In this case it's the opposite: they are trying to ban guns while not making murder a crime.

Well, it would make sense if they (at least temporarily) banned guns if they didn't know yet that they could be used for murder.

It's at "this thing shoots high speed metal projectiles at things far away in speed enough to go thru. We'd like to ban it before it becomes used for murders"

You should look up Switzerland's gun laws and intentional homicide rate if you think so.

That is a far more complex issue which is far deeper than such a simple correlation.

Switzerland is top of Europe in gun homicide rates with about 5x the EU average.

You might not be making an example in support of an argument you think you're making ;P

TBF, much of that is down to suicides, as Switzerland has a much higher rate of suicide by gun than other countries. The general gun homicide rate once they're omitted isn't quite so crazy.

Same in the US, of course. Suicide by gun counted as 'gun violence' is the classic disingenuous deception. Remove those and gang violence (primarily against rival gangs), and the numbers don't look that scary, which is the issue for those with an agenda.

From an international perspective, most reporting about gun control being a big issue in the US appears to come from mass shootings, not the misc. causes such as gang activity or suicides.

If you look into the stats that reporting typically uses, I've found that mass shootings are frequently defined differently than they're popularly thought of (I believe gang violence is frequently included), and suicides are frequently included in the overall violence stats.

But it also has a murder rate less than half of France's.

The people who use guns to kill in Switzerland instead use knives or other objects in France.

(I am admittedly cheating a bit, as Switzerland lacks the high crime subpopulations that France has)

Yeah, and if you ban blue cars, blue cars will crash less and you'll see more red cars crash.

I specifically said "intentional homicide rate" for a reason, to get ahead of this ridiculous argument that people bring up despite it not holding up or being relevant.

I don't care how the homicide happens, I care that a homicide happened. And despite lots of guns, it doesn't happen a lot in Switzerland compared to the world or even other EU countries. Clearly, guns aren't the problem, the other factors play into it more.

For the curious, in Switzerland, you don't keep ammo at home, there's proper registration of weapons with proper background checks, and it's treated more as a means of national defense, so having lots of guns is going to get you odd looks from people. Guns aren't seen as something for personal defense: that's the job of the police.

In other words, Switzerland has a much healthier attitude towards gun ownership and usage.

Isn't that that the argument from pro gun people? It's people and the culture, not the guns. See Sweden for an interesting example. One of Europe's highest gun ownership with little gun violence back in the day. Then it changed and it's now a daily occurrence with gang shootings while the number of legal guns was reduced.

Switzerland has a more traditional, not healthier, relationship between the people and the state: the people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash, because the state has a deep distrust of its people. The abberation with guns is just insecurity of the state: it's small and needs its people to act as part-time military in reserve. If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.

> people are subjects who are given tiny freedoms, but are kept on tight leash,

This take comes across as insulting and I am not even from there.

Do you, by any chance, hail from the land of the free, where government can seize your property without even accusing you of a crime? (Civil forfeuiture)

You are right to feel insulted, because this relationship is upside down. The founders of "the land of the free" were aware of this problem and that's why everywhere in the founding documents they talk about "the people" that must have liberties, vs "the state" that must be kept on leash. The civil forfeiture problem shows just that: the state has insatiable desire to control the people, and it finds way to do so despite an elaborate framework to keep its tentacles short.

And yet all of these issues, when they come up, are invariably happening in the "land of the free", not in the "totalitarian state dystopia of the EU and neighboring countries".

Ah, do you have even the slightest clue about Switzerland?! I mean, it's quite impressive how you seem to have confused Switzerland for a highly centralised country with a distant political structure.

Could you go and do some research on the country before you comment on it?

> If it had a bigger military, the fake gun rights would disappear overnight.

The Swiss military is _huge_ for its size. It has one of the largest militaries per capita in the world.

They are one of the most people-empowering nations ever. If enough people indicate it(50k signatures in 100 days cfr google), a legally binding regerendum must be held. A simple majority can then change the law.

I wish more nations could have that kind of direct acces to their democracy. Even so, the majority of these referenda fail to change anything, so presumably people tend to make more noise than wanting actual change.

