1051
Are gun designs open source?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
1051 points (96.5% liked)
linuxmemes
20351 readers
970 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I dont think I'm American enough to understand this. How does wanting people to have freedom to use their systems as they please correlate with everyone being able to own and freely carry weapons that can kill instantly?
Yeah it's like saying if you support free software, you support companies to not pay taxes or companies putting nicotine in products.
to put it blatantly. Pro 2A people (they should, on paper at least, in practice a significant portion of them are cunts and shouldn't be allowed in the community but that's a different rant all together) support the idea that people have rights. specifically to do with guns.
There is a very fundamental overlap in the whole "i believe i should be able to run whatever software i want, with no restrictions" and "i believe i should be allowed to own guns with minimal restrictions" crowds. It's that simple, doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. If you're a linux user, and you support open source software, and believe users should have rights. You automatically have a pretty significant moral overlap with pro 2A people. (on paper, again, fuck it, im ranting about it)
Also, minor nitpick, they don't kill instantly, they certainly can. But if i shoot you in the toe, you probably won't keel over and die immediately. That's a gross mischaracterization of them.
The following is a tangential rant, feel free to ignore, it's about gun owners being cunts. There is a non insignificant portion of the gun community who, when presented with the concept of "everybody should be taught gun safety, because it's a right granted to us" relating specifically to (liberals edit, i misspoke here, i meant republicans, LOL) (go figure) happen to get really fucking antsy at the thought of people they don't like owning guns.
Now i feel like i don't have to explain why this is maybe a very bad thing. But to put it bluntly, there are two good solutions here. Ban guns forever, permanently (which i disagree with, but that's just my opinion on it) or, make it accessible to everybody, and give everyone access to them, and the materials required to be safe and responsible with them. Because after all, gun safety, is what keeps us safe when using them. While im sure the latter would make some amount of gun owning republicans uneasy, i propose they get a taste of their own fucking medicine.
it has fuck all to do with " people they don’t like owning guns." it has fucking everything to do with people unqualified and unsafe to own guns being able to obtain guns - whether through gun show loopholes, straw buyers, no yellow/red flag laws, etc.
fuck outa here with liberals getting antsy bullshit. if you weren't paying attention, there's a fucking gun violence epidemic going on, every fucking week there's another mass shooting.
if that's liberals getting antsy, maybe you should fucking wake up and realize this bullshit only happens here. bellend.
It's written in a messy way but I actually read it the opposite way.
I think what @KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com meant was that the 2A people don't seem to be very interested in defending gun rights for people outside their circles. I don't know if I'd use liberals as the example here. I think Black people would be far more salient.
Did the NRA Support a 1967 'Open Carry' Ban in California? | Snopes.com
While 1967 was a long time ago, the "antsiness" has remained. How often do you hear of these people doing anything to defend the people who are the primary targets of anti gun laws? Which is, by a large margin, Black and other racialized people.
I heard an interview with some Public Defenders who had submitted an amicus brief in relation to a guns rights case on the basis that even though the actual case was stupid, changing the law would materially improve the lives of overincarcerted communities. I thought it was on 5-4 podcast in follow up to the first ep that covered the case in a less friendly way: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. I don't find the subsequent ep where they had the PDs on for an interview.. maybe it was taken down.
Reagan and the NRA were all about gun control when it was Black Panthers.
I just want sane controls preventing nutbags from acquiring arsenals. I'm not anti-gun, I'm a prior service gun loving person who's watching the idiots ruin it for the rest of us.
i wish it was less about posturing, and more about the underlying fundamental reasons.
You're a republican that owns a gun, that's cool, i didn't ask, lets go do something that we can enjoy together instead.
Bzzzt, nope, I am not a republican.
why are you so afraid to address the issue?
to be clear, i wasn't referring to you specifically in that statement. It was a generic expression intended to make my point more obvious.
Also what issue? Gun violence? Yeah that's an issue. I'm not hear to talk about that though.
this is why we fail: you assume it's posturing. it's not fucking posturing.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/gun-violence-claimed-lives-5000-people-2024/story?id=107262776
that article is cool and all, but please try to explain to me how the intrinsic and very explicit link, between republican politics, and 2A, isn't political posturing in some manner.
You may not be. But there is a very clear tie between the conservative rhetoric, and 2A. If it weren't political posturing the issues that i was talking about, which do exist (go have a look at some of the comments on this video), would not be happening. As it wouldn't fucking matter.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
do exist
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
none of this - gun safety, sane gun policy - is a political issue. Mr 9mm doesn't stop to ask your political affiliation before it blows through your cranium.
