"There’s a bitter irony here, too, as GrapheneOS recently pointed out in a tweet. The Spanish region of Catalonia was at the center of the massive Pegasus spyware scandal in 2019.
"Pegasus, a sophisticated surveillance tool sold exclusively to governments, was reportedly used to hack phones belonging to Members of the European Parliament and eavesdrop on their communications. Yet, police in this very region are now scrutinizing savvy Pixel and GrapheneOS users for hardening their devices against unlawful surveillance and other attack vectors."
Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.
Well not only surveillance, but also things like 'law', 'constitution', etc. applies only to the peasants.
Couldn’t you have googled that?
And if they're going to be allowed to cheat then why hasn't the cheating done any good?
I understand the US' companies and the War in Ukraine made a lot of pressure on EU's lawmakers, but the lawmakers basically nullified the scope of GDPR (military side, in a world where being able to control domestic SIGINT is king), and made EU' domestic companies unable to compete against foreign ones with one single decision (economic side).
It was just irresponsible.
2022-2023 for example a lot of companies removed their Analytics and Pixels js, because some EU members agencies (Spain and Italy to be precise) started making pilot cases against domestic companies.
It did work though, EU companies could either take an enourmous cost to properly implement these (ie. by local proxy sending only minimized data) or remove them in favor of EU tracking companies. A lot of similar suits followed with cases against Meta.
By 2023 it was clear the EU would make a political deal with the US so companies restored the defaults, without making the necessary anonymization changes.
Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.
> Something tells me domestic surveillance is only applied to peasants not the wealthy and powerful.
I suspect it's applied to them even more than the rest (ordinary people are not that interesting to surveil), the question actually is what is done with the surveillance afterward.
The mass surveillance state didn't really get going until George W.
Epstein had better surveillance on his activities than the government.
> Even if Trump was one of them, he had no power at that time, so couldn't have done anything to stop (or bury) the surveillance, but Clinton could.
Who was president at the time Epstein told a reporter he had blackmail material on rich & powerful, later was arrested (and his blackmail material collected from his properties), and finally placed in a facility that had trouble following standard prison procedures while awaiting trial?
I'm betting those weren't the only copies of the blackmail material. What are the odds Mossad and other intelligence agencies also have them?
I think all are surveilled no matter the status. Acting upon it is a different matter of course.
> Acting upon it
Same same.
I'm all for criticizing government actions, trust me, but can we try to make thoughtful criticisms that represent reality?
Or, at the very least, if you're going to use terms as heavy as "terrorist organization", can you provide some more rationale? Like, how do you arrive at equating all EU governments to terrorists?
It honestly pains me to write this. For me, for a long time the EU seemed like a protector, enacting rules and regulations that were in the interests of regular citizens. And now, gods, I don't know how we got here.
???
Is just an inflammatory way to reference some culture war issue like "EU condemns Israel" or whatever?
"Culture war" doesn't literally mean culture stuff like religion. It basically covers any controversial issue over ideology.
From wikipedia:
>A culture war is a form of cultural conflict (metaphorical "war") between different social groups who struggle to politically impose their own ideology (moral beliefs, humane virtues, and religious practices) upon mainstream society,[1][2] or upon the other. In political usage, culture war is a metaphor for "hot-button" politics about values and ideologies, realized with intentionally adversarial social narratives meant to provoke political polarization among the mainstream of society over economic matters,[3][4] such as those of public policy,[5] as well as of consumption.[1] As practical politics, a culture war is about social policy wedge issues that are based on abstract arguments about values, morality, and lifestyle meant to provoke political cleavage in a multicultural society.[2]
Of course, everyone thinks their issue is a Super Serious Issue that isn't culture war, and their side is so obviously correct that the idea controversy exists at all is absurd, so you really can't take someone's word that it's not a culture war issue. The Wikipedia article agrees with this. It lists such serious issues as trans rights, education policy, and obamacare. I'm sure if you asked strong supporters/opponents for those issues, they'd scoff at the characterization of "culture war".
Original claim was based on stretching reality to the point of absurd, which I showed with my question.
