Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 560 posts

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#511

Post by foldr »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #393
foldr wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care particularly about gun rights in the US as I'm not American and no longer live in the US. My question was simply why someone who believed that knives were as effective as guns would feel that they needed a gun to defend themselves. I think you are getting the wrong end of the stick.

I don’t really care how it got there. You posed the question of why someone “feels” they have a “need” to a civil right. No other right has to face such scrutiny. Do you ask people why they feel they need privacy? Or why the feel they need free speech? Your argument is based on your own personal dislike for a right, that’s arguing in bad faith.

I'm asking why they think they need the gun, not why they think they need the right to own it.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#512

Post by kickopotomus »

hcurtiss wrote: post #452
kickopotomus wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite honestly, the amendment should have been worded differently and I believe that is part of the reason we are in the mess we have found ourselves in today. For some reason, many Americans only ever seem to quote the final clause of the amendment: ..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the meaning of the final clause is modified by what comes before it: A well regulate…

The United States Supreme Court directly disagrees with you. See Heller.

I agree with the 4 justices who dissented: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#513

Post by kickopotomus »

CompanionCuuube wrote: post #448
kickopotomus wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite honestly, the amendment should have been worded differently and I believe that is part of the reason we are in the mess we have found ourselves in today. For some reason, many Americans only ever seem to quote the final clause of the amendment: ..., the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. However, the meaning of the final clause is modified by what comes before it: A well regulate…

In that case, the 4th amendment is also a right afforded not to individuals because it uses the same wording that the 2nd does regarding "right of the people". If you want to argue that the "persons" part means the individual, then that would require that you ignore the first part. This contradicts what you said earlier about "being modified by what comes before it".

No, not quite. Notice what comes after "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment: "...to be secure in there persons", then later: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#514

Post by Kaiyou »

foldr wrote: post #328
Kaiyou wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you put someone into a situation that isn't optimal, they generally have the means to adapt and not look disadavantaged. This is true for caged animals and humans that lost some of their rights. If you do it slowly enough, you can strip away basically all freedoms without the victim even noticing.

Similarly, people will come to regard high levels of violence as normal if they spend enough time immersed in a violent culture.

Yes, people adapt. I'm saying you can't look at someone and determine whether how things are for them are good, just because they look fine. An animal raised in captivity looks fine, but maybe it would be better if it was raised in freedom. Or maybe it wouldn't. The point is you can't tell by looking.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#515

Post by ta0987 »

ajuc wrote: post #472
ta0987 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would be called draconian by Republicans and the NRA, look how they react to any increase in gun laws today. That's because those increases are never compromises or exchanges. They are simply demands. Republicans and the NRA look at what the gun laws in DC and Chicago were before the Supreme Court cases and think: "That's their end game. Zero guns. Because look: when they had the political power to take them awa…

Why would you demand "exchange" to introduce a law that is sensible and has positive impact? You don't have drivers' association demanding privileges in exchange for penalizing drunk driving or restricting maximum speed. The whole NRA situation in USA seems so absurd from outside.

Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars.

And to the most common objection: yes they are. Gun control proponents often bring up and praise the UK (near total ban) and Australia (significant limitations compared to the U.S.) as examples to emulate.

And in Chicago and DC, before the Supreme Court cases, there were effectively total bans. And when the plaintiffs sued, they didn't say, "well I guess we went a little too far, let's establish a regulated framework under which responsible, qualified and trained citizens can own guns". Instead, they went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to defend their bans.

So, even if a gun owner agrees with a particular piece of proposed regulation (and I'm sure plenty do), they would be acting against their own long term interests giving the block trying to ban guns political momentum and capital.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#516

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

foldr wrote: post #509
SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can even get a permit to carry a concealed weapon in NYC Ok, I’ll do it for you. Rural crime in USA is 2.0 - 3.5 / 100k in USA depending on region. Where all the guns are, the shootings aren’t. NYC... for example... SHALL ISSUE state, you’re effectively wrong. Only the connected and elite can get carry permits in NYC. That’ll change soon with the latest SC case coming up. You’re right, it’s not “the same” gun c…

> Where all the guns are, the shootings aren’t. So there are shootings without guns? Norway and France both have vastly fewer shooting deaths per year than the US.