Do you think 5.56 or .223 give a flying fuck if the rifle shooting them was wielded for political gain?
"ooh boo hoo I think you're making it political" yeah well get fucked, no matter your affiliation, if you think more dead kids is a political issue. sick.
yeah, but inevitably people make it political, for some fucking reason. That's my problem.
this pretty much. I used liberals specifically because that was an actual example of where i had seen it crop up. It applies broadly to "people they don't like" however.
My main complaint here was that people who supposedly defend the rights that everybody have, get hypocritical about it, when presented with something that counters their personal beliefs. Directly contradicting their whole argument related to 2A.
you misunderstood my point here. The problem here is people who support 2A, and then immediately double back when presented with a group of people they don't vibe with and go "uhm, ok, maybe they shouldn't have guns, i think"
that was a typo, lol, i skill issued. My bad.
Gun people and Open Source people both can appreciate the right to repair, although Americans, particularly southerners, have a certain tendency to have more gunowners across the land than people who can libreboot a chromebook. Both groups of people can use their devices for good or bad, and I think that was the original message the oop failed to relay; I don't really know what they think they're saying.
you've got the right idea. I was going a little more fundamental though. More along the lines of "we have the right to libreboot a chromebook if we wish" just as they "have the right to own a gun legally, if they wish"
From that standpoint they're very similar, and tie in to a lot of the same underlying points.
I see what you're saying... I'm picking up what you're putting down..
There's an overlap of free rights to freedom and free rights to guns, but I think that they're on different fields.
I agree with you, surprisingly, about a lot of what you said. But guns are a weird subject for a lot of people. The issue that is always brought up is that guns are designed to kill. The counter is good safety foundation, training, and practice. The counter to that is, humans are stupid greedy assholes.
For the sake of conversation, I'm mixed. I have guns myself but I treat them with respect. My kids know how to handle them and can cite the rules of gun ownership. The guns are locked up at all times. My family does the same. I can't imagine that everyone is doing the same thing.
Jordan Klepper noted that a firm overlap on both sides is stricter regulatory control of deeper background checks, but the NRA makes this impossible. Jordan Klepper Solves Guns.
like wise you could argue that censorship resistant platforms, self hosting, and e2e encryption can cause acts of violence to be carried out against people. I don't see anybody complaining about that though, that's just an understood cause and effect of having freedom in regards to censorship. Shitty people exist, they will proceed to be shitty. You can censor them, but if you want to maintain truly uncensored speech, you must allow them to speak, unfortunately.
There is always a benefit, and a negative to any action taken. Guns can indeed kill people, you can argue they were made to kill, but you can also argue that the vast majority of guns in existence have never once killed a person. And therefore, statistically, are probably safer than a lot of other things. Like eating junk food.
Like you said, you treat guns with respect, because they can be dangerous, much like someone who interacts with powertools on the regular, understands the dangers of powertools, and how they can be used to hurt people, intentionally or otherwise. Just like when creating open source software, or using it, you have to respect it's licensing, and use it appropriately.
The lack of respect is certainly a problem, but it is drastically upset when republicans, who disproportionately, understand gun safety, and utilize it to their benefit (as they should) don't want to educate people they don't find very appealing on how to be safe with them. Which not only leads to potential self inflicted dangers and injuries, but also potentially to others as well. If we want everyone to be safe and respectful of guns, we can't simply ignore an entire segment of the population, it just doesn't matter. You can't justify that.
putting them on different fields is certainly understandable, they are different things after all, but i think it's important to consider the underlying structures and mechanisms behind something, and seeing how those can be effectively applied elsewhere, if for no other reason than to prevent bias and hypocrisy. As well as ensuring consistent beliefs. Seeing as a non-insignificant portion of gun owning republicans seem to be experiencing this issue right now. I would say that's fair.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Jordan Klepper Solves Guns
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I know this is about to sound stupid but I promise it isn't as dumb as it sounds.
Guns are not designed to kill, nothing is designed to kill. Guns were designed to propel a projectile at incredible velocities, they were INVENTED to kill. What you do with the gun is what makes the difference.
i've never really found that argument compelling tbh. Guns are designed to kill.
So are knives, and machetes. And daggers, swords, etc... Nobody ever complains about those. Mostly because they have other uses, and aren't in particularly heavy use.
