# Why are 2nd amendment people also champions of the police?



## Hollowway (Mar 23, 2018)

There are a lot of things that confuse me about the political views of the the major parties. One is this: those passionate about the 2nd amendment often cite the potential need to defend ourselves against the government. Yet, they are also the same ones to side with cops, and be a “blue lives matter” supporter. When presented with a “unarmed man shot 20 times by two cops (a recent headline in my area), I’m surprised that these guys are fully in support of the police. Why is that?


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Mar 23, 2018)

Because even the mall cop-minded civilians who buy guns to imitate the militarized local police vote against their own interests.

As has been pointed out by many, that’s like asking why those who identify as anti-abortion tend to be opposed to LGBQT people who are guaranteed to never have abortions.


----------



## narad (Mar 23, 2018)

Because in the big battle the cops, who have off-time and families and whatnot, will naturally join the rebel forces against the military personnel, who are mindless killing machines and will unquestionably obey whatever orders are given to them -- even those to go after private citizens.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Mar 23, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> When presented with a “unarmed man shot 20 times by two cops (a recent headline in my area), I’m surprised that these guys are fully in support of the police. Why is that?


Because the term "unarmed" also applies to guys carrying a fork... 


*runs away*


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

Because some people are just kinda dumb.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

I think another aspect is the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. 

You can take a guess who they feel is thier "enemy."


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 23, 2018)




----------



## ElRay (Mar 23, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I think another aspect is the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. ..."



Essentially what I was going to post. I was going to put it as:

Regarding the 2nd Amendment: It only applies to caucasians. 
Regarding fear-based, extra-judicial executions: See #1.
Evidence supporting my "learned assessment":

A literally face-eating white suburban kid is arrested w/o a shot being fired or taser being used
An un-armed social worker, laying on the ground is executed
Barely above poverty-level caucasians are allowed to "protest" and open carry
A colored law student is executed in his car after telling an officer he has a concealed carry permit and there is a gun in the glove-box
Caucassin mass murderers are almost always "good kids", or "from broken homes", or "had tough lives", etc.
Non-caucassin victims are almost always "thugs", have "anger issues", "imposing", "troubled", etc.
Y'all-qeda takes over a government facility for days and not a shot was fired
In 2017, the per capita rate of police killing was 2.5 times higher for brown suspects
In 2018, the per capita rate is (so far) 1.9 times higher
Regarding my "fear-based" comment:

I have spent a total of 30 months in Afghanistan
I have had situations where I'm standing there, with *my finger outside the trigger guard* contemplating if I need to fire


----------



## ElRay (Mar 23, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


>


It's Torgdor w/o an arm or legs


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 23, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> There are a lot of things that confuse me about the political views of the the major parties. One is this: those passionate about the 2nd amendment often cite the potential need to defend ourselves against the government. Yet, they are also the same ones to side with cops, and be a “blue lives matter” supporter. When presented with a “unarmed man shot 20 times by two cops (a recent headline in my area), I’m surprised that these guys are fully in support of the police. Why is that?



Likewise it can be said for the other side too. Those that claim to support the right for individuals to own a firearm, but in the same breath also say "but really I wish guns didn't exist, and we should get rid of the 2nd amendment if it means another kid doesn't have to die". They champion people like bernie sanders and other politicians who are surrounded by armed gaurds, and think only the military and police should have guns.

Basically, people want their own country to be protected by armed people to protect against an outside threat, yet dont want a right that would allow themselves and others to protect their own home against an outside threat.

But there is a flaw in your concern because "cops" are not government. When people talk about protection from government, that doesnt include the police. Government is the FBI, SWAT, Military, Black Water Special Forces, and other federal agents.

That being said.....I am a 2nd supporter, however I am absolutley disgusted by what these police officers who are doing wrong are getting away with, and given a slap on the wrist. It's evident that there is a of blind-eye turning going on, and that is corruption to the core.


----------



## narad (Mar 23, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Basically, people want their own country to be protected by armed people to protect against an outside threat, yet dont want a right that would allow themselves and others to protect their own home against an outside threat.



This is supposed to be some sort of catch-22? 

People claim to want free speech, but yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and it's a crime! Wake up, sheeple!!


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 23, 2018)

narad said:


> This is supposed to be some sort of catch-22?
> 
> People claim to want free speech, but yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater and it's a crime! Wake up, sheeple!!


Um no. Thats not the same thing. I dont know why you assume that I think your scenario is OK and proper. You tell those bible thumpers!!!


----------



## narad (Mar 23, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Um no. Thats not the same thing. I dont know why you assume that I think your scenario is OK and proper. You tell those bible thumpers!!!



It's not the same thing -- it's an analogy. Everything has its proper place. There's nothing surprising that people want soldiers to have guns and don't want just any random neighborhood dude to have one.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 23, 2018)

ElRay said:


> Caucassin mass murderers are almost always "good kids", or "from broken homes", or "had tough lives", etc.
> Non-caucassin victims are almost always "thugs", have "anger issues", "imposing", "troubled", etc.


I agree. Your absolutley right that fatherless homes in communites of "brown skinned" people are a monumental problem!


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 23, 2018)

narad said:


> It's not the same thing -- it's an analogy. Everything has its proper place. There's nothing surprising that people want soldiers to have guns and don't want just any random neighborhood dude to have one.


Years ago people would say "my fellow American" or "my fellow neighbor/friend".

In 2018 its just some random dude.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 23, 2018)

So Blackwater mercenary contractors _are_ the government but, the democratically elected county sheriff and city police chief are _not_ the government?


----------



## narad (Mar 23, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Years ago people would say "my fellow American" or "my fellow neighbor/friend".
> 
> In 2018 its just some random dude.



The phrase "There goes the neighborhood" wasn't coined in 2018. You like your neighbors who are like you, and you don't like the neighbors that have a confederate flag hanging in the garage and turn their entire front yard into a mudpit trying to make some sort of make-shift pool for their children with a backhoe and a garden hose.


----------



## Drew (Mar 23, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


>


That's awesome.  



Unslaved said:


> Basically, people want their own country to be protected by armed people to protect against an outside threat, yet dont want a right that would allow themselves and others to protect their own home against an outside threat.


Wait, I too don't see the contradiction here.  



ElRay said:


> Essentially what I was going to post. I was going to put it as:
> 
> Regarding the 2nd Amendment: It only applies to caucasians.
> Regarding fear-based, extra-judicial executions: See #1.


I think an interesting implicit thing to keep in mind here, is that the "pro second amendment AND pro cop" thing is potentially unstable, and could change VERY fast. I forget the comedian who joked that if all the black guys in America were to go out and buy guns, we'd get gun control in a hurry, but he was absolutely correct - a sudden uptick in minority gun ownership would strain that pretty badly, I'd think.

Then again, I've definitely been guilty of underestimating the ability of conservatives to withstand cognitive dissonance in the past, so who knows.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 23, 2018)

ElRay said:


> I have spent a total of 30 months in Afghanistan
> I have had situations where I'm standing there, with *my finger outside the trigger guard* contemplating if I need to fire


This.

I spent three years in Iraq. Most of that time was in the gun turret of a truck. The rest of the time was either in a guard tower or down on the ground standing at the ECP. I was involved in many incidents where I would have been in the clear to outright kill somebody. I am happy that I never had to. 

I have found in the army that there are different types. There really are people that join just for a chance to kill someone. They are trigger happy just waiting for that moment and any excuse. I am sure there are some of these in the police force as well.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 23, 2018)

ElRay said:


> Caucassin mass murderers are almost always "good kids", or "from broken homes", or "had tough lives", etc.
> Non-caucassin victims are almost always "thugs", have "anger issues", "imposing", "troubled", etc.





Unslaved said:


> I agree. Your absolutley right that fatherless homes in communites of "brown skinned" people are a monumental problem!



Hahahahaha!

It's great of you, by applying the "broken homes" from the description of caucasian mass murderers to minorities instead, to let us know your own prejudices.

Carry on!


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 23, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> So Blackwater mercenary contractors _are_ the government but, the democratically elected county sheriff and city police chief are _not_ the government?



What's the over under on homeboy knowing two out of three of those things prior to this exchange?


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 23, 2018)

If "government" comes to take peoples guns we know damn well theyre not sending Officer Jim, your neighbor from down the street with whom you join at the pub every thursday night. (Actually when "they" do come they might not even be American. They could be Chinese soldiers or from the U.N......interesting).

You guys are trying way too hard. I admit it is entertaining though.

Its funny how a 2nd amendment based thread gets closed one day then the next day another pops up like a strip club.......... Does the Mafia work here?


----------



## Science_Penguin (Mar 23, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> If "government" comes to take peoples guns we know damn well theyre not sending Officer Jim, your neighbor from down the street with whom you join at the pub every thursday night. (Actually when "they" do come they might not even be American. They could be Chinese soldiers or from the U.N......interesting).



That should just about suffice as an answer to the question, I think.

Police officers are a part of the community for these people. Normal citizens like themselves, and well within their bubble of familiarity.

The National Government, and less well-to-do minorities tend to be outside entities to them, known only through what they hear on television. The former being that madhouse up in DC full of nutjobs arguing over the fate of the nation and who may one day come for their guns, and the latter being a population of potentially armed and dangerous gang members, around whom one can never be too careful.

Not to say I believe YOU think that way, Unslaved, you just wrote half of what I was about to write for me


----------



## Andrew Lloyd Webber (Mar 23, 2018)

You gentlemen would be wise to not underestimate a man who is now unslaved.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?
People are hypocrites.