What do you think actually happens in the US if you refuse to pay taxes to such an extent that they come to arrest you for it, and then when they do you put up a fight? See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege
It's a genocide, not a terrorist attack. Yes their complicity towards Israel's action is criminal, but:
- that doesn't make them terrorists
- what does it even has to do with the conversation?!
It’s neither. There is a word for it in a dictionary: war.
Palestinians do not live in Israel. So, Israel is not purging “itself”. If you claim that Israel wants to remove all the Arabs, then why it does not wage war on its own Arab citizens?
> But a civil war implies both sides having a similar ability level.
What? It makes no sense. In Lebanese civil war you had at least 4 sides, and they were vastly different in their abilities. Civil war implies that everyone involved is a citizen, which is not the case here.
> And a war in the year 2025 normally implies mainly hitting military targets - the enemy's civilians are to be subjugated, not killed.
In any war civilians die, especially if the war involves guerrillas. Look at Myanmar: civil war, guerrilla groups, a lot of dead civilians.
Israel is not a person, and cannot “say” things. At least 20% of Israelis are Arabs, I doubt that they also “saying” that.
Politicians come and go, opinions change.
Regardless, if you like to participate in a proper discourse, I’m all ears. However, so far it seems that your arguments are more emotional rather than factual.
I bring this up because I'm tired of hearing "some Israelis are Arabs" as if to blame the Arabs for not becoming Israelis. There's a reason they don't.
Yeah, civilians die. But Israel targets civilians, not combatants.
Israel left Gaza in 2005. Why leave the land “ which is contained within the "borders" of what Israel considers its own land”?
> Yeah, civilians die. But Israel targets civilians, not combatants.
You would have to prove that. So far, if targeting civilians was the goal, then Israel why send ground forces into Gaza in the first place? It makes no sense.
Israel has made it clear that the existence of Palestinians in Palestine is what they are fighting against. That's a genocide by every definition I've ever seen, and several people high in Israel's government are quite open about that fact, too.
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> ethnic cleansing
> n : the mass expulsion and killing of one ethic or religious group in an area by another ethnic or religious group in that area
> From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
>
> genocide
> n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: {race murder}, {racial extermination}]Perhaps. Although, at this point international law more and more seems like an optional thing, that is used only when it’s convenient, and only when there is a clear path to win the case.
For example, there is a clear genocide (although not via a military campaign) of Uighurs in China: declining birth rates, re-education camps, eradication of a culture and a language. Clearly done in a systemic way. However, no one dares to take a clear action here because China is too powerful.
Yeah, international law and international bodies have always been more or less a bad joke. They were developed with good intentions, but ideals never last long in the face of reality. Game theory and basic human nature necessitate conflict and tribalism when trapped at the bottom of a gravity well with limited resources. It's depressing.
Ethnic cleansing: removal of a group due to their ethnicity from a piece of land. The result: this group of people stays alive, but has to go to a different place.
Genocide: physical extermination of an ethnic group. The result: they are all dead.
Why these two distinct events should have the same name???
And? What are you trying to say?
Nonsense. Plenty of wars have no genocide component at all. For example, Russia vs Georgia in 2008.
> Israel has made it clear that the existence of Palestinians in Palestine is what they are fighting against.
This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
> That's a genocide by every definition I've ever seen
Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
> several people high in Israel's government are quite open about that fact, too
Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so? If every claim made by politicians became reality, we all would live in a perfect world, and all the problems would be solved (I mean, that is what always promised before the elections).
It's the norm that a genocides occur during wars. Are you going to be this obtuse through this whole comment?
> This is new. If this is the goal, then why leave Gaza in 2005 in the first place?
I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
> Palestinians also claim that want all the land to themselves. Are they committing genocide too?
The Palestinians who live in Palestine and want to remain living and in Palestine? Those Palestinians? No they are not committing a genocide.
> Genocide has very specific definition, and it’s different from yours.
From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
> Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Think you could argue a solid case for all five. Certainly the first three.
> Politicians? Politicians talk all the time, so?
I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding...
Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
The initial argument was that genocide and war are two distinct things. Saying “genocide normally happens during war” does not mean that every war leads to a genocide. If you are arguing that this is the case, then prove it.