I mean hell, you could argue a car is designed to kill people. F150s are a big contender there.
So you mean to tell me that knives and machetes are primarily used to kill people every day instead of cutting rope, vines, etc?
Cars were designed to kill people? Is that why the 1894 velo was designed? To kill people? Definitely not designed to transport people I guess. If you walk in front of a train going even 15 mph, your corpse would be so destroyed that it would not even be recognizable. Are trains designed to kill then?
Hell, by your logic, anything that has the capability to kill is designed to kill, did you know that if you drink too much water, you can die? Guess water's designed to kill too, I guess.
Guns have uses besides killing, the very presence of a firearm is a deterrant, that alone is a purpose that is given besides killing. I don't agree with it, and I don't even think everyone should just have easy access to firearms, but they definitely work for that purpose. Mentally unstable folks, it won't work on those, but is that really the fault of guns themselves, or our country's lackluster healthcare system, especially with the stigma around seeking mental help? A lack of access to guns is not going to stop someone from trying to kill someone, I am telling you that it is not. At the end of the day, external factors like economical reasons, mental health problems, stress related factors such as family issues, social issues, or work related issues, that's what even drives people to do crimes like mass shootings in the first place.
Honestly, I could give less of a shit if guns even got taken away, but at the end of the day, there is still a problem to be dealt with and that is people who need help are not getting it, and as a result, are suffering.
this is exactly my point. It's such a broad and wide reaching statement, that it completely excludes sport, and hunting. As well as defense, from what guns were designed to do. It's just frankly a stupid statement to make.
Guns were not designed to defend, they were designed to, once again, fire a projectile.
a drill was designed to spin fast
Yes, and so is a lathe, and a mill, and a wheel, and a grinder, and hell, even a firearm! Did you know that anything that isn't a shotgun has a rifled barrel? Meaning it spins the projectile so that it has potential energy keeping it better on target, even in windy conditions? That fact wasn't really relevant though just figured I'd throw it in there.
Pretty much almost all work done by humans involves some kind of circular motion to perform it. When you swing your arm, you are going along a circular motion. Even most machines that perform work linearly use circular motion, such as a reciporicating saw or a band saw, as they still use gears/sprockets to perform motion.
Though saying it was designed to spin fast is a bit of a misunderstanding. You don't necessarily need to spin fast, different materials need different speeds and feeds in order to be machined properly and efficiently(drilling is in fact, a form of machining).
i mean, technically a firearm doesn't spin, the barrel is design to make the bullet spin upon firing though.
though again, this was probably demonstrating my point, that i previously made, which i no longer remember, nor do i care.
A drill doesn't technically spin either, the toolholder is what spins. I was mostly referring to how pretty much almost everything we do involves some sort of circular motion as a method of action. I guess you could technically say that it is until the projectile leaves the barrel? Idk I say your point stands better on that front.
Btw, we are so off topic at this point that this is basically just a discussion on how tools work, honestly more interesting than hearing the trillionth discussions on guns though tbh
yet again, that was my point.
Guns are designed to kill that is why they are inherently political.
If I don't like what you do, say, or are I can kill you. That is what guns do. That is what everyone wants.
If you don't like that guess what you need guns too. That's why arms dealers always win.
It's why both sides are opposed to gun control. Gun Control means authoritarian governance, Your kids are sacrificed on the alter of incumbent Control (assuming Global Dominance 2011+).
Gods we aren't even into the drift wars.
That is the controversy about them. Essentially they're super fast slingshots.
Again, I agree. It comes down to rights though.
Guns, to me, could maybe be paired with cars. You don't need cars. Nobody needs to go that fast. Cars kill people. Cars ruin the environment. Etc.
Pretty much lol. At the end of the day, an object that you use with a purpose is a tool, what you use that tool to accomplish, i.e. running someone over with a car, bashing someone's head in with a hammer, or shooting someone with a gun, that's what is important. I won't comment on the gun rights thing because I honestly think I've spent too much time in my life talking about it, but I think something that gets overlooked that could help alleviate the problem is widespread mental healthcare and awareness!
Unfortunately, that will probably never happen though.
Upvoted for the last sentence. Gun and weapon ownership represents the counterbalance of incumbent control. Current control should always be nervous of new powers and new powers should always have the ability to intrude. The lac will introduce a reproductive drift to the detriment of intelligence.