(And sometimes not all individuals from a group share the same view on certain issues)


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?
> People are hypocrites.
> 
> (And sometimes not all individuals from a group share the same view on certain issues)



Yeah, it's almost like there is a nuance to the association of two different opinions that you're refusing, or rather considering not, to think about or understand. Weird.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 24, 2018)

I think they keep shouting ACAB! Because.......wait.....what does ACAB stand for?


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 24, 2018)




----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Yeah, it's almost like there is a nuance to the association of two different opinions that you're refusing, or rather considering not, to think about or understand. Weird.


I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?
> People are hypocrites.



All leftists? I had to go look up the acronym, so I'm imagining it's probably more prevalent on super right-wing platforms _talking about leftists_, than actual leftists. I also don't advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops" -- I do it for "less murders".

When you have this tendency to take a group of people and contort their actual beliefs to be more opposed to yours, then what is the point? It's like fighting make-believe guys in your head. You're criticizing an imaginary community.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

narad said:


> All leftists?





Sogradde said:


> (And sometimes not all individuals from a group share the same view on certain issues)


Read carefully before you give in to a knee-jerk reaction.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



I know.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Read carefully before you give in to a knee-jerk reaction.



Yea, unfortunately there's something called pragmatics.

i.e., your implicature is over a significant portion of the population. Had you said,

_Why do 0.000341% of leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ? People are hypocrites._

You'd be asking a more valid question, that is closer to having some grounding in reality, but of course then it's so niche no one cares.


----------



## ElRay (Mar 24, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> ... I have found in the army that there are different types. There really are people that join just for a chance to kill someone. They are trigger happy just waiting for that moment and any excuse. ...


I've run into this in scary quantities. When I was coming off a "Combat Advisor"/"Advise & Assist"/"Security Force Assistance" rotation, the folks coming-in had a really hard time understanding their mission. They came in with the assumption that they were there to "Take the fight to the enemy because the Germans weren't doing their job". What made this even worse were that they were National Guard (not to slag the Guard as a whole, but they are functionally and organizationally different for a different mission than the Reserves and Active Duty) Combat Support (CS - Military Police, Engineers, Field Artillery, etc.) and Combat Service Support (CSS - Medical, Transportation, etc.), not a single warfighter among them.


possumkiller said:


> ... I am sure there are some of these in the police force as well.


Too true. The only saying, "Anybody who truly wants to be a politician, probably shouldn't be one." applies to too many cops.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 24, 2018)

A couple of thoughts. It's a good point that many of the 2nd amendment proponents don't consider cops to be part of the government. But, it's also true (at least where I live) that the 2nd amendment supporters are also supporters of the military. But, like you guys have said, it's the military that would presumably come to take the civilians over, if such a thing were to occur.

And, with respect to liberals, I've been under the assumption that liberals who want gun control are not also in favor of increasing the military. Is that not the case? In other words, I thought most liberals were in favor of less guns, period. Not just less for regular citizens. I know in Japan that guns are so few and far between that most cops don't even have them. The Yakuza, does, of course, but the overall result is that Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

Another interesting thing is about black people owning guns. The NRA is uncharacteristically silent when a black guy has his 2nd amendment rights violated (as in the P. Castile case). And, if I remember correctly, wasn't the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment (allowing citizens to own guns) developed specifically to allow the Black Panthers to not have their guns taken away? I remember reading that white politicians tried damn hard to not let the black people have the guns.

EDIT: Yeah, I just looked it up, and the Black Panthers pretty much invented the modern interpretation of the 2nd amendment (in 1967). Prior to that, guns were controlled and regulated much the way the founding fathers did. Which is to say, way more heavily than the NRA fights for today.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

narad said:


> Yea, unfortunately there's something called pragmatics.
> 
> i.e., your implicature is over a significant portion of the population. Had you said,
> 
> ...


Are you unable to understand that this literally, figuratively and unironically applies to the OP aswell?


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?



Maybe because it was one of Genesis' better albums? 






I know I like Genesis, and am in favor of some sort of gun control. Not sure why you think a love for Phil Collins' overproduced tenor singing, and not wanting to die, are mutually exclusive?


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Are you unable to understand that this literally, figuratively and unironically applies to the OP aswell?



To an entirely different degree. Numbers are important. In fact, just about every detail is so important that you're not making any point.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

Okay, provide numbers for leftists who arer anti-police but use the police as an argument for gun control vs numbers of conservatives who are against gun control but side with the police in the case of blacks getting shot.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Okay, provide numbers for leftists who arer anti-police but use the police as an argument for gun control vs numbers of conservatives who are against gun control but side with the police in the case of blacks getting shot.



Seeing as the leftist claim involves a rare premise and a rare hypothesis, I'd say it's pretty much no one. I don't recall hearing the existence of cops as an argument for gun control in ANY of the discussion we've had here, over countless pages. Yet, in almost every one, a bunch of guys come in talking about how we need guns to protect against the government / learn a lesson from history. Like, literally 2-3 days ago. So going by discussion on this forum, I would say one is much more prevalent than the other. And yet there appear to be many more liberals here, so if anything you would expect the opposite.

But you could also benefit from acknowledging that most of our talk of gun control involves stricter control over who gets guns (mental health/felon screening), smaller clips, no assault rifles or things easily modified to fully automatic, etc. Almost no one talks about getting guns out of people's private homes, or discarding the 2nd entirely. So yea, that talk about imagined beliefs again has some bearing.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 24, 2018)

How can you say it's rarer when you provide no numbers? Anecdotes are no evidence. 

I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care whether guns are banned in the US or not but I find it hilarious how people advocate for treatment of the symptoms instead of the disease.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> How can you say it's rarer when you provide no numbers? Anecdotes are no evidence.
> 
> I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care whether guns are banned in the US or not but I find it hilarious how people advocate for treatment of the symptoms instead of the disease.



That's a good question, but I can't find any evidence of anyone who is anti-police, but in favor of gun control, based on the police existing. Since that is your supposition, it would be better if you could cite that, and provide proof that such a group of people exists. 

The other group you cite - people that are against gun control, but pro-police, is made up of a lot of people. I don't have specific evidence, but since rural, white, older conservatives have become the base of the NRA, the NRA has pivoted to be pro-police. (Interestingly, the police themselves are largely anti-NRA.) Here's an article I read that gives an interesting insight to the political decision behind the NRA's becoming pro-police. https://www.thetrace.org/2016/05/nra-police-law-enforcement-atf/ (FWIW, I have no idea of who the author is, or what the website is all about. But, the facts do seem to check out, and the pro-police stance of the NRA is well documented.)


----------



## ramses (Mar 24, 2018)

[ Shall I walk into a minefield? ... hmm ... ]


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> How can you say it's rarer when you provide no numbers? Anecdotes are no evidence.
> 
> I don't have a horse in this race, I don't care whether guns are banned in the US or not but I find it hilarious how people advocate for treatment of the symptoms instead of the disease.



I don't feel the need to objectively trash that point -- simply the people who read your post and believe that the US has (1) more cop-hating leftists who want guns out of homes than it does (2) people who feel like they need guns to protect against an army, foreign or domestic, are free to do so. It's like a choose your own adventure for stupid people.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 25, 2018)

narad said:


> I don't feel the need to objectively trash that point -- simply the people who read your post and believe that the US has (1) more cop-hating leftists who want guns out of homes than it does (2) people who feel like they need guns to protect against an army, foreign or domestic, are free to do so. It's like a choose your own adventure for stupid people.



I love how you resort to Ad Hominem instead of disputing what I said. Feeling like a big boy yet?


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 25, 2018)

Guys, I really don't know why we keep having to discuss this. Nothing bad would ever happen if the freakin FBI would finally pull their head out of their ass and do something about all these red flags. BETTER DEAD THAN RED!!!


----------



## BenjaminW (Mar 25, 2018)

narad said:


> The pro-gun survivors of of Parkland? Are there any? You know, besides Nikolas Cruz?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-emerges-leading-voice-pro-gun-movement.html
Kyle Kashuv is the first one that comes to mind.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> I love how you resort to Ad Hominem instead of disputing what I said. Feeling like a big boy yet?



The whole point is that there is no need to dispute what you said. I'm sure almost every person here who looks at those two groups of people will disagree with you. 



BenjaminW said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-emerges-leading-voice-pro-gun-movement.html
> Kyle Kashuv is the first one that comes to mind.



That is interesting. 







Pic from the article. Like jeez guys, like it was one or the other. It was both. You try to improve both things.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 25, 2018)

Here's a question: why are religious folks so into guns? I mean, if the gal upstairs is on thier side, why do they need to be pack'n? 

It's like every goober with a murdered out Glock and American flag Cerokoted AR at the range has "Faith Family Freedom" patches on thier fully accessorized "tac-pac".

Plenty of atheists own guns, but you don't see them praying to Richard Dawkins before unloading into some targets.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Here's a question: why are religious folks so into guns? I mean, if the gal upstairs is on thier side, why do they need to be pack'n?
> 
> It's like every goober with a murdered out Glock and American flag Cerokoted AR at the range has "Faith Family Freedom" patches on thier fully accessorized "tac-pac".
> 
> Plenty of atheists own guns, but you don't see them praying to Richard Dawkins before unloading into some targets.


No the atheists pray to Stephen Hawking.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 25, 2018)

What about Fry and Hitchens?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 25, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> What about Fry and Hitchens?



