#Guns are not the problem.

1 messages · Page 3 of 1

dim rover
#

You seem to think these deaths are bad

#

You want to prevent all of them. Why?

fickle onyx
#

I think all the deaths are bad

dim rover
#

That's morality

fickle onyx
#

deep down yeah

#

but that ain't what I'm discussing

#

I ain't talkin about necessary deaths

#

or why I think we as a society should work to limit deaths

#

even of criminals

#

that's a seperate discussion

dim rover
#

Okay, but it matters to me

fickle onyx
#

cool

dim rover
#

I don't want to decrease all deaths. Why would I want fewer rapists to die?

#

That's not a different discussion, that's the same discussion.

fickle onyx
#

no it's not

#

I'm talking about a specific data set and my specific opinion about specific regulations regarding guns

#

not on the morality behind guns

#

you'll notice through my entire conversation with you I've not said that criminals dying is better than non criminals dying

#

because I'm not trying to argue about who deserves to die

#

I am trying to argue about effective ways to limit all deaths

dim rover
#

You're trying to simplify the discussion into gun deaths = bad. I disagree. I think that's something that should actually be discussed.

fickle onyx
#

that is something that should be discussed

#

and I might discuss that with you if you wanted

dim rover
#

I don't think we should be limiting all deaths.

fickle onyx
#

but that's not what I was discussing

#

my argument is gun deaths are less in places with stricter regulations

#

I assigned no value as to whether or not this is a good or bad thing

#

I think it's a good thing

dim rover
#

Which is correlation, completely absent causation.

fickle onyx
#

but that's not my argument

#

my argument is that the correlation exists

#

and we should be writing policy about it

dim rover
#

Therefore causation, which is wrong

fickle onyx
#

I've asked you now

#

several times

dim rover
#

I already told you.

#

It's a stupid question

#

Genuinely

#

How exactly do you expect me to answer that?

fickle onyx
#

forgive me for dismissing your anecdotal evidence

dim rover
#

I've already given you an answer that you agreed with and now pretend didn't happen

fickle onyx
#

I agreed that gun regulations are reactionary laws

#

that it was I agreed on

dim rover
#

Unrelated

fickle onyx
#

I agreed they don't treat the underlying cause

dim rover
#

Unrelated

fickle onyx
#

that is not the same as saying that there is a causal relationship between gun regulations and fewer gun deaths

dim rover
#

I said income.

fickle onyx
#

that's true

dim rover
#

It's also really obvious that the necessary studies haven't been done, because people don't care why.

fickle onyx
#

we've talked about so much that slipped my mind

#

here's the deal

#

many things can cause something

dim rover
#

They want to show extreme correlation and provoke new gun control.

fickle onyx
#

poverty and guns can lead to more gun deaths

dim rover
#

So all they want to do is make things as extreme as possible.

fickle onyx
#

there's acually in my opinion no one cause

dim rover
#

That's why you can't find "gun crime" when you search for it, and instead get tons of gun violence.

fickle onyx
#

and that's what I say when I agree that gun laws are reactionary and don't treat the problem

#

the underlying cause is poverty

#

gun laws do not stop this cause

#

what they do stop are poor people from using guns to kill each other

dim rover
#

No they don't

fickle onyx
#

ok

dim rover
#

How would anything you've mentioned prevent that?

fickle onyx
#

because it's harder for them to get guns

#

so they do it less?

dim rover
#

So the goal isn't to impact anything except make it harder for people to exercise their rights?

fickle onyx
#

more importantly I'm not exploring how I'm using the correlation to argue that there is a relationship, I'm saying because of this data it seems that state with stricter gun laws have fewer gun deaths

#

I'm not claiming why

#

that's not my intention

#

I'm claiming there's a relationship

dim rover
#

But you're claiming that increasing regulation will reduce deaths.

#

That's claiming causation.

fickle onyx
#

that's true I am also claiming that

#

and my evidence is based upon that correlation

dim rover
#

Which is not something that you can show from the data. You show only correlation, not causation.

fickle onyx
#

and you're right correlation does not automatically equal causation

dim rover
#

We're back to stats 101

fickle onyx
#

but it can

#

that's the thing

dim rover
#

No it can't.

fickle onyx
#

it doesn't inherently equal causation

#

but it can be related to causation

dim rover
#

Correlation doesn't show causation. Ever. That's not a thing.

fickle onyx
#

there is a correlation between the earths tilt and the seasons

dim rover
#

If there's causation, then there will also be correlation.

fickle onyx
#

there's also a causation

dim rover
#

That doesn't mean that correlation ever proves causation. That doesn't work that way.

fickle onyx
dim rover
fickle onyx
#

explain why you think this

dim rover
#

Because you're guessing.