> I don't pretend to understand the political calculations done by mass murderers, aspirant or otherwise. That said it's no secret that there's been a surge in right-wing politics all over the world. Perhaps 2024 was more amenable in the minds of those in charge than 2005 was. I don't know and am not particularly interested.
If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
> From the UN: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
Why did you omit the key word (intent) though?
> I mean there's also the bombed hospitals and piles of dead kids, the words of the IDF on the ground, rampant social media posts from Israeli's, if you don't strictly want to go by the words of Israel's leaders, the definition provided by the UN, the definition in common understanding... > Like, to be clear, whether you want to call it a genocide or simply an international power abusing it's close ties to the West to obliterate a neighbor with the express purpose of colonizing their land, I think that's pretty fucking bad too, and am equally opposed to it.
Can you show me a war without bombed hospitals and/or dead civilians?
Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes, social media is like 100% reliable source. Did elections of 2016 thought you nothing?
> colonizing their land
Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Israelis at least may claim some sort of belonging to the land, you can’t.
Genocide and war are two distinct things. One is not required for the other, hence saying: the norm is a genocide is contained within a war. A norm is not a requirement or a fact of any sort. I even went on to cite a genocide that did not, in fact, occur during a war. I don't see how this is being misunderstood.
> If you don’t want to understand why things happen, then it seems that this issue is like a religion to you.
I mean, I understand why it's happening. Israel wants some combination of Palestinian territory and/or dead Palestinians. That much is evident by their actions.
The intricacies of their motivations aren't really something I care about. That doesn't make my desire to not see a pile of dead Palestinians "like a religion" and I have no idea what on earth this line of argument could possibly be driving at.
> Why did you omit the key word (intent) though?
Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket. I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have. You are unconvinced. I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
> Civilian infrastructure, if used for military purposes looses its protections during war. So, to claim that the hospital was bombed just for the sake of it, you would have to prove that there was no military activity whatsoever in it.
Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
> Are you American? Non-white in Europe? Congrats, you are a colonizer!
Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
"AHA! Then you have benefitt-" Yes, I have, and if some time in the future when we have a more progressive leadership I am asked to give up an amount of my wealth, my land, hell, my ability to live here so as to create a more equitable world, I will do that.
And yes, were I present during Nazi Germany, I would've said the same things I'm saying now. I wasn't alive then, nor during the colonial era, nor during any other time of mass human atrocity that is now factually human atrocity because it's far enough in the rear view mirror that the Powers That Be are comfortable with it being called that. But I AM alive and present during THIS ONE, which is why I'm out here saying: Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
This understanding of yours contradicts reality. If Israel wanted more dead Palestinians and their territory, then why wait? Why leave Gaza?
> Because their intent is unknowable, unless you've a mind-reading machine in your back pocket.
Without intent, you cannot prove its genocide.
> I would argue they intend to genocide Palestinians, and to make that argument I would cite what I already have.
You have nothing beyond anecdata. Dead civilians are not genocide.
> You are unconvinced.
Because there is no evidence.
> I then go on to say: even if we grant that it's not intended genocide, merely Israel desiring territory it is not entitled to, that's still horrific and still completely worthy of condemnation.
If they want territory, whey did they leave in the first place?
Can there be an alternative explanation?
> Yes and I'm sure Israel would be the first to tell you that all 427 instances of them attacking healthcare facilities were justified because of military activity within them, them notably being a rather biased source to ask since they, you know, would be directly admitting to committing war crimes if they said literally anything short of that.
Each instance has to be investigated. Just screaming out loud that "they bomb hospitals just for fun!!!" without any evidence of targeted and systemic policy just shows that for you its a matter of religious belief and not reality.
> I'm sure the Reich would've also said, equally full-throatedly, that Jews, Romani, homosexuals etc. were all a dire, ever present threat to Nazi Germany, and if you believe that too, I have a bridge to sell you.
Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis. You guys just can't, you have to compare Israel to Nazis, right?
> Sure am. Doesn't change a thing about the arguments I'm making.
So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
> Yeah that sure as fuck looks like a genocide to me. And I'm going to keep saying it.
So, it is a matter of belief then :) QED.
Intent is impossible to prove, it's unfalsifiable. I can't prove they intend it, you can't prove they don't intend it. It's a worthless data point.
> Because there is no evidence.