They're fairly interchangeable as Atheist Jesus depending on one's mood.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> They're fairly interchangeable as Atheist Jesus depending on one's mood.



The unholy trinity.


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 25, 2018)

I see. I mistook this thread for an actual discussion when in fact it's nothing but a circle-jerk.
Alright, keep it going.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> I see. I mistook this thread for an actual discussion when in fact it's nothing but a circle-jerk.
> Alright, keep it going.



Maybe you could bring something to the conversation next time 

There's really no point in talking politics with someone who can't understand the difference between "We want less police shootings of unarmed/innocent people (especially blacks), and we want accountability in the sad case where it happens with" with "A.C.A.B."


----------



## Sogradde (Mar 25, 2018)

Smugness is no substitute for arguments.
Can't say I'm too fond of your rampant anti-intellectualism.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Smugness is no substitute for arguments.
> Can't say I'm too fond of your rampant anti-intellectualism.



On the contrary, you're not bringing a scientific argument so I'm not sure where you would even begin to bring intellectualism into it. This...

_Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?
People are hypocrites._

This is not the first post of someone who wants an intellectual discussion. In a rational discussion, people need to agree on the premises, and here you've gone and suggested premises that misrepresents the community you want to argue with, and that I haven't seen anyone in this thread agree with.

But I'm just going to assume you use the term as a forum-friendly substitute for "stupid"/"I don't agree" than what it actually means.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> Why do leftists keep shouting "ACAB!" from the top of their lungs but also advocate for more gun control because "just call the cops, lol" ?
> People are hypocrites.
> 
> (And sometimes not all individuals from a group share the same view on certain issues)





Sogradde said:


> Can't say I'm too fond of your rampant anti-intellectualism.



For posterity.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> I see. I mistook this thread for an actual discussion when in fact it's nothing but a circle-jerk.
> Alright, keep it going.



You’re being ridiculous. Not getting your way is no reason to take your toys and go home. Maybe someone said something you don’t like, but a few of us are having reasonable discussions here, and, if anything, there are points being made both ways. Newsflash - sometimes people disagree.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 25, 2018)

Also worth noting, Kyle Kashuv is a survivor, and is pro gun. Which is interesting, because it shows that maybe an incident like this doesn’t change people’s opinion about gun ownership. Which makes me wonder what leads a person to choose a side in the first place. And what might change someone’s mind.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> Also worth noting, Kyle Kashuv is a survivor, and is pro gun. Which is interesting, because it shows that maybe an incident like this doesn’t change people’s opinion about gun ownership. Which makes me wonder what leads a person to choose a side in the first place. And what might change someone’s mind.



Yea, I'm surprised to see anyone be adamantly pro-gun if they were really in the shit here. 

On one hand, sure, the FBI could have stepped in and some of the strategies to prevent this failed. On the other hand, it's not like the FBI gets 10 tips a week and fails to investigate. So I can see why someone might focus the blame there. But this seems very naive. You can imagine they probably get tens of thousands nationwide -- there's no way to spend time on each. Secondly, it's pretty obvious that not every shooter has the need to go online and hint about their plans, so this is not a comprehensive strategy. Thirdly, its it's own undoing. If authorities nabbed 100% of potential shooters that posted about it online, it would just motivate potential shooters to keep quiet about it. So in many ways this is a bad solution.

On the flip side, all school shooters need access to guns.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Here's a question: why are religious folks so into guns? I mean, if the gal upstairs is on thier side, why do they need to be pack'n?
> 
> It's like every goober with a murdered out Glock and American flag Cerokoted AR at the range has "Faith Family Freedom" patches on thier fully accessorized "tac-pac".
> 
> Plenty of atheists own guns, but you don't see them praying to Richard Dawkins before unloading into some targets.


I'm going to paraphrase a quote from their favorite piece of literature : The poor and stupid are the salt of the earth and will always be with you, as unfortunate as that may be.
There's a very large overlap between people that live in the country, have been in the military/support it, and are relatively religious/patriotic. They're the number 1 demographic that military recruiters go after ime.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 25, 2018)




----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

Sogradde said:


> I love how you resort to Ad Hominem instead of disputing what I said. Feeling like a big boy yet?



Except nothing he said to spark this response was about you. He indicated that the point you're making (and the lack of evidence to support it) is stupid, not that you are for making it. If you're going to call him out like that, at least be accurate.



Sogradde said:


> I see. I mistook this thread for an actual discussion when in fact it's nothing but a circle-jerk. Alright, keep it going.



Yes, the thread is no longer valid because some people chimed in about a joke. Sorry folks, any collective humor about the topic being discussed injected into a debate apparently disqualifies the rest of the conversation. 



Sogradde said:


> Smugness is no substitute for arguments.
> Can't say I'm too fond of your rampant anti-intellectualism.



Neither is whatever it is you're doing? Pot, meet Kettle.
Don't have anything further to add to that second line than Max already alluded to.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Here's a question: why are religious folks so into guns? I mean, if the gal upstairs is on thier side, why do they need to be pack'n?
> 
> It's like every goober with a murdered out Glock and American flag Cerokoted AR at the range has "Faith Family Freedom" patches on thier fully accessorized "tac-pac".
> 
> Plenty of atheists own guns, but you don't see them praying to Richard Dawkins before unloading into some targets.


I suppose because people feel strongly about their faith and want to protect their values by any means. Atheists believe in nothing so nothing is worth protecting because we're all just a random blob of flesh on a random rock in a universe that has no order whatsoever, that doesn't matter in the end.

Was Cruz religous? How about Lanza?


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 25, 2018)

A different question...Why do certain types now have to wear their political opinions on their sleeves and feel the need come to a right/wrong finality with almost every social issue? A handful of irresponsible people ruin things for everybody else...pretty simple. It’s like an episode of South Park -we propose removing guns and people feel like they’re a martyr for sanctity all the sudden, but propose removing mentally unstable people from society and people only understand a “slippery slope” mentality and cry out against profiling the mentally ill -kid, or adult. I’m not pro-police because I happen to own guns...but I do own guns to protect myself against the same criminals that the police are USUALLY arresting...I dunno, “good people” don’t usually have assaults, thefts, etc. on their record. We want to profile gun owners, but it’s considered “oppressive” to profile criminals -once again. I’m not getting into numbers but almost all RESPONSIBLE gun owners fall on the side of order instead of this new trend of turning a blind eye to criminals and thinking that police are somehow causing what the public sees as the “problem”. I really feel all this 2nd amendment polarity and IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners have set the stage and tragedy-chasing media reporters have given every “bullied” kid (or adult) a perfect outlet to get back at an unfair society. The news loves it. 2nd amendment supporters are a small part of the problem


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 25, 2018)

@NateFalcon Politics are mostly to blame, I think. I mean, what you’re proposing is to be reasonable, and not extremist. But, it’s super hard to win elections being reasonable, because if you and I agree on 90% of things, it’s going to be hard for me to hate you. So, politicians have to make things extreme. One of the things that bugs me about the 2nd amendment thing is that if anyone suggests any kind of regulation, they’re immediately branded as “anti-gun” and the conservatives worry that the liberals are coming after all of their guns. And on the flip side, we’re not supposed to use statistics or prior history when judging criminals. 

Personally, I don’t know where I fall on the gun thing. I don’t want people dying, and I think guns pose more of a threat than not, in this country. But, at the same time, I don’t like the idea of the government intervening in things. So, I’m kind of torn. What DOES bug me, though, is intentional obfuscation to avoid normal people having a decent conversation about it. I would be in total favor of having a gun licensing thing the way we get a driver license. But, as soon as someone brings it up, the NRA gets pissed off, and says, “they’re coming for your guns!”


----------



## BenjaminW (Mar 25, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> @NateFalconI would be in total favor of having a gun licensing thing the way we get a driver license. But, as soon as someone brings it up, the NRA gets pissed off, and says, “they’re coming for your guns!”


I'd be fine with the idea, but the NRA does tend to piss me off here and there.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 25, 2018)

BenjaminW said:


> I'd be fine with the idea, but the NRA does tend to piss me off here and there.



I despise the NRA. But, it really has nothing to do with guns. I just generally don’t like special interest groups, because they control politics to the point that THEY take away more freedom than the government actually does. Through manipulation of facts and donations to candidates, much of the regulation, and many of the laws, are only done as a result of the special interest groups. While some of it is necessary (i.e. I like that a doctor needs schooling and a license to do surgery) the fact is that lobbying causes many of our representatives to vote along with the lobbyists desires, not the public. And to hide that issue, the politicians and the special interest groups promote their version of reality to their constituents in order to align the constituents with the politicians, rather than the other way around. And, without trying to be too pejorative, most Americans are too dumb to realize it. We can be manipulated into buying and doing things quite easily.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

Watty said:


> Really? You think spouting drivel like that is going to help any debate, let alone this one? I’ll evaluate your other arguments on their merit (little, so far) so as not to be a hypocrite, but I have no problem calling you out personally for that trash. If you really believe that, then you’re even less of an intellectually honest person than I thought.



Yea, I see it the other way. Atheists don't get extra lives based on good behavior -- when it ends, it ends -- so protecting life is comparatively more important.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 25, 2018)

If anyone is wondering why political discussions on SSO usually end up looking like the Left dog piling the Right, one reason could be because representatives from the Right keep getting banned for posting stuff like that.


----------



## narad (Mar 25, 2018)

StevenC said:


> I literally can't read this sentence.



I think it's one of those def poetry things.