#

You have nothing to support that guess.

#

The data literally do not show anything except correlation.

#

We've been over this.

fickle onyx
#

I'm not guessing

#

I have my own logic of course

#

it's not based on nothing

dim rover
#

You can have a guess based on logic.

fickle onyx
#

I do you're correct

dim rover
#

A guess means you don't have evidence to support it, which you don't.

fickle onyx
#

it's not a guess then not by your definition

dim rover
#

You have correlation, and then you guess the causation.

fickle onyx
#

it's just a claim

#

I am claiming that this correlation is sufficient enough to relate to causation

#

I am not basing this off of nothing

dim rover
#

Whatever you want to call it, it's not supported by the data.

fickle onyx
#

there is a strong correlation

dim rover
#

Which is not causation.

#

That doesn't even imply causation.

fickle onyx
#

not generally

#

not as a rule

#

but it can

dim rover
#

Not ever.

#

Correlation never implies causation. That's not a thing.

fickle onyx
#

correlation can be reflective of causation

#

as you said causation implies correlation

dim rover
#

Correlation opens the door for causation to be possible. Causation requires correlation. That doesn't mean that correlation ever implies causation.

fickle onyx
#

correlation opens the door for causation

#

and I am saying that because of this correlation

#

I THINK

#

that is the causation as well

#

it is my opinion

#

my data is reflecting the correlation

#

and I am implying that it is causation

dim rover
#

Great... but there's nothing more to it. Certainly nothing to actually base policy off of.

#

What you should actually be doing is taking steps to confirm your thoughts.

#

Leaving them at correlation = causation is kinda weak

fickle onyx
#

as opposed to you

#

who is completely willing to dismiss the possibility of a causation

#

because....?

dim rover
#

I think the chances of weak laws having much of an effect are pretty slim. We were talking about specific ones.

#

I said I doubted California's laws had that effect.

#

And I said that there definitely weren't data showing that causation.

fickle onyx
#

you think because california is richer that is why there are fewer gun deaths?

#

you mentioned the relationship between poverty and gun deaths as a possible explanation

dim rover
#

What part of that is dismissing the possibility of causation?

fickle onyx
#

that was just your explanation as to the cause of the fewer gun deaths

#

is that your understanding or am I mistaken

dim rover
#

I'm sure there are many factors

#

You essentially asked me to give you a study that doesn't exist to prove why you're misusing one that does exist

#

I gave you a potential factor that I would guess is stronger than differences in gun regulation

fickle onyx
#

no I won't ask that

#

this can be completely unrelated for the time

#

why does california have fewer gun deaths

dim rover
#

The studies to answer that question don't exist, because people aren't interested in the answer

fickle onyx
#

you think I'm weak for using a strong correlation in data to imply causation

dim rover
#

They would prefer to leave the option open so that they can blame gun control regulations.

fickle onyx
#

but your answer is literally my data doesn't exist

dim rover
#

The data to answer your question doesn't exist, at least not that I have found. You can't just imagine data out of thin air to make up for it.

#

But that's what you're doing when you claim correlation as causation.

fickle onyx
#

ask me the same question

dim rover
#

How would you show causation?

fickle onyx
#

how would you

#

I say because of this strong correlation I think there is a causal relationship, you say you don't but due to no correlation at all

#

just that you don't

#

when I ask you to show me anything that exists as to why you don't you come up empty handed

#

if my argument is weak yours is nothing

dim rover
#

Many different ways. You can do surveys to ask people why they purchased firearms. If everyone says, "Crime was getting worse," then you've got causation for increased gun ownership being increased crime levels, including gun crime. That's the opposite causation that you were trying to show. You could survey criminals to ask them what effect gun control had on their ability to purchase firearms. You could survey victims and ask the same thing. If a bunch of criminals claim they had difficulty purchasing due to restrictions, then that is data that supports causation. Etc.

#

Your entire thought process right now makes no sense. You're trying to misuse statistics.

#

I'm going to sleep.

fickle onyx
#

I agree I am tired

#

in the end tho

#

I at least am attempting to use statistics

#

you are attempting to use nothing

#

thin air

dim rover
fickle onyx
#

just sort of an idea that you have

dim rover
#

I'm looking at the data that exist and interpreting what can be said. You're looking at the same data and interpreting something that can't be said.

fickle onyx
#

you're looking at the data and making no claim

#

I am looking at the data and making a claim

dim rover
#

A claim which cannot be supported by the data.

fickle onyx
#

in your opinion

#

we don't have to continue this will go on forever I want to sleep as much as you

#

I will stop now if you do the same

dim rover
#

You're trying to claim that I'm doing something incorrect by not making a claim that is unsupported by the data.

