dangerous territory/devil's advocate

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

Or rather, explain to me why we have so much less criminals shooting or threatening people with guns over here? (Or owning guns, for that matter, but it's not the owning but rather the shooting and threatening that bothers me)

It sounds nice, until you consider reality.



Also comparing the right to abortion with the right to own guns is completely retarded. Both happen to be hot topics in the US doesn't mean they're similar in arbitrary ways. And making rape illegal didn't get rid of rape. However, making Kinder Surprise eggs illegal in the US did in fact successfully almost entirely get rid of those pesky Holy Trinities of Confectionary: chocolate, excitement AND something to play with!

Trip, it's because we're all psychotic. You spent a week here, you didn't notice?

[AFK]

It's true, if we didn't have all of the guns we have in Maine, the Massholes would be all over the damned place.

[Triple Zero]

Can we stop talking about guns and free speech for a moment and focus on the important problem of your country's lack of Kinder Surprise Eggs?

[Cain]

Kinder eggs are a constitutional right!

The pursuit of happiness cannot possibly undertaken without free access to Kinder Eggs.

[Triple Zero]

Maybe they could fill them with tiny guns, hate speech text and aborted foetuses? Then you could call them FREEDOM EGGS!

[LMNO]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm commenting on being ok with censorship, generally as far as current practice is concerned.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

[The Dark Monk]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Correct. The ones you can see are almost always better that the ones you can't, unless it's an A-Bomb dropping from the sky about half a mile up, in which case, it'd be better to close your eyes, snack on a deep fried Mars Bar and Itis to sleep.

[The Dark Monk]

And if you make guns illegal, it won't stop people who have no regard for the law from owning guns. What exactly, then, are you preventing? Making guns illegal doesn't get rid of guns, just like making abortion illegal doesn't get rid of abortion and making drugs illegal doesn't get rid of drugs. It sounds nice, until you consider reality.

You have to remember that a good chunk of our population doesn't give a flying fuck what the law says, and also believes that "getting caught" is for other people.

Also many believe that when they do get caught, they will be cooler for it, a lot of that is seen in California where foolish teenagers point air pistols at cops, drop them immediately, then spend a while in juvie/jail for "cred points".

[Cain]

Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible.  There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership. 

Even when guns were legal in the UK, they were never present in such large numbers, making their criminalisation a rather simple act.  Also, the UK authorities had a more centralised database for gun purchases and ownership, and so could follow up on those people who did have firearms more easily.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also the sheer number of handguns alone in the US would make any form of disarmament nearly impossible.  There are an estimated two hundred million legally owned guns, but no-one really knows, because there is no centralized system for tracking ownership. 

A fact of which I approve.

[LMNO]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The problem with censorship is that it doesn't make the content go away.  It drives it underground, which makes it much more difficult to keep tabs on and counter.  I'd rather have hate speech in the public square than in the back alley.

Not just that, but the moment you put controls on the free exchange of information, you no longer have freedom of speech.  And if you haven't got freedom of speech, you're simply not free.  End of story.

Today's clue:  Freedom of speech isn't to protect popular speech; popular speech needs no defense.

Also, this, as a more basic principle.

And that's exactly what it is.  A principle that you can toss aside when things get ugly or personal isn't a principle, it's a hobby.

Thing is, I find hate speech (as opposed to Hate™ speech) to be repugnant.  I find the idea that it should be suppressed even MORE repugnant...Because if Joe Teabagger gets a muzzle, then MY rights have reverted to mere privilege, which can be "regulated" at the whim of the government.