----------



## ramses (Mar 25, 2018)

* Atheist.
* Fully supports the second amendment.
* Is in favor of stricter gun regulations, including training, stricter background checks and psych. evaluation.
* Suspects the police and is aware of its obvious corruption and incompetence.

I did step into a minefield.

Come at me! I'm full of love!


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> There is a report button. I don't think the title is inflammatory (note i said could) meaning i can see how someone could think it is



Well I stand corrected, maybe I didn't notice because I'm not the type to go tattling to the teacher. And I suppose you're right, you didn't actually say you thought it was inflammatory.

Are the rest of the last few posts of mine not worth addressing? Not saying you have to write a paragraph, but if you keep skirting most of my content (let alone everyone else's), people might start to gossip about how you're not really here to debate and are only interested in shit stirring.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 25, 2018)

A couple of mods have been regularly participating in the past couple gun control threads. They'll see things whether or not they're reported.


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> A couple of mods have been regularly participating in the past couple gun control threads. They'll see things whether or not they're reported.



Exactly what I would have figured.


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

Fair enough.

As to the rest of the comment, I guess I should clarify. Atheism is not a religion, it is a lack thereof. As a result, there is no “atheists believe this or that,” there is only what people who typically identify as being atheist believe. Two such people have told you that knowing you only get one makes your life more valuable. Because you’ve heard other people who also happen to identify as atheists say something to the contrary has no bearing on whether that’s what should be extrapolated to all people who happen to identify as atheists.

Also negates the Muslim point, but I’ll leave that aside.


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

I’m saying that a “true” Christian who believes in life after death necessarily can’t value their “real” life more than anyone who believes they only get one, regardless of their religious faith (or lack thereof). 

It’s not really a matter of my opinion either, just a statement of fact. The man who wins the lottery (i.e. “unlimited money”) treats his money differently than the man who wins a divorce settlement (i.e. finite money). Silly analogy, but it gets the point across. It’s a mentality that may be unconscious, but no less real.


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2018)

That doesn’t do much to refute my point. He may have stayed frugal, but the mindset would have likely shifted.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

ramses said:


> * People that cannot properly and safely handle a firearm must not get a license (we do those checks for silly stupid cars).
> * People in their 20's should be frequently checked for schizophrenia, if they want to own a firearm (concurrently, I would love for mental health to be covered by general health insurance).
> * People that have been declared guilty by a court of law of a (violent) felony lose their right to own a firearm.
> 
> So far, I have noticed that most people against the second amendment are authoritarians (usually Marxist, but not always of that sort). *I'm a liberal, so I am scared of authoritarians. I am scared of people that want to abolish the second amendment because I love Liberal Secular Democracy.*


Eh. I'm pretty sure felons already aren't allowed to have firearms. I don't know how it's enforced. I haven't wanted to test it. Supposedly I can apply to get my gun rights back since it's been more than 7 years but I really haven't felt the need. Besides, if I really wanted a gun I know plenty of places I could get one with no problem. 

But that is another debate entirely for me. How come I'm still being punished for a crime I paid for years ago. I've got friends in Europe with felonies on their record and they have no problem getting a job. Once they finished their sentence they were done. Only in America are you branded a criminal for life.


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> But that is another debate entirely for me. How come I'm still being punished for a crime I paid for years ago. I've got friends in Europe with felonies on their record and they have no problem getting a job. Once they finished their sentence they were done. Only in America are you branded a criminal for life.



Completely honest question; has that fact made you seriously consider moving to another country? Or is that more difficult based on the record as well? Seems like if that process gets any more difficult as the result of a felony, the justice system is needlessly twisting the knife...


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

Watty said:


> Completely honest question; has that fact made you seriously consider moving to another country? Or is that more difficult based on the record as well? Seems like if that process gets any more difficult as the result of a felony, the justice system is needlessly twisting the knife...


I am actually sitting in a hotel room right now waiting for someone to buy my car so I can get a plane ticket to meet up with my wife and son in Poland lol. Anybody want a loaded 2016 Fusion for $14k??


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Mar 26, 2018)

http://www.metalsucks.net/2018/03/2...ed-anti-gun-protests-pathetic-and-disgusting/
kind of an interesting article. Jesse Hughes from EODM (who survived the La Bataclan terrorist attack in France) rags on the parkland survivors and says they're denigrating the memory of the fallen students and trying to trample on the 2nd amendment. He also says that gun control didn't do shit at La Bataclan.


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> http://www.metalsucks.net/2018/03/2...ed-anti-gun-protests-pathetic-and-disgusting/
> kind of an interesting article. Jesse Hughes from EODM (who survived the La Bataclan terrorist attack in France) rags on the parkland survivors and says they're denigrating the memory of the fallen students and trying to trample on the 2nd amendment. He also says that gun control didn't do shit at La Bataclan.



If I'm getting political advice from a band, it's at least gotta be a good band.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

I never understood why people put so much stock in political statements from musicians and actors. All it does is alienate fans or would-be fans that disagree with your views. How about just shut up and play music or movies like we pay you to. Fame does not make someone any more educated or better qualified to give political advice than a janitor or a Burger King cashier...


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 26, 2018)

narad said:


> If I'm getting political advice from a band, it's at least gotta be a good band.


----------



## vilk (Mar 26, 2018)

nevermind lol


----------



## Drew (Mar 26, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> http://www.metalsucks.net/2018/03/2...ed-anti-gun-protests-pathetic-and-disgusting/
> kind of an interesting article. Jesse Hughes from EODM (who survived the La Bataclan terrorist attack in France) rags on the parkland survivors and says they're denigrating the memory of the fallen students and trying to trample on the 2nd amendment. He also says that gun control didn't do shit at La Bataclan.



Gun deaths per 10,000 people: France: 2.83. USA: 10.45. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Idunno, I mean, it looks rather a lot like gun control is doing _something_ in France...


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

So this is being retweeted around by people that think it's real. Man, I mean, doctoring things as jokes / satire is one thing, but we've gotta find a way to denote what is not real -- someone always spreads it around out of context getting everyone all worked up:


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

narad said:


> So this is being retweeted around by people that think it's real. Man, I mean, doctoring things as jokes / satire is one thing, but we've gotta find a way to denote what is not real -- someone always spreads it around out of context getting everyone all worked up:


Can you do one of her ripping up a Gibson poster? I have a feeling this is going to be a new meme.


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> Can you do one of her ripping up a Gibson poster? I have a feeling this is going to be a new meme.



Ha, I think if I could do one I'd have her ripping up the photo of her ripping up the constitution. Go all Christopher Nolan with it.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 26, 2018)

Drew said:


> Gun deaths per 10,000 people: France: 2.83. USA: 10.45.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
> 
> Idunno, I mean, it looks rather a lot like gun control is doing _something_ in France...


It depends on where in the United States you live though. The US overall may have more gun related deaths per 100,000 on average, where are those numbers concentrated from? Are they averaged throught all 50 states, or do they take stats from the states with the highest/lowest gun crime to illustrate a point?

100,000 people in Wymoning is different from 100,000 in Illinois. Two states with different laws and overall crime rate and poverty rates. In 2016, wyoming had only 101 gun related deaths, of which only 87 of those were suicides. Wyoming doesn't require any kind of carry/conceal permit either......very lax gun laws. Wyoming also has a much lower crime rate in general. Now compare that to Illinois with stricter gun laws and you'll see that we need to be careful about how these stat takers are getting their "per 100,000" ratio.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/359395002

This is your cue, because I know you will, to bring up another state to prove your point which is opposite of mine. Which is fine.

But it's not entirely fair to average numbers based on an entire nation, but should be done state by state because of different gun laws.

You have to be careful when comparing country to country because of that. The 100,000 ratio is a vague approach. 100,000 people in Wyoming is different than 100,000 people in Illinois, etc... So forth....

And as far as France, for all we know, they could literally just taken ONLY 100,000 people that coincidentally had a lower ratio and used that as an example. Do you trust these stats and stat takers? Thats up to you. But I think thats a very valid point to consider


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> A site with supported research by United Nations Trust Facility? Certainly there couldnt be any skewing there... Yeah no thanks.
> 
> Which specific stat are you citing then?



Why bother responding if you're not going to take at least a few minutes to check a few sources? It's all right there. All of it. There are over 200 independently verifiable sources. That site is just a fancy layout of data from hundreds of places. 

Is it just laziness because reading isn't fun? Is it because it might prove your deeply held beliefs to be hilariously wrong? Are you just trolling because you're bored?



Unslaved said:


> Which is why I said its not a fair comparison because laws vary state by state



State laws are a red herring. Since you can move freely between states at your leisure. We went over this in the last thread. Don't you remember?


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

StevenC said:


> Wow...
> 
> You should look up the word average. Or take a statistics class. Because you're coming across very out of your depth.



Or maybe we're just sampling a set of posts that make it appear that way. 3 posts here aren't the same as 3 posts from Wyoming.


----------



## Drew (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> It depends on where in the United States you live though. The US overall may have more gun related deaths per 100,000 on average, where are those numbers concentrated from? Are they averaged throught all 50 states, or do they take stats from the states with the highest/lowest gun crime to illustrate a point?
> 
> 100,000 people in Wymoning is different from 100,000 in Illinois. Two states with different laws and overall crime rate and poverty rates. In 2016, wyoming had only 101 gun related deaths, of which only 87 of those were suicides. Wyoming doesn't require any kind of carry/conceal permit either......very lax gun laws. Wyoming also has a much lower crime rate in general. Now compare that to Illinois with stricter gun laws and you'll see that we need to be careful about how these stat takers are getting their "per 100,000" ratio.
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/359395002
> ...