All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region. Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric. Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
> Can there be an alternative explanation?
Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
> Please show me that Israel engages in exactly the same level of xenophobic rhetoric as the nazis.
Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
> So... It seems to me that you are like this rapist that says that others can't rape, it is bad, and yet continues to rape.
A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
It is absolutely possible to prove intent. This is how prosecutors prove that that homicide was a first degree murder as opposed to reckless manslaughter.
If we are talking about governments and states, you can absolutely prove intent based on the enacted policies. For example, treatment of Uighurs in China is borderline genocide. You have intentional state policy where a specific minority cannot use their language, live according to their traditions and culture, placed into labor/re-education camps, and, as a result, have declining birth rates, which will eventually lead to no Uighurs in China at all. Another example is Red Khmers with their policy of Year Zero. So, you can absolutely prove intent beyond any reasonable doubt.
> All the fatalities are Palestinians. Gaza is a Palestinian region.
Israelis are dying too. When Palestinians launched rockets, some Israelis died. As happens when two sides engage in war. Has nothing to do with genocide.
> Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, influencers, and citizens are all echoing exterminationist rhetoric.
Same as Palestinians. If we base our argument on “rhetoric”, then everyone is committed genocide basically everywhere in the world.
> Numerous Jewish activists worldwide condemn Israel's actions as a genocide.
Numerous jewish activists say otherwise. How does identity of an activist determine if something is a genocide or not? There are numerous Palestinians who support Israel’s war in Gaza. So?
Identity politics is very bad argument. I can also mention some Palestinians that are claiming similar things about Palestinian policy. Would you accept their testimonies because they are Palestinians, or you will discard it because it is not aligned with what you believe?
> Is there a document signed by Netanyahu stating in black and white that they seek a genocidal defeat of the Palestinians that's been made public? No. We don't need to wait for it to be.
Ah, so, basically, without any evidence you simply decided it is genocide, and that’s it?
> If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays duck eggs, and swims like a duck, you don't need to kill it and examine it's internal organs to verify it was a duck. It's a fuckin duck.
Yeah. I am sure this kind of argument holds, and is not a double-edged sword at all.
> Yeah sure, maybe the Israeli government is run by a race of alien worms who are dying and their sole means of survival is kept in a facility under the Gaza strip. Anything's possible. However the simplest explanation is, in my experience, the closest to the truth.
This is not the simplest explanation. Your explanation is based on a single interpretation of some observed evidence, completely disregarding similar conflicts, military practices, etc. Again, very similar to how religious people believe in their things — they are not interested to hear alternative explanations. Why should they — the book says it all.
> Back in the 80s, figures like Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Yehuda Elkana, one of whom is literally Israeli, have warned about the rise of Zionism and it's comparability to the exerminationist ideology of Nazi Germany.
Identity politics again.
> A rapist, while raping someone, can point to someone else raping someone and be factually correct in their accusation.
Ah :) So, you can rape, but others can’t? ;)
I would say that rapist’s testimony is not trustworthy due to them being rapists. There is a reason why in the court of law the witnesses are better be of good moral character — otherwise, why would anyone believe them?
> You can tease out this ad hominem as much as you like.
It is not an ad hominem. This issue for you is a matter of beliefs and not reason. There is nothing “ad hominem” about acknowledging this fact.
Moreover, he was not an Israeli, he was never a citizen of Israel.
They won't be forgiven for a generation. And even then ... the current government, and anyone who supports them are a stain on humanity.
Your friendly PSA.
May Golan, Israeli Minister of Social Equality & Women's Advancement.
Probably the ones we do not know about are worse.
Not only that, it endaevors to EXPLICITLY be unfair to people in the application of theft, HEAVILY applying its own extreme bias as to what a good citizen is, in direct opposition to promoting freedom and happyness
> GrapheneOS is not immune to exploitation, but the fearmongering done in these ongoing attacks on it is very clearly fabricated. They feel threatened enough by GrapheneOS to engage in coordinated attempts at convincing people that it's unable to protect their privacy and security.
So... they (cops and friends) are saying that GrapheneOS is for criminals, AND that it does not work at protecting anyone's privacy and is not for security. Amazing.
See: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784553445461948 and the rest.