It's not just the attitude, it's also the sheer number of guns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...

The US is so far ahead of every other country, including Switzerland, that the argument "it works for the Swiss people" makes no sense.

There's also no national statistics collected in either the US or Canada on whether murders/crimes involving firearms are 'legal' or not. Which is relevant to these debates and you'd think would be of interest to authorities.

Switzerland had a huge suicide problem (well by their standards) so they locked up the militia ammunition in communities for the guns Swiss militia members were sent home with.

Also, Switzerland is basically where the USA would be if the first clause of the second amendment was meaningful.

Yes, which is also a valid argument. Tools have no alignment. The people using them do. Thus, one should regulate the people, not the tools.

How about harmful tools with no practical uses to the general public? Mortars, tanks, ketamine, ICBM GPS units…

You’re taking an absolutist position, so I’d like to explore it.

Curious that you’ve put ketamine, a well known anesthetic used primary by the vets but recently also used in depression treatment [1], in that list of “harmful tools with no practical uses”.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketamine-assisted_psychotherap...

Vets and psychotherapists are not “the general public”.

Every item I listed has a clear and valuable purpose, but only in specific contexts.

Yeah I would consider pet owners and people with depression (so groups of people that benefit from this specific tool) a part of general public, both are fairly large groups.

And ketamine is employed by trained professionals appropriately in veterinary hospitals and psychotherapy contexts. The public does not need unregulated access to ketamine for this to happen.

Computers are employed by trained professionals appropriately in military contexts. The public does not need access to computers for this to happen.

There's no task I cannot complete without ketamine, except for the consumption of ketamine itself. Without a computer I cannot perform my job, nor basically perform any modern professional job.

This framing is terribly paternalistic. If a person is taking a drug, they themselves are who is possessing and using it. They aren't some mere passive subject for doctors to be acting on. Furthermore, they shouldn't be forced to convince some doctor-bureaucrat they have some specific medical condition, or even a "medical condition" at all, to be allowed the treatment they'd like to try.

Even so, I don't believe it deserves to be on that list. I consider responsible recreational drug use a clear and valuable purpose in its own right. It doesn't inherently lead to individual, much less societal harm and it allows individuals to experience and explore various states of human consciousness, an extension of the fundamental right to bodily autonomy.

If you're open for exploration, what are your thoughts on organisms rights to self defense? What level of self defense should they be able to have if another organism is trying to end their life?

There is a tension between the need to level the playing field and the need to minimize the harm potential.

For example, land mines, machine gun emplacements, and chemical weapons can be effective forms of home defense. An intruder would have access to the same equipment, but at least the playing field is level, right? However, an attacker would also be able to inflict astounding mass casualties in moments with this equipment.

On the other side, if the most effective self defense weapon available is a kitchen knife, the playing field is not very level, and a weak victim can be overpowered by an attacker or intruder. However, the ability to inflict mass casualty is greatly limited.

So, I don’t have a specific level to prescribe, but I would start the discussion by framing the decision as a balance between these two elements.

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I tend to agree. Ideally, a weaker person would be able to use a tool to provide self defense in the most limited way possible without causing harm or damage to anyone other than the attacker.

Unfortunately the tools we have currently aren't great at that.

> Ideally, a weaker person would be able to use a tool to provide self defense in the most limited way possible without causing harm or damage to anyone other than the attacker.

Landmines in the garden it is then. Hard to use offensively.

A shame if a child that accidentally threw a ball in your garden steps on them, or even just the overweight neighbours cat. Or a visitor stumbles on them duling a bbq. But such casualties are apparently a small price to pay for feeling safe.

Perfect use case for IoT mines and AI object/face recognition

Why would a hypothetical attacker wander through the garden anyway, instead of walking the normal path to the front door like a normal person? That face recognition will surely blow up the first pizza delivery person that has the misfortune of delivering to your house. I hope you tip well.

FWIW mortars and tanks are legal for the general public to own in US, although it does involve a bunch of forms and tax stamps if they're operable. It doesn't seem to be a problem in practice, though - at least, I've never heard of a legally owned tank or mortar being used for criminal or other harmful purposes.