#

Alright. I hope you sleep well.

feral gulch
#

i think the title of this topic is the problem. If the guns are not the problem, what else is ? the human that will do the shooting can't shoot without a gun no ? remove the "tool", the situation changes dramatically. I haven't seen yet in the news a man rampaging with a fork or a chainsaw, or a baseball bat. yes, damage still can be made with above mentioned, but i'll bet my money that, not that much. It's so much easier to pull a trigger. Opposition can be made vs these "tools" . On the other hand, vs guns, nothing will save you. Most of the gun users that are using them for other reasons than self defense and protection are usually cowards, low lifers and in a position where life itself doesn't matter.

fickle onyx
#

"and in a position where life itself doesn't matter." I agree, I mean earlier this guy got on to me for including all deaths from guns in my stats, he used the phrase negative and positive deaths, as if suicide or criminals getting shot or anything else makes that much a difference

#

I don't think criminals inherently deserve to get shot, that's what the rule of law is for, we're supposed to civilly decide their punishment not just shoot them

#

I want to prevent deaths from guns it's that simple, all deaths from guns, there's no distinction to me between good and bad death it's all just death.

#

And I think saying otherwise is sort of heartless

#

I mean yeah self defense is often justified

#

If someone is putting you in danger and you have to kill them it's justified

#

But that doesn't make it like a positive thing

#

It's still death

#

Ideally nobody would have to die

#

I just think making such a distinction devalues life in such a way I could never support

#

I've been asked before if I would shoot someone in self defense and the answer is probably yes, but it would probably bother me for the rest of my life, I don't want to kill people I don't cherish the opportunity

dim rover
dim rover
dim rover
fickle onyx
#

My words exactly

#

Obviously shooting a child isn't the same as shooting a rapist

#

It's almost like I didn't say that

#

I just said I want to avoid all gun deaths

#

I didn't say all gun deaths were equal

dim rover
fickle onyx
#

I don't think we should shoot rapists for the record I think they should stand trial for their crimes and be sentenced

#

Through due process

dim rover
#

Well I don't want to avoid the death of the rapist. If someone shoots him in the act, then good riddance.

#

That isn't devaluing life. That's recognizing that a rapist has removed their right to live, and being okay with that.

fickle onyx
#

The second we allow ourselves as a society to just shoot anyone we deem as immoral, even if they are immoral, we lose the civility gained through law

dim rover
#

You want to make the world safer for rapists, that's your choice.

fickle onyx
#

Nobody should be the judge jury and executioner

dim rover
fickle onyx
#

And I of course believe that self defense is justified

dim rover
#

I'm pretty sure I just said "in the act"

fickle onyx
#

If you can defend yourself with a gun you should be able to

#

I believe that

#

But I don't think that you should just feel alright shooting people

#

Like say an armed robber threatening you

#

It's justifiable to shoot them

#

To defend yourself

#

But you shouldn't feel good about it

dim rover
#

Someone threatens my life, I'm not going to feel bad about it

fickle onyx
#

You're still killing someone

#

You're still taking a life

#

You shouldn't feel guilty It's what you had to do

dim rover
#

You don't have to feel good about it. You can still recognize that the piece of trash didn't need to keep breathing.

fickle onyx
#

But you shouldn't feel like good about it in my opinion

fickle onyx
#

If someone robbed me at gun point and was going to kill me I would still feel empathy for them

#

I would still feel sad I killed them, even if I had to

#

Because people aren't just evil and do evil things for no reason were all forced the play the cards were dealt

#

And even if I had to kill him to live I would feel bad

#

I just have empathy

#

I'm getting back to work so I'm not gonna respond to whatever you say for like 8 hours

dim rover
#

I'm much more concerned with protecting innocents than protecting criminals. If someone tells me I should feel empathy for the criminal instead of protecting my family, I'm going to have to just respectfully disagree, and be thankful that the constitution takes power away from those criminal protectors and ensures people continue to have power over their own lives.

hasty arrow
#

I think it's crazy how this post has over 2000 comments. I could never read all of them, but I know it's a VERY heated debate. In MY opinion, guns are fine.

feral gulch
dim rover
feral gulch
dim rover
#

It's a hypothetical.

feral gulch
# dim rover That doesn't really answer the question though. I'm not asking you to guess what...

