We kinda do need him, though. Very few people are as intensely principled as he is on the subject of computing freedom, and without him anchoring the Overton window, there’s nothing stopping the Bill Gateses of this world from moving it.
I think the problem there is that, for many years, nobody bothered to explain to him exactly why child porn is bad.
Most people observe that everyone else thinks it’s bad and don’t question it any further. That’s not good enough for Stallman, though, and for good reason: expecting him to unquestioningly bow to peer pressure is an insult to his intelligence.
Someone did eventually explain the problem to Stallman. I don’t know what exactly was explained, but my guess is that Stallman was told that child porn is non-consensual and therefore violates the child’s privacy, similar to how revenge porn violates the subject’s privacy. At any rate, after that discussion took place, Stallman did an about-face on the subject, and is now opposed to child porn like anyone else.
Moral of the story: taboos and peer pressure bad; logic and education good.
First, despite there being multiple school shootings this year, school shootings are a tiny fraction of the overall homicides in the US
Which are also often committed with guns…
which are, in turn, dwarfed by the number of suicides committed with firearms.
I’m not talking about suicide.
Second, looking at your link you provided, you see a lot of things like, “A gun was fired during a fight near a basketball game at Appoquinimink High School. No injuries were reported”, and “Bullets struck two windows of classrooms at PS 78 in the Stapleton neighborhood of Staten Island. One classroom was occupied by ten adults, but no bullets entered the classrooms” being counted as "school shootings:, which you then compare to Columbine. You are intentionally, and in bad faith, conflating entirely different things, and placing them all under the heading of, “firearms near schools”.
It is relevant, because it has different causes, and is thus addressed differently.
That’s not a meaningful answer. Let’s have some details.
Are you willing to engage in good faith, or have you already decided that the only solution is banning firearms?
Are you willing to engage in good faith? So far, you’ve argued based on false premises (namely that school shootings are rare, and that there are no bona fide school shootings in the previously linked Wikipedia list) and evasive non-answers (namely that targeted violence at school is to be “addressed differently”, with no explanation of how). Doesn’t seem like good faith to me.
There’s also that desktop web browsers generally request that their title bar not be shown.
Those have the excuse that they’re basically several windows in one, and the tabs are the title bar-equivalents. Very few apps have that excuse, though.
Side note: KDE’s tabbed windows feature was pretty neat. Too bad it’s gone.
In scare quotes, because the people that commit random acts of violence in schools—versus targeted violence–are so uncommon that it’s hard to draw definite conclusions about risk factors.
That is not relevant. Targeted violence in school isn’t tolerable either.
Almost all of them ‘leak’ information in the days or weeks prior to murders; I do think that there needs to be a way to seriously investigate things like that, but I don’t know how you could do that in a way that doesn’t infringe on other, equally fundamental rights.
Indeed, so we’re going to have to solve this problem in whichever way minimizes harmful side effects. Unfortunately, that may involve inconveniencing gun owners, but it’s better than depriving everyone of privacy and going full Minority Report.
When you get right down to it, a lot of it is an issue of culture, where people feel like violence is a reasonable way to express feelings.
Mass shootings in particular are usually committed by someone who has no intention of still being alive afterward, and they do indeed almost always end in the shooter’s death. That’s not merely a “way to express feelings”.
the UK and Australia both have combined rates of violent crime–battery, forcible rape, robbery, murder–comparable to the US, and, in the case of rape in Australia, likely rather higher.
You’re contradicting yourself. How can American culture be uniquely violent if those other countries have similar rates of violence?
The US does have a sharply higher murder rate though; our violence is more lethal.
Because we have guns.
The unfortunate truth is that you can’t have rights without someone misusing those rights to hurt other people.
Yes, and we preserve those rights despite that because the alternative is worse.
The alternative we’re discussing right now is gun control. Is that worse than the status quo? If so, why?
If people can drive, sooner or later someone is going to drive a rental van into a crowd, just because they want to kill people and that’s the way they can do it.
This equivalence is questionable for two reasons:
Unless I’m mistaken, that doesn’t happen anywhere near as often as shootings do.
Cars have a purpose other than killing. Guns don’t.
You’re probably not going to get your wish on that one. The Chinese government is…well, not nice, as the Uyghurs can attest. Maybe let’s let them dial back the oppression first, then make friends with them?
11·1 year ago
9·1 year ago
37·1 year ago
205·1 year ago
Removed by mod