Some believe they are qualified to be president…
This seems so obvious to me that I found it hard to explain. But I think I figured out a way.
Someone who plays video games may or may not identify as a gamer. Someone who is black may identify more or less strongly as being black (I think it’s straining credulity to say that a black person could avoid identifying as black in some sense, though it must be logically possible I suppose). A gamer who does not identify strongly as a gamer and does not go out of her way to tick the boxes of being a gamer won’t necessarily be identified by others as being a gamer. But however little a black person identifies as being black, other people are still going to strongly identify that person as being black – which is why it’s so hard to imagine a black person who doesn’t at all identify as being black.
So identifying as a “gamer” or “gun owner” is a: optional and b: not obvious in normal social situations in the same way as being black or even being gay. This makes stereotypes about the way people are morally different from things people own (or are interested in).
Look, for another example – white nationalism. I suspect you’re not too upset about people stereotyping those guys a little. I think that’s because you approve of people applying social pressure to try to convince them not to be white nationalists any more. Other people might reasonably believe that it makes sense to apply social pressure to try to reduce the number of people with guns in society. I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s not wrong or evil to hold that position.
This is a non sequitir. It may be absolutely true that people who own thing X have property P in common even if they’re different sexes, races, and colors.
But for that matter, the whole thing about stereotyping is a non sequitir, and I’m done with it.
If you google “explosive”, here is the definition you will get:
a substance that can be made to explode, especially any of those used in bombs or shells.
That obviously includes ammunition. But just to be sure, I did some more googling. If you google “how do guns work” you get this:
That depends on the gun. Different guns have different firing mechanisms. When you pull the trigger on a handgun, the hammer snaps forward and a pin strikes the primer(5). This creates a spark, which ignites the gunpowder(3), and the explosion propels the bullet(1) out of the gun.
Cripes, man…
Grow some marijuana and some tobacco and see which the DEA picks you up for. I know this isn’t how you’d really reason about that situation.
I haven’t ever seriously suggested banning guns. The closest that happened in this thread was that you suggested the state has more justification regulating explosives than firearms (in response to a “there’s a limit to how much firepower civilians should be allowed to have” argument), and I was pointing out that you were making an argument of convenience and not of principle because ammunition by any reasonable definition is an explosive. So I jokingly asked if you were OK with banning ammunition to point out that you don’t really think that explosives should be more subject to regulation than firearms, you’re just casting around for arguments not to regulate guns or ammo.
But anyway, no – banning something cannot make it go away. And we’ve been over this many, many times. Banning something can and often does decrease the incidence of it. For example, I think it’s reasonable to suppose that laws against stealing and killing dramatically reduce the incidence of stealing and killing from what would happen in the absence of those laws – and yet stealing and killing do still happen, even though there are sensible, effective laws against them.
And you’re cheating here with “made things worse”. Prohibition did indeed reduce the amount of alcohol available, and thereby almost certainly achieved its objectives of reducing the amount of drunkenness and alcoholism in society. It caused other problems, and because of that and the fact that the temperance movement was actually rather small compared to the number of drinkers in society, society eventually rejected alcohol prohibition.
But note that it was still regulated. And now, it’s easier for people below the age of 21 to get marijuana than to get alcohol (at least according to conventional wisdom) which suggests that the regulation in question is fairly effective.
You’ve already conceded that some regulation is reasonable, and that’s all I’m saying. You yourself have said that the rules on the books should be enforced more, and I absolutely agree. I think you’ve agreed to some extent that it would be great to rationalize gun regulations and unify them over larger geographic areas. You have argued against every specific proposal I’ve made, but I think that’s just because you reflexively argue against any gun control proposal – on this subject, you really seem to fall into the pattern that the lesswrong community calls “arguments are soldiers”. You just can’t ever seem to concede any point, even when it’s really obvious you don’t have a leg to stand on, as in denying that bullets qualify as explosives, or when you suggest that prohibiting nukes is different from prohibiting firearms because nukes are explosives and that’s clearly different.
4 Likes
I recall John Stewart on Crossfire (blessed be), when they fired back and him saying he didn’t accurately report the news on his show. He had a very good response: He did a comedy show, not a news program.
If we could complain about any deception, it would be the one that is giving you space to suggest that they aren’t presenting reality here. By being obviously comedic instead of serious they are potentially deceiving a lot of people into thinking that serious people don’t come up with similar results in controlled conditions.
I have yet to meet a gun owner who purchased their gun primarily for self-defense (of themselves or others) that is not, in regards to their guns, living in a fantasy land. It’s obviously not about reality or understanding for them - it’s about feeding into their power fantasies and giving them a sense of control over their nightmares. Reality never factors into it - it’s about feeling good.
Hunters and sports shooters, most of them think of it as a serious thing (the others think of it as a really fun if dangerous toy), but they at least seem to have an image of guns that are grounded in reality.
1 Like
I suspect that norms for masculinity have something to do with that kind of response, compounded as well by what I often see in gun owners: they usually seem to think the whole debate is taking place at some high-altitude location.
2 Likes
As an aside, I have occassionaly grown tobacco and a very close relative has occasionally grown weed. Both very pretty plants.
2 Likes
Don’t you think that’s a long bow? (as opposed to a gun 
) You’re suggesting satirists shouldn’t do their thing lest people be decieved? o_O
IMO, the people that are railing against the tone of this piece are probably identifying with the stereotype he’s satirising and taking umbrage at that.
My apologies, I was being snide.
2 Likes
I know how guns work.
Your car also runs on thousands of tiny explosions. WTF is your point? An internal combustion engine and a bullet both create a small explosion, but are not the same thing as pipe bomb or other actual explosive.
“Internal Combustion
The principle behind any reciprocating internal combustion engine: If you put a tiny amount of high-energy fuel (like gasoline) in a small, enclosed space and ignite it, an incredible amount of energy is released in the form of expanding gas. You can use that energy to propel a potato 500 feet. In this case, the energy is translated into potato motion. You can also use it for more interesting purposes. For example, if you can create a cycle that allows you to set off explosions like this hundreds of times per minute, and if you can harness that energy in a useful way, what you have is the core of a car engine!”
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
