Guns are mostly used to kill people. So we see them as tools only useful for that purpose. That’s why you can buy a set of knives on Amazon but not a 10 pack of Glocks.
Facebook is seen closer to knives. Parler was mostly guns.
That’s an incorrect statement. Let’s look at the evidence.
More than 50 million Americans engaged in some kind of recreational shooting in 2018 [0]. Compare that to 14,000 gun-related homicides across the country in the same period [1], mostly in certain high-crime communities [2].
The CDC estimates there are between 500,000 and 3 million instances of defensive gun use in the US each year [3]. They also found that cases of self-defense where the victim used a gun resulted in less injury to the victim, on average, than in cases where other self-defense strategies where employed.
There are also obvious downsides to a society with permissive gun ownership, but overstating the case for gun control doesn’t move the discussion in a positive direction.
[0] https://www.nssf.org/research/nsga-participation-reports/
[1] https://www.thetrace.org/2019/01/gun-deaths-2018-america-mas...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2017/jan/...
[3] http://www.ncdsv.org/images/IOM-NRC_Priorities-for-Research-...
In the US, stabbings are the second most common cause of murders after shootings, and a higher incident of assaults. In the UK, stabbings are significantly more common than shootings, to the point they are establishing very similar regulations around knife purchase and possession.
An honest look at the data on violence would indicate two things:
1. Violent behavior and the tool used are disconnected. E.g. People with an intention to be violent will act violent regardless of which tools are available.
2. When someone is violent they'll use the most efficient tool available. E.g. Once someone has made a decision to act out violently they'll identify and use the best tool available to carry out their violence.
In effect, there are two ways to approach violence in society. You can try to reduce the number of available tools to carry out violence so people are restricted to their bare hands (note strangulations and beatings just barely trail stabbing in the US as a cause of murder). Or you can address the social issues that result in people acting violently at all, to reduce the incidence of violence and violence-adjacent behaviors in society.
Levering #2 is easier but less impactful, Levering #1 is harder, but has much wider positive impacts.
No matter what you do, violence will never be entirely eliminated.
I think assessing the data honestly and coming to the conclusion "guns are a problem" is either a result of bias or naivete, because it's not a logical conclusion following from the available data, either US-centric or globally.
> In addition to the restrictions on certain kinds of data collection,
> congressional action in 1996 effectively halted all firearm-related injury research
> at the CDC by prohibiting the use of federal funding “to advo-cate
> or promote gun control.”18 In 2011, Congress enacted similar re-strictions
> affecting the entire U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The
> net result was an overall reduction in firearm violence research
> (Kellermann and Rivara, 2013). As a result, the past 20 years have
> witnessed diminished progress in understanding the causes and ef-fects
> of firearm violence.
Additionally, "homicide" is not a sufficient tally of gun deaths. There are also suicides and unintended discharges.
Regardless, the original point is that guns are primarily designed to kill things. It would not be "effective" defense if that were not the case. 2A advocates do not defend their gun rights purely so they can enjoy target shooting.
This is an odd claim, given that the "salient point" seems to be a verbatim quotation of the linked report, which contains further citations...
> Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997).
Hunting for sustenance, depending on where you live
But we were talking about Parler and Facebook. I am sure some people have used Parler for things other than far right propaganda, but can you honestly make the point that it wasn’t its primary use case?
The truth of the matter is that, unless I was actively watching those conversations, I can't make any point about its primary use case.
I'm definitely not arguing it's not; but, I have heard a call to action to get Telegram taken down from the App Store because "that's where the alt-right is going now", but there's plenty of other conversation types going on there.
Just because you and I had no interest in being a part of the communities we know are going on in Parler doesn't mean that people of those persuasions didn't primarily have friendly conversations about knitting much of the time.
I'm not sure that we can go just by volume of conversation, either. I imagine the vast majority of Twitter messages are spewing hatred, too. Maybe not the top-level comments, but there are hundreds if not thousands of people that previously responded to most every Trump tweet in a way filled with hatred for him.
As I was not a member of Parler, I can't really tell what kinds of conversations that place was designed and had in a way that's meaningfully distinct from Twitter.
No, it's because Amazon doesn't sell guns. There's also no reason to own 10 of the same firearm - it's not like you're setting your dinner table with handguns.
As for guns being "mostly used to kill people", that's just not true. My gun collection has only been used to kill paper targets and, occasionally, deer. Properly used they are no more risk to society than a kitchen knife, arguably less since there are more stabbings than shootings every year.
Banning Parler and banning guns both strike me as infantilizing and highly ineffective. Look at what all of the anti-gun rhetoric has done for gun sales in the US - the same thing will happen with alternative social media platforms.
This would make for an interesting dinner party. Does any of Agatha Christie's stories start out like this? Or one of those murder/whodunnit dinner theater type of events where the dinner guests are part of the play.
