Why the gun industry should support net neutrality
guns.com
guns.com
That's certainly possible. But they might also try to get laws passed that just benefited their own interests. Like forcing traffic to any gun-related site to be given high priority based on a convoluted reading of the second amendment concluding that doing otherwise would be a restriction of gun rights. I don't see the NRA being generally a friend of free and accessible information. They have, for instance, lobbied to prevent epidemiological research into gun violence.
CDC can discover facts and make observations all they like, but is barred from advocacy. Why did they stop all work after that? Don’t they have any work on violence and guns that was inquiry rather than advocacy?
I didn't have any knowledge of this before now but apparently the answer might be "fear". The CDC (or more accurately the researchers there) think any gun violence research is a sure way to have your funding cut or career curtailed.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...
>funds made available for injury prevention and control
Say that research shows that more guns => more injuries. It would be reasonable to then hypothesis that gun control could lead to less injuries (injury prevention) and that would bring research into effective methods of gun control into their scope. (and the verification that it leads to less violence).
The NRA lobbied Congress in the 1990s, and Congress reduced the CDC budget by the amount that had been used to study gun related deaths. This resulted in the CDC no longer funding research relating guns to deaths. Congress has specifically rejected amendments that would allow such work.
The research that was de-funded was peer reviewed and appeared in the NEJM.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-02/quietly-congress-exte...
The NRA is a gun advocacy group - that's exactly what they would try to do, because that's their purpose.
Yea, this could certainly go both ways. I picked the 'optimistic' sarcastic scenario instead of the super depressing one you bring up here.
plus we were fine the 15 odd years leading up to the rule change and if anything it will stagnate high speed internet even more because there will be zero incentive to try except where they are told to go. like your speed or not, it will be all you will have because competitors won't have any reason to try to take down cable or phone companies.
oddly the content providers who will stand against or represent wrongly places like guns.com and have an outsized influence higher than any cable company (facebook/google/twitter) are all very much pro government less freedom except where THEY are concerned. They certainly don't like your pro gun stance
If Net Neutrality really worked the way everyone described, it would be great and I would be all for it.
As is, it appears to be more of a religious mantra instead of an actual policy.
While I'm personally not happy that they killed a site they don't like, the site was still just a customer and it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.
That renders the entire "it protects controversial ideas!" point seems moot.
The rules are about distribution not storage.
That statistic is not super relevant when talking about how people feel about guns. Something like one-third of American households have a gun in them, and if you talk about individuals, it'll be modestly less than that.
3% of Americans own more than half our guns. THEY are an elite group.
Only 22% of Americans own any guns at all.
They really are not popular in any sense of the word.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/09/22/study-guns-ow...
If it's this simple why are we limiting this line to just networking on the Internet? Why not car regulation - every car will get 100 mpg, cost $100 and drive you to a hospital should be the need arise.
If you have a dog in the back seat, you can still drive on every road. Cat? Same deal. If you have some railroad tracks in your trunk, which obviously means you might be competing with the roads, well, you can still drive on them.
That's the more "honest" comparison.
I don't know why America thinks gun owners universally support the NRA
The only organization I've ever heard gun owners talk about when also talking about the second amendment is the NRA, and the NRA is the only organization known by the general public that claims to speak on behalf of gun owners.
Americans believe it because the NRA has been very successful at branding itself as the de facto voice of Second Amendment politics, and gun owners haven't put forth any effective opposition to that.
This episode of Fresh Air from a couple months ago about the NRA is pretty horrifying. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555859571/nra-backed-gun-laws...