I'm not guessing. It's a fact. No guns = no deaths due to guns. since the "tool" for it doesn't exist. And it does answer the questions, just not the way you want. Maybe you're starting the premise wrong 🙂 how do you know "if you remove guns, but the deaths remain" - the death remains ? Death will remain, as above mentioned, but not due the guns, since these don't exit . The problem you are referring is the shooting, the kills made by guns right ?

dim rover
#

You're answering your own questions, not mine.

feral gulch
#

you have X problem, and Y reason for it. If you remove Y is X still a problem ? you're steering the discussion towards a definitive answer. There isn't one. There are so many factors . One can only give the personal opinion on it. I would ask you, are guns a problem in Denmark ? Or Norway ? Or Luxembourg ? The answer is no - due to the fact these are prohibited or more exaggerated, these doesn't exit. Hence, no guns, no kills, no problem, no kills due to guns. We cannot remove the "impossibility " here. It is possible to have gun anywhere.

dim rover
#

If I remove a gun from someone, and they kill with a knife, the death remains, but we've defeated "gun-related" death. Is that the goal? Have I actually helped anyone in that case?

sterile moss
#

Heya Falcon

#

Cool if I jump back in?

dim rover
gray gale
#

I think guns certainly don't help...

heady bane
#

TLDR: guns arent the problem Americans are

dim rover
heady bane
#

well to be honest i said that as a joke

#

but im bored with finals this week

#

so

#

American gun crime rates are like RIDICULOUSLY high

#

even in certain european countries with high amounts of guns per 100 people its not so high

#

america has a very militant culture that breeds its own problem

#

america is an unsafe country, i want to protect myself i will get a gun

#

its reasonable

#

hell if i lived in america id make sure myself and my loved ones would own a gun

#

but that in turn leads to more problems down the road

#

and americans owning guns for personal freedoms is ridiculous

#

your silly glock or ar- whatever gun isnt gonna protect you from a tyrannical state that ALREADY controls every aspect of your life

#

it will only mean that someeone you know will get shot instead of punched (OR AT VERY WORST - stabbed) at a traffic intersection road rage incident

dim rover
dim rover
heady bane
#

it is psychologically proven that the presence of a gun makes people act more violently

#

a weapon in general

#

in america it is assumed that the person you are about to have a confrontation with are carrying a gun

#

in europe this is much less of a thought

heady bane
heady bane
#

some europeans are more violent than others but its a different violence than what americans know

dim rover
#

I mean looking at our neighbors to the south, they all have far fewer firearms and much, much higher rates of violence, which remains true if you isolate it to violence utilizing firearms. So why should I assume that firearms somehow cause this violence?

#

You're saying "Americans" as if we aren't far more demographically diverse than pretty much any other country. That doesn't really make sense. Can you say "Asia" and make similar statements make sense? Can you just toss Taiwan and India into the same group accurately?

heady bane
#

thats different

#

you cant compare a country with an effective police force and a country that is in a state of civilwar

dim rover
#

I've been chased in Vienna in the middle of the night. That hasn't happened during my late night walks in American cities. Someone tried to pickpocket me in Florence. That hasn't happened in cities over here. Much of this fear comes from a lot of media coverage from people that fear firearms without understanding them at all. They carefully choose statistics in ways that make very little sense.

dim rover
heady bane
#

because it wouldnt matter if mexico was armed to the teeth or not

#

cartels would still operate the same way

dim rover
#

Who says I'm talking about Mexico?

heady bane
#

if anything they would get more brutal

#

neighbours to the south

dim rover
#

It still applies to any South American country

heady bane
#

and besides then

dim rover
#

You don't have to isolate it to Mexico

heady bane
#

those countries have a much shittier economy

#

people are desperate

#

desperation is as bad as any gun

dim rover
#

I mean sure. Cause and effect. Why would we want to discount those results?

heady bane
#

its like comparing gaza death rates with USA death rates

#

its not gun ownership thats the problem

dim rover
#

Well yes, cause and effect. Why would we discount that?

heady bane
#

its the bombs

#

because death rates due to guns and death rates due to bombs are totally independent of eachother

dim rover
heady bane
#

the effect is people dying due to bombs vs people dying due to bullets

dim rover
#

You're claiming that a society with guns is more violent than one without. I'm pointing out how our society has become one of the most peaceful in the world and helped the rest of the world become more peaceful despite having far more guns.

