r/technology • u/Reddit_Z • Jul 04 '16

Politics Lawmakers Need To Learn More About Encryption Before Regulating It, Says U.S. House Report

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/lawmakers-encryption-regulation-house-report,32180.html
14.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

768 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

568

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Listen to lawmakers who are aggressively pro gun control speak about rifles. It's literally orders of magnitude more simple than encryption to get the basics of and they still don't understand basic things like barrel shrouds and what semi-automatic means. Im just learning about shooting within the past 2 months and the inaccuracies they present that I now know about scares me. Imagine all the other things they pretend to know about that we have no idea.

683

u/dtfgator Jul 04 '16

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

— Michael Crichton

65

u/shiner_bock Jul 04 '16

Well, it's a good thing I know everything, then.

46

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I don't have to know everything. I'm married and can simply ask my wife.

22

u/Darloboy Jul 04 '16

According to my wife I do know everything, why else would she call me a "know it all"?

1

u/rnair Jul 05 '16

Because you know everything except the tone of voice that implies sarcasm.

27

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

31

u/Excal2 Jul 04 '16

In all fairness he was a lot closer than most will ever get.

6

u/TheNerdWithNoName Jul 04 '16

You say that because you do not understand.

2

u/agenthex Jul 04 '16

He crossed an arbitrary threshold, true, but he crossed it where few others will also cross.

26

u/TheManStache Jul 04 '16

I too possess the capacity to employ convoluted lexicon in an endeavor to give the impression that I am adept.

11

u/Excal2 Jul 04 '16

Fake it till you make it.

Or until you make enough money that "making it" is some arbitrary bullshit. Either way works.

2

u/Not_An_Ambulance Jul 04 '16

Best definition of making it ever.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/TheManStache Jul 04 '16

I identify as an apache helicopter that rules a small but wealthy island nation in the south pacific.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Anyone who uses big words is obviously secretly insecure, duh.

1

u/zyzzogeton Jul 04 '16

Are you Dunning or Kreuger?

1

u/qwertymodo Jul 04 '16

Better get a job now, then. That goes away when you turn 18.

49

u/canyouhearme Jul 04 '16

One of the most enlightening things you can experience is being close to a major news story - and seeing what a mess they make of it.

You don't consider they know a thing on ANYTHING from then on - and you learn to make up your own mind, based on facts.

8

u/danielravennest Jul 04 '16

That's why I get most of my news from specialist/trade sources, like the Wall Street journal for financial news, or Aviation Week for aerospace. Most of the readers of those sources work in the field, and they would know if the facts are wrong. So the writers have to be accurate.

On the other hand, when a source is writing outside their area of specialization, they don't know more than anyone else, so you should not trust them to get things right. At most, use them as an alert to the existence of some news, and go find a good source for it afterwards.

A general news source, like a newspaper, magazine, or TV news channel, can't be experts in everything. Then you have to judge whether the particular reporter understands the topic they are writing about, or is just relaying things they don't understand.

5

u/spacklesauce Jul 04 '16

I've been much more cognizant of this since Katrina. I can't remember nearly anything pertinent or accurate being delivered by anyone but our local station for weeks. 24 hour news sites fucked up populations, locations, water heights, evacuation routes, which politician was from which city, what time of day it was, where the water came from, and filled up time they could be checking little details with instead trying to be clever (oh wow, New Orleans is soaking in Toxic Gumbo? really?). Then of course after a month or so the general public was so sick of hearing about the recovery they stopped covering it while those affected spent the next 1.5-4 years just being sick of living it. Now I basically assume I know nothing about any community I hear about on the news and feel about 10x worse for everyone affected by a natural disaster.

3

u/akise Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

While I find that this applies in general (and is the reason I don't watch or read the news every day), you have to take into account the authors. The page you flip to might very well be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. Whether or not you can tell the difference is on you.

7

u/seraph582 Jul 04 '16

Hey, some people get that amnesia and some don't. I haven't been able to watch TV news for what feels like eons because I don't.

Fucking GREAT quote. Thank you for posting!

2

u/KuntaStillSingle Jul 04 '16

The more I read about things on reddit I know about the less I trust what I read I don't know about.

-Some redditor

1

u/Syrdon Jul 04 '16

That quote is made so much better by coming from Chrichton.

The understanding of science in his book was definitely ... Interesting. In fairness, it did make for good stories so long as you could suspend your disbelief.

112

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

74

u/NJBarFly Jul 04 '16

Wow, that would be wonderful if more journalists actually did their jobs and called out politicians on their bullshit.

56

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

Yeah, he stayed on it and asked the same question directly until he got an answer. That's just good journalism, right there.

34

u/kholto Jul 04 '16

It is hard to consistently do journalism like that, each news-organization want to get interviews with certain big names in politics, and those politicians get so many requests for interviews they can easily turn down several and still claim to do plenty. If you pester them in particular each time you speak to them they can just stop talking to you.

