1–10 of 71 posts
Thanks. (I trust that the HN community is wise enough to discuss about this matter without violence, racism, etc..)
If this is what everyone thinks it is (but is cautiously tip-toeing around), "extremism" is not specific enough.
An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.
It is impossible to prevent while only criminals/terrorists have the weapons. An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.
https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832
I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.
Tight controls will require a more authoritarian government. I for one don't want that but I expect we will get it and the masses will demand it. Yay for neighbours.
A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surveillance, which supposedly should be able to catch extremists before they act. Sadly, we're still very far from Minority Report's level of accuracy.
Alternatively, we could adopt a more reactive approach which would focus on reducing the gravity of such events rather than trying to prevent them. Namely, law abiding citizens should be able to conceal-carry weapons. Although it couldn't stop all kinds of terrorist attacks, it could very well put a stop to most mass shootings. This assumes an important "good" to "bad" people ratio (where "good" is defined by the majority and/or by the state).
Basically, live in a society that's xenophobic and armed.
It is impossible to prevent while only criminals/terrorists have the weapons. An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.
A recent tweet by Newt Gingrich echoes precisely that: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832 I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.
It is impossible to prevent while only criminals/terrorists have the weapons. An armed citizenry is not so easily victimized.
A recent tweet by Newt Gingrich echoes precisely that: https://twitter.com/newtgingrich/status/665312487147896832 I understand that this is not the popular opinion around here, but I genuinely can't think of an alternative.
The only true way to prevent these acts is to eliminate ideological conflicts altogether. Usually, this is done by letting the state pick a winning ideology and suppress those who don't adhere to it. This tends to ensure a level of homogeneity that makes violence obsolete. A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surve…
Here we go again...
When I read this, in my head, this analogy comes to mind: "We could stop bombings by allowing all citizens to carry concealed bombs [to use in self-defense]."
Now obviously that is an absurd analogy, but it mirrors a lot of what you're suggesting: fight a dangerous weapon with another dangerous weapon, potentially put bystanders in harm's way, make it even harder to track/identify the good from bad, make it easier to obtain weapons.
The US has more mass killings than any other western nation, yet they also have concealed carry, clearly something isn't working here. Is the solution really "more guns, more guns?"
The only true way to prevent these acts is to eliminate ideological conflicts altogether. Usually, this is done by letting the state pick a winning ideology and suppress those who don't adhere to it. This tends to ensure a level of homogeneity that makes violence obsolete. A more moderate solution is to allow conflicting ideologies to exist as long as they don't reach extremes. This is usually done through mass surve…
What will happen unfortunately is that the surveillance measures will increase exponentially, normal citizens will throw privacy out the window, terror attacks will still happen.
It's the world we live in.