Well, tanks and mortars might've moved the scales on Emu War in favour of australians

People are going to bog you down listing all the practical everyday uses for weapons-grade plutonium, but let's try a different tack. Stipulate for sake of argument that there is something dangerous with no beneficial civilian use, so you want to ban it. But there is public demand for the thing, or a lot of people just hate you banning things and will make every effort to thwart you.

Sellers split the item into parts so none of them individually is the completed item but anyone can buy them and stick them together. So you pass a law that says the "lower bit" is the part that's banned, and they can't sell that part. People start selling "80% lower bits" or whatever the nearest not-illegal thing is that can be converted into it. 3D print files for the part appear on the internet, or detailed instructions for how to manufacture one yourself.

What now? Ban 3D printers and CNC machines? Ban anonymous communications or encrypted communications with anyone outside the jurisdiction, so people can't distribute the parts files? Now you're banning things with beneficial public uses. But if anybody can easily reproduce the thing the thing then the ban is ineffective.

What's wrong with making manufacture and possession illegal?

How well did the war on booze go? How well is the war on drugs going?

And to be more specific, possession and home production are difficult to detect, so enforcement will be ineffective or highly invasive or both. Victimless crime laws erode citizens' respect for the law and government respect for citizens' privacy. That's what's wrong with them.

This is a case of people actively building and deciding to use a tool with plausible deniability built-in. How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability? It is much more reasonable to require that people use a tool that shows its work.

> How would you regulate people when they shirk any accountability?

This happens with or without AI. It's not too hard to make an algorithm that discriminates against people without doing so explicitly. You can use certain bits of data as proxies for whatever characteristic you want to discriminate against (e.g. ZIP code, household income, marital status, etc).

Due to the myriad of ways to arrive at a discriminatory conclusion, it's easier to regulate results than tools.

One potential solution to your question is to make the laws carry strict liability (I'm assuming the EU has something along those lines). Plausible deniability no longer exists because intent doesn't matter. The company is liable if someone can demonstrate discrimination, regardless of whether it was intentional or accidental.

That ends up pushing towards something similar to what you want. It encourages a tool that can show its work to fend off lawsuits without being directly tied to the tool itself. The other alternative is extensive testing to make sure discrimination doesn't happen, but I think that will still be worrying to companies due to the inability to prove a negative.

The upside potential of guns is not even remotely comparable with AI...

Saving your own life could be argued to be the most important upside possible.

Given you brought up Switzerland, "saving your own life" isn't a valid reason there: concealed carry isn't legal there, and you need a gun-carrying permit to open-carry outside of some very limited circumstances, such as travelling to and from a shooting range. The only people who can easily get gun-carrying permits are those in security and such.

In Switzerland, guns exist for recreational and competitive shooting, hunting (so long as you have a hunting permit), and national defense. Not personal defense.

Czechia is a European country you want to look at for an example that you can have gun laws that allow civilians to own handguns and carry them for defensive purposes without problems.

US is somewhat unique in the Western world across the board - no public healthcare, generally poor social safety net etc - which means that exercises in causal linking of those unique traits to outcomes are wild guesswork, if one is taking a charitable perspective. A non-charitable one is that people mostly just cherry-pick things that compare favorably for whatever political cause they're advancing, and will often outright refuse to believe a similar comparison that is contradictory.

> Czechia is a European country you want to look at for an example that you can have gun laws that allow civilians to own handguns and carry them for defensive purposes without problems.

Let's see:

--- start quote ---

A gun in the Czech Republic is available to anybody subject to acquiring a firearms license. Gun licenses may be obtained in a way similar to a driving license – by passing a gun proficiency exam, medical examination and having a clean criminal record.

the issuing authority (police) firearm owners' database is connected to information needed for a background check and red flags any incidents that may lead to loss of license requirements. Similarly, health clearance by the general practitioner is needed for periodical renewal of license (every ten years).

* also very specific restrictions depending on license *

Obtaining the license requires passing a theoretical and practical exam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_Czech_Republic

--- end quote ---

Oh look, already more strict than many states in the US (and some states are busy removing any restrictions).