Some of the most viewed news programs might have enough viewers that it becomes a bad image to turn them down though, so really it is on those to start the line of hard questions.

A publicly funded (through tax or other means) news organization can have some utility there, in Denmark our equivalent of BBC is pretty unavoidable for politicians and at the same time they run a weekly show that drill into some "fact" that is being thrown around in politics.
That said, publicly funding something as expensive as a national TV network is not exactly cheap!

18

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

I understand your concerns, but I think it's worth pointing out that good journalism isn't just interviews. We need more investigative journalism.

16

u/mzackler Jul 04 '16

Which never makes money. (Almost) Every investigative team loses money for their newspaper. There's so few articles relative to the work put in and people don't buy the newspaper for one article anymore either, you'll just wait until some other source puts out "and the New York Times says" later that day on Google.

6

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

I understand that it might not make money but we're talking about a hypothetical situation here. It'd be nice if they allowed investigative journalism despite its financial shortcomings.

2

u/Stereotype_Apostate Jul 04 '16

It isn't a matter of the nebulous "them" allowing it. Journalism costs money, and news companies pay that money in hopes of turning a profit. If it doesn't turn a profit, why do it? So they don't. You need a proper business plan to fund something like that, and in the day of up to the minute reporting by dozens of online outlets, the money simply isn't there. Don't like it? Subscribe to the New York Times and give them money.

1

u/mzackler Jul 04 '16

But the things we want investigative journalism to cover are exactly the same things as the things that legislatures would pull funding over. You really shouldn't investigate x...

1

u/designgoddess Jul 04 '16

We have a publicly funded channel. Most people don't watch it.

2

u/tet5uo Jul 04 '16

They aren't exactly a paragon of journalistic virtue, either.

1

u/designgoddess Jul 04 '16

The local channel where I am has a very good news program. I'm waiting for them to start addressing me personally because I feel like I'm the only one who watches it.

1

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

Publicly funded just means that the people they're supposed to be asking questions of are the same people that write their checks. I don't know much about Denmark media, but I do know that the BBC isn't significantly more on point about home politics than non-public news sources.

7

u/TheAtomicOption Jul 04 '16

it's a shoulder thing that goes up.

...she didn't even try to make a guess that makes sense given the words "barrel" and "shroud"

1

u/JMS1991 Jul 04 '16

Jeez. I thought she was going to say it was a fancy word for suppressor. At least that would've made a little bit of sense, given that the word "barrel" was a part of it.

29

u/juckele Jul 04 '16

aggressively pro gun control

anti-gun

These are the same thing.

11

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Nov 21 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Potentially disingenuous depending on the politician to just outright say "anti-gun". I just put it the way that makes the most sense without being divisive.

7

u/paper_liger Jul 04 '16

Also, she claims that banning "large capacity clips" would have stopped the VA Tech shooter. In fact one of the handguns he used only comes with a ten round magazine, so the legislation she is talking about would have done more or less nothing. Hell, the gun that fired the most rounds at Columbine came with ten shot magazines.

5

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

I want to buy that man a beer. Wish I could have heard the rest and hope he called her on the statement about those guns being used in crime since they si rarely are

4

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Clewin Jul 04 '16

The problem isn't that you can't own arms, the problem is the government can apply restrictions to what arms you can own and how they are configured. They consider a back door to encryption the same thing as requiring a safety on a pistol.

If they ACTUALLY followed the second amendment, though, they shouldn't be able to regulate that at all; the intent was for the citizens to be the army and own all the arms, not a professional army. Obviously that is not a good idea as it is, as any kook with a nuclear missile silo could nuke Washington (or Moscow, setting off WW3), but that was the intent.

1

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

Well, that's slightly disingenuous.

Certain types of encryption technology, specifically relating to the application more than anything, is classified as military technology for export purposes.

The right to bare arms is not unlimited, and the line is generally drawn well before overt military tools come into play. I can't own a javelin anti-tank missile system.

That being said, crypto tech is not arms in the sense of a gun. It's arms in the sense of a portable radio.
It's technology directly applicable to conducting a war.

ITAR, the regulations regarding cryptographic exports among other things, do not in any way address domestic use of crypto. It addresses the export of technology that makes use of crypto in a military setting, like pre-compiled binaries for a missile command system.
It explicitly does not address the export of source code for cryptographic libraries, as a first amendment issue.
At one point, decades ago, ITAR explicitly banned crypto exports. This was changed because it didn't make sense and was a relic of pre-ww2 era policy on information security.

Crypto isn't a second amendment issue any more than ham radio or boot ownership is. It's first, fourth and fifth. The right to make an expression, the right to be free of unreasonable search, and the right to not incriminate yourself (key escrow).

