domain:streamable.com
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
No, I mean it in a practical sense of "whether I can legally buy and carry a gun". Once you start agreeing that background checks are OK, there's no fence on that slope; the OP already got to invasive background checks and even psych exams, for crying out loud. A psych exam to exercise a right? When a lot of psychiatrists are straight-up anti-gun? That's obviously a vitiation of the right.
Shrike
1d ago
What makes it superior for sporting over either something like a hunting rifle, or something like a fairground gun that shoots tiny bullets of a few millimetres calibre?
All of those guns are for different purposes. The .223 is a cheaper, lower-performing round compared to say a .308. It's also more fun to shoot (less recoil, semi-automatic), and it is a tiny bullet (same diameter as a .22, so not dissimilar to a fairground gun most likely). But people do sporting events using all sorts of different calibers.
Personally I think the .223 is a very good varmint round, and that's how I've used it.
a legal way to kill people
To be clear, when I say this, I mean "it should be legal to own deadly things" and that's about how I took your phrasing. Most pro-gun-people (including me) don't support it being legal to execute people randomly, but perhaps my phrasing was...unclear. But, to your point, at least in the US, they think that the Second Amendment is an important backstop to liberty. It's hard to tease out the correctness of this, but the US of A is doing much better than Europe in this regard. (For instance, just as a wacky example, in A/C unfriendly Europe, heat deaths kill more people than firearms in the US of A. It arguably wouldn't actually be a good swap for the US to get European gun violence levels if it also meant getting European attitudes and regulations towards air conditioning! And that's without getting into values-based stuff like free-speech rights.)
there still were large and massively funded organisations deliberately binge-drinking to the point of getting it
I'm not sure what the organization has to do with it. Alcoholism is much more dangerous problem in the US than firearms, but alcohol is much easier to procure (and is also glamorized in the media, much as guns are!) If all of the gun-rights orgs shifted their focus to sporting, I doubt that gun control groups would be assuaged, because at the end of the day their goals are things like "stopping school shootings" not "stop optics we don't like."
the most popular fictional depictions of alcoholic drinks all involved flashy celebrations of how they induce cirrhosis
I mean - most popular fictional depictions of guns are of people, often those who are legally permitted and encouraged to have them (cops, spies, soldiers, etc.) using them to stop bad people. I don't really see why that's bad - presumably even Europeans want their military, soldiers, spies etc. to do their jobs.
"fantasizing about killing"
The specific fantasy you seem to be upset at is "killing a bad person who is trying to do a bad thing." Most gun owners who are interested in self-defense are interested in self-defense. Movies and gun manufacturing ads and the NRA website and all of those things you're discussing aren't promoting the idea of unlawful violence or mass shootings. (It's actually imho the liberal-leaning press and gun control groups that do the worst to spread mass shooting memes, because they amplify the contagious meme of mass shootings to advance, in the case of the latter, their policy agenda). They are promoting the idea of stopping a bad guy. You can go read the NRA magazine, they (at least used to. maybe they stopped) pull accounts of robbers, rapists, mass shooters etc. getting stopped by "the good guy with a gun" which happens pretty often, honestly. If there's a fantasy here, it's specifically the same fantasy that people who join the military or police often have. I think it's fine to criticize certain aspects of this but fundamentally wanting to stop bad people from doing bad stuff is an honorable impulse.
It seems to me that you are making the vibes-based argument that "Hollywood thinks gun violence is good therefore guns are bad" but my argument here, on the whole, is that if you look at actual use cases and not vibes vast majority of use even of guns that are e.g. derived from military designs is for peaceful purposes. The same way that most drinking isn't to die of liver failure even though that's a not infrequent outcome.
WhiningCoil
Ghost of Quokka's Future
1d ago
I mean, for me, it was the realization that principles mean nothing. A sufficiently motivated adversary will find some way of maliciously using your "principles" against you, and then chiding you for defending yourself. You see it with free speech, and malicious actors doxing the families of "free speech absolutist". Congratulations edgelord, you found the edge. Nobody doubted you could.
