Freedom as a concept is to vague and personal to be useful any kind of real discussion; "freedom" means whatever you think it means. This is why politicians love to say it.
I would say that you're right guns make people feel safe.
However, that the constant threat of violence in society leads to degradation of social norms, especially for children who then get less socialization and become more extreme.
You see this in like more people choosing to homeschool their kids - they then get lower quality education and poorer social skills and are less able to survive in society. In a capitalist world, this is slowly eating away the ability of americans to compete in a global economy and so there is a strong movement to isolate our economy which will only make us less competitive.
Empty words from someone that does not understand how countries with less guns still work and don't have CHILDREN KILLING IN THEIR SCHOOLS ALL THE TIME
As a rule of thumb people stop to mass murder other people, without guns. With extremely rare exceptions, we don't have that shit outside of the US and our schools are not shooting ranges.
The other two things you wrote are not reasons, they are a) a slogan that you could put on a 12 years old t shirt and b) something someone who is having a heart attack might say
people don't stop to murder other people without guns
I live in a red state with lax gun laws. This is probably the stupidest thing I've heard anyone say on the Internet. You should sit down and have a talk with Ahmaud Arbery.
Tho I support gun ownership, this guy has no business owning a gun
"If you are a [in my perception] a communist, you don't wanna step on my lawn" === "If I don't agree with you, I'll shoot you"
Plus anyone saying "communist states" is definetly fallen victim of right wing propaganda and haven't even take the time to research what communisim is. Even the US left political wing is quite capitalisitic.
Just a bunch of bad "arguments" bagged up with slapsticks words which he doesn't even know the meaning of.
I watched this guy for a little bit and liked his Linux stuff and then in one video he started ranting about how those FOSS licenses that include a requirement to use software ethically are the worst thing in the universe because they bring politics into software and I thought “wait, this guy is ignorant asshole isn’t he?” and turns out yes, yes he is.
Not making the point to defend those licenses or not but all this guy cared about was FOSS not being political and it’s like…are you a child? Do you not understand how all of this is political?
People like this guy give FOSS a really ugly outward facing identity and it turns away soooo many potential contributors and chill people.
To your point about this guy being exactly the kind of person that shouldn’t be allowed to own a precision semiautomatic rifle with 30 round magazines of high caliber rifle rounds, I agree, I have seen that guy get so fucking angry about shit on his channel, he has no ability to control his anger and that kind of person shouldn’t be allowed to own an object that gives their temper tantrums the capacity to kill so many people so quickly before their rational control kicks back in.
Get's mega political and starts using political lingo used by the right wing
Way to go, dude, you played yourself.
I've also seen his temper in his videos plus adding what he said in this video, I am convinced the guy should not be allowed to own a damm BBGun. But he's lucky he doesnt live in a "communist state". Yo what a shitshow.
I had an interaction a few weeks ago where I made the same obvious statement -- that everything is political, like the price of milk is political -- and the someone said I was making it political, like gun rights.
That conversation stopped there unfortunately, but it made me realize something.
Politicized is different from political for a lot of people.
Maybe most people realize the price of gas is political, but they don't think that their internet bill, or whatever, is political. It's just market forces to them, or whatever they assume about capitalism being good.
Ultimately, I think my point is that when people say things like foss shouldn't be political, I think they're saying they agree, but they would lose their in-group status be agreeing with something "woke" like ethics in software. So they have to make a proxy argument about what is and isn't political.
This is like that time I discovered a dude who reviewed camping equipment and watched like ten of his videos and then all of a sudden it went from "top ten hatchets for the back country" to "Zionist lizard Jews are stealing our testosterone to make us compliant."
It took me months to convince YouTube to stop showing me anti woke content.
There is zero correlation between technical acuity and moral maturity.
Being good at doing something does not make you a moral person. It's easy to get it wrong because society actually, consciously and ubiquitly promotes and reinforces the equivalence.
Open software is considered by many a modern example of a anachists-communist project.
The dude is just spewing what he belives to be truth without any regard for the concepts he is actually talking about. Even me supporting both FOSS and gun ownership I belive the whole video should be regard as misinformation/misrepresentation at the very least, propaganda in reality.