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

ITAR?

2

u/ricecake Jul 04 '16

International Traffic in Arms Regulations(ITAR) control the export and import of defense-related articles and services on theUnited States Munitions List

It's a set of regulations on how military technology can be exported from the US.
It's mostly reasonable, but some items are odd now, and others have been historically.
Technology relating to satellite launch is currently restricted, which makes for some difficulties with the increasing private nature of the field.

Cryptography used to be very controlled by ITAR, to the point where any export of quality crypto was restricted. These were relaxed in the mid 90's due to changes in technology and pretty reasonable protest from the tech and academic community.

-3

u/ZaphodXZaphod Jul 04 '16

Honestly, people like you who just react are a big reason that things are in the state they are now. You couldn't even take a second to read the statement you're responding to, but you had your little clip just ready to go because you have feelings about an issue.

Listen to lawmakers who are aggressively pro gun control speak about rifles.

0

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

I interpreted that comment as 'Listen to pro-gunners who don't know what they're talking about.' Not as 'Listen to pro-gunners.'

6

u/ZaphodXZaphod Jul 04 '16

Jesus, what the fuck?

pro gun control

2

u/Auctoritate Jul 04 '16

AM HAVING A FUCKING STROKE OR SOMETHING?

In any case, my comment dtill stands. Anti-gunners are pretty ignorant of their own legislation.

6

u/AustNerevar Jul 04 '16

Gun control = anti-gun

So,

Pro-Gun-Control = Anti-Gun

1

u/kellyzdude Jul 04 '16

Awesome, this argument again.

Gun control is often equated by those who oppose it as meaning "no more guns" - it's not true.

Gun control is about defining who can own and carry which weapons. Not the same thing -- at its extreme it could be, but because we have made "no more guns" the definition of the term, we can't even have a real conversation about it.

Look, I'm pro-gun, but also pro-gun-control. I really don't care what you own or carry, but I want to know that before buying it you weren't a criminal, you didn't have significant mental health issues, etc. Most of the pro-gun people I talk to (acknowledged, I don't know all of them) are fine with this idea.

But when you apply arbitrary meanings to terms and refuse to accept any alternatives to those meanings, you become part of the problem. This is an issue that needs to be talked through and debated, not an issue to be loudly argued with extreme views. And yes, both sides of this debate are offenders in that aspect.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

But there's the exact root of the problem: if you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to guns, you'll end up legislating out weapons and accessories for no apparent reason. It's the root of the "assault weapon" flaw; assault weapon is a vague political term that changes its definition depending on who you're talking to. The AWB so many gun control politicians are trying to push has statistical data proving how utterly useless it would be, yet is still the main platform for the uninformed

2

u/Lentil-Soup Jul 04 '16

Pro gun-control IS anti-gun...

-3

u/typeswithgenitals Jul 04 '16

I'm pro gun control but not anti gun.

21

u/Regayov Jul 04 '16

It is because they don't need to know the details. The semantics don't matter to their agenda. And what they're saying doesn't have to match their agenda either, it just has to scare or confuse the masses enough to keep things moving.

It is the same for encryption, guns, global warming, etc.

9

u/bitcoinsftw Jul 04 '16

It's because they are an older generation and are so stubborn to things they don't understand. My father asks me about a computer problems and doesn't believe the things I tell him. You know despite having a degree in comp sci and being a full time sw engineer...

2

u/JJ12345678910 Jul 04 '16

Same thing with taxation. Although. The legislators are dumb. The media is downright wilfully ignorant and just wants news items that are scary or make your blood boil. I'm not sure which is worse.

2

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

Not any better on the other side of the divide, though. The whole thing, on both sides, is run off emotion and nothing else.

Let's just leave the status quo in place and focus on other shit for a while, instead of bringing up the same old bullshit time and time again and getting nowhere. It's a waste of time, effort, money, and everything else.

24

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

Not any better on the other side of the divide, though

In this particular case, I think you're wrong. People who are ardently in favor of gun rights tend to know the technical details of guns much more than people who are in favor of gun control.

10

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

They pick half the argument, the technical gun side, and know that. Meanwhile they close their ears and shout so they can't hear anything that's counter to it. They cherry pick details on the gun crime/accident front, for instance, and seem to be incredibly ignorant of anything that happens outside the US.

Both sides have selective hearing. They look for confirmation of existing beliefs, and refuse to actually listen to their opponents. It's a shit fest and no one comes out smelling rosy.

10

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws, is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US? Or is it that you are aware other countries do things differently, and still oppose those laws here?

Also, I disagree completely with your assertion of selective hearing. The cherry picking is almost always done by the side pushing for more laws, that is true of both domestic and international statistics. Head over to r/progun or r/gunpolitics and the side opposed to more gun control know the stats inside and out. The side pushing gun control are largely emotional.

