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

@TruthSandwich

Obviously I dont buy the two party nonsense... but even if i assumed it were true for a second...

If my choices are:

1) Vote Biden - Help Biden a lot, hurt Trump a lot

2) Vote Trump - Hurt Biden a lot, Help Trump a lot

3) Vote Third party - Hurt Biden a little, Help Trump a little, Help third parties show better numbers and support for future elections.

I will go with 3 every single time... It reduces how much I help either candidate (more so than a direct vote for Trump as I'm sure you will agree)... and has some positive effect on the adoption of third parties by people int he future....

#3 is the clear win for me, even in a two party system.

Trump’s lawyers failed in their attempts to force Judge Chutkan to recuse herself from the case. Trump likely assumes any judge who is black and female won’t look too kindly upon his behavior. But in this, he is mistaken: No one in their right mind, whatever their gender or race, ought to countenance what he has done. What Trump hates is that she represents the fair administration of justice. Against that, he stands little chance of skirting accountability.

@mzan

> as motivation of gun-ban, I remember having read in some place that the differences between homicide rate in USA and Canada nearby cities were very different, and in favor of Canada.

Yup, you've gotten back to leaning into your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy and cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallace.

This observation is in no way a relevant data point to this conversation as it represents a classic logical fallacy in analysis and is invalid as a talking point.

> During this discussion I tried to compare Detroit and Toronto, but there were no big differences. Rather similar.

Since this is a known and established fallacy, explained earlier... why are you comparing them? I explained clearly any valid analysis will have to fall within a class of causality tests... you arent doing that, you are leaning into **known** fallacies in the hopes it will create a counter argument despite being invalid regardless of if you found similar values or not.

> Then I found a comparison between a big USA city and a rather smaller Canadian city, and it is not fair comparing two different type of communities.

As pointed out it is invalid regardless

> Your data is rather convincing, in the sense that now I have doubts. So one more reason for not believing the media, without double-checking.

I am glad you have doubts and im glad you are investigating and not just accepting my word, thats a good thing... But your "checking" is born out of not understanding valid statistical analysis... While you dont have to beleive my data, as a data scientist expert you should at least beleive me when i describe the way we do analysis and why (hopefully it makes sense) and then use that understanding and analyze it that way.

Here is what I suggest.. Write down 10 random countries that has banned guns at some point. Pull up both the homicide and violent rate charts for eachm be careful to make sure it is **all** homicides and violent acts and not just ones involving a gun (since the argument for guns is preventative)... now on that chart, before looking at the history, circle all the points where you see the trends ""significantly** change from a downward r flat trend to a upward trend over several years... Then go search for "<country> gun prohibition history" and find any site that gives you a timeline of major gun prohibitions in that country.... Look at the list and see if any items on the list line up with the dates you circled, and then from the context ask yourself if it was a significant gun ban in the history, usually a country only has one or two major confiscations till no guns are left...

Then when your done look at how often the patterns line up and how often they dont.. then draw your own conclusion.

@customdesigned @VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@freemo

as motivation of gun-ban, I remember having read in some place that the differences between homicide rate in USA and Canada nearby cities were very different, and in favor of Canada.

During this discussion I tried to compare Detroit and Toronto, but there were no big differences. Rather similar.

Then I found a comparison between a big USA city and a rather smaller Canadian city, and it is not fair comparing two different type of communities.

Your data is rather convincing, in the sense that now I have doubts. So one more reason for not believing the media, without double-checking.

For turning completely my mind, I need obviously to research more data, because stats can lie, also if taken in good faith. But initially, I believed that stats were completely in favor of the ban, but this does not seem the case anymore.

@customdesigned @VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@ech @VoxDei

Exactly... if someone bothered to create a license that made to to fix the other infringments it causes indiretly, then you very well could have, in theory, a license that wont infringe... sadly no one has even attempted to do so..