Are you arguing crime or events? France and Norway beat US in events, gun control doesn’t seem to work there.

If you are talking crime, yes USA crime is higher - in the areas with more gun control. I’d argue the cause of the crime is our poor handling of drug and poverty and not focus on the tool used.

Guns have increased DRAMATICALLY since the crime highs of the 1990s, but crime has dropped to just above the lows of the 1960s.

You have ZERO data for causation of more guns equal more crime because we have opposite evidence.

So while I can’t say more guns EQUALS less crime - I can definitely say more guns hasn’t CAUSED more crime like you are saying.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#517

Post by CompanionCuuube »

kickopotomus wrote: post #513
CompanionCuuube wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that case, the 4th amendment is also a right afforded not to individuals because it uses the same wording that the 2nd does regarding "right of the people". If you want to argue that the "persons" part means the individual, then that would require that you ignore the first part. This contradicts what you said earlier about "being modified by what comes before it".

No, not quite. Notice what comes after "the right of the people" in the 4th amendment: "...to be secure in there persons", then later: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.

> "...to be secure in there persons", then later: "...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"

Exactly, that protects the state from it's persons being searched. Because as you just said, the phrase "right of the people" denotes a collective right:

> The 4th amendment outlines specific rights afforded to individuals. There is no such verbiage in the 2nd amendment. Instead, all that is referenced is the State.

When the 4th amendment mentions "right of the people" it means the right of the state. Any persons are just entities of the state and the right does not belong to the individuals. Otherwise it would have said "the right of the persons", as you had argued earlier in the thread regarding the language of the 2nd amendment.

QED.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#518

Post by hcurtiss »

kickopotomus wrote: post #512
hcurtiss wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States Supreme Court directly disagrees with you. See Heller.

I agree with the 4 justices who dissented: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

Right. Meaning you misrepresented the law.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#519

Post by CompanionCuuube »

ta0987 wrote: post #515
ajuc wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you demand "exchange" to introduce a law that is sensible and has positive impact? You don't have drivers' association demanding privileges in exchange for penalizing drunk driving or restricting maximum speed. The whole NRA situation in USA seems so absurd from outside.

Because, unlike with guns, nobody is trying to ban cars. And to the most common objection: yes they are. Gun control proponents often bring up and praise the UK (near total ban) and Australia (significant limitations compared to the U.S.) as examples to emulate. And in Chicago and DC, before the Supreme Court cases, there were effectively total bans. And when the plaintiffs sued, they didn't say, "well I guess we wen…

> Instead, they went all the way to the Supreme Court to try to defend their bans.

Their current tactic is to revoke a law that makes it too far into the judicial system to avoid having it receive constitutional review by the Supreme Court and thereby invalidate it nationally.

It speaks volumes to the underhandedness of the gun control proponents.

Re: Clear backpacks, monitored emails: U.S. students under constant surveillance

#520

Post by CompanionCuuube »

mnm1 wrote: post #483
umvi wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vast majority of those guns are sitting around harmlessly in gun collector's lockers. US has a mental illness problem. At some point, a societal sickness entered the country. A sickness of nihilism and hopelessness. A sickness where (mostly men) feel lonely and unloved and powerless to change their futures. A sickness where hatred for peers is harbored for years until it festers and explodes out in a violent way.…

I agree, but it's not a currently defined mental illness so we should be more clear on terminology. What you're talking about is a cultural issue. It's massive and real. It's not mental health, however. Fewer than 5% of shootings in the US are caused by people with mental health issues. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/#!po=0....

You said "caused by people with mental health issues" but what the evidence supports is only "caused by people with clinically-diagnosed mental health issues".
Post reply on HN