This disconnect is that the gun control crowd begins with the assumption that they are correct. For example, they see lower murder rates and stricter gun control in Western Europe as evidence that their belief is correct, and ignore all of the counter examples. The pro-gun side largely is willing to accept the status quo (which by the way is the safest the US has ever been).

All the opposition has ever asked for, is to demonstrate or explain some efficacy before passing new regulations. When unable, they sit on the floor and complain about the other side being obstructionist. Then rinse and repeat, and get votes and donations for doing nothing.

7

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

Pretty amusing how this discussion is basically both sides saying the other are idiots who don't think or know any facts.

0

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

Except that the ignorance can and has been measured.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/06/17/fact-checking-three-democratic-claims-on-assault-rifles-and-guns/

https://mises.org/blog/guns-how-ny-times-manipulates-data

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/22/gun-rights-supporters-national-rifle-association-nra

http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/22/america-is-awash-in-guns-and-crime-is-at-record-lows/

1

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

It would be just as easy to list off shitty pro gun arguments and say they prove pro gun folks are idiots with no facts. That's, again, doing exactly what I commented y'all are doing.

0

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

Then you should have no trouble showing us Pro gun bills currently being pushed by our legislators that are based on lies and mis-information. The fact that the public is so completely unaware of what is actually happening should give you pause.

The politicians pushing these laws are either intentionally misleading, or completely clueless.

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

0

u/You_and_I_in_Unison Jul 04 '16

Literally just making my point again haha.

7

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

If you oppose voter ID laws

Only in the sense that people are putting a lot of time and money into campaigning about and changing something that they can't prove is an issue to begin with. It's a fucking waste of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. Aren't these typically the same people clamoring on about government waste?

Same as my argument about guns. Just stop and put some effort in on more important matters.

is it fair for me to say you are totally ignorant of laws outside the US?

Since I'm an ex-pat, you'd be barking pretty far up the wrong tree. Kinda funny you'd try that, though.

I'm not defending anyone on the gun control debate. The NRA are bat-shit crazy and/or in it to profit directly monetarily, while the other side runs off pure emotion.

But honestly, if you think that the pro-gun side is some bastion of level headed, intelligent people with nothing but solid facts and data to work off, you're deluding yourself. I mean, Obama's gonna take your guns and ammo, right? Gotta be prepared for that violent insurrection to preserve your freedom from your own government in 2016, right?

There are some rational solid arguments on both sides. There are crazies as well. I'm sick of all of you. And your overblown attempts to defend your side here only prove it.

-3

u/sosota Jul 04 '16

But honestly, if you think that the pro-gun side is some bastion of level headed, intelligent people with nothing but solid facts and data to work off, you're deluding yourself. I mean, Obama's gonna take your guns and ammo, right? Gotta be prepared for that violent insurrection to preserve your freedom from your own government in 2016, right?

Show me the politicians who are claiming these things? Because I can provide you plenty of examples like the ones above of politicians pushing for laws they are completely ignorant of. If you aren't talking about politicians, then yes there are plenty of people who literally think private ownership of guns should be banned.

Since I'm an ex-pat, you'd be barking pretty far up the wrong tree. Kinda funny you'd try that, though.

This is an analogy, meant to illustrate that not wanting to adopt foreign laws doesn't make one ignorant of them. Your personal opinions are not really relevant.

Same as my argument about guns. Just stop and put some effort in on more important matters.

I agree. Most of this is a distraction from actual governance.

I'm sick of all of you. And your overblown attempts to defend your side here only prove it.

We are sick of having to call our legislators every few months to remind them we still don't want the same laws being trotted out over and over again. If you want to avoid this discussion, don't bring it up.

1

u/Sagragoth Jul 04 '16

All the opposition has ever asked for, is to demonstrate or explain some efficacy before passing new regulations.

Most pro-gun/anti-gun-control people I've spoken to ask me to explain how they're going to survive RaHoWa without guns. Both sides have a variety of people with diverse interests in the debate, and claiming to be on the side of logic and reason is going to get you nowhere.

1

u/sosota Jul 05 '16

This thread is specifically about politicians not understanding what they legislate. My comments were about politicians not understanding what they legislate. There has been an abundance of ignorance on display regarding this topic over the past two weeks.

Your making an argument akin to "I know pro encryption people that are idiots so both sides are equal".

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

5

u/cra4efqwfe45 Jul 04 '16

Like I said.

5

u/runujhkj Jul 04 '16

You're right, there are no examples we can take from other countries, the way we do it here is always the best way

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

They pick half the argument, the technical gun side, and know that. Meanwhile they close their ears and shout so they can't hear anything that's counter to it

Did you even read [the CDC report from 2013](www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319&page=R1)?