Here is the relevant section from our current laws: https://danskelove.dk/straffeloven/134b
Not literally, but there was some criminally bad warfare going on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava
it’s is both slang for sports uniform (usually shirt) and also is a type of fabric material super common in clothing [0]
[0] https://fabricwholesaledirect.com/collections/jersey-knit-fa...
Canon to the right of them, canon to the left of them canon in front of them volleyed and thundered. Stormed at with shot and shell boldly they rode and well, into the jaws of death into the mouth of hell rode the six hundred.
https://politi.dk/lov-og-information/tildaekningsforbud
(Trigger warning: danish)
And Southend in England tried to do the same (but failed...)
They really are absurd.
I wonder if they are going to do anything about at least a thousand number of other items that may be used to cause bodily harm to a person. What about something related, such as forks?! Bags?
Here in the land of more-guns-than-humans it feels so much more bleak.
Now if the government thinks there isn't really a good reason to have a phone they can't hack ( because they are the good guys right.... and in theory need court orders etc - so there is legal oversight ) then they will see such phones in the same light and consider banning.
This is at the core of the argument - and why governments ask for a special backdoor - as they accept a generally secure phone ( to stop your neighbour snooping ) is a good thing, but they are used to being able to tap phones and open letters if a judge gives them permission.
Obviously the ironic thing is most phones probably already do have special backdoors - but only for the country where the makers reside - and that countries government doesn't want other governments to know or have acccess.
And in the case of fridges - there is no argument there that they aren't legit reasons to own.
In the case of knives - zombie knives don't really have legit use, whereas kitchen knives do.
The ultimate point of gun ownership isn’t sporting or even self defense, though they are useful for both. The real reason America is armed is so that if our government ever gets too tyrannical, we can do something about it.
Some people may not like that today but if you go back and read what people wrote circa 1775 and forward, this is the clear rationale.
It’s been doing that for at least two decades, yet I’m still waiting for you people to get on with it.
But my opinion doesn’t change the rationale for the 2nd Amendment.
That way lies fascism and anarchotyrrany.
The something is killing police and soldiers. That's the quiet part.
Unless the tyrannical government has presented itself at the compound in a force of plumbers and actuaries.
historically, when a government became too tyranical, either the government went on and on, or people did the quiet part
And why does it mention the right within the context of a "well regulated militia"?
Could it be they feared having a national army, so did the 2A instead? Only later to realize regular, nationalized armed forces were necessary after all?
No that couldn't be it. Because then there would be no rational reason for keeping 2A and flooding the country with deadly weapons.
Sure, they chose to put a civilian in charge of the military, but I was always under the impression this was to keep the military from interfering with the normal process of government.
It doesn't, anymore than the freedom of speech is only in the context of one of the other rights mentioned in the 1st amendment.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Who decides? Someone who doesn't like how the last election turned out?
Some person who decides the police are being too tyrannical by asking them to turn down their stereo for neighbourhood peace?
Honestly, when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?
This has mess written all over it.
Also, it should be noted that the army and police are made up of humans too.
As has been pointed out in various war tribunals doing something under orders doesn't entirely absolve you from moral duty.
In fact the loyalists did.
>This has mess written all over it
History doesn't come with nice tidy procedures and unanimous agreements on action.
I disagree with some of the implied answers, especially paragraph three, but:
> Where is the line on tyranny?
> Who decides?
> when does this go from "we're prepared" to "time to act"?
Like I said, these are excellent questions. An individual with a strong moral compass should have answers that differ from “not me” and “somebody else”.
The military and police are human, but they're also the main path towards control. If you treat them good, they'll treat you good, likely until they slip too far and are unable to back down without facing consequences.
It's mostly a good way to avoid situations like Cambodia's killing fields since that was also done by humans.
It'll result in a mess, but a mess is better than torture-to-death camps and famine.
But the words "critical mass" don't seem much more helpful than the definition of tyranny. The questionable boundaries apply, it's like a "you'll know it if you see it" thing.
The problem here is perception. Some people may "see" an outrage that causes them to act. While others don't. Jan 6 and George Floyd riots are two examples of people "seeing something" that caused them to act.
But if you are going up against the most well funded military in the world by some margin - well, whatever is seen had better motivate a LOT of people.
