Recent comments in /f/news

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0z651 wrote

I think we should lock up violent people much longer so the risk vs reward is much worse for violent behavior across the board.

Gun regulations take forever to have an impact and you mostly just kind of punish a bunch of people who weren't going to commit crimes trying to catch the few who might. It's a bit of a sucky strategy with low pay off that causes a lot of pushback. Accountability sounds great, but that's kind of like thinking car insurance would make car accidents rare because you're accountable for your driving. It's easy to say, but how do you make people accountable in a way that changes their behavior BEFORE they do something stupid? This requires them to like learn stuff.. which means low probability of success and very long adoption time to get results.

I'm not against the idea so much as I don't think it will work fast enough to notice much impact, so the investment of effort tends to not produce much result.

I'd rather replace all the CCTV with smart cameras that tie into rapid respnse police forces. So basically if you fuck around in public there is always a camera that can detect violent behavior or sounds and get the police there, probably eventually with a drone because that's the fastest.

Camera/mic/call for public violence and a drone gets there in like 3 minutes. If that's how it worked a lot less people would be willing to commit crime in public because a police drone would be on them recording them, shining lights on them so fast they have to stay in the shadows more... which means crime is harder to commit.

We are going to get smart camera and more camera anyway so I don't see any real intrusion of privacy issue, just public cameras that automate reporting crime and rapid response to get police there so fast it basically scares criminals how fast they can show up. Once that is setup it would be a major deterrent for most crime and not cost much at all AND it works on most crime vs just gun crimes.

1

rtb001 t1_ja0z336 wrote

Yet western press is very careful about saying Ukraine and not "The Ukraine" in their reporting, as well as Kyiv, and not Kiev, despite the fact that the latter terms have been used for a hundred years.

They do it because the Ukranians asked them to do so. The Turks have made the same request, but I guess nobody really cares in the western press.

−2

Alkdmani t1_ja0ydpf wrote

Prohibitions laws went through similar process, and they didn't think that through, they didn't even fund the organisation that is supposed to crack down on alcohol.

Politicians are not philosophers, and the only thing differentiating them from diapers is the amount of shit inside.

−2

Jaedos t1_ja0wxpb wrote

Go look up how the lottery works.

If we didn't do this, the lottery wouldn't exist. What is won is usually only half or less of what was actually bought in. The other portion of the money goes to fund all sorts of shit.

It's literally state-sponsored gambling even in states that van gambling.

3

UniversalMomentum t1_ja0wx76 wrote

But you're trying to mix terms from now and then, which makes no sense anyway.

I think all these terms are rather generic and don't have precise meanings and never did. A militia and an army can be the same thing and they can also be totally different things opposing each other.

That's what happens when you use terms that don't have much meaning!

1