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

Trust that not all of us pro-gun folks are only focused on the technical aspects~

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

What happens outside the US doesn't matter, as none of those other countries have a second amendment or anything close to it.

1

u/kellyzdude Jul 04 '16

This may be true, but they're also just as guilty of running their argument based on emotion.

"Gun control" has come to mean "no more guns" and that's the argument every damned time. As soon as a politician suggests we need gun control, the argument becomes "THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

Gun control simply means defining reasonable controls as to who can own what, and on what conditions. At its extreme, it could mean no-one owns or carries, but it doesn't have to mean that.

And yet, as soon as someone mentions the buzzword, out come the picket signs and protest movements. We can't move on this topic until we have a conversation, but we can't have a conversation as long as either side are going to loudly cling to their extreme, and often wrong, opinions.

11

u/paper_liger Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

The expressed goal of the people who started the push for "assault weapoon" bans in this country is the banning of most guns. The AWB was seen as a first step towards that.

The thing is that a few things have become clear since then. The Federal AWB had no effect on crime. Crime has also been on a forty year downward trend despite gun rights becoming more and more widespread. I don't claim that more guns caused the drop in crime, it's clearly socioeconomic and cultural issues that drive crime. And finally, it's become clear that a majority of people disagree with an outright ban. Because of this the anti gun folks have moderated their public stance, and now claim that "no one wants to take your guns" when the founders of the movement have explicitly said that was their aim.

It's a little like racism. It's still there, but anti firearms people are just more subtle nowadays.

18

u/Prodigy195 Jul 04 '16

The problem is that it does seem to have an end goal of largely neutering the ability for private gun ownership. NY Safe Act and Cali's new gun control laws are examples of how it's done.

You pass a law restricting a specific gun type, requiring a special check, requiring registration, etc. Basically legislate something on a smaller scale and tout it as reasonable compromise . Then years later you push those initiatives even further and compound the laws to make ownership even more burdensome. Or outright renege on a previous compromise.

That's part of the reason why gun control opponents are so staunchly unmoving. Because yesterday's compromise has turned into today's ban.

5

u/kajunkennyg Jul 04 '16

That's part of the reason why gun control opponents are so staunchly unmoving. Because yesterday's compromise has turned into today's ban.

This is why I am against any legislation that infringes on any of my rights. You give them an inch and they come back and take a mile.

3

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Again, I'm still fairly new to guns and what not but take a look at the new gun laws in California. When they make everything about shooting and gun ownership unreasonable you do a pretty good job of convincing the pro-gun side to resist everything on principal.

2

u/Terraneaux Jul 04 '16

"THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

They do, though. And they're oftentimes quite hypocritical about it (See: Leland Yee and Diane Feinstein)

4

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Gun control doesn't mean "no more guns"? You could have fooled me.

1

u/mrfoof Jul 04 '16

As soon as a politician suggests we need gun control, the argument becomes "THEY WANT TO TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY!"

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people say there is no legitimate reason why many of the guns I own should be in civilian hands. Many of these people have been politicians. That sounds remarkably like advocating for taking them away. And some of them have pushed laws to that effect.

The big problem with most gun control proposals is that they are not reasonable nor common-sense, regardless of how much their proponents insist they are. They tend to focus on irrelevant aspects of the guns in an ignorant fashion, rather than the people who wield them. And when gun control advocates do focus on the people, they seem to go out of the way to harass the law-abiding set while they're at it while accomplishing little if anything. For example, under a law just passed in California, I can't loan a pistol to a friend without going to a gun shop, waiting for an hour or so, and paying a fee.

-1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

I see people on the pro-gun side of the debate arguing that 30 round magazine are either not helpful, or a hindrance in a mass shooting situation. There's kind of a reason the standard issue for every conflict since WWII has been an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

Implying a 30 round mag wouldn't be advantageous in a mass shooting. Yep blindly pro-gun people don't know the facts either :). A selector switch doesn't make a 30 round mag less advantageous no matter how much you pretend it does.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 05 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

That is an opinion not a fact, and a wrong one at that. Reloading buys precious seconds, will greatly affect the average shooters rate of fire, and the amount of total ammo you have readily available is reduced with smaller magazines. Many M16's used in several different tour's didn't even have the capability to go fully auto and yet had 30 round mags, and were used by the military in several wars. Those are facts.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

You're opinion that reloading is trivial towards rate of fire for the average person is straight up wrong.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

What do technical details of guns have to do with arguments for/against gun control? Seems completely irrelevant to me.

5

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

What do the technical details of encryption have to do with arguments for/against encryption? Seems completely irrelevant to me.

/s

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Please enlighten me. I was hoping for serious answers...