"I had business outside today. I needed to go in towards Philly, closer to the riots, to get a new PSU put into the Great Beast. I went armed; I’ve been carrying at all times awake since Philadelphia started to burn and there were occasional reports of looters heading into the suburbs in other cities.
I knew I might be heading into civil unrest today. It didn’t happen. But it still could.
Therefore I’m announcing my rules of engagement should any of the riots connected with the atrocious murder of George Floyd reach the vicinity of my person.
I will shoot any person engaging in arson or other life-threatening behavior, issuing a warning to cease first if safety permits.
Blacks and other minorities are otherwise safe from my gun; they have a legitimate grievance in the matter of this murder, and what they’re doing to their own neighborhoods and lives will be punishment enough for the utter folly of their means of expression once the dust settles.
White rioters, on the other hand, will be presumed to be Antifa Communists attempting to manipulate this tragedy for Communist political ends; them I consider “enemies-general of all mankind, to be dealt with as wolves are” and will shoot immediately, without mercy or warning.
UPDATE: I didn’t mention white nationalists because I judge my chances of encountering any member of that tiny, ineffectual movement to be effectively zero, and I refuse to cooperate with the mass-media fiction that they are a significant factor in this crisis.
We don’t have a problem with white nationalists attempting to burn down our country using black people as tools and proxies. We have a problem with Communists doing that. I insist on naming – and if necessary, shooting – the real enemy."
I mean he basically admits that his beliefs structure is just following the herd and that he hasn't put any effort into understanding philosophical first principles. I wouldn't think about it too hard.
Hmmm... I never said that. You're misreprensenting my words.
Maybe what I meant is that there should be clear and hard rules for gun ownership? Maybe I did mean that only him should not be able to own one, perhaps I even meant that only people I agree with shoud own guns. Is not possible to for you to know what I generally believe about ownership and regulation only from my comment above. So please do not put words in my mouth.
Also, bold statement comming from someone with a clear wink to Anarchy in their handle.
While that position held, Marx now acknowledged that the standard of living of the wage earners advances with every progressive stride the bourgeoisie take. The matter, then, was more relative than absolute. Marx had now fully grown up.
Imo, a problem with Marx, is that tha the languaje he used lend itself to very broad interpretations, thus making it easy to absorb him into whatever ideology/plan/scheme.
People who like Stalin or Mao and in a lesser degree Trotsky and Lennin -which to whom we nowadays call commnunists- used his languaje to reaffirm their ideas. Even tho imo their ideoligical brand was quite a ways out of Marx.
i would argue that you probably lean more on the side of sharing user rights and freedoms generically. Rather than the more specific "software and ideas"
You can certainly have different opinions relating to guns. But they do have a fundamental overlap of underlying concepts. Rights are rights at the end of the day. Either you have them. And they're justified, or you don't, and none of them are.
Rights are what a community agrees on that they should have. I'm happy my community has agreed that owning guns is a priviledge, not a right. There is no sufficient reason owning guns should be a right, so I can be completely in favour of rights and freedoms without including any right to own guns.
Innocent lives lost due to "law abiding citizens" mishandling guns: a metric shit ton
Corrupt governments toppled by gun lovers: 0
The thought of how many people might be stocking ammo and thinking to use out if their favorite politician loses makes me happy for having an ocean between me and them.
It's better when it's the government with guns against criminals, randos, and children with guns.
More guns is always the solution. If it only causes more violence and bloodshed like a tribal civil war in the jungle then you clearly did not get enough guns.
Plus, they're FUN! People forget that it's FUN to shoot guns. Isn't that worth a dysfunctional society crippled by violence and murder?
No need for a 3D printer to make your own ammo, when there are reloading presses already designed for that that will make reliable and safe ammo much more easily. People also make their own lead bullets from tire weights and fishing weights, just by melting it in a crucible and pouring lead into molds
Crazy, I saw a lot in the shotgun realm for 3d printing slugs and shot and sabot shells, but nothing else yet. I'll have to do some digging. Honestly moving away from lead sounds great to me.