As Narad points out, it's simple math - total gun deaths divided by total population, and then expressed as a per-100,000 rate for comparability.

Also, odd you chose Wyoming - they have very few gun deaths in absolute terms, true, but they also have very few _people_, total. Now, normally, violence increases in proportion to population density and more densly populated places tend to be more violent... But, as you point out, Wyoming also has a LOT of guns. As it happens, Wisconsin has the 5th highest per capita rate of firearm death in the entire country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state

So, are you SURE Wyoming is a great example of lax gun laws making people safer? Because, with a rate of 17.51 deaths per 100,000 people, you're 5.5x more likely to be killed by a gun in Wyoming than you are in my home state of Massachusetts, which despite being far more densely populated than Wyoming, has a per capita gun fatality rate of 3.18 per 100,000, likely due to our VERY strict gun laws. Even notoriously "violent" Illinois has a gun fatality rate less than half that of Wyoming's, 8.67 deaths per 100,000 people.

So, yeah. Math. It's an awfully effective tool for comparing numbers of things.  And, the argument you're making actually suggests pretty strongly that gun control IS an effective way of reducing firearm deaths.


----------



## Drew (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Yes im sure. Did you also happen to look at suicide vs homicide rates? So are you sure your numbers explain the whole picture and back your ideas?


I mean, when we're wondering if gun control is an effective way of reducing firearm-related deaths, does it particularly matter if the death in question was a suicide or a homicide? In both cases, the person is still dead.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 26, 2018)

Drew said:


> I mean, when we're wondering if gun control is an effective way of reducing firearm-related deaths, does it particularly matter if the death in question was a suicide or a homicide? In both cases, the person is still dead.


We dont call it a "cliff" crime when someone jumps off a cliff......but we call it a gun crime when someone shoots themselves. That term can lead people to think that all gun crime is homicide murder. Which yes technically it is considered a crime to shoot yourself, it is still very misleading, and give people the wrong impression. So yes it absolutley matters.

Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.


----------



## StevenC (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> We dont call it a "cliff" crime when someone jumps off a cliff......but we call it a gun crime when someone shoots themselves. That term can lead people to think that all gun crime is homicide murder. Which yes technically it is considered a crime to shoot yourself, it is still very misleading, and give people the wrong impression. So yes it absolutley matters.
> 
> Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.


People don't jump off cliffs if there are no cliffs to jump off.

Also, stats aren't "either skewed or don't tell the whole story". You either have bad stats or you don't know how to read stats.

In this instance we have pretty good stats that paint a very clear picture. Places where it's easy to get guns have high rates of gun crime, be that murders, suicides, accidental firing. And I say places not states, because there are no hard borders between states so it doesn't matter if it's hard to buy a gun in Chicago when Indiana is so close.

America has more gun related deaths per person that any other country. In different parts of America places with more guns per person have more deaths per person, and places with more people per square mile but fewer guns have fewer gun deaths.


----------



## vilk (Mar 26, 2018)

It's also not figured into gun stats when someone is thrown off a cliff as an act of homicide.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> We dont call it a "cliff" crime when someone jumps off a cliff......but we call it a gun crime when someone shoots themselves. That term can lead people to think that all gun crime is homicide murder. Which yes technically it is considered a crime to shoot yourself, it is still very misleading, and give people the wrong impression. So yes it absolutley matters.
> 
> Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.



The stats in question are tallying gun _deaths_ not gun _murders_. So suicides are already included.

If you had even bothered to give the data a cursory glance you would know that.

Once again, the importance of sources and citations can't be stressed.

Every bit of information I've spoon fed you, even if you don't believe me, or don't believe the particular website it's posted on, has citations of the sources a given set of data was pulled from.

That's the whole point. You don't have to believe any one person. You can look at the raw data from various sources on your own and make your own conclusion.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> I did read some of the links on that site you posted.
> 
> I can do without your condescending attitude though



Doubtful.

I don't care what you can do with or without. This thread isn't about your feelings.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 26, 2018)

StevenC said:


> So can we.


You have proven time and time again with your little one liners that you have absolutley nothing to contribute other than riding on the backs of everyone else. "You"re merely a laugh but you"re really a cry" (i think that is the exact line)?


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> you cant take online stats _*as holy scripture*_ necessarily



The only thing I take as holy scripture are other similar fairy tales like Star Wars and such but I guess it all comes down to how each person takes holy scriptures.


----------



## StevenC (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> You have proven time and time again with your little one liners that you have absolutley nothing to contribute other than riding on the backs of everyone else. "You"re merely a laugh but you"re really a cry" (i think that is the exact line)?


It's really hard to talk statistics with someone who doesn't understand statistics.


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.



Yea, those ivory tower jerks with their "citation needed" attitudes. They completely deleted my table comparing gun crime statistics between various countries and Wyoming. It's like they don't care about the big picture.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 26, 2018)

Sheesh!!!


----------



## StevenC (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> View attachment 59991
> 
> Sheesh!!!


If you can't hack the pace, I'm sure there are other parts of the internet with lower thresholds for sourcing and intellectual capacity.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 26, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Doubtful.
> 
> I don't care what you can do with or without. This thread isn't about your feelings.


Your not obligated to care, but it does knock you off my list of SSO members that I still wouldnt mind having a beer with even though we disagree.


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Mar 26, 2018)

StevenC said:


> America has more gun related deaths per person that any other country.



The United States isn't even in the top 10 -- the number one spot belongs to Honduras (if I'm misunderstanding your point, my bad).


----------



## Watty (Mar 26, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....



You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?



Unslaved said:


> the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.



There's "citing references" and then there's citing references. It seems like everyone except you has gone out of their way to avoid posting references that are biased, whether obviously or no. Throwing up an article that you have to page through (presumably to view the ads) to view the entire thing doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence (and as I type this, the website asked to send me push notifications...most citation-worthy references don't typically do that). The only thing to be taken with a grain of salt when citing actual sources is the methodology by which they arrived at the stats in question. It's like the wage gap argument; if you ignore all factors that might affect the result, you do indeed end up with a 20+% disparity....but it's a meaningless number because it doesn't account for anything.



Unslaved said:


> Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.



Not trying to be an ass, but it's "a lot," not "alot." And I don't doubt you're correct that certain political sources do skew things one way or the other. I'd say those sources mentioned here by others aren't among them. Also, you just showed another way in which your bias is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia is always asking for money just to stay afloat based on the fact they operate a free and open-source compendium of information. You honestly think that "they" are paying people round the clock to continually edit articles that hide the truth from us about certain things?! I don't disagree that it's a possibility that there are probably people out there, hell, even funded networks of people, that could potentially be doing exactly what you claim, but to imply that it's Wiki themselves doing it, or that it's even being done on as trivial a platform as Wiki reveals how driven you seem to be to accept conspiracy theories most wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.



Unslaved said:


> Your not obligated to care, but it does knock you off my list of SSO members that I still wouldnt mind having a beer with even though we disagree.



Again, I hate to have to correct you, but it's "you're," not "your." I think you've missed that several times in this thread now. And I don't see why you thought this was necessary to say, especially since I'd wager that most of the people who disagree with you would be perfectly willing to have a beer with you. The only reason we're getting salty with you is because you say something outlandish without much hard evidence and then evade when people press you on it, not to mention peppering in little snarky remarks like "I could do without your condescending attitude." It doesn't help your case, especially when you seem to be exhibiting that very behavior on occasion...

If you've got a better argument, let's hear it. If you're right in a way that's supported by objectively true evidence that came from a legitimate source, then you're right. So far, it's been a lot of "I believe this because I do," and not much "I believe this because the data provided by this organization, via an unbiased study conducted in this objective manner, supports my conclusion."


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

Crash Dandicoot said:


> The United States isn't even in the top 10 -- the number one spot belongs to Honduras (if I'm misunderstanding your point, my bad).



He probably meant to say _first world_ country.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2018)

This last set of exchanges is hilarious. Getting angry at others because one doesn't understand the definitions of "average" and "per capita" certainly seems like an attempt to move the blame for that ignorance to the wrong target. What makes it better is the requirement that one willfully ignore the explanations helpfully given to eliminate the ignorance.

----

I've been watching an unexpected consequence of the Parkland movement: heavily Republican seniors, in Florida and elsewhere, breaking with Republican politicians' support of NRA talking points. Why? Because they look at the Parkland shooting survivors and see them as akin to their children and grandchildren.


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Mar 26, 2018)

narad said:


> He probably meant to say _first world_ country.



That would clarify his position, though I suppose that also begs the question of what is the criteria to be considered "first world"? A certain level of GDP is reasonable, however Iceland and Jamaica have relatively comparable GDPs yet are worlds apart on gun-related deaths.

Just food for thought.


----------



## Science_Penguin (Mar 26, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> @NateFalcon Politics are mostly to blame, I think. I mean, what you’re proposing is to be reasonable, and not extremist. But, it’s super hard to win elections being reasonable, because if you and I agree on 90% of things, it’s going to be hard for me to hate you. So, politicians have to make things extreme. One of the things that bugs me about the 2nd amendment thing is that if anyone suggests any kind of regulation, they’re immediately branded as “anti-gun” and the conservatives worry that the liberals are coming after all of their guns. And on the flip side, we’re not supposed to use statistics or prior history when judging criminals.
> 
> Personally, I don’t know where I fall on the gun thing. I don’t want people dying, and I think guns pose more of a threat than not, in this country. But, at the same time, I don’t like the idea of the government intervening in things. So, I’m kind of torn. What DOES bug me, though, is intentional obfuscation to avoid normal people having a decent conversation about it. I would be in total favor of having a gun licensing thing the way we get a driver license. But, as soon as someone brings it up, the NRA gets pissed off, and says, “they’re coming for your guns!”



