians in urban centers, with many of the videographers within range and great firing positions to respond.
My impression while watching them was almost 100% "Damn, a rifle instead of a phone would be really nice for these guys".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
About a billion plus Indians and a sizeable hundred millions of Pakistanis accept the same deal from their governments without complaint. So do South Koreans, and even their stunted northern cousins. In the former case, there are entire border states where there's a very real risk of Jihadists slipping under the fence and shooting up your village. No demands for guns, just better security from the BSF and Indian Army.
I would be rather concerned if the government was demanding I arm myself to do the job I pay them taxes for, even if I'm a gun nut, and if I ever make it to the US and the decent guns aren't banned, I intend to buy several.
You're observing the very much discussed to death notion that people get along and cheer more for a far-group than they do their far more similar peers who hold much more similar cultural and political views. The Leftists celebrating Palestine don't all want to wear hijabs or ban alcohol, even if a few of them get signal boosted.
Does indians and pakistani hate each other or only their governments? AK 47 doesn't do much good against an army. Against people in toyota trucks they are good enough. A couple of well places snipers could have reduced the festival casualties and probably prevented some of the rapes.
Depends. As you'd expect but for a question covering >1.5 billion people.
I didn't notice any animosity from the Pakistani doctors I befriended in London, barring a few jokes about some poor pilot who got shot down in Pakistani airspace and was mildly roughed up before being exchanged. I suppose the fact that I didn't give a shit made them warm up even faster, I'm no nationalist, at least except when I pine for the US.
You will find hundreds of millions of hardliners, and hundreds of millions more who are indifferent or outright alarmed at the idea of war. If war happens, it's most likely going to be because the US and China kickoff and allies and associates get drawn in. Or an inciting event beyond my power to predict.
I think there's more bellicosity on the Pakistani side, their military relies on fear mongering about India to justify their occasional coups. And the ISI, they need something bigger than Afghanistan to show they're worth more than the damage they deal, which isn't really true itself.
I would hope not even the Palestinians are using something as antiquated as a genuine AK-47, or at least the modernized (so early it's hardly modern) AKM. But I get your point.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's been a whole lot of complaining. And it's not "a billion plus Indians", it's only the relatively few near the hot borders.
No, there's more than a fence between the South and the North; there's a 4km wide demilitarized zone with minefields and military bases just south of it (and, I presume, north of it)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Bizarre that you think gun control is the most inflammatory issue. Is it a joke? Far and away the most inflammatory issue would be Israel's right to exist and segregate the Arabs and whether that justifies atrocities against Israeli civilians. Literally every discussion online about this, if it goes on long enough, will go back to 1948 or earlier. This is a classic culture war issue.
Yes this was either a parody or this place is becoming a parody of itself.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link