This GNU/GUN is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
Thats fine, but I also would argue against this kind of purity testing. Where a person is written off because they disagree with you on one or two issue. There are a lot of colorful characters in the community so you would quickly end up very alone...
I like this point of view. I struggle with it myself. It's the reason I didn't watch this video when he released it. I didn't want to write him off. He's made a few comments here or there over the years that has let me glean some info where he just seems like he'd be a tackleberry mall ninja type (works loss prevention/aka mall cop).
But maybe he isn't, and regardless, I watched his videos for the FOSS content and he really doesnt get political(usually ..this video was out of left field). I try to separate the "art from the artist" so to speak.
That said, I wish "artists" didn't make that so difficult.
I started watching DistroTube several years ago, seemed like a fairly straightforward guy, would do a few tutorials on Linux commands, aggregated FOSS headlines, did a full install of Arch in real time once.
Then one day on his channel he told a story. Apparently he worked in a retail environment, and was accused by a customer, a "minority" as he put it, of "following her around the store." He made a pretty big point that he responded to his manager "thanks for letting me know."
suspicious eye squint
Then he told the story or going to a Trump rally.
Yeah he's a right-wing nutjob. Surprised he hasn't hurt anyone yet.
His rant on Mozilla's "We need to do more than deplatforming" was my last straw. He raked them over the coals for a title and never read a word from the article.
I'm pro FOSS, and pro gun. I just can't stand people that do no effort and use there platforms to sow division though.
Thankfully "smart" guns are not ever likely to make it to the market, despite what a large swath of anti-2A people believe.
I can't even get the fingerprint reader on my phone to work consistently; why would I want to put something like that on a firearm when my life could be at risk if my gun doesn't work correctly?
I really want them, from a tech stand point, to be a thing, but no doubt on the reliability issue.
The better design I've see is something like RFID in the hands that reads on the grip of the gun. Biometrics are not a good idea for any system that needs that level of reliableility.
The other thing is I would want it to a trigger well replacement not a constant check (I.e. once unlocked it stays unlocked untill deliberately locked again).
You have This., and This. Like everything, it seems like it's mostly just a political issue. You'd probably get more gas out of a smart holster, honestly, but there's just not very much demand from the people who buy guns for actual safety measures, including police departments and militaries. The closest I think you'll find that gun owners commonly want is access to suppressors, mostly out of the convenience of not having to wear hearing protection, and also maybe that it makes them feel like a cool epic black ops guy.
Yes, because the free use of software conflates with wanting everyone (including the lunatics) armed with deadly weapons running around the places you try to live.
These Muricans really have such ignorant view on the world. I doubt they have ever left their hometown, let alone visited actual developed nations with real gun laws.
I don't consider myself well-traveled, because I can't afford to be, but I've done my best (starting with vacations with my parents) to see other parts of the world.
You do know there are left wing people out there who own guns and go to the range, right? Because when them nationalists show up in their leather boots, knocking on doors, they won't give a damn if you're a pacificist. They gonna go pop-pop-pop.
Learn from the black panthers. If proliferation of guns is the standard, abstaining will only make you - and your children - a juicier target.
But, even if you're anti-guns, there's one more thing.
One talking point you could use with pro-gun people though, even if you're anti-gun...
"So let me get this straight... you're against the government taking away your guns, but for the government taking away your encryption?"
I dont think I'm American enough to understand this. How does wanting people to have freedom to use their systems as they please correlate with everyone being able to own and freely carry weapons that can kill instantly?
to put it blatantly. Pro 2A people (they should, on paper at least, in practice a significant portion of them are cunts and shouldn't be allowed in the community but that's a different rant all together) support the idea that people have rights. specifically to do with guns.
There is a very fundamental overlap in the whole "i believe i should be able to run whatever software i want, with no restrictions" and "i believe i should be allowed to own guns with minimal restrictions" crowds. It's that simple, doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. If you're a linux user, and you support open source software, and believe users should have rights. You automatically have a pretty significant moral overlap with pro 2A people. (on paper, again, fuck it, im ranting about it)
Also, minor nitpick, they don't kill instantly, they certainly can. But if i shoot you in the toe, you probably won't keel over and die immediately. That's a gross mischaracterization of them.