Well, let's try a more rational angle to the anti-regulation argument.

What are the regulations being proposed? How would we implement said regulations? In particular, how would owners of guns bought pre-implementation be effected, if at all?

Are the proposed regulations practical, or is it too late to try since so many people own guns as it is?


----------



## Explorer (Mar 26, 2018)

StevenC said:


> America has more gun related deaths per person that any other country.





Crash Dandicoot said:


> The United States isn't even in the top 10 -- the number one spot belongs to Honduras (if I'm misunderstanding your point, my bad).





narad said:


> He probably meant to say _first world_ country.





Crash Dandicoot said:


> That would clarify his position, though I suppose that also begs the question of what is the criteria to be considered "first world"? A certain level of GDP is reasonable, however Iceland and Jamaica have relatively comparable GDPs yet are worlds apart on gun-related deaths.


Hey @Crash Dandicoot , since you're pretty quick with the info, would that be true, that the US has the most gun-related deaths among the first-world countries? Let's call them "developed countries," or just look at a list ranking those per-capita deaths, and then figure out if the US is an outlier regarding such gun deaths among similar nations.

Ah... I just looked for myself, and found the figures.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Just food for thought.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

First, second and third world country labelling is something from the cold war. For some reason people began to mistake it for categories of wealth. 

First world =NATO 
Second world =Warsaw Pact and Soviet allies 
Third world =Neutral


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

If you go here and sort by homicides, USA is something like 18th, where all the preceding countries are mostly South American, classified as 3rd world countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

So while the definition of 1st/2nd/3rd is largely political, it does correlate pretty well with other measures of success like GDP and general safety. That's where the US is quite the outlier -- a very 1st world GDP with a higher gun death rate per capita than many 3rd world countries.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 26, 2018)

possumkiller said:


> First, second and third world country labelling is something from the cold war. For some reason people began to mistake it for categories of wealth.
> 
> First world =NATO
> Second world =Warsaw Pact and Soviet allies
> Third world =Neutral



That's cool, I had never thought about where those designations came from. I love learning new stuff like this.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 26, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> That's cool, I had never thought about where those designations came from. I love learning new stuff like this.


Yeah I found out when I looked it up after wondering what a second world country is because all you ever hear is first or third.


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 26, 2018)

There is no effective solution. We’re looking at a nation of VERY SPOILED people, (even the welfare class) in a world where social class is starting to divide in front of them. The lower class is just now starting to have to face their own decisions as evidenced by the sharp rise of substance abuse and homelessness. When entitlements come to an end, these spoiled people get PISSED!!...in different ways...A lady here in Portland threw her 6 yr old kid off the Astoria bridge because she didn’t get the amount of social program money she wanted -an extreme case, I know but more to the point that housing, food, healthcare, clothes, iphones and Air Jordan’s are an entitlement granted to the poorest of the poor in this country...now drugs, entertainment and even happiness and having an attractive sex partner is considered a “human right”, add some mental health problems, lack of education and a lot of jealousy...tack on an eager camera crew and reporters and it starts to at least make sense...I think overstimulation, lack of sense of purpose and becoming desensitized to happiness has really taken its toll on the mental health of people...especially “millennials”. The NRA is a goofy bunch, I agree but the number of members is relatively low...I think bronies outnumber them and honestly Congress could simply enact legislation with enough votes but the overwhelming votes just aren’t there. Our government doesn’t care about individual life value...they never have.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 26, 2018)

Science_Penguin said:


> Well, let's try a more rational angle to the anti-regulation argument.
> 
> What are the regulations being proposed? How would we implement said regulations? In particular, how would owners of guns bought pre-implementation be effected, if at all?
> 
> Are the proposed regulations practical, or is it too late to try since so many people own guns as it is?



Yeah, but you can't bring up regulations without those being regulated getting antsy. In this case it's the NRA immediately assuming a slippery slope scenario. I get it, because there are hobbies I have that I might get antsy about if someone wanted to regulate them. But, I'd also like to think that I could stand outside myself, and judge things based on their merit, not a, "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" standpoint. In this case (gun regulations), I think the idea that the NRA wants no regulations seems so ridiculous, because the other side is trying to save lives. It's a, "We want to save lives," vs, "I like guns" argument. So, instead, the NRA has to make a pitch that gun regulations won't save lives. And while it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that argument can't go very far. You could make the argument that seat belts, driver licenses, and other car regulations won't help reduce car accident fatalities because "cars don't kill people, people kill people," but we all agree that's ridiculous, and the data backs it up. Plus, imagine if the AAA started saying that requiring people to take a test to get a license, or wear seat belts, or any of that other stuff, was just an attempt to "take our cars away." Or, if they said, "Well, the break light requirement is anti-American, because Americans like cars. They're trying to take away our cars. But, it won't do any good, because there are already way too many cars out there, so we shouldn't have any regulations." It all sounds ridiculous. But it's exactly what the NRA is doing. They refuse to even discuss any regulation at all. Trump himself believed in some sort of regulation. Most Americans, most military, and most cops believe in some regulations. Why? Because, as Science Penguin said, a discussion of the regulations being proposed is reasonable, and the next step. It's how normal people communicate. The NRA doesn't want us to be normal people, so it's spinning every discussion into, "They're taking away our guns, and don't believe in the constitution."


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

Jeez guys. Let's enact some stricter control on paragraphs.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 26, 2018)

NateFalcon said:


> There is no effective solution. We’re looking at a nation of VERY SPOILED people, (even the welfare class) in a world where social class is starting to divide in front of them. The lower class is just now starting to have to face their own decisions as evidenced by the sharp rise of substance abuse and homelessness. When entitlements come to an end, these spoiled people get PISSED!!...in different ways...A lady here in Portland threw her 6 yr old kid off the Astoria bridge because she didn’t get the amount of social program money she wanted -an extreme case, I know but more to the point that housing, food, healthcare, clothes, iphones and Air Jordan’s are an entitlement granted to the poorest of the poor in this country...now drugs, entertainment and even happiness and having an attractive sex partner is considered a “human right”, add some mental health problems, lack of education and a lot of jealousy...tack on an eager camera crew and reporters and it starts to at least make sense...I think overstimulation, lack of sense of purpose and becoming desensitized to happiness has really taken its toll on the mental health of people...especially “millennials”. The NRA is a goofy bunch, I agree but the number of members is relatively low...I think bronies outnumber them and honestly Congress could simply enact legislation with enough votes but the overwhelming votes just aren’t there. Our government doesn’t care about individual life value...they never have.



I agree with a lot of this, but there are some generalities in there about poor people that I'm not sure are accurate. But, I will grant you that there doesn't seem to be an effective solution to the poor/uneducated/substance abuse issues in the inner cities. That whole education thing that Zuckerberg did failed, so throwing money at it - even with the rest research and intentions - doesn't work. And while Air Jordans are not handed out by the government, I know full well that a lot of the people out there wearing them would be better off saving that money for just about anything else.

The one thing I'd disagree with is the "there is no effective solution." There may be no solution we can enact easily, but we have plenty of examples of what other countries have done to see what we could do, in terms of gun deaths. In Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre, the government there enacted a buyback of hundreds of thousands of guns, and enacted a whole bunch of regulation. So, over the past 20 years the gun deaths have decreased dramatically. (I just looked it up to see, and the per 100,000 homicide rate in 95-96 was 1.6, whereas in 2013-2014 it was 1.0.) That's a pretty cool, up to date, model we could work from. But there is no way the NRA would allow that. They'd go ballistic. (Pun intended.) So, there is no easily implemented solution (which is probably what you meant). But there is a very obvious solution we could try.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 26, 2018)

narad said:


> Jeez guys. Let's enact some stricter control on paragraphs.