To do it you'd have to

1) make sure it is one-way only.. that is, impossible for anyone to check if you have gun based on name or SS#, or to see who has or doesnt have a gun in a particular area. You'd have to create system where the **only** way to check if someone is licensed is if the licensee **volunteers** their license number at which point a cop can only **confirm** they have a license and not search for licenses

2) It would have to be illegal for a cop to stop and ask you for your license simply because you display a firearm... otherwise that would be harassment and put people at risk.. much like with a license to carry a cop should only be able to ask for your license if you are under arrest and at reasonable suspicion of having commited a crime (and no carrying a weapon is not an indication of that).

3) All licensing would have to be free and tax paid.

4) All licensing centers would have to be able to license someone **on the spot** at time of purchase immediately and same day

5) anyone who wishes to cancel their license should have the option, if they wish, to purge their data from the system

If you manage to do those issues then you have an infringement free license... without those qualities then asking for a license 100% is a n infringement based ont he clear definition of the word.

@mzan

> sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_083892.pdf also
>
> USA had a massive spike in homicides rates. More than Canada. And the USA not banned guns.

uhhh what are you even arguing for here?

That would be like this conversation:

Scientist: "We see the death rate in every country increases once COVID-19 is introduced intot he country. Therefore we can conclude COVID-19 will increase the mortality rate of the country"

You: "But look, this one time in solenea we see the death rate increased and there were no COVID cases in the whole country... this makes your argument very suspicious, maybe COVID doesnt kill people"

The logic makes no sense... the fact that a pattern is born out and consistent is not invalidated simply because things other than guns can and have influenced these rates in the past... thats the very reason we look at multiple examples (and why i looked at every country in europe and around the world not just one)... its also why we use cause-effect tests and not correlation, to ensure we are limiting our scope to events related to guns and not other potential unrelated causes.

> Maybe you are correct, but I had to study a lot of stats, before being sure.

As well you should... But at least for the moment given the facts that have been presented in this thread, I think its clear my point is the one that is reasoned and fact based... that may change if you have new evidence, but clearly this evidence points to only one conclusion an objective person could make based on what we have said so far and argued.

@VoxDei @ihavenopeopleskills

@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

While we are at it,a nd just to show im not cherry picking... lets address the OP with regard to canada, two topics you both picked so I cant be the one cherry picking here...

So canada a long time ago banned a lot of types of guns, but you can still in some cases get a license if you have a strong need. So handguns still had some use as self defense among a privilaged class.... But they never required training to get a license... Training to obtain a firearm license was enacted by Canada and passed into law in 2014 as an additional restriction on getting a license and a gun. This of course limited access to guns or at least put a barrier in front of it reducing the number of guns on the street...

So what did this relatively minor restriction due to the violent crime rates... well yet again, a restriction on access to guns caused a **skyrocketing** of crime rates. See the chart attached.

As is clear despite violent crimes being well on the decline the day the training requirement law passed we see a huge and continued upward spike in violent crime rates. On that appears to be continuing to climb....

Seems even your example of Canada shows quite clearly banning guns kills people.

#2A

@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

> 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

@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

@VoxDei

> If I go around saying “person X is a rapist” for example, if I can’t prove it I get sued for slander, I can’t say “Oh but the first amendment, I can say what I want whether it’s true or not”.

Oh and this needs a little more because every statement there is wrong.

You are talking about slander, and simply not being able to prove something you say about someone else is **not** slander... because slander deals witht he consequence of certain speech. The speech is protected but you arent protected from its consequences.

Therefore the criteria for slander is:

* It must actually cause harm to the person"
* The harm must be intentional and not accidental
* The person must have soemthing to gain
* The person must have stated a defamatory statement against the person that they **knew** was a lie when they stated it.

Notice these criteria deal with intent, harm, and manipulation. The fact that someone used free speech to carry out something illegal doesnt mean there are limits on free speech, only that you may be responsible for the damages caused by that speech if those damages are intentional and self serving.

@ihavenopeopleskills