The cake is not a lie.
The cake is a metaphor.
1 Like
Yeah, but the metaphor is so strained I just canât take it seriously.
8 Likes
There is some point to the idea that every compromise has involved those that want to own guns giving up something in terms of ease of purchase. But the idea that once upon a time there was a big cake and now there is a small cake just doesnât really make sense.
Itâs really like there is a cake that represents gun ownership rights and every few decades we redesign the whole cake in hopes of reducing gun violence while keeping the cake. And there very much is a whole cake where for the most part people can legally own all but the most dangerous fire arms. And it isnât like the expiration of the assault weapons ban and many conceal and carry laws havenât expanded gun rights. So it isnât a one way street.
1 Like
The US glorifies violence. Violence is seen by the government and its electorate as a viable means to solve domestic and foreign-policy problems (see War on Terror, War on Drugs etc.). Most/Many USians get a hard-on when their military gets mentioned. The whole national myth/narrative is based on violence.
Guns are a symptom of this sickness. The Leidensdruck/degree of suffering is still not high enough to seek the cure. Currently itâs a death by thousand cuts - a few more mass shootings in the magnitude of Sandy Hook or larger could probably effect a change âŚ
I think you and I are close to agreement on this. Another imperfect analogy could be, just because we have regulations and compromises on cars today doesnât mean people had more rights in 1890.
4 Likes
I bet you could find strained cake in Paris somewhere. They strain everything in France.
1 Like
NFA rules define and govern Short-Barreled Shotguns, Short-Barreled Rifles, Destructive Devices (like grenades), Full-Auto weapons (Machine Guns), Suppressors (Silencers), and AOW weapons.
These are weapons and parts (like suppressors) that require a $200 tax stamp from the BATFE to own.
Pasta cake metaphor it is, perhaps?
1 Like
I agree that this is a big part of the problem - of course it would be negligent not to highlight the way that racism plays into this: black lives in particular are throwaway whether from disease, incarceration, suicide, or any other fate. So itâs no surprise that theyâre considered shootable too.
Thatâs certainly how the debate is understood in the mainstream, and thatâs the problem. When liberals adopted the âguns are the problemâ platform, they ceded the entire territory of âguns are not the problemâ to the right wing, who are notoriously unconcerned with addressing the root of social problems.
There is another position, which is that violence in our society is a serious urgent problem, and we need to take radical action to address it, and since gun regulation is not a serious or realistic plan to actually reduce violence in our society, it doesnât merit so much attention.
1 Like
We should think of the children too, while weâre at it. That never causes problems or unintended consequences.
1 Like
That.
When talking about the root cause, itâs a good idea to go to the actual root cause.
âŚin this case, what are the factors behind the prevalence of violence in certain societies.
It seems to me youâre saying that you donât need to make concessions because you have everything you need and you canât be forced to give anything up.
Arenât you then, the only one in a position to make a concession?
Iâm not asking you to make any concessions, Iâm just pointing out the shape of the argument.
2 Likes
Absolutely. Firearms have one function only and that is to maim and kill. There is no right to own or carry them unless expressly permitted by the law. All talk of gun control sounds like appeasement to me and not compromise.
1 Like
I think that is right.
As long as there are things that kill people there will be rules about things that kill people. And the rules should increase in accordance with how much said things kill people.
Saying that there were no rules on cars before anybody had cars or few rules on guns when there were few people killed by guns is sort of exactly how it should be not some sign of growing injustice.
5 Likes
Asbestos is pretty handy in the lab. I used to work with asbestos coated screen for heating glassware on a Bunsen burner. Now they have some crappy ceramic imitation and I fool did not stock up when I could.
The Man banned mercury thermometers. The substitutes are poor or expensive or both.
Cyanide. If you want to electroplate without blisters, you have to go illegal, or climb a mountain of paperwork. The organic chelates are pretty poorly performing in comparison.
Now it got really personal, because the EU in its wisdom restricted access to 30% peroxide that I was using for etching circuitboards. And my stock is slowly getting depleted and I am not exactly eager to change methodology when I just got about tuned up this one.
I had it with the ban-it-all do-gooders. They are worse than all they banned together and then some.
3 Likes
It does sound like youâve been quite personally inconvenienced just so that a bunch of people could avoid getting asbestosis, mercury poisoning, etc. That is worse!
5 Likes
The argument is weak because its addressed to gun owners and is only meant to reframe the argument, not argue it proper. It ignores that both having and not having said cake depend on a social contract that is designed to benefit all.
It tries to reframe democratic action as an us Vs them situation. It says democracy doesnât work and some people just know whats best for all.
And how often, exactly, are those âhopesâ realized??
1 Like
And donât get me going about the lead-free mockery they push as solder now. For hand-soldering it is a catastrophe. The alloys require higher temperatures, wet poorly, and most of them are hard and prone to fatigue cracks. And are expensive, as tin is more costly than lead; and thatâs before the silver is added.
Luckily I still can buy the 37-63 eutectic, the genuine stuff.
1 Like