I think if you grew up in a high trust society, you take for granted that principles are just another part of the social contract. As it descends into a low trust hellhole, where there is no social contract what so ever, principles just amount to handing your daughters over to literal roving gangs of barbarian rapists and sitting idly by because you wouldn't want to step out of your lane and violate the state's monopoly on violence. If you want to stick to your principles, you must allow savages to repeatedly rape her.
As civilization crumbles around us, we repeatedly see what our "principles" are earning us, and it's suicide.
the_Culture_is_great
1d ago
Being wary around actually dangerous things isn't neurotic!
These things are reasonably safe as long as you pay extra attention, but carelessness can kill or maim very easily.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
I’ve said before, my solution to this slippery slope is that the gun regulatory body is elected by current gun owners with high mandatory minimums for breaking the rules- that were made by gun owners themselves- and strict penalties for localities trying to get around them.
That doesn't solve the problem, as current gun owners may well be happy to be part of an exclusive club. And of course the regulatory body is likely to be even more so.
I evaluate such proposals first by "Would I be able to lawfully get a gun under these rules?" -- this one fails that simple test.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
I’ve said before, my solution to this slippery slope is that the gun regulatory body is elected by current gun owners with high mandatory minimums for breaking the rules- that were made by gun owners themselves- and strict penalties for localities trying to get around them.
thejdizzler
1d ago
I mean I have gained 10 pounds since that post, which puts me at closer to 22.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
It's the same forced attention I get around high cliffs, or heavy machinery, or a busy highway. I might know that the leashed tiger is tame. I might be aware that the running chainsaw has a safety guard, but I can't put it out of mind
Really? This seems… neurotic. Just don’t go on the highway, or too close to the cliffs, or stand next to the guy using a chainsaw.
I have a hard time believing that if there was demand bringing guns into european countries would be that difficult, considering how big the external frontiers of the EU are and how open the internal ones are, and considering how drugs make it there, illegal refugees make it there, etc...
I think that for the most part, there is little demand because local hard criminals are still civilized enough to understand deadly shootouts are not worth the hassle because they bring down a lot more heat on them. North American street gangs are not civilized; they believe shootouts are cool. As for terrorists, if you distinguish mental health cases (random nutjob just starts stabbin') from organized terrorist cells, I think the latter are usually packing (and packing military equipment).
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Cracking down on straw purchasing is like this too, IIRC- democrats refuse to do it even if it’s doable, likely to work, and a major issue with gun crime.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
Sometimes, when I regret making some good life decisions, I wonder if I should have taken up philosophy. Then I realize it would end in murder-suicide, and I'm glad I became a doctor instead.
Tree
1d ago
Happy to save a life. I beg you, eat something. But not too fast or you’ll pass out.
I already told you about my cousin’s vegan girlfriend who died of thinness at 29. That really opened my eyes to the danger of vegetables.
celluloid_dream
1d ago
It's not "I was so close to dying, what's wrong with your country". It's more "why would you bring that, HERE?".
Canada actually does allow for carrying firearms in wilderness areas. I've occasionally passed hunters carrying loaded weapons while hiking, a full half day's walk from cell reception. This is no problem. They could shoot me, but I trust them not to, and I'm not worried they will. They brought a rifle to shoot deer. The handgun at the coffee shop is different. Someone brought that to (if need be) shoot people, and it's going to constantly be in the back of their mind, evaluating whether this is a situation where they need to.
marinuso
1d ago
Some nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century immigrants went further in this direction than I could ever ask – for example, refusing to pass on their birth tongues once they’d learned enough English to raise their children in it
This was quite different back then than it would be now. If you live your entire life in one neighbourhood and there are a dozen other ethnicities living there, soon enough everyone will adopt a common tongue. To have separate communities you need a certain amount of space between them.
