[nyanmatt]

> "risk of firearms being diverted to entities or activities that promote regional instability, violate human rights, or fuel criminal activities."

The hypocrisy of the United States government saying this...

[post_break]

Yeah after operation fast and furious it’s like a cheating partner accusing you of cheating. Firearms makers should halt sales to police and governmental agencies for 90 days and see how fast they pass a law banning such a thing.

[chongli]

No, it’s not like a cheating partner. The United States is a country. It’s not a single person. It can’t be hypocritical the way a person can.

Different people get elected and are in charge of the US at different times. This is why a country like the US doesn’t behave consistently the way a person does. Judging countries as though they were people is committing the fallacy of composition.

[londons_explore]

One decisionmaker within the country can still see what others have done, and act as-if-one.

Eg. the statement could have said:

"We have realised that some actions we have taken with weapons have promoted regional instability, but to prevent others making the same mistake as us, we won't export weapons to other countries."

[logicallee]

This is very insightful. Still, there are central policies and various mechanisms by which people have to obey them.

Do you have an email address where I could ask your opinion about something privately? (Or could you email me at mine, it is listed in my profile.)

Thanks.

[refulgentis]

Is that reasonable? It's bad for entity to prevent bad if entity did bad?

EDIT: -3? For an innocuous query? :|

[lozenge]

They want to direct them, not divert them!