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 26, 2018)

Some of the stuff I write is kinda generalized, I personally agree with you...but Congress isn’t going to turn down billions per year (year after year) just to save some lives...Democrats talk big when the camera is pointed at them about compassion and “rights” but a lot of Dems make up that 1% list everyone complains about and vote differently than the public assumes. Ralph Nader is the only politician who’s dedicated his political career to others’ safety lol...again, generalizing


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 26, 2018)

It sounds mean to generalize poor people and other groups...but that’s exactly what our government does. They don’t see the value of the family’s grief...they see “poor kids”, or “inner city kids”, or “white, middle class” etc. and then deal with pressure from the public and their donators. Once in a while a governor will call for action, but whining senators rarely have any pull


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 26, 2018)

It sounds mean to generalize poor people and other groups...but that’s exactly what our government does. They don’t see the value of the family’s grief...they see “poor kids”, or “inner city kids”, or “white, middle class” etc. and then deal with pressure from the public and their donators. Once in a while a governor will call for action, but whining senators rarely have any pull


----------



## Science_Penguin (Mar 26, 2018)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, but you can't bring up regulations without those being regulated getting antsy. In this case it's the NRA immediately assuming a slippery slope scenario. I get it, because there are hobbies I have that I might get antsy about if someone wanted to regulate them. But, I'd also like to think that I could stand outside myself, and judge things based on their merit, not a, "Yeah, but what's in it for me?" standpoint. In this case (gun regulations), I think the idea that the NRA wants no regulations seems so ridiculous, because the other side is trying to save lives. It's a, "We want to save lives," vs, "I like guns" argument. So, instead, the NRA has to make a pitch that gun regulations won't save lives. And while it's true that guns don't kill people, people kill people, that argument can't go very far. You could make the argument that seat belts, driver licenses, and other car regulations won't help reduce car accident fatalities because "cars don't kill people, people kill people," but we all agree that's ridiculous, and the data backs it up. Plus, imagine if the AAA started saying that requiring people to take a test to get a license, or wear seat belts, or any of that other stuff, was just an attempt to "take our cars away." Or, if they said, "Well, the break light requirement is anti-American, because Americans like cars. They're trying to take away our cars. But, it won't do any good, because there are already way too many cars out there, so we shouldn't have any regulations." It all sounds ridiculous. But it's exactly what the NRA is doing. They refuse to even discuss any regulation at all. Trump himself believed in some sort of regulation. Most Americans, most military, and most cops believe in some regulations. Why? Because, as Science Penguin said, a discussion of the regulations being proposed is reasonable, and the next step. It's how normal people communicate. The NRA doesn't want us to be normal people, so it's spinning every discussion into, "They're taking away our guns, and don't believe in the constitution."



As a sort of gun enthusiast myself, I can say I'd be happy with some regulations. Lord knows it's a fun hobby, and a useful skill for self-defense should it come to that, but the thing is, I don't WANT it to come to that, and I'm willing to make some sacrifices so the chances that it will are lessened. 

But, of course, that's if it actually works, whiiiiich brings me to the questions I asked. Yeah, I was trying to make a point about how the NRA are a bunch of bratty children too, but, I actually did want a discussion on the subject


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Mar 26, 2018)

Explorer said:


> Hey @Crash Dandicoot , since you're pretty quick with the info, would that be true, that the US has the most gun-related deaths among the first-world countries? Let's call them "developed countries," or just look at a list ranking those per-capita deaths, and then figure out if the US is an outlier regarding such gun deaths among similar nations.
> 
> Ah... I just looked for myself, and found the figures.
> 
> ...



The condition of first-world status wasn't previously mentioned, without that as context the phrase: "America has more gun related deaths per person that any other country." is categorically false and in some instances could be interpreted as deceitful. Now that the notion of first-world / developed nation is a part of the situation, the statistics obviously change, as @narad pointed out.

The source you provided has objective data, though it doesn't help anyone's argument to use a biased news network that frequently frames a story or article in the perspective that best serves their borderline extreme-leftism narrative (as I believe has happened in this circumstance) as a source (https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/). Having said that, if you compare the population densities versus the gun-related homicides of the top 5 countries in the info-graphic in your article titled "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries", you may feel differently about the statistics it's trying to frame -- let's do some math. Please bear in mind these population numbers are approximate, not actual. For the sake of this discussion I will not be counting the unintentional / suicide / undetermined portion of the statistics (as I don't think that's the primary concern for the gun control argument, though if you prefer we can redo the numbers and include them).

US: 325.7 million * 36 gun-related homicides = 11725 (Out of the entire population)
Finland: 5.5 * 3 = 17
Austria: 8.7 * 2 = 17
France: 66.9 * 2 = 134
Canada: 36 * 5 = 180

Dividing that by the total population to get a ratio:

11725 / 325,700,000 = 3.6 e-5
17/ 5,500,000 = 3.4 e-6

Using this information, it could be more accurately said that the US has 10x (plus a little bit) per year average more the gun homicide rates than the next highest country on the list, not 25.2x (If my math is wrong feel free to correct me). I'm not saying that's a good thing or a number to be proud of, but it is factually more accurate and not misleading. This would also substantiate the well known bias CNN has in its presentation of statistics.

Indeed, you did "just look". Processing and actually verifying the information presented to you is another step -- food for thought?


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

Crash Dandicoot said:


> Using this information, it could be more accurately said that the US has 10x (plus a little bit) per year average more the gun homicide rates than the next highest country on the list, not 25.2x (If my math is wrong feel free to correct me).



I'm just a little unsure of what the complete calculation you want to do is. Is the CNN article not doing
... well ... no math mode here, I don't know how to say this:

other_sum = 0
for all c in countries-not-us:
other_sum += death-per-capita(c) / population(c)

where those other countries are those listed? So how could you stop at just Finland? In other words, their point of comparison is an average over all other countries, not just the 2nd-highest, and that's the basis of the title stat. 

The stat you calculated is actually already in the bar plot -- Finland's 3 vs. US's 36 gun murders per million -- that's actually more terrifying to me than the one CNN chose to focus on for the title (as the larger comparison has some big normalizers like Japan that have like non-existent gun crime and large populations, but are culturally so different that we probably couldn't learn any policy lessons). 10x the next nearest country is ...not great.


----------



## Crash Dandicoot (Mar 26, 2018)

narad said:


> I'm just a little unsure of what the complete calculation you want to do is. Is the CNN article not doing
> ... well ... no math mode here, I don't know how to say this:
> 
> other_sum = 0
> ...



You are absolutely correct, I misunderstood it's meaning. I never disagreed with the sentiment we share about the reality of the truth -- 10x the nearest next country is indeed terrifying. I was more focused on the objectivity of the numbers in the discussion when they were brought into play. I would be interested to see and compare the statistics of the next highest populated countries as well.


----------



## narad (Mar 26, 2018)

Crash Dandicoot said:


> You are absolutely correct, I misunderstood it's meaning. I never disagreed with the sentiment we share about the reality of the truth -- 10x the nearest next country is indeed terrifying. I was more focused on the objectivity of the numbers in the discussion when they were brought into play. I would be interested to see and compare the statistics of the next highest populated countries as well.



Yea, I mean the title was a bit sensationalist and never tied in explicitly to the plot, so I see where you're coming from.


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 27, 2018)

Watty said:


> You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Watty said:


> You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No you love to be an ass and correct my grammar, dont lie. I'm on my cell phone typing with two thumbs (which is alot of work, im not a tween) so youll have to excuse my grammar please.

About wikipedia, they have "volunteer gatekeepers" who may remove what they dont agree with. People have been banned from wiki that didnt deserve it just because they hold different viewpoints that threatened peoples convention wisdom and couldnt possibly entertain anything other than that, because it might make them question their conditioning. But thats another story and off topic. Point is, its not a conspiracy theory like you say. Its the truth.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 27, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> No you love to be an ass and correct my grammar, dont lie. I'm on my cell phone typing with two thumbs (which is alot of work, im not a tween) so youll have to excuse my grammar please.
> 
> About wikipedia, they have "volunteer gatekeepers" who may remove what they dont agree with. People have been banned from wiki that didnt deserve it just because they hold different viewpoints that threatened peoples convention wisdom and couldnt possibly entertain anything other than that, because it might make them question their conditioning. But thats another story and off topic. Point is, its not a conspiracy theory like you say. Its the truth.



What does any of that have to do with you refusing to use any source with valid citations? 

Have you ever thought of why certain sites don't cite thier work?

We're not giving you Wikipedia links because we think Wikipedia is in and of itself a reliable source but because it's properly cited and gives links to where you can find the raw data. That's what those little numbers are on a Wikipedia article.


----------



## MFB (Mar 27, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.


----------



## Lemonbaby (Mar 27, 2018)

Just to stop the "do these figurers include suicides" discussion: there also a site that shows intentional homicide rates where the USA is only 94th place with 4.88 per 100.000 inhabitants. Doesn't look that bad after all, although I was a little surprised...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


----------



## narad (Mar 27, 2018)

Lemonbaby said:


> Just to stop the "do these figurers include suicides" discussion: there also a site that shows intentional homicide rates where the USA is only 94th place with 4.88 per 100.000 inhabitants. Doesn't look that bad after all, although I was a little surprised...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate



Really? Every higher-ranked country is like in the grips of a drug cartel, or political turmoil, except for Russia. I mean, I'm just eyeballing here so I could have missed one, but I think the highest first world country on the list apart from the US is Belgium, at 149. 

Basically any country I'd willingly solo travel to starts around 150 (Canada, France, Finland, all start popping up around there). In that view, the US again looks like a crazy outlier given all the usual things we'd like to about it -- land of the free, defender of democracy, peace keeper for the world etc... Like hey, figure out how to keep the peace at home first!


----------



## Lemonbaby (Mar 27, 2018)

narad said:


> Really? Every higher-ranked country is like in the grips of a drug cartel, or political turmoil, except for Russia. I mean, I'm just eyeballing here so I could have missed one, but I think the highest first world country on the list apart from the US is Belgium, at 149.
> 
> Basically any country I'd willingly solo travel to starts around 150 (Canada, France, Finland, all start popping up around there). In that view, the US again looks like a crazy outlier given all the usual things we'd like to about it -- land of the free, defender of democracy, peace keeper for the world etc... Like hey, figure out how to keep the peace at home first!


Fully agree - never felt the urge to travel to Namibia, Guatemala or El Salvador either. 

However, I found the figures to look odd when comparing the two WIKI pages "firearm-related death rates" vs. "intentional homicide rates". USA is on rank 12 in the first table (sorted by column "homicides") while it's rank 94 in the other. E.g. Peru/Nicaragua score 75th/36th in the "intentional homicides", but are ranked lower than the US in "firearm-related deaths".


