Renzatic on 17/1/2020 at 20:51
So in other news, Biden has joined with some Republicans in advocating for the removal of Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act, spurred on because Facebook refused to remove a Trump campaign ad that outright libels Biden because, according to them, it's not their place to police content for outright lies.
As hard as it is to side with Facebook on something, they do have a point.
Sec. 230 is important because it keeps service providers from being liable for the content that's posted to their services. You remove it, and suddenly everyone can be held accountable, from the service itself for hosting suspect content, to the ISPs for allowing a direct link to the service hosting suspect content. It won't lead to MOAR FREEDOM or MOAR ACCOUNTABILITY. It'll lead to everyone censoring anything that looks even remotely suspicious or controversial, simply so they won't be sued by an angered 3rd party, or brought in for questioning by the FBI because Little Billy Edgelord posted photoshopped pictures of the Holocaust he got from the Daily Stormer on some obscure part of another forum somewhere.
Now if Facebook decided to remove Trump's campaign ad on their own, that's perfectly fine. It's their service, their decision. They can moderate it as they see fit. But they shouldn't be forced into doing it by the government, or be stripped of safe harbor protections, because doing so would lead to the end of the internet as we know it.
That Democrats are Republicans are now clamoring for the same thing should be worrying all of us.
Renzatic on 17/1/2020 at 22:29
Liberals still aren't advocating banning handguns, which is really the better choice for home defense. Stupid tweet be stupid tweet.
catbarf on 17/1/2020 at 22:53
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Liberals still aren't advocating banning handguns, which is really the better choice for home defense. Stupid tweet be stupid tweet.
Handguns are a poor choice for anything but concealment or as a sidearm. For home defense a compact carbine is objectively the best choice (easiest to manipulate, easiest to manage recoil, less likely to overpenetrate and kill a neighbor than handgun ammo or buckshot, can easily mount a flashlight), particularly for anyone with less hand strength than the average adult male. Many of these weapons fall afoul of assault weapon bans (although not all of them, being that it's a largely cosmetic categorization), hence the controversy.
With handguns being the weapon used in upwards of 90% of gun crime due to concealability, moving handguns to Title II (or an outright ban, but that'd be a lot harder to pull off) would do more to reduce gun violence than any other measure in the last century.
Starker on 17/1/2020 at 23:00
So criminals would do less crime because a carbine is somewhat harder to conceal?
catbarf on 17/1/2020 at 23:15
Quote Posted by Starker
So criminals would do less crime because a carbine is somewhat harder to conceal?
...Yes? At least as far as homicide is concerned, absolutely. You know that the majority of homicides in the US come from gang violence, right? The weapons of choice are handguns that they can stick in a waistband and hide; that was the whole motivation for implementing Stop & Frisk in NYC. Petty criminals aren't generally walking around in broad daylight, robbing convenience stores, or breaking into (presumed to be) unoccupied homes with ARs or shotguns slung on their backs.
Anything that can't be hidden is a non-starter and it's always been that way. The only reason handguns weren't banned by the 1934 National Firearms Act, which did put heavy restriction on short-barreled rifles and shotguns, is because it was seen as politically non-viable in a country that had, prior to that, had no federal firearm regulation at all.
Starker on 17/1/2020 at 23:27
Well, I'm not very familiar with gang life, but it seems to me that it's not that much harder to simply carry a bag of some sort.
catbarf on 17/1/2020 at 23:40
Quote Posted by Starker
Well, I'm not very familiar with gang life, but it seems to me that it's not that much harder to simply carry a bag of some sort.
The federal requirement is 26" overall length. Barring a few folding gimmicks, you're not going to fit that in a bag that doesn't look immediately suspicious.
But sure, you can fit a disassembled AR in a briefcase. So now if you're looking to, say, rob a convenience store, not only are you walking around in public with a briefcase for some reason, you have to retrieve the thing and assemble it before it can be used. Presumably after robbing the store, you then need to break it down and hide it before making your getaway. That's never going to be a popular option. More likely they're just going to bring a tire iron, baseball bat, or knife, and the confrontation is less likely to result in a death.
Most countries with stricter gun control than the US have stricter regulation on handguns, or minimum length requirements, for exactly this reason. Handguns represent the sole category of firearm that is both overwhelmingly the preference of criminals
and has the least utility for law-abiding citizens.
Starker on 17/1/2020 at 23:43
Sports bag? Carry it over the shoulder and you just have to reach into the bag.
Renzatic on 17/1/2020 at 23:49
Total aside here, but no one should say liberals are the only easily offended snowflakes in our great political spectrum. I just hopped on Facebook, where a bunch of red hat wearing Trump fanatics were screaming about Nestle producing meatless sausages like it was a direct assault against their freedoms and way of life.
The only thing worse than an obnoxious vegan know it all is some spiteful anti-vegan thinking their food is a political statement.