You can't buy guns on Amazon for the same reason you can't buy tobacco, liquor, lottery tickets, or cars on Amazon. Because these are all things which are regulated by the government in such a way as to be incompatible with Amazon's logistics and purchasing setup and customer experience. You can buy all of those things online (except lottery tickets), but just not on Amazon. Since Amazon sells other alcoholic beverages, they're hardly taking a moral stance about the dangers of alcoholism. They sell tobacco accessories so they're hardly taking a moral stance against tobacco, they sell parts for cars so they're surely not against private vehicle ownership, and yes, they even sell tactical gear and gun accessories (although crucially not gun parts... any more).
The reason you can buy a set of knives on Amazon and not a Glock is that knives aren't regulated with more than 84000 conflicting laws between different state, county, and municipal jurisdictions across the US, including differing restrictions on transfer and shipping, and knives do not have federal regulations requiring background checks. Regardless of your personal opinion around private firearms ownership, you should surely be able to see that the analogy you've presented is patently absurd.
There's a moral-political argument which can be made, sure, but that argument isn't the basis for why Amazon doesn't offer these products, and /that/ was the assertion underlying the grandparent's analogy. It's simply false.
Look, the point isn’t to talk about gun rights. The point is that Parler was the toxic runoff from 4chan, Facebook, and the parts of Reddit it deemed too toxic to keep. Facebook is 99.9% reposting of random memes. It’s 0.1% is doing a lot of harm, but by and large it isn’t obviously designed to be a white supremacy platform, it just happens to be used that way by a decent number of people. And that’s my point: guns are designed to kill things, not to cut salad. Knives are designed to be tools that are more often than not used for peaceful cooking, and sometimes misused to cause harm. Trying to turn this into a “guns don’t kill people” debate is pointless. It’s outside the scope of the analogy of why Parler was seen as a harmful thing while Facebook wasn’t.
I'm not sure that's actually accurate. I think it's strongly debatable as to whether or not Facebook ever had any positive intents as a platform. Arguably, Facebook started as a way for predatory men on college campuses to stalk attractive women and comment on their bodies, which I'd be hard pressed to classify as a positive intent. Developing from that, Facebook has taken as many actions as possible to drive user engagement, including actively spying on their users to do so. Not only is the spying itself user-hostile, but the actions taken to drive user engagement seem to greatly emphasize and create rage, lust, fear, and other negative emotions in their user base. I'd be hard-pressed to classify any of this as positive intent.
I think you'll have a difficult time, regardless of the analogy you try to shoe-horn into place, arguing that Facebook suffers from unintended consequences when their ragebaiting mechanisms lead to political extremism and violence, and that Parler was intending that a platform designed for free speech resulted in extremism. Probably the best argument in your favor would be to focus on Parler's genesis story, which seems to strongly indicate that it too was not formed for positive intents. I think a mostly honest take is that both platforms are negative in both their intentions and their outcomes and are directly toxic for a functioning democratic society. The only real difference between Parler and Facebook is that Facebook is socially entrenched and has a massive global user base and the revenue/wealth that comes from that, and Parler doesn't.
To your other point, I am not defending Facebook here. The question that was raised: how come Parler was deplatformed as harmful but Facebook wasn’t even though it’s arguably worse in absolute terms. My point was that it’s probably because in relative terms Parler was mostly seen as being used in harmful ways while Facebook is seen as mostly non-harmful with some harmful parts.
I stand by that assessment, as in why Apple and Google haven’t removed the Facebook app from their app platforms. I do wish Facebook would get reined in because it is not a force for good. I think there was a brief period of maybe 2-3 years when it was a net positive: when you could use it to simply connect with people you used to know and lost contact with. Initially it was a weird stalker platform as you said, later it turned into a combo meme machine (and a bad one at that) and a marketing platform. About the only parts of FB that I still find useful personally are its Marketplace which is an objectively better experience than Craigslist (though FB is ruining it with how it’s running advertising there that really messes up your searches), and Messenger (but only because I at some point connected with a number of people on there; I will likely be moving those conversations elsewhere since there isn’t anything special about the Messenger itself). It’s other two major properties, Instagram and WhatsApp, are useful for other things but also have their own major problems. Instagram I think is a flash in the pan until the current generation of users ages out of being cool and the next generation wants to move to a new platform simply because they don’t want to hang out with the old geezers. WhatsApp has a privacy problem by design and better alternatives already exist (Matrix, Signal).
But yes Facebook is basically a mostly bad for society platform, it’s just bad in the sense that fast food is bad, not in the murder is bad. We tend to react to diffuse bad influences differently than to acute ones.
this isn't true. guns are used far more often for hunting animals than for killing humans, by multiple orders of magnitude. even more often, guns are used to shoot targets at the range.
Guns should be seen as just a tool, they should be legal but heavily regulated, they don't need their own Constitutional amendment. The basic premise of the Second Amendment became obsolete once the US had a standing army.
At some point you've crossed from hyperbole into just waging a culture war. Remember that the goal is to evolve both sides understanding in a disagreement, not shout loudly at the other person until they walk away.
So do I (although I might disagree to some extent on the reasonable people), yet I've experienced multiple direct threats against my life. This is in England, where it's supposed to be all tea and biscuits.