The only thing he has argued for is a mode to silence things he doesn't like. Its not how the world works. Things being silenced is not a good thing, even if it is distasteful.
It's not a thing to silence one thing one person doesn't like. It's an ability for everyone to have an ability to get rid of those ridiculous individuals who understand nothing but a dead obvious "stop doing this or there are repercussions that
will affect you and no-one else". These are the types of people that cause a scene, picket funerals and generally poke at everyone and everything just because they can.
Skirting around them every day instead of getting something actually done to prevent the problem of these fringe but loud movements sounds like a lot more work for little pay-off.
Anti-Blah blah blah laws actually promote that sort of excrement not decrease it. Gun violence has only risen in places with stricter policy's (In the US). Gun violence even happens in places where guns are banned.
Well yes, you can not iron out gun crime completely, you can't restrict a technology increasing.
And the US is not the best leader in lack of gun violence, this is what happens when you have a country that is almost the size of a continent. You have too much to deal with and not enough of a consensus to actually come to a reasonable decision on gun control laws.
One bit is rampant with paranoia, another is straight up terrified, another has no gently-carresss to give and others are actually almost reasonable.
What most don't actually consider is that gun control is not about controlling people with guns, it's about making sure that those with guns are in control of their firearms and not going off the deep end.
People don't
need assault rifles. They don't, they simply do not have a need for them in the current climate with a stable government (when there is one), and if some are
that worried about their government doing a 180 and turning on them then maybe they should consider moving to another place of residence.
Now they can
want and
have them all they want, so long as they'd be willing to make sure they're trained and assessed with them, made sure they're storing them safely and correctly and not being just some stereotypical "gun nut with a horde of guns waiting for the apocalypse to happen".
SO telling people not to say something is gonna make every racist come out of the wood work to challenge that authority. You want to get rid of racism, biggotry, and oither stupid excrement. Improve education. Seriously, revamp what is being taught in school. Restricting people usually has the opposite effect in a free society. If you want to go big brother, you will have to do it for a couple generations to pacifiy the populace until all people who remember what freedom was like are dead. Then you can have your bland, grey, "utopia".
NO need to shut people up, you literally don't have to listen to these assholes, and if they are in your face shout back. But if its in gently-carressing social media, don't be a bitch and whine, just gently-carressing mute them, its function you can literally use in most social media sites. Don't respond to hate, and you don't feed it. Attack hate, is like throwing kindling on the fire. Anybody learn anything from the civil rights movement?
Except it hasn't.
The UK has laws like that in place currently and look, barely anyone is coming out of the woodwork to challenge it. Hell, we had someone running for power just last election who was skirting that edge with a lot of people calling him a racist bigot. And he was one of the most popular candidates judging by number of votes. Oh, but because of those pesky anti racism laws in our country he couldn't actually put what he wants in place without changing the laws, making everyone perk up and look at what he was doing. It's almost as if we don't want to be seen as bad people or a bad country or something.
Yes, there is a need to shut some people up. Some people literally understand nothing but an authoritative hand on their shoulder stopping them. They see you shouting back as a need for them to shout louder to be heard more.
Also the whole social media muting thing, yeah that's not a perfect analogy for exactly the thing we've been talking about, just applied to the real world.
Anti race, anti bigotry, anti hate laws and policies in general are the "mute button" of society. You are muting that voice from being heard. The only difference is if you were in a chat server and someone mutes this person for being distracting/disruptive.
You want to not hear something any more, fine, they'll be taken and told to be quiet, if it happens again, then it gets more serious as more people/more incidents will arise from it.
On the whole civil rights movement.....yeah...given the recent history of the US and the racial prejudices and hate being brought up, yeah the civil rights movement looks to be something the United States still needs to learn from in places.
On the topic of guns, the vast majority of places with stricter gun control face more violent crime rate world-wide. A lot of gun control centric organizations will base their findings on the fact that reducing guns reduces gun crime. Yes, it does, but that's a strawman argument. You want to focus on the actual rate of violent crimes. If you take away guns, criminals are just gonna use something else (or still use guns). Look at Great Britain for example, they have very strict control, yet their violent crime rate is one of the highest in Europe. Australia is another example too. Also, the rate of shootings hasn't really risen, it's the rate of coverage that has.
True, but violent crime is listed as including "assault", this being a drunken punch up outside a pub one night or even just a bloody slap to the face (yeah, a slap to the face can be classed as an assault in the UK and is listed as such) which would naturally inflate the figures a little.
The US laws exclude these types of attacks from their violent crime lists, or the lists reported by the police as crime tracking. So you can see how in comparison to the US Europe can have a higher general violent crime number due to simply how crimes are classified.