heady bane
#

to start off with your last sentence is absolutely incorrect

#

and second of all if you want to compare countries look at 1 variable at a time

dim rover
heady bane
#

compare america to a country of similar standard of living and only look at differences in rates of firearm ownerships

#

America has been the greatest instigator of modern conflict to date

#

listen man imma be real with you its 2am for me and i still gotta study a bit more ill pick this up with you another day if thats okay with u

dim rover
dim rover
heady bane
#

see you bro

dim rover
#

Good night!

heady bane
#

goodnight !!

cold osprey
#

a much higher Average GDP

#

and low crime

#

The sad truth is poverty drives crime

#

Even in the US

#

90 percent of Violent crime is carried out by the lower class

#

in areas where crime is violent

#

For example my county has one murder in every few years

#

the county over is every few months

#

population size similiar

#

gun posession probably pretty similiar

#

GDP per capita way lower

#

but tax crime is the opposite

dim rover
#

People often try to misuse statistics to tell a story. The reality is that South America has no particular reason to be in worse shape than the US or Europe. Venezuela was richer than much of Europe less than 50 years ago. Through a series of its own decisions not unlike many things promoted in the US and Europe today, its economy completely collapsed. Why shouldn't we learn from that and compare it to the US? People act as if we can just look at our proper civilized countries and ignore the rest of the world as if they didn't exist. It's pretty arrogant. The reality is that there's more to the world than Europe, and if you neglect them, you're not really telling a true story. All of these countries have rich histories and many lessons that we can learn from in their economic decisions, their political decisions, their culture, their land management, their food production, and even their attitude towards personal freedoms like firearms. I see no reason why we should pretend that Europe is more similar to the United States than other countries. Sure, sometimes there are similarities, and sometimes there are stark differences.

cold osprey
#

Lets break this down

#

"Venezuela was richer than much of Europe less than 50 years ago"

dim rover
#

Yes, top 20 richest countries in the world. What exactly are you trying to say?

cold osprey
#

I will keep going dont worry

#

I have many more european countries to compare it with

dim rover
#

How about you not, and we discuss a little chunk at a time

#

You're ignoring half of what I said, which is extremely disingenuous

cold osprey
#

Im not done

dim rover
#

And that's just talking about Venezuela

cold osprey
#

Im tackling each point one at a time

#

Like I stated

dim rover
#

You aren't tackling my point yet

cold osprey
#

I already did

dim rover
#

I stated a fact

#

Are you arguing with the fact?

cold osprey
#

Venzeuala has never had a comparable GDP

#

cite

#

and dont use Eastern Europe

dim rover
#

Do you not know how to read?

cold osprey
#

Which first world European country

dim rover
#

Hold up.

cold osprey
#

did venezuala have a higher GDP then

dim rover
#

What claim do you think I made?

cold osprey
#

per capita

cold osprey
#

dont be disingenous

dim rover
#

I specifically said "less than 50 years ago." How does posting current GDP address what happened 50 years ago???

cold osprey
#

your obscuring reality

#

you didnt read it did you

#

its never been close

#

those sources go back to 1985

#

and the other 1960

#

Less than half the GDP per capita

#

its like Saying Russia is one of the wealthiest countries

#

no not really

#

the nation has massive amount of wealth yes

#

but its populace is extremely poor on average

#

which is what it important in determining rates of violent crime

upbeat depot
#

How'd this get to GDP from guns? I ain't readin allat.

dim rover
#

The first one you posted goes back to 1985, so that's a dud

cold osprey
upbeat depot
dim rover
#

Why would you post a source from 40 years ago to discuss how things were 50 years ago?

cold osprey
cold osprey
#

I guess the GDP per capita fell 50 percent in less than ten years

dim rover
#

Maybe if you bothered looking at history

cold osprey
#

I did

#

I studied economics

dim rover
#

You don't think maybe there was a reason I said what I said?

cold osprey
#

I know why

dim rover
#

And you don't know that Venezuela used to be rich?