Nowadays, every Arab youth in Europe is on Arab TikTok, and people don't speak to their physical neighbours anyway, no matter if they share a language or not. With the disappearance of physical barriers, it's the language barriers that define the communities.
thejdizzler
1d ago
Breast feeding is vegan according to most vegans as the mother is consenting to having her milk taken.
thejdizzler
1d ago
Not in this study. It's just a giant meta analysis on 3.6 million Britons. I think they just collected BMI and cause of death data from the NHS. I would imagine that higher muscle mass decreases all-cause mortality risk though.
thejdizzler
1d ago
I think he has said that it's mainly for recovery and weight management reasons. It's very difficult to gain weight when you are primarily eating high volumes of vegetables. Tour riders probably have much more effective ways of maintaining and losing weight with precision that semi-pro athletes like Dylan Johnson don't have access to (mainly thinking a team of nutritionists). In terms of recovery, the same is probably true, although that does suggest that there aren't any particularly big advantages to maintaining a strict vegan diet. The healthiest cohorts in pretty much any dietary meta-analysis aren't vegetarians or vegans, but pescatarians or people who follow the mediterranean diet, which contains some amount of eat. This suggests both that some amount of meat is healthy for you, and also probably that most of the recovery/reduced inflammation gains come from cutting down on meat consumption, not eliminating it. I doubt that most riders have a very meat heavy-diet (they need lots of carbs for performance reasons, and meat has almost 0 carbs), so Dylan's alpha by being more strictly plant-based is likely quite low.
In terms of my own performance, I'm starting to think that it's time to think about locking down a source of eggs from local chickens that I know are treated-well and thinking about introducing fish low in the food chain (like Sardines or anchovies) that I don't feel ethically conflicted about and seeing if that makes any difference. For now though certainly going to keep eating oysters.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
1d ago
· Edited 1d ago
What makes it superior for sporting over either something like a hunting rifle, or something like a fairground gun that shoots tiny bullets of a few millimetres calibre? It's hard to believe that the knowledge that you are "sporting" with a weapon that would be a prime choice for actually killing people, and preparing/building skills for a hypothetical situation in which you would want to kill someone, is not an important factor in the choice; the circumstance that actual use of civilian firearms appears pretty strongly correlated with the belief that there should be a legal way to kill people further supports this interpretation.
is a lot like saying that the primary purpose of alcoholic drinks is to get cirrhosis of the liver.
If the development of alcoholic drinks were driven by people trying to find better ways to get cirrhosis of the liver, there still were large and massively funded organisations deliberately binge-drinking to the point of getting it and gatherings of alcoholic drink enjoyers regularly involved enthusiastic arguments which cocktail gets you more scar tissue faster, and the most popular fictional depictions of alcoholic drinks all involved flashy celebrations of how they induce cirrhosis, then maybe this comparison would work.
As it stands, the argument comes across as being more in the class of arguing that CP (AI-generated, to dispel the most obvious counterargument) should be legal and easily available, and its principal purpose is artistic edification (chosen for being a similarly nebulous term as "sporting", distinguished from its lower-status counterpart "sexual gratification"/"fantasizing about killing", resp., only by the speaker's attitude towards the act), but incidentally you also find the idea that there shouldn't be a legal way to have sex with minors wrong. (That's approximately an actual constellation of ideas some pre-1990 libertines over here in Europe had!)
urquan
Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?
1d ago
Does that data take into account fat to muscle ratio?
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Is that thé origin? I had assumed it was an old French word for game meat or some such- I’m used to viande being a word for a meat without a specified name, viande de boeuf sounds nearly as strange as viande de poullard and I’d assume it was referring to bison meat or something.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
Look at this nerd, writing a proof with lemmas to win an Internet argument. You love to see it. :D
celluloid_dream
1d ago
A fair point, but it doesn't follow that because nuclear weapons led to the development of the internet, the average citizen should be permitted to possess nuclear weapons.
The telos of a nuclear bomb, is still death (or at least massive destruction). The telos of the internet has evolved.
Shrike
1d ago
I specifically support the two being linked in some way. Dispossessing someone of firearms is a statement by society that someone is untrustworthy and unable to govern themselves, and there's no need to pretend otherwise by giving them the right to vote under the pretense that such a person can govern others.
self_made_human
Grippy socks, grippy box
1d ago
I will grant that you are being consistent. It is a very unusual moral framework, but then again, so is mine and I'm happy with it.
Is this actually true? I fully accept that prohibition lowers the general public's ability to access the prohibited substance (e.g., alcohol prohibition actually lowered drinking significantly and permanently changed U.S. drinking culture), but is there any evidence that it significantly impacts illicit dealing in the prohibited/regulated substance?
More options
Context Copy link