This is very much absurd.
The police quite often destroy antiques handed in by people who know about the bans but not the exceptions.
I have a multitool I bought long before the ban, that is now illegal to carry routinely. I bought one with a significantly longer blade for my daughter which is perfectly legal to carry.
If I understand the proponents correctly: Ostensibly it is to defend one's property and people from a tyrannical government.
Just for an exercise, let's say you believe that. And let's say that day is here. The tyrannical government has arrived and has necessitated your use of assault rifles.
The people you're shooting, what are they wearing? They're almost certainly wearing uniforms; police and/or military.
From the proponents' standpoint, the reason to have assault rifles is to kill police and soldiers.
One of the ironic aspects of the situation in the US is that the fear that is used to justify the need for guns is by and large there because everyone has guns......
Very few people in the UK are troubled by the thought that they might need a gun to defend their home or person, as there is no expectation that you will be attacked by somebody with a gun.
There is also no expectation to be threaten or shot by police with guns either.
If the government is allowed to have them, the people should be allowed to have them. Anything else would be inviting tyranny, as has been demonstrated ad nauseam by pretty much every government ever.
Feels unsafe man. We should look towards free and egalitarian countries like Congo, Sudan or Zimbabwe where citizens have access to the same hardware as the military and they use it regularly to deal justice, competing with the local military. Much better.
Though it's sad to see the gangs are starting to collect local taxes - before you know it they will start behaving like the awful government that they have replaced!
https://www.history.com/articles/black-panthers-gun-control-...
Your second amendment defenders are actually on the side of tyranny, ready to torch the Capitol a second time when their caudillo orders so.
And while it may seem unfair that your favourite peccadillo is deemed illegal - on balance it's a much better system than every man, woman and child for themselves.
You cannot buy a kitchen knife because people MAY use it cause harm.
It is like forbidding the use of roads because it MAY be used to <insert illegal activity here>. Uses (usage?) of roads are even more broad than uses of knives.
I think it is easier to argue in favor of knives (or against the prohibition of ... of knives) than guns, for this reason alone.
You also can't carry one in public without reasonable cause - which in the end is decided by a judge.
Yes I can. I have knives I bought recently in my kitchen.
How could you possibly believe that people in the UK can't buy knives? Do you realise how foolish that sounds?
The irony.
Just as foolish as these ways are to prevent violence.
These criminals might switch to forks, better get your Government get one step ahead of them.
And no, you cannot buy kitchen knives if you are under a certain age, it is ought to prevent a lot of crimes, I am sure.
Care to explain?
No spray, no airgun, no folding mace, absolutely nothing can be used in self defense.
Except for the alarm.
But that's the point - if the courts have found that defense is lawful, then it becomes a question of why it's possession (not even use and proportionality) would not be. Then you end up in a weird state where people can make up reasons to have a hammer or something else on them rather than have something potentially more reasonable/effective like pepper spray. Allowing some limited non-lethal tool seems reasonable if defense is actually something to support.
In the wake of the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff I remember Americans saying that going armed to a protest (not just that guy but others) was reasonable and routine because you might need to defend yourself if things go bad. In much of the rest of the west the general idea is that if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go.
Is there some research on this? Not just talking about guns, but even things like pepper spray.
"if you’re going somewhere you think you might need a weapon - you probably shouldn’t go."
I generally agree with this. I do wonder how this fits in the overall system. This assumes there are places that you could need a weapon, or where weapons could be used against you. It also assumes you always have a choice to avoid the area. If these high risk areas exist, how does the entire population avoid them? If that were even possible, the threats would also redistribute. Examples like Rittenhouse might be textbook for easily avoidable situations that turned bad (hence the news coverage), but I'm not sure it's representative of the full range of situations (the stuff that doesn't make the news).
Additionally, it is OK for you, because it might not be of interest to you, but given that the UK is doing all sorts of absurd stuff, what would happen if they did something absurd with regarding to the thing you like?
It likely reduces knife crime. Much as denying sales of lighters and flamable fluids to minors makes fires started by children less likely.
Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
We don't have laws to make bad things like murder completely impossible. We do it to make them less likely.
Fires though, I can definitely believe it does prevent some arson.
