Hacker News Reader

Comment by BLKNSLVR | Hacker News Reader

I think there should be a blanket "compare to the ease of semi-automatic weapon acquirement" rule.

If <thing requesting to be censored or removed or otherwise hidden from the plain view of the public> has less potential effect on an individual than a semi-automatic weapon can have, then the request should be laughed at and/or publicly shamed for its anti-freedom, and therefore anti-US, ideology.

Prefaced on the relative ease that it seems semi-automatic weapons can be procured, and their potential for individual liberty restriction.

(Happy for flaws in my logic to be pointed out, I haven't gone particularly in depth in thinking about edge cases here)

Edited to replace "automatic" with "semi-automatic", thanks for the clarification tempfortwitt90.

View on HN

Automatic weapons aren't allowed and I haven't even ever seen one even while being around guns for 20 years casually but not THAT casually.

I suppose you mean semi automatic weapons.. which is basically 95% of guns in the homes of Americans.

To my understanding, Machine gun licenses are still sold in the US on extremely stringent terms.

Some, like the famous American 180 (Otherwise known as the Angry Bees) are grand-fathered in and allowed to be used.

You mean a class 3 transfer stamp. One can legally own a class 3 firearm in the US, yes. There are extra requirements for background checks, storage and so on. Machine guns in particular are expensive and fall out of most people's purchasing power. Ammunition is another thing entirely. For example, this Galil is 23k[1].

1. https://www.gunbroker.com/item/985068083

> You mean a class 3 transfer stamp.

You mean an NFA transfer tax stamp. Class 3 SOT is a status given to certain FFLs to allow them to deal in retail sales of NFA restricted items. It does not refer to the NFA items themselves.

> Automatic weapons aren't allowed and I haven't even ever seen one even while being around guns for 20 years casually but not THAT casually.

Uh, yes they are, there are just more rules in place for them than other firearms. I've been around guns casually for a similar amount of time, and I've shot fully automatic weapons, and can see them pretty much any time I want at the local range. I don't even live in a "gun friendly" state.

Auto's manufactured pre-1986 are legal for civilian ownership and use, assuming 1) you are legally allowed to own a firearm, 2) It is not illegal to own an automatic weapon in your state/jurisdiction 3) fill out the ATF Form 4, 4) pay the tax stamp and 5) you can afford a $20k+ gun and ammo. They aren't cheap because they are rare. There are approx 700k in existence in the US.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-machine-guns-be-transfer...

(Happy for flaws in my logic to be pointed out, I haven't gone particularly in depth in thinking about edge cases here)

How about instead of "ease of semi-automatic weapon acquirement" (which could be read as critical of gun regulation), the wording was "comparison of semi-automatic guns" - which is clearly aimed at assisting gun users in assessing guns, and is the direct equivalent of the page at issue in intent and wording?

The company in this article may be misguided or deliberately overreaching - but there is also the possibility they have a point.

I think they do have an interesting point, though I also think it fails on the idea that these tools are necessarily used for ill. Gun owners would argue the same, I suspect.

It's more of a baseline level of the trust of the freedom of an individual to choose their own actions in their use of available tools.

I'm not intending to be critical of gun regulation, but it's a great example of a big, thick baseline for comparison because it has precedent for being protected as sancrosanct in the US.

> Happy for flaws in my logic to be pointed out

I understand where you’re coming from, but I believe the logical fallacy you’ve stumbled upon is termed as “whataboutism”.

If we turned down every complaint just because it wasn’t deemed as harmful as another complaint that was turned down, few things would change.

does that still apply when the argument for one could just as easily be the argument for the other?

the real flaw in the reasoning--not the logic, but the reasoning--is thinking it does any good to point out hypocricy. yes, if we can't control guns because of the personal freedom of individuals to own guns then that same reason ought to apply to an individual's ability to access information that's totally lawful for them to access. it's just, you can point out hypocrisy all day, but the fact is what you can do or can't do or what you're supposed to do or have to do is shaped by moneyed interests, not by a pressure to maintain or establish some internal consistency.

> If we turned down every complaint just because it wasn’t deemed as harmful as another complaint that was turned down, few things would change.

Or, maybe we'd think differently about some things that have been normalised and are worthy of re-consideration.

Regarding "few things would change", like all these things, that can be good or bad, it depends on the situation.

> the logical fallacy you’ve stumbled upon is termed as “whataboutism”.

I think they're comparable in this context: "can be used legally, can be used illegally, the freedom of choice is given to the user".

I'm specifically not comparing "why is this an issue whilst animals are still being experimented on by companies that make beauty products". I'm explicitly trying to avoid whataboutism, to provide some logical comparison.

As pasquinelli points out in a sibling comment, the fallacy I did make is that of pointing out hypocrisy and expecting that to be worth anything. Sadly, that's a true fallacy at this point in civilisation. Unfortunately, I'll keep banging my head on that wall until either I'm dead or the wall relents.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your original argument then. I read it as saying this company shouldn’t be allowed to make this request because semi-automatic weapons are still legal. That, to me, is whataboutism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com