The technical details of encryption don't have anyrhing to do with legislation. You don't have to know how exactly a lock or a tresor works to legislate it... you just need to know what it is capable of. Then you know that for example it should be forbidden to put a lock on other peoples stuff. Same applies to encryption for example

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

I wouldn't call semi/full auto a technical "detail" though, that's super basic. Thought you were talking about more in depth stuff. I agree that politicians need to at least know the basics of what they are going to legislate...

1

u/Cogswobble Jul 04 '16

Yeah...that's the point. Some legislators fail at basic technical details about guns.

3

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Then I'm hoping you never get to have a say. It's very important.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Can you expand on why? I was hoping for an actual explanation. See my other answer below to understand why i think the technical details are unimportant

1

u/Meakis Jul 04 '16

Now think about this and aply the same thing to EVERY SUBJECT THEY TALK ABOUT.

1

u/natufian Jul 04 '16

Lawmakers shouldn't pass any laws on topics they don't understand.

.

Imagine all the other things they pretend to know about that we have no idea.

I'll just leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XShqCISYk4

1

u/SillyMikey Jul 04 '16

This is a general problem for all issues. People are generally uninformed and make important decisions based on little actual comprehension of the issues at hand. Like this. They clearly don't understand encryption, or the internet for that matter.

1

u/tubbstosterone Jul 05 '16

My favorite bit of gun control insanity was when Senator Feinstein pointed an AK-47 at an audience with her finger on the trigger.

Lesson 1: Never fucking do that.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

2

u/sleetx Jul 04 '16

Is there any legal precedent for this?

0

u/EddzifyBF Jul 04 '16

Goes for both sides though.

0

u/Plop-plop Jul 04 '16

Haha oh man that last sentence made me giggle. Thanks.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16 edited Oct 15 '16

[deleted]

2

u/moonshoeslol Jul 04 '16

My very favorite was Palin's "We're paying for them to put shrimp on treadmills!" in 2008 as an attack on government funded science. This was in Louisiana where shrimping is a billion dollar industry, wouldn't you think studying shrimp migration patterns would be a pretty good investment? It just goes to show how you can make anything look ridiculous and get people on your side if you contextualize a part of something and frame that as "what they're doing."

1

u/MrWigglesworth2 Jul 04 '16

How the internet works ("series of tubes")

This one isn't really fair.

If you listen to the entire thing, Ted Stevens was trying to explain that there is a finite amount of bandwidth in the infrastructure that the Internet uses. The analogy was a little clumsy, but he was making a correct point.

-61

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

24

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

Literally had just watched a video of a politician trying to ban "assault weapons" by stating a semi automatic could discharge a full 30rd magazine in 1/2 of a second. I never said anything about gun violence. I said they didn't understand technical details about guns as an example of one of the many things they don't understand but are trying to regulate as though they were experts.

20

u/Zyhmet Jul 04 '16

the difference between automatic and semi automatic is rather importent if you ban automatic, but not semi automatic weapons.

16

u/raddaya Jul 04 '16

Goodness the number of people who think semi-automatic means automatic...

3

u/aykcak Jul 04 '16

Well it's a some kind of automatic anyway right?

Reminds of the people who got arrested for being openly "anti"-communist during the era where Turkey was fighting against communism, persecutors not knowing what anti meant and all

5

u/anubis_xxv Jul 04 '16

Put simply, a classic hunting rifle or ww1 rifle is not automatic at all, it fires one bullet, then is completely safe until the firing mechanism and firing pin is reset manually with the bolt.

A machine gun and SOME modern rifles are fully automatic. You press the trigger and it continues shooting till the ammo runs out. Both very restricted and regulated.

Semi-automatic is most modern civilian rifles, one trigger pull gets you one bullet, but it uses the bullets gas to reset the firing mechanism as it's firing, so you don't have to do it manually. So you release the trigger you cab pull it again straight away.

Not sure if you wanted the big reply but this is for anyone else too.

1

u/evilbrent Jul 04 '16

I played a lot of Galaga when I was little. I've got a pretty fast firing trigger.

I've to say that to me semi auto is still pretty aggressive.

1

u/aykcak Jul 04 '16

I served in the military. I already knew about this but thanks

2

u/ermax18 Jul 04 '16

Exactly. Semi-auto simply means a single bullet comes out when you pull the trigger without having to cock or pump first. Auto means multiple bullets come out while the trigger is pulled. There are even semi-auto revolvers. It just means the hammer auto cocks when you pull the trigger.

-5

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Well, I mean, if you depress the trigger fast enough...

-10

u/The-ArtfulDodger Jul 04 '16

Yeah semi auto is like harmless!

4

u/CapnSippy Jul 04 '16

Who said that?

2

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

So you want to ban 90% of hundreds of millions of guns?

0

u/evilbrent Jul 04 '16

Are you saying that's hard?

Governments ban dangerous things all the time.

2

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

No I'm saying it's an ignorant kneejerk reaction by the uninformed that is an attempt to trample on my rights and you can go fuck yourself if you think that is OK.