(I don't know why your comment got flagged, since it's factual. Whoever did this - please don't, this is not a feature meant to be used indicate your disagreement.)

I'm not claiming that Czech gun laws are identical to US. I'm claiming that you can have shall-issue concealed carry and broad access to "assault weapons" for civilians without gun violence problems as seen in US.

First up, Czechia has proper licensing and strict background checks. Maybe not the best choice to compare to the US.

I don't have to take a wild guess around this kind of thing: I'm specifically referring to the gun culture of the US and comparing it to that of Switzerland. There's a different attitude to gun ownership in the two countries, one of which places strong emphasis on responsible ownership and the other which doesn't. That difference has little to do with mess of a healthcare system the US has, nor its poor social safety net (though it's interesting to note that those most obsessed with with getting rid of the safety net and public healthcare correlates with those most obsessed with the US second amendment). Now, what might be interesting to observe is that in Switzerland, rights come with responsibilities, whereas in the US, this attitude is much less prevalent, hence how much more common "rights absolutists" are there.

Personally, I have no issue with people having guns. What I do have a problem with is people who fail to recognise that exercising their right to have those guns comes with a responsibility to the wider community.

Sure, and I didn't claim that Czechia is the same as US in this regard. I'm merely pointing out that you can have a country with a gun culture that, among other things, enables personal self-defense without all the associated problems that US has which people often assume are intrinsic to gun ownership and defensive use.

I disagree that the situation in US has nothing to do with healthcare and social safety net, though. For example, suicides constitute most gun deaths in general, but this is worse in US because of its generally poor situation with preventative health care, especially mental health care. Similarly, poor social safety net means a lot more people ending up in poverty, which drives up crime including violent gang clashes that cause the majority of gun-related deaths in US. This isn't to say that the prevailing attitudes among American gun owners do not contribute to the problem, either - but I'm sure that, if US would catch up with e.g. Canada when it comes to taking care of its own population, the numbers would strongly reflect that.

And yes, it is ironic and sad that support for RKBA is strongest on the right, which is also the cause for all this. It's not exclusively them, though. The running joke on the subject in many hard left spaces is that "if you go far enough left, you get your gun rights back".

Statistically you're much more likely to lose your life to a gun than to save your life with a gun...

Correct, AI is more like a nuclear bomb than a gun.

I'm thinking of this more in the way of "printers got so good so now they have to add tracking dots when people try to print money or IDs".

We need the same thing for AI generated imagery, video and text.

What stops me from removing that data manually?

Some AI tools are open source so nothing prevents me from modifying the code and removing the part that adds those watermarks.

Even closed source programs can be patched to remove that functionality.

FYI this is something you can even do with printer dots

> nothing prevents me from modifying the code and removing the part that adds those watermarks.

These regulations are aimed at major institutions like banks. Those rely on government-provided privilidges and protectuons to exist. In return we expect they follow some rules.

Nobody cares about AI running in your garage.

Again, nothing like this is aimed to prevent 100% of anything.

The tracking dots stop a huge portion of the low hanging fruit, identity thefts, fake money scams etc. Of course they do nothing to people who know how to hack the printer driver and/or firmware to remove tracking, but they aren't the ones being targeted.

Having trackable data in the biggest AI-generators would again stop a metric fuckton of casually made revenge porn and fake news. It won't stop actual professionals from training their own GPT-3 to do the same thing.

Seems more like banning cars than guns. Cars can be used pretty effectively for murder but the vast majority of use cases are not killing things.

There are more firearms than cars in the U.S., but motor vehicles cause far more deaths (with the exception of 2020 when nobody was driving).

Unrelated but interesting fact, mortality rate per mile driven went up during covid. The reason motor vehicles kill so many people in the US is because of street design, but usually it's all clogged up with traffic to reduce speeds to a non-lethal level.

Just a note: gun control doesn’t do much because American gun manufacturers produce more than 10 million guns a year for the domestic consumer market. A ban would basically say no to that. What we have are laws against gun usage without any real constraints on a massive supply.

It doesn’t make sense to use gun ban and gun control interchangeably.

If it is, it is good for precisely the same reasons.