----------



## Unslaved (Mar 27, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> What does any of that have to do with you refusing to use any source with valid citations?
> 
> Have you ever thought of why certain sites don't cite thier work?
> 
> We're not giving you Wikipedia links because we think Wikipedia is in and of itself a reliable source but because it's properly cited and gives links to where you can find the raw data. That's what those little numbers are on a Wikipedia article.


Because my argument supercedes any kind of "stats". I really don't care if America supposedly has the most gun deaths per capita. I agree with the following unverified quote....

"Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would I really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens' lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons."

This is why I dont care to get into a "reference link war". (I shouldn't have but I did). Its people literally throwing links at each other as their absolute truth.

"This thread doesn't care about your feelings". No. The Constitution doesn't care about your feelings either......."I never said I want to take guns away completely". No, but starting with restrictions is what starts to the slow process of dissolving your own rights. It will not end. You give an inch, they take a mile. People are literally marching to have their own rights restricted/taken away in the name of feeling safe. Those same people from the left even want certain speech to be taken away/censored. Those same people on the left dont want privacy anymore, they want cameras everywhere they look in order to "feel safe". Do you want this country to be like China where they have facial recognition surveillance? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...or-total-surveillance/?utm_term=.ffdb06f68031

It scans your face and gives a reading of a level of "severity"....so if you look happy you get a 1 on the scale, for example...if your angry for whatever reason you may get an 8 on the scale, for example. That 8 may trigger an automatic warning where now they send an AI bot to your house to see what the fuck your angry about. That type of shit is happening, and that type of society is one with little freedom and one that I dont wish to be in.

Is "freedom" more important than safety? Yes, yes it is. This is what I believe, but I guess it doesnt matter what I believe because I cant post a link to back up what I believe... Human rights have been practiced at every age with the prevailing technology. You would be calling for a ban or restriction on swords 1000 years ago....ala (no one should have a blade longer than 4 inches!!), or bows and arrows or whatever we could have used for defense against tyranny. Heck, you would have been on the Red Coat side of the Concord Bridge I'd imagine.

Dont care if anyone thinks its ridiculous or stupid. You can rebut my post with whatever holy stat you want. I don't care. There it is.

Besides, Max I wasnt talking to you I was responding to Watty.; and Watty, I wasnt even talking to you earlier i was responding to Drew.


----------



## Drew (Mar 27, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> We dont call it a "cliff" crime when someone jumps off a cliff......but we call it a gun crime when someone shoots themselves. That term can lead people to think that all gun crime is homicide murder. Which yes technically it is considered a crime to shoot yourself, it is still very misleading, and give people the wrong impression. So yes it absolutley matters.
> 
> Stats are either skewed or dont tell the whole story.....the only reason i posted the link above is because im tired of people here saying I never cite any references......but everything is to be taken with a grain of salt.
> 
> Like I mentioned in another thread, there is alot of blind eye turning in politics where alot of crime doesn't even get reported. Thats why you cant take online stats as holy scripture necessarily; especially wikipedia, they have their own gatekeepers as well working round the clock to make sure certain information stays out.



1) Jumping off cliffs. One, I'm talking about gun violence, not gun crime, and there's a strong correlation between higher gun control and lower gun violence in ALL shades, but looking past that... If enough people start jumping off a cliff, we put fences or barriers up, and if necessary put guards in place to stop people from leaping. Same with tall buildings - how many skyscrapers cann you get up on the roof of these days, and how many have exterior windows that open? Yet, somehow, if it's a gun involved, it's "there isn't anything we could have done." One dog dies in an overhead barrier on a commercial flight and within days a Senator proposes a bill banning dogs from overheads, but a couple thousands of deaths a year, and it's such a shame nothing could be done. 

2) You cite stats, I point out the stats don't tell you what you think they do... "Oh, but that's cool because a whole bunch of crime never gets reported." One, hey, we're talking about statistical relationships that YOU claimed, and how they don't actually bear up. If you can't draw a valid conclusion from a dataset, don't blame US for that, you own that. Two, I'll agree that _some_ crime goes unreported. But, people tend to notice when someone dies. Other classes of crime, hey, I'd at least hear you out... But, it's REALLY tough to argue some major conspiracy theory with unreported violence (self- or other-directed) when the form of violence is death.


----------



## possumkiller (Mar 27, 2018)

Do you really think we won't have facial recognition surveillance? I am pretty sure you are aware of the government already spying and collecting data on citizens through phones and computers. You can thank your good republican buddy Bush for signing a law that says you or I can be detained indefinitely with no right to trial or representation if we are only _suspected_ of terrorist activity. It isn't the government that wants gun control. They are quite happy to have all of us afraid to walk the streets for fear of being mugged, raped and murdered by minorities. That is the story they love to push because it helps keep people afraid of each other. It is regular people that are sick and tired of any idiot having free access to firearms. It has nothing to do with the constitution and everything to do with common sense.


----------



## NateFalcon (Mar 27, 2018)

I kinda agree, but it seems the media are telling people now to “not being bigoted” about being raped, robbed, and murdered by the underclass (race aside)...they’re telling you law abiding citizens are volatile and ready to shoot everyone and criminals are “good people down on their luck” to keep people scared...


----------



## vilk (Mar 27, 2018)

the media according to Nate said:


> Don't be bigoted about getting raped!



literally wtf are you talking about  it doesn't even make fucking sense


----------



## Watty (Mar 27, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Because my argument supercedes any kind of "stats". I really don't care if America supposedly has the most gun deaths per capita. I agree with the following unverified quote....



That's fine, you don't have to care about stats...but you can't very well expect people to take you seriously when you state that you're willing to ignore evidence in favor of what could be called a platitude.



Unslaved said:


> This is why I dont care to get into a "reference link war". (I shouldn't have but I did). Its people literally throwing links at each other as their absolute truth.



It's not a link reference war, heck, the only reason links typically get brought into discussions like this is because people state something that conflicts with facts and when they get called out, they won't accept that they're wrong without seeing evidence. If you claim something outlandish with no evidence and then refuse to cite reputable sources, people are going to "dog pile" and provide you with the necessary evidence to encourage you to change your position.



Unslaved said:


> "This thread doesn't care about your feelings". No. The Constitution doesn't care about your feelings either......."I never said I want to take guns away completely". No, but starting with restrictions is what starts to the slow process of dissolving your own rights. It will not end. You give an inch, they take a mile. People are literally marching to have their own rights restricted/taken away in the name of feeling safe. Those same people from the left even want certain speech to be taken away/censored.



Funny you should start down that thread as the document itself only references the word "arms" (let alone the militia angle) it doesn't go into detail as to what that word is intended to mean. Setting aside the "automatic weapons weren't a thing back then" argument, why can't I own a "bomb" (as dropped from a plane) based on the second amendment? An RPG launcher? A (insert assault weapon here)? The list goes on. We as a society (even the NRA, to my knowledge) has admitted that there should be restrictions on the intent of the second amendment, so all we're doing at this point is quibbling over where the threshold should be for a private citizen. If you want to claim "the text of the constitution is king," that's fine, but most wouldn't say that it can be pressed into the service you seem to be claiming here.

I've spoken at some length with a liberal, black, gay guy in the legal profession who you'd expect would disagree with the 2nd amendment, and surprisingly (or, perhaps respectably for the sake of the law), he was more concerned with people glossing over the "for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia" portion of the text. Almost encourages people to own assault style weapons and military-grade equipment for the sake of defense of the country and/or the country from the government and yet no one seems to be advocating for that either...

As to the free speech stuff, I 100% think the people on the left are crazy. Micro-agressions and all that PC BS can go die in a fire.



Unslaved said:


> Dont care if anyone thinks its ridiculous or stupid. You can rebut my post with whatever holy stat you want. I don't care. There it is.



They aren't "holy" stats....they're the truth, at least insofar as you understand how they arrived at whatever data they're claiming. The fact that you continue to rag on reality because it disagrees with what you want to believe is concerning, that's all we're getting at.



Unslaved said:


> Besides, Max I wasnt talking to you I was responding to Watty.; and Watty, I wasnt even talking to you earlier i was responding to Drew.



Doesn't matter who you're responding to when you say stuff like "all atheists believe x," or "holy stats." You opened yourself up to valid criticism for spouting stuff like that without basis in fact...

Edit: I think the Mods came and cleaned up some stuff.


----------



## narad (Mar 27, 2018)

Unslaved said:


> Because my argument supercedes any kind of "stats". I really don't care if America supposedly has the most gun deaths per capita. I agree with the following unverified quote....



If you don't care about the stats, then we're just going to sit around here talking about our feelings (as you did), and I can't imagine anything more liberal than that  Is that what you want?

Similarly, if you equate some legislation on stricter gun control to a totalitarian state that uses robots to monitor happiness (as you did), then what's the point of even entering this debate? There has to be some semblance of a neuron firing in your head to say, hey, that is not a natural and inevitable progression of passing some common-sense legislation to reduce the number of gun deaths in the country with by far the highest gun death per capita rate of any developed nation.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Mar 27, 2018)

There is this really cool option on TheGearPage to ignore certain subforums. I'm almost certain they use the same exact forum software as SSO, hint hint.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Mar 27, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> There is this really cool option on TheGearPage to ignore certain subforums. I'm almost certain they use the same exact forum software as SSO, hint hint.



So everyone should stay away from a given sub-forum because of one or two idiots? 

Sounds legit.


----------