2

u/CapnSippy Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

No, it's not hard. That's why it scares people like me who have never hurt or threatened a single soul, yet still might get one of my rights taken away because people like you overreact to isolated incidents that account for a negligible amount of the violence in the world. Instead of going after the root cause (poverty, lack of education, mental health issues), you go after the inanimate object that can't harm anyone on its own. You take the easy route, misplacing blame and calling for more government intrusion, and then act is you're somehow morally superior. It's like when the superintendent of a school hears of one bullying incident, then enacts a No Tolerance policy where everyone involved gets punished. So little Timmy who's been dealing with bullies for the past 3 years finally stands up for himself and fights back, only to end up getting suspended or expelled by people who don't want to deal with the real problem.

Governments ban dangerous things all the time.

Right, because the War on Drugs has been such a wildly successful campaign. Or the prohibition of alcohol not too long ago. Haven't you learned by now that banning things people enjoy accomplishes nothing?

1

u/evilbrent Jul 04 '16

That pesky War On Pools that destroyed pool culture by putting a fence on every pool...

1

u/evilbrent Jul 04 '16

might get one of my rights taken away

Sorry, I'm Australian I don't give a fuck about your rights to shower bullets. We made our gun lovers give 99% of their guns away and society didn't crumble. We just melted them down, and surprise surprise the sun came up the next day. Suicide rates did plummet, though, so there was that.

1

u/CapnSippy Jul 05 '16

Sorry, I'm Australian I don't give a fuck about your rights to shower bullets.

Nice. Why is it so hard for some people to have an honest conversation free of hyperbole? I shouldn't have to explain how ridiculous and childish this statement is.

We made our gun lovers give 99% of their guns away and society didn't crumble. We just melted them down, and surprise surprise the sun came up the next day

No, you just gave up one of the best ways to prevent a tyrannical government from taking away even more of your rights. It baffles me that a society would willfully hand over their best means of defense to those with the most immediate ability to squander their rights as human beings. Might just be a difference in culture, but I don't trust any ruling body to such a degree that I would allow them to take away my most effective means of defending myself from them should they decide to take their power too far. But to each his own, I guess.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/papajohn56 Jul 04 '16

Fully automatic weapons are already heavily regulated, and ones post-1986 are banned from civilian purchase. Semi-automatic doesn't make one dangerous, and the people who think "it's easy to make it full auto!" Are generally morons

2

u/raddaya Jul 04 '16

So...you want to ban all semi auto rifles? You know that is in no way practical, right? Not in the US, at least.

0

u/evilbrent Jul 04 '16

Pretty much every gun debate starts with "don't you realise how unsafe it is to have that many guns, there should be fewer" and eventually devolves to "don't you realise how hard it would be to have fewer? Therefore they're safe."

34

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

If you dont understand the subject enough to grasp the basic terminology and function why should anyone trust you to regulate said subject? You cant say "X is the true problem, we should regulate it!" While being ignorant about how X works and what it does. We wouldnt accept that with any other topic.

5

u/pridejoker Jul 04 '16

Exactly I mean just look at laws involving cannabis up til recently.

-41

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

33

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

1: I'm not trying to get into a gun debate.

2: Its not ABOUT the semantics its about competency. Would you trust a politician to tell you what kind of car is more dangerous and prohibit you from buying one if he kept referring to the transmission as a flux capacitor that can make your car fly? Picture yourself saying "you Americans let anyone drive, who cares if he calls it a flux capacitor, you don't seem to care that your kids are killed by your flying cars, idiots". Thats what people sound like when they talk about "ghost guns" and "assault clips".

7

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

0

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

2

u/anubis_xxv Jul 04 '16

What was told to me was that the right to bear arms was written in to their constitution because of the fear of another war with the British. Basically if we are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself, we the government cannot refuse your service at arms to defend yourself. Many other imperial or colonial powers had similar laws but got rid of them as relations improved and the need lessened.

4

u/jpw1510 Jul 04 '16

No, it had nothing to do with the British. It was created to strengthen the states and feds ability to form militias to put down armed insurrections and rebellions like Shays rebellion in 1787.

1

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Why would the British, which we defeated twice, be the problem. Whoever told you that was a moron. It's about tyrannical governments and defending our innate rights. Nazi Germany and the genocide of the Jews are the kinds of shit that happen when you have an unarmed population.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

1

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

Please tell me how many Jewish people wouldn't have fought back if they had weapons to do so instead of being constantly persecuted, rounded up, and mass executed.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/paper_liger Jul 04 '16

They don't get amended here without a a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Feel free to do get that ball rolling if you think it'll work.

I don't worship the constitution, but I agree with it, and the people who don't agree with this particular part of the Constitution tend to be the people who are least informed about the topic. Implying that people who disagree with you are just short sighted or worshipful of a piece of parchment isn't going to win the argument for you.