#

Return your degree man

cold osprey
#

your being disingeniuos

#

as per usual

dim rover
#

You're, and no I'm not

cold osprey
upbeat depot
#

A country can be rich and the majority of people be in poverty. Just look at the Gilded Age in the U.S.

cold osprey
#

Venezuala is what we who study economics call a resource economy

#

a rigid economy

#

where economic success is focused on one particular resource

#

and raw materials determine the national wealth

upbeat depot
dim rover
#

But you didn't bother studying the decisions that led to its collapse?

cold osprey
#

😒

dim rover
#

What kind of nonsense history lessons are they offering over there?

cold osprey
#

Falcon79

#

do you think Saudi's are wealthy

#

if I pull a random Saudi off the road

dim rover
#

I'm serious right now. It's really, really not hard to look up the history of Venezuela

cold osprey
#

do you think he has a lot of money

dim rover
#

But you thought it reasonable to discuss 1985 to discuss whether Venezuela had been a rich country

cold osprey
#

it is fundamentally opposed to a rigid economy to have a high GDP per capita

#

Because it requires the naiton shift away from being rigid

dim rover
#

I'm willing to entertain the discussion that you're going for, but I'm not willing to let go of the fact that you picked ten years after my point as a way to refute my point, which is idiotic

cold osprey
#

and utilize taxes as the primary revenue stream

cold osprey
#

because the crash was recent

#

You have to remember

#

GDP per capita is not near as vulnerable as national GDP

upbeat depot
#

At least towards this discussion

cold osprey
#

which is illogical

#

as no resource based country does

upbeat depot
#

They were not rolling in it 50 years ago 😭

cold osprey
#

Because when the governments revenue is based in resources

upbeat depot
#

Resources run out yadda yadda

cold osprey
#

it will not change its entire economic system

#

to a tax model

upbeat depot
#

You gotta put them gains into something better my boy. If you get turn one Australia at some point you gotta take Africa or die.

cold osprey
#

It doesnt really work that way sadly

#

Look at the Saudi's and Iranians

#

or Brazil

#

or hell even Nigeria

#

brazil is trying to diversify at least

#

which is why its economic woes are starting to change

#

but as evidenced by the last 20 years

#

its very hard to change economic models once you pick a rigid economy

#

Venezuala realized this

#

but after it was already too late

#

It will take decades to fix the issue

#

because the country was set back immensely

upbeat depot
#

You mean I can't just shift the entire focus of my economy rooted in a pool of money without severe devastation for a while? Not fair.

cold osprey
#

lol

upbeat depot
#

Countries need to realize you have to make money to survive, not just take it out of your ground.

cold osprey
#

or grow it

#

While resource production is a fine revenue stream

#

government funding needs to be tax based

#

otherwise governments are incentivized to keep people poor

#

cause it is a waste of money

#

to uplift the poeple

#

when you could just hire more oil workers

oblique jetty
#

i've got an idea

#

they could use all that oil money to build like 4 or 5 mega projects

upbeat depot
#

So what does Venezuela have to do with guns? I still don't get why he's hung up on you pointing out a couple years after they were "rich"

oblique jetty
#

what if it was like a big city

cold osprey
#

Mans is thinking like a Saudi oil Baron

oblique jetty
#

but instead of a normal city its like a line

upbeat depot
cold osprey
#

cause they are not comparable

#

which to an extent I agree

#

but if we look at the US per capita

#

comparable countries also have lots of violent crime

#

just not gun crime

#

cause France and the UK banned guns

upbeat depot
#

UK had knife problems after

cold osprey
#

cause Violent crime still persisted

#

cause poverty drives violent crime

#

desperate people commit desperate acts

upbeat depot
#

What's he disagreeing with there?

#

It's pretty clear poor people commit the majority of violent crime.

cold osprey
#

dunno

#

his whole arguement was contingent on Venezuala

#

whose violent crime rate is astronomical

#

especially after the economy nosedived

#

he called me arrogant for comparing europeans to the US

#

even though thats where the US came from

#

and those are the nations we are most similiar to

#

except Canada

upbeat depot
#

So you can't compare the U.S. to Europe but you can compare it to Venezuela?

#

If that's his point that's wild

cold osprey
#

mb that was his point

#

I dunno

#

thats for him the asnwer

#

I dont want to warp his point

upbeat depot
#

@dim rover Get yo ass in here

#

Explain

dim rover
#

Maybe you should have focused on what I actually said instead of inferring a bunch of nonsense that wasn't in my text at all.

dim rover
cold osprey
#

I did read your whole point

dim rover
#

Jeez. No wonder you got all butthurt.

cold osprey
#

the fact youve devolved into petty insults is astonishing

dim rover
#

Don't tell people I said things I didn't.

cold osprey
#

I didnt

dim rover
#

Yes, you did.

cold osprey
#

I literally took what you said

dim rover
#

No, you didn't.

cold osprey
#

if you didnt intend to disagree

dim rover
#

Where exactly is the disagreement in my words?

cold osprey
#

you should not have waited till my comparison was over

dim rover
#

Please, lay it out for me.

cold osprey
#

I literally compared the US to Swtizerland

#

to which you literally said

dim rover
#

Yep. Where in my words did it sound like I was disagreeing?

cold osprey
#

People act as if we can just look at our proper civilized countries and ignore the rest of the world as if they didn't exist. It's pretty arrogant. The reality is that there's more to the world than Europe, and if you neglect them, you're not really telling a true story.

