🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@mzan

In fact you only have to look at the numbers.... Significant hand gun bans in canada were enacted in 1966 with bill C-150 .. these banned many types of guns and got quite a few guns, particularly hand guns used in self defense, off the streets.

What was the result to homicide rate? well lets look at a chart...

Well look at that, the homicide rate goes through the roof, doubling for about a decade (just as i suggest)... and while it does start to decrease eventually it never falls below pre-ban levels... meaning a lot of peopel died over very very many decades due to this policy.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

So you are telling me his military didnt have guns, and those guns didnt stop unarmed jews from defending themselves?

Thats some significant rewriting of history you got going there. To think hitlers guns and everyone else he invaded not having guns played no role is bull...

You act like unarmed poland or unarmed civilians of other nations just voted him in...

Hell even when he got to power in germany he 1) used guns more than once 2) explicitly used guns to murder his opposition so as to fix the vote 3) used his access to guns to murder and frame someone in the reichstag fire.... yes his use of guns both allowed him to gain power, and to keep it.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@mzan

> They told me that Canada has a lot less murders by gun respect USA, because they have also more controls on the license.

As a professional statistician I can tell you you just got into the territory of "bad science" using objectively bad analysis that would be rejected immediately by any math-literate (statistics) scientist for good reason.

We are trying to show causation, to do that you need to show a cause being **followed** by an event... you cant compare two countries that have hundreds of millions of influencing factors and say "look this country has less crime and no guns its related!" no, thats just no better than a lie, a well intentioned one, but a lie... There are far far too many factors for you to even suspect or hint at any one cause.

In fact even if you could directly establish correlation this does nothing to address post hox ergo procter hoc fallacy... which is the cause and which is the effect... Does high crime rate cause people to want to legalize guns, or does legalizing guns cause high criem rate.. if the correlation is valid either direction of causation would likewise be valid, so you still did absolutely nothing to even **hint** at a causation here.

This is why i choose my wording carefully. What we do see, and what does actually tell us causation, is that when guns are banned (the cause) in the 5 - 10 years that **follow** (the effect) homicide and violent act rates sky rocket through the roof in almost all cases. They also almost never recover to below pre-ban rates... at best they settle slightly above pre-ban rates, at worse they remain quite higher.

> Is this article wrong? Apparently the only logical conclusion is that the Canada way is better than the USA way. Were am I wrong?

The specific facts of the article may be right.. but as per above this isnt even **suggestive** of a cause-effect relationship between guns and deaths.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@TruthSandwich

Even their rehtoric is suprisingly similar if you look deep enough... usually both sides are highly racist/prejudice/sexist whatever.. but who they attack and how they express that varies.

I just watched a video last night of black conservatives debating white liberals... The one white liberal who was clearly int he extreme was literally the most toxic person int he group and very obnoxious to the blacks... In one scene one of the black people makes a statement about "insufferable white people with a savior complex" and the camera pans over to him with the saltiest look on his face you have ever seen... It was priceless.

@davetroy

@mzan

> Summing up: a nation should do the contrary of USA: public health-care system; legal drugs; prohibition of guns. 🙂

While I'd agree with you on legal drugs, the other two sorta..

I wouldnt replicate the USA's healthcare system, it is a broken disaster... But then again so is every European system just in a very different way. So I agree, dont do anything that copies the american system, but also for the love of god, dont copy the european one either... clearly we need something that works and no one has one.

As for prohibition of guns, seeing as america is the only place that didnt witness the death of tens to hundreds to thousands of thousands of people as a direct result of gun prohibition, yea this is false, maybe america is exactly who you should be replicating... not only did we not have the massive deaths, but we also have yet to have a Hitler, something we claimed long before Hitler would be the result... and we were right.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@TruthSandwich

Presuming thats what they meant then yea, they dont have to change their views too much anyway. As you point out horseshoe theory garuntees they are already far more compatible with eachother than they admit.

@davetroy

@TruthSandwich

Ahh they meant the tea party folks then I guess...

@davetroy

@mzan

Agreed, but you have to be careful to do it right.

For example this mentality is exactly what lead to my stance on gun-rights. The fact that virtually every state and nation, when banning guns, saw a **huge** spike in homicides and/or violent crimes in the 5 - 10 years following before those numbers sometimes go down but almost never reach pre-ban levels or below again... that pattern clearly shows that other nations banning guns has had a very harmful effect.

Obviously we can take one step further and also look at wars and falls of nations... in virtually every case a nation with a dictator was limited to countries where people were unarmed either in the past, or during the rise of the dictator.