The following is a tangential rant, feel free to ignore, it's about gun owners being cunts. There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of "everybody should be taught gun safety, because it's a right granted to us" relating specifically to (liberals edit, i misspoke here, i meant republicans, LOL) (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don't like owning guns.
Now i feel like i don't have to explain why this is maybe a very bad thing. But to put it bluntly, there are two good solutions here. Ban guns forever, permanently (which i disagree with, but that's just my opinion on it) or, make it accessible to everybody, and give everyone access to them, and the materials required to be safe and responsible with them. Because after all, gun safety, is what keeps us safe when using them. While im sure the latter would make some amount of gun owning republicans uneasy, i propose they get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
it has fuck all to do with " people they don’t like owning guns." it has fucking everything to do with people unqualified and unsafe to own guns being able to obtain guns - whether through gun show loopholes, straw buyers, no yellow/red flag laws, etc.
fuck outa here with liberals getting antsy bullshit. if you weren't paying attention, there's a fucking gun violence epidemic going on, every fucking week there's another mass shooting.
if that's liberals getting antsy, maybe you should fucking wake up and realize this bullshit only happens here. bellend.
Gun people and Open Source people both can appreciate the right to repair, although Americans, particularly southerners, have a certain tendency to have more gunowners across the land than people who can libreboot a chromebook. Both groups of people can use their devices for good or bad, and I think that was the original message the oop failed to relay; I don't really know what they think they're saying.
I see what you're saying... I'm picking up what you're putting down..
There's an overlap of free rights to freedom and free rights to guns, but I think that they're on different fields.
I agree with you, surprisingly, about a lot of what you said. But guns are a weird subject for a lot of people. The issue that is always brought up is that guns are designed to kill. The counter is good safety foundation, training, and practice. The counter to that is, humans are stupid greedy assholes.
For the sake of conversation, I'm mixed. I have guns myself but I treat them with respect. My kids know how to handle them and can cite the rules of gun ownership. The guns are locked up at all times. My family does the same. I can't imagine that everyone is doing the same thing.
Jordan Klepper noted that a firm overlap on both sides is stricter regulatory control of deeper background checks, but the NRA makes this impossible. Jordan Klepper Solves Guns.
There are actually a few open source gun designs, namely designed to circumvent gun control measures by being built from off the shelf parts with limited machining.
The one I've seen most of is the FGC-9 that's being used by rebels in Myanmar to be used in raids against government troops, after which they can be replaced with scavenged conventional small arms.
They actually are open source, and there is indeed a lot of material out there to help people with everything they need to build their own. The only part that is illegal to make on your own is the part with a serial number on it, for tracking purposes.
The only part that is illegal to make on your own is the part with a serial number on it, for tracking purposes.
Perhaps that is the case elsewhere, but to point out that in the US, it is legal on the Federal level to make your own complete firearm for personal use. Assuming no state specific laws prohibit it, it is by default legal. ATF FAQ page. If you are not an FFL holder, and are not going to sell the firearm it does not need any serial number. All NFA restrictions still apply to homemade firearms.
The practice of legally homemaking firearms pre-dates 3D printing, with 80% AR-15 lowers being a modern and widespread example.
Some are kinda, yeah. The AR-15 is for sure, and most 3d printed lowers would be, and iirc gen 3 glocks (I think, because that's what all the 80% and 3d print glock lowers are), and I think colt SAA by now, but many designs are still owned by the original company.
I’m not an expert in 3D designing, but it seems to me that the AR-15 is a popular 3D print rifle from a practical perspective more than anything else.
The lower isn’t under extreme stresses, it can be thickened and reenforced without impeding function, and it snaps in modularly to factory made uppers. It helps a lot that the AR-15 parts market is diverse and easily accessed.