#

if you did not mean to disagre then my apologies

#

but I assumed this was a jab at me

#

seeing as how I literally just finished comparing the US to swtizerland

dim rover
#

Jeez, the last 50 people before you have been saying, "can't look at anything except high gdp countries like Europe."

#

I wasn't saying it's wrong to compare the US to Europe, I was saying it also makes sense to look at the rest of the world.

cold osprey
#

agreed

#

but the US is most like Europe

dim rover
#

There's no obligation for you specifically to be the one to make that comparison. If you want to focus on Switzerland, nothing wrong with that.

cold osprey
#

you cannot deny that fact

#

the US has more in common with Europe than it does south America

#

so when comparing something like Gun crime

dim rover
#

Well, the US has a number of similarities to many countries, but the history and timeline of the US is FAR more similar to South America than to Europe.

#

We were colonized in the same timeframe by similar people and fought similar wars at similar times.

cold osprey
#

We were colonized by the English

dim rover
#

Compared to European history? It's not even close.

cold osprey
#

South america by Spain and Portugal

#

two very different colonial superpowers

#

with two very different approaches

dim rover
#

The French, British, Spanish, and Portugese who colonized the New World had far more in common with each other than they had with Europe, in terms of challenges and struggles.

cold osprey
#

I would agree and disagree

#

yes at first

#

but but the reality is

#

the majority of spanish colonies

#

were a mix

#

of both natives

#

and Spaniards and portugese

#

The same cannot be said about English colonialism

dim rover
#

Are you saying that making peace with the indigenous populations worked out much poorer for everyone involved in the end?

cold osprey
#

If thats really what you think my point is then thats really sad

#

My point is

dim rover
#

Personally, I don't see why mixing populations would make it harder to address challenges, so I don't know why their experiences would be so very different.

cold osprey
#

America was built by the British exiles for the British Exiles. So as a result the country was never very dependent on its colonial nation and was not exploited for resources

#

like South America was

#

Britain was not willing to commit the atrocities to Ethnic Englishman than to Natives

#

If the British did to the US what Cortez did to the Aztecs for example

dim rover
#

Hang on, are you defending the Aztecs?

cold osprey
#

NO

#

again

dim rover
#

Okay just checking. 😁

cold osprey
#

Im saying we were not massacared

#

and exploited

#

like much of south America was

#

hence why the situations are so different

#

we were kinda left alone

#

by England

dim rover
#

I mean the Aztecs had it coming if any population ever did. Human sacrifices taken from all the unwilling local populations, slavery, etc. Horrible people.

cold osprey
#

and as such we were able to build a stable country without fear of reprisal

cold osprey
#

was just an example

dim rover
cold osprey
#

A very low causalty war

#

that they gave up on

#

because we were already not very valuable

#

compared to other British colonies

#

Like India and Malaysia

dim rover
#

That's an interesting way to describe it, but it still counts, and it was still the most powerful military in the world at the time that we defeated.

cold osprey
#

where the resources and people were being exploited far more

cold osprey
#

and more they just cut their losses

#

If the British wanted they couldve committed far more resources

dim rover
cold osprey
#

but the crown was already broke

#

from fighting france

dim rover
#

Still counts baby.

cold osprey
#

I mean yeah we won

#

but its disingenious to our French brothers to say that they were not the main reason we were freed

dim rover
#

We did also win actual battles, both on land and at sea. We made it so painful for them that France thought we actually had a chance.

cold osprey
#

depends what you consider battles

#

and what you consider victory but yeah

#

we did win some skirmishes with the british forces

#

the US strategy was not to fight

dim rover
#

Sure. I mean if you believe Mel Gibson, we essentially invented guerilla warfare.

cold osprey
#

but buy time

#

the longer the war dragged

#

the more money england lost

#

and the more likely they would be to cut their losses

dim rover
#

Simple logistics. Much more expensive for them than for us.

cold osprey
#

precisely

#

now let us remember though

#

if we were more valuable

#

like say India was to the crown

#

it wouldve been a very different story

dim rover
#

Maybe, but we were also much more capable in war than India was

cold osprey
dim rover
#

Why not?

