talking to santacruzans

[juan_gandhi]

Discussing the Florida shooting, and a sudden protest near the White House, I asked, how come there was no such thing during Obama time, and expressed the hope that it was not organized by Russian trolls. The response was - "a spectacular case of projection, Vlad".

Fuck them all, I think now. Just disconnected for a while. They are not the kind of people I want to talk to now, Santacruzan hippies. Intelligentsia that always knows better.

Comments

Re: Trolling

[garote]

Because Obama himself called for gun control regulations to come to his desk so he could sign them, repeatedly, year after year for eight years.

If anti-gun protestors had attacked him it would be like ... oh let’s say ... attacking Greenpeace for failing to prevent an oil spill.

Re: Trolling

[juan_gandhi]

Ok, this sounds reasonable.

Re: Trolling

[sassa_nf]

Did Trump get that but refused to sign?

Re: Trolling

[garote]

Up until about two days ago, Trump has been strongly opposed to any additional gun regulations.

Here's a pretty accurate background of his position, covering the 2016 campaign.
http://www.newsweek.com/brief-history-donald-trumps-stance-gun-rights-461705

Now it seems that he is bowing to pressure from the public at least somewhat, by endorsing a bill that will enhance the background check system for gun purchases, and talking about restricting a piece of add-on hardware called a "bump stock".

That's something, but that is still about a thousand miles away from the position I think he needs to take: Stricter regulations on gun manufacturing.

My iPhone won't unlock for anyone's fingerprint but mine. Why can't I buy a gun that does the same thing? I'm not talking about a trigger lock that can be sawed off or makes the gun twice as heavy, but a print scanner built right in to the barrel. But an NPC transceiver in it and I can come up with a few good ways to use encryption keys so that when the gun is "registered" to a particular person's print, it is automatically logged in a database with the gun manufacturer, and locked there.

After a couple cycles of development with this we could drive the cost down to around a hundred bucks. Then people would prefer it so much to an "unlocked" gun that the market would change, and attitudes about safety would change along with it.

Re: Trolling

[glocka]

Why to create additional costs/problems for general populous, when criminals/psycos can manufacture unlocked guns at home (or pay black market price to unlock them), or can buy unlocked ones from army/police?

This applies to everything:
knives with fingerprint readers
baseball bats with fingerprint readers
cross-bows with fingerprint readers
slingshots with fingerprint readers

and absolutely highest priority: grill gas cans with fingerprint readers (разнесло бы всю школу, вопрос о сносе не встал бы)

Re: Trolling

[garote]

Why manufacture cars with seatbelts and then require people to wear them by law, when people can just cut the seatbelts off?

Why should we manufacture a knife with a handle, when criminals/psychos can just pick them up and swing the blade?

Why should we manufacture toilets when people can just shit on the floor?

Re: Trolling

[glocka]

> when people can just cut the seatbelts off

Не знаю, к месту тут помянуть или нет, но обсуждение в рамках HBD Europe's Outbreeding Project (хоть пока не в массах) уже пошло. А там ключевой момент, что кроме gene variability, требуется еще присутствие selection pressure.

Пользование/непользование ремнями, да и все остальное связанное с машиной - проверка давления в шинах, езда на лысых или нет, езда 60 или же 90 все время, кристалльно чистые стекла/зеркала или заляпанные, подключен ли телефон через bluetooth, и т.д. - катит на кандидата в один из вариантов современного selection pressure.

Re: Trolling

[garote]

Natural selection only seems like a reasonable factor when you skip over an earlier question, which is, "what should we actually be selecting for?"

Answering that question is quite complicated, because anyone attempting to answer it is arguing from their own self-interest.

For example: What if we should be selecting for people who tend to follow reasonable safety laws?

If we make a law requiring seatbelts and make them difficult to remove, then we can use the law to stop and punish people who drive without a seatbelt.

What we are doing is, making their life more difficult (selecting against them) BEFORE they get into a horrible accident and kill some other innocent person. They'll keep sliding out of their seat on tight curves, or pushing on the steering wheel when they brake hard, because they're not wearing their seatbelt, and become a danger to other people.

Better - and more humane - to economically punish the safety rule breaker, than to let him/her get killed while also taking out 1 or 2 or 4 other rule following drivers. That's good math. And more profitable for the community.

You could say the same thing about many other safety laws, including a number of potential gun laws that do not exist.

Re: Trolling

[juan_gandhi]

Omg, now I'm stuck thinking about all this.

Re: Trolling

[garote]

I do some of my best thinking on the toilet.

That's an excellent reason to manufacture toilets, right there!

Re: Trolling

[yussouf]

> Why manufacture cars with seatbelts and then require people to wear
> them by law, when people can just cut the seatbelts off?

Oh, you may not know that, but in certain shitho third world countries the seatbelt buckle stubs (no kidding, just dummies to mute the annoying signal modern cars are emitting) are pretty popular.

Google "заглушка для ремня безопасности" for instance.

I mean, people DO cut it, but slightly "smarter" way.