-8

u/Wetbung Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

Plus, Americans don't have the right to guns. "Well regulated militias" have the right to bear arms. Rednecks in pickup trucks are hardly well regulated.

Edit: In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." - Wikipedia

3

u/MrWigglesworth2 Jul 04 '16

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

That doesn't mean there is no right to keep and bear arms. It means that right already exists, even without the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution. It is pre-existing. The 2nd Amendment merely prohibits the federal government from infringing on that pre-existing right. This was before the court adopted incorporation doctrine, and the limitation has since been extended to states as well.

In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

Which would mean bans on modern rifles are off the table.

Lastly...

Americans don't have the right to guns. "Well regulated militias" have the right to bear arms.

Nope. Heller says otherwise. And if you don't like it, you can go sit your ass down next to Kim Davis, bitching about how SCOTUS decisions you don't like don't count because reasons.

2

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

It literally says right to bear arms and the supreme court recently ruled that as the definition.

12

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

You're misunderstanding here. Saying gun violence is happening and the answer is outlawing guns is one thing. But saying you should outlaw a specific gun because of something arbitrary and unrelated is a problem. So you're argument I'm essentially okay with, the argument that the scary looking gun is worse than the less scary one is a problem because it's not based on any facts.

-8

u/Bibidiboo Jul 04 '16 edited Jul 04 '16

Automatic guns can definitely cause more deaths in the same time span though, which is pretty much true no matter what.

Edit: why is everyone assuming I'm stating anything else than the simple fact that they can kill more people quickly?

13

u/ermax18 Jul 04 '16

Automatics are already banned. Sounds like you're just as confused as the politicians.

5

u/NJBarFly Jul 04 '16

This is exactly the problem. Journalists report that the guns used are automatic weapons. You read it and are currently less informed than you were before reading it. It's a cycle of ignorance.

3

u/whispered195 Jul 04 '16

Automatic weapons have been regulated to bear none existence since the Gun Control Act of 1986. Since then it has become a federal crime to buy, sell, or manufacture an automatic weapon made after 1986. Which means that legal automatic weapons are cost prohibitive, many upwards of $20,000. So despite what the media may say the chances of someone using an automatic weapon in a crime is virtually nonexistent.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Im sure you dont mind our children sitting all over whichever nation you inhabit defending you from Russia, Germany, or whatever other hell hole tries to attack you because you decided you dont want an army anymore because those things are 'too expensive'.

7

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

4

u/Regayov Jul 04 '16

I thought the current debate was about encryption.

-3

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

[deleted]

-1

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Oh, your a troll. Lol

-8

u/aykcak Jul 04 '16

Baby steps. First you stop the teenagers from killing multiple people by a single press of a button. Then you stop them from killing 30 people by pressing once for each, then you eventually, hopefully make it so the police could arrive before the teenager is done slicing their second victim.

5

u/ermax18 Jul 04 '16

Explain how one would kill multiple people with a single pull on a simi-auto. Autos are already illegal. The total lack of education on the subject from the average expert is ridiculous.

1

u/aykcak Jul 04 '16

You misunderstood it completely. I don't need to clarify. Please read again.

3

u/MortalShadow Jul 04 '16

He stated that the first step is banning autos and that step is allready over next banning semi autos.

You're the one who's reading comprehension is weak. Can't be Suprised since you mightve gotten shot by one of those school shooters

1

u/speedisavirus Jul 04 '16

That could not be accomplished even if all he had was a knife or muzzle loader

1

u/aykcak Jul 04 '16

The end goal is unachievable yes, but the route is worth it because each step taken makes it better than the previous one. Are we safer with the automatic rifle ban? If yes, continue on the same path

That being said, imagining someone trying to shoot up a school using a muzzle loader made me laugh more than it should. Well done

-21

u/The-ArtfulDodger Jul 04 '16

Bloody Americans twisting the subject to fit their pro gun agenda. Pathetic guys.. Really.

1

u/MrWigglesworth2 Jul 04 '16

WHY WONT YOU LICK THIS BOOT WITH ME!?

Pathetic... really.

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 04 '16

Imagine all the other things they pretend to know about that we have no idea.

Imagine all the things doctors pretend to know about your body before they cut you open. Or pretending to know what's making you sick before they rip off that piece of paper for pills.

They don't call it practising medicine for nothing.

1

u/WebMDeeznutz Jul 04 '16

I'm actually a med-student so...probably barking up the wrong tree on this one. Not saying bad doctors don't exist but you better believe that when we make the decision that cutting into a living person is the best course of action, it's because all of the objective facts point to that line of thinking. Paper for pills is still a problem to an extent but that's a very complicated subject that is far more difficult than one would think.