Hitler is often cited as an example of this, there was a massive disarmenment of Europe in most countries (including germany) following WWI and surprise surprise, after the decade or so it took to get rid of guns Hitler pops up almost immediately.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@SETIEric

> Copyright is automatic on works that are subject to copyright, (i.e. creative works.) Works that are not creative are not subject to copyright, automatic or otherwise.

You are of course correct that copyright is only automatic on things that are copyrigtable. You are also correct that some lists are not copyrightable, but to claim lists as a whole are not is completely false... Collections, even if everything collected is in the public domain, **are** covered (automatically) by copyright. However what qualifies as a collection depends partly on its substantiability and other factors... A list of food items in isolation isnt copyrightable, for example... But a list of public-domain recipies, the list itself IS copyrightable even if the individual items in it are not on their own.

> You can copyright a program you wrote to create a list of prime numbers. You cannot copyright a list of prime numbers, no matter how much effort it takes to compile.

This is actually also false, and a counter example. While not all prime numbers (like 3 or 5) can be copyright, and not all list of prime numbers can be copyrighted (like 3,5,7) it would be false to claim you can never copyright a list of prime numbers... Not only can you copyright a list of prime numbers, but it has been done, and defended successfully in court.

For example in 2001 someone was charged with breaking copyright law by publishing a list of only two prime numbers. These primes were effectively the private key needed to decrypt DRM information on DVDs. Despite being a list of two prime numbers, because it was substantial according to the legal definition, it rose to the level of copyright status.

There are tons of legal examples of prime numbers, and numbers in general being copyrighted. They are called "illegal numbers".

> Writing a novel featuring the numbers on the list is, on the other hand, creative.

As pointed out while this writing would also be copyrighted it is not needed for something to be copywritable. Collections alone can be copyrightable, though a mere list is not necessarily copy-writable unless meeting the legal definition which requires among other things for it to be "substantial"

> But if someone extracts the numbers from the novel and makes a list of them, the list is likely neither a copyright violation nor can it be copyrighted.

Nope this would absolutely be a copyright violation... Just as copying from a collection of public domain recipes by repeating the same collection or a subset that was directly copied from the book would be a copyright violation.

> Or a list of the first word of every paragraph for that matter, although the copyright holder could try to convince a jury that there was something original and creative about the words and their order, and financially harmful about its publication.

This would be considered a derivative work, and thus illegal under copyright. Putting somethingin list form doesnt give you a work around on copyrights. Since as we covered collections that meet the legal definitions are copyrightable, this includes lists.. even a list of just 2 numbers in one case I cited.

> Since “Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.” effort is not a criterion for copyright. The work must be creative and original.

Yes effort alone is not enough, the definition of when a collection is substantive enough to grant copyright is a bit complicated.

You can read about the legal criteria for a collection to be substantial enough to be allowed copyright here, but it is clearly stated that collections are themselves copyrightable:

https://copyright.gov/eco/help-collective-work.html

@vwbusguy

@TruthSandwich @davetroy

You of all people should know that a person that claims to be of a particular philosophy is not representative of that philosophy by virtue of that fact.

He is not a member of the libertarian party, for starters, so we are talking about the term, not the party, which is fine.. Second he is a specific type of libertarian, not representative of all forms or the core principles per se, as it extends upon this... he is a libertarian-capitalist specifically.

Thats like me saying "Nah the left is anti0free speech, here just look at this extreme-left wackjob who says so"

@TruthSandwich

Two issues with that.. First they said libertarian, not the GOP or alt-right or anything. Libertarians are the extreme opposite of authoritarianism. They beleive in either small govt or an disempowered central govt... so your characterization is wrong there.

Second, if they are to team up that is only possible if their views meet in the middle. So you would now have left-leaning centrists and right-leaning centrists teaming up... this is exactly why I say it wont happen, both sides wont change their views, and without changing them they cant be compatible as their votes would oppose when keeping to those views.

@davetroy

@TruthSandwich

Uniting would be great... good luck with that I wont hold my breath.

@davetroy

@be70f66cc52a18955a89ef881d25c4b971f255e932728671e0d0273cbfcdde7f They can be kids all they want, as long as I'm allowed to be an adult and make fun of them like god intended :)

@realcaseyrollins agreed ... no one has time for all that tapping!

Yup, we have now crossed this line...

@VoxDei

Sure nop problem with disengaging... sadly its a topic that has a lot of comment and cant be reduced to simplicities... a beer is always welcome and open to you anytime you want to get one.

@ihavenopeopleskills