> Is there a benefit to society of allowing minors to buy knives?
The default is "no ban". You need an argument the other way around. I think it is a silly question by itself. Is there a benefit to society of allowing people to skydive?
A gun can be used for recreational shooting.
A gun can just be an historical collectors' piece.
A gun can be used in researching bullet proof vests and other equipment for a startup looking to sell to law enforcement/military.
There are many reasons for gun ownership. Ultimately, the reason should be that the individual is free to do as he/she chooses so long as he/she doesn't initiate a violent interaction.
The most often cited reason for banning firearms is the prevention of school shootings. For some reason, everyone is focused on the gun and not the fact that students wish to do violence at schools. What is it about the modern educational system that students wish to perpetrate violence in the schools to other students and teachers? Why isn't the mental health of the American youth at the center of this conversation?
[1]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polands-top-cop-accidenta...
Guns are more likely to cause accidental death or suicide than to save your life. Big cats and bears can be dealt with using sprays and other measures.
A bit of sport shooting isn't worth having to train kindergartners in active shooter drills.
If a kid really wanted to hurt another, could have done it through other means. Could it be that more kids in the US have violent tendencies for whatever reasons? It would be nice to figure out those reasons.
It’s almost like gun enthusiasts are, conveniently, completely incapable of processing the concept of “force multiplication”.
Why is "wide range of use" being used as the metric rather than "societal good"?
While there are downsides, there's more to it.
Doubt
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/debunking-the-guns-...
On the other hand IIRC it has a lower rate of at least some types of violent assault.
One possible explanation is the healthcare system - fast treatment makes a big difference to the chances of surviving an attack (and are one reason murder rates have fallen over the years, and why developed countries have much lower murder rates). Does anything in the US system delay treatment significantly?
Cars (especially trucks) can help you achieve similar aims, and are much harder to restrict.
/s, if not obvious. Strange times.
Besides, we can use the extra license taxes from people with multiple fridges to raise funds for the schools.
You don't hate the children, do you?
The base purpose of a gun is shooting things, generally living breathing ones.
I could kill a guy with a stick, a rock, a frying pan, a blanket, etc…pretty much most things; however, none of those things exist expressly for that purpose.
Simple concept, huh?
Sounds like your hunting rifle still qualifies.
What I think you are saying is:
The police are arguing both sides (in typical fashion). On one side, the police say that GrapheneOS is for criminals because of its privacy, etc. However the police are also trying to convince people that GrapheneOS is not private or secure, in an attempt to sway people from using it.
[1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784488424006190 and so forth.
My guess is the ambiguous use of "they", interpreting "they" as GrapheneOS instead of the police.
That makes it seem like you are criticizing GrapheneOS rather than the police.
Occam’s razor applies even when we want to believe a cool story.
Yes, I know, age of hyperbole, but a state sponsored attack on the project is mass arrests, blocking of funds etc.
Graphene does their PR, the police does their PR. Both have different views on the world.
If I say “stop attacking me” during a heated argument no one thinks you’re physically assaulting me. That would be ridiculous.
It probably is but it's focus on security and privacy makes that so not that it's designed with nefarious purposes in mind. To us this is obvious but to lay people the nuance is lost.
Cops think I did something wrong? Show up at my house with a warrant.
There are all kinds of ways that its easy to tell if someone is acting like a criminal, like trying to get and serve a warrant for their arrest.
Can't get a warrant without a warrantless wiretap? Fuck off then.
Privacy was a luxury we had, while we could bribe the better angels of our nature with the surplus of the past and while technology was something, that did not scale.
Now a terrorist could take a army of tanks while besieging a city. All the other justifications for a Panopticon are flimsy, but the fact that technology - our savior from savagery, has turned around and bit the hand it was supposed to feed, justifies the thing.
"European authoritarians and their enablers in the media are misrepresenting GrapheneOS and even Pixel phones as if they're something for criminals. GrapheneOS is opposed to the mass surveillance police state these people want to impose on everyone"
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114784469162979608
State employees in their official capacity making inaccurate claims to media about GrapheneOS to smear it as being for criminals and as the users as largely being criminals is a state sponsored attack on the GrapheneOS project.
https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114813613250805804