There's a reason that I listed ARs and 3d printed lowers separately. ARs themselves are basically open source, nobody "owns" the design, so say Hodge, Noveske, Colt, SOLGW, Radian, etc, can all produce lowers etc, MIM industries can produce all the lpk bits, but so can NBS etc, cerro forge and Brass Aluminum Forge Co can both make identical "milspec" uppers, the only thing that is really "trademarked" on any of it is the branding, or an advancement like Geissele's maritime bolt catch (which similar knock offs were produced immediately, anyway.) If you started making and selling say a2 parts (except lowers, but that's just because you need a licence to manufacture for sale) tomorrow nobody could stop you.
I support free software, but that doesn't mean dangerous offensive software shouldn't be regulated...
A currently viable virus should not be able to distributed freely without any regulation, even when it is licensed under GPL; the fact that viruses can be used for defensive purposes (hacking a hacker's laptop to get ransomware pass code, or hacking scammers to warn victims etc.) also won't change that.
It is the same way with lethal poison, just because it can be used in defensive ways, doesn't mean it should not be controlled.
I watched the video. He says that if you support FOSS you should support guns, but never once advocates for guns to be free.
He says the problem is that politics are tribal, and people are simply in their corner, cheering for their teams - without acknowledging that there are Americans that want different levels of gun control, and there are reasons that people want gun control outside of tribal politics, and there are Republicans/conservatives/gun enthusiasts that have nuanced opinions, and support things like red flag laws and certain gun control policies.
The author of the Bazaar and the Cathedral, an essay about open source development, wrote a lot about gun rights too, like explaining banning automatic weapons was dumb, as a good shooter would make more damage with a semi automatic.
I'm very, very pro-2A. But... I dunno, man. Yeah, I'm mostly opposed to the NFA of 1934, and the parts of FOPA that prevented new machine guns from getting tax stamps post-'86. But indiscriminate fire into a crowd will absolutely kill more people than a shooter taking aimed shots. If you're aiming, after the first shot, people are going to start running, and aimed shots are going to get much more difficult. If you're shooting indiscriminately on full-auto, you're probably going to mag dump in five seconds or less.
The 2017 Vegas shootings were like that (which was full automatic in practice if not in legal or technical definition).
Most mass shootings, though, aren't like that. People aren't clumped up like they were in that case. Also, most people tend not to be careful about shooting in bursts, which helps control your aim. Even an AR15 (which has relatively mild recoil) will still walk all over the place if you hold the trigger down.
The NFA had organized crime shootouts in mind. In theory, the mob could do the kind of training as a group where full auto makes sense. Even if they would, that's not really the threat posed these days.
I support free software, so anyone has easy access to great software and the opportunity to create amazing things and make another person's life better.
I also support gun rights, so anyone has easy access to guns and the opportunity to end another person's life.
I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.
It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread 'unrestricted gun rights' movement is here.
How difficult did you find the process? Over here we basically just go to the store and buy it after a simple background check. Even the background check seems to be avoidable if you do a private gun sale. At least this is how it was described to me by friends who have firearms, I don't own any myself.
For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there's a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)
If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there's a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.
Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.
Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.
I also didn't mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.
having been around the block pretty recently with shit related to this. And my personal opinions coinciding quite nicely, i'll leave this food for thought. Have a stroll down in the comments section, see whats going on down there :)
There are problems in the gun community. That much i'll say.
just ask your fellow yarr friends whether there are "open source" gun designs. I'm sure they'll give you a bit of a rough time for the question, and then immediately point you to the materials required to make illegal guns.
Legal mostly, a few states ban them but not many. Just can't sell em, that one is federal. The "illegal" part comes in if the person themselves isn't legally allowed to own them because of age or criminal history.
You can make a gun out of a bar of soap if anyone's interested. The benefit of the soap route is you can get though older metal detectors. (The new stuff takes a full 3d scan in high detail)
Well, a lot of FOSS advocates are also cyberanarchists. I personally am leaning somewhere towards that, where while I oppose viruses, I don't know if I agree writing one should be illegal.
Most FOSS advocates understand there is a line where your rights end and mine begin--it's why we have the GPL instead of all using MIT or LGPL license. Your right to acess the source is sacred.
Gun advocates don't give a shit. Your death means nothing to their desire to roleplay mad max or zombie apocalypse or cowboy or whatever.