cold osprey
#

The indians main issue was not military might

#

it was infighting

#

The British conquered india by diplomacy

#

allying one Prince and splitting another

#

then backstabbing the original guy

#

or cutting them a deal

#

to peeacefully integrate

dim rover
#

Sure, but that still means they didn't present the military resistance that we did.

cold osprey
#

agreed

#

Im jsut saying

#

If the princes actually fought together

#

England would likely never have won

dim rover
#

Fair, but we still were quite capable.

cold osprey
#

for what we had for sure

#

But George Washington was no Cromwell or Napoleon

dim rover
#

John Paul Jones literally burned forts in England

#

That man was insane

cold osprey
#

Dunno what that has to do with my point but aight

dim rover
#

We had some badass warriors during the American Revolution

#

That's all

cold osprey
#

Every nation has badass warriors

#

the more history you learn the more you realize that

dim rover
#

But did India sail thousands of miles to attack England on its home soil?

cold osprey
#

Like the Gurkhas

dim rover
#

If they had, they might have won

cold osprey
#

No because india didnt exist

#

and was too busy fighting amoung each other

#

India never rebelled in that way

dim rover
#

The fact that all the American colonies actually banded together and stayed together is why we ended up so strong.

cold osprey
#

some colonies did side with england

#

Like Georgia for example

#

but once we declared independence

#

The states rallied yes

#

and Georgia was basically forced into the Union by proxy

dim rover
#

I mean yes, in any healthy debate, there are two sides. The crazy part is when both sides come together after even if they wanted a different solution.

cold osprey
#

I mean

#

you know Georgia was a slave colony right?

#

like Australia

dim rover
#

Seems like an unrelated point

cold osprey
#

It is not unrelated

#

It was a colony of Convicts ran by Britain

dim rover
#

What does Georgia going along with the revolution have to do with slavery?

cold osprey
#

so once we drove them out many of the British nationals there left

#

and so the population demographics changed

cold osprey
#

Penal slavery

#

for british prisoners

#

basically the colony was built by British convicts

dim rover
#

Sure, so it makes sense that they'd be cool with the revolution

cold osprey
#

Exactly

#

so once the British left the state was quickly keen on joining

dim rover
#

Oh I get it. The slaves wanted it anyway, and everyone else left.

cold osprey
#

correct

dim rover
#

Sure, fair enough.

#

Hey I'm sorry I called you names earlier, by the way.

cold osprey
#

Your good

#

but yeah the story about Georgia is an interesting one

#

and does also help explain why the South in particular was in many ways so different from the north

dim rover
#

Yeah, makes sense

cold osprey
#

The US government has done a good job of portraying the US in a favorable light which in turn led to a selective teaching of early American history

#

Diminshing the impact of France

#

ignoring the fact England was completely broke

dim rover
#

Perhaps, but we selectively portray it in a very poor light these days

cold osprey
#

Indeed

#

but that is a separate issue altogether

dim rover
#

I definitely was taught about circumstances surrounding the Revolutionary War. I don't think that's necessarily left out on purpose.

cold osprey
#

My school did not

#

and I was definitely not taught about the fact that we never really engaged the British head on

dim rover
#

When I was taught, it was basically that it was a race to get France to join, because then it would be too expensive for Britain to continue fighting.

cold osprey
dim rover
#

I think every battle I read about was a British victory if it was head on.

#

But we had a lot of cunning victories

cold osprey
#

that means your history teacher did a good job

cold osprey
#

And new Orleans was the only exception

dim rover
#

My brother and I read a lot on our own. I don't remember the teacher being all that involved honestly... haha

cold osprey
#

because

dim rover
#

Both

#

He was really into finding source materials.

cold osprey
#

my textbooks in school always protrayed the Revolution as easily successful

#

with Americans winning

dim rover
#

Huh... I've never heard it portrayed as easy

cold osprey
#

and the French playing a minumal role

#

but that may be that southern education system at work

dim rover
#

It always seemed a bit desperate to me

#

I had California? Maybe it was the one thing they did more accurately 20 years ago lol

#

Well... 25? 30? I'm old.

heady bane
frigid axle
#

Guns are the problem. They are force multipliers that make it too easy to cause mass casualties.

#

In addition, gun culture and manufacturers are also to problem. Much like the cigarette industry in the 20th century

#

They lobby for sweeping deregulation at the cost of human life and harm to the public. They restrict registration and therefore accountability for those deadly weapons.

#

If the vendor and the purchaser were held responsible for the damage cause by that fire arm the USA could start to get a handle on the problem.

#

Unfortunately, in the 21st century we still have people fighting to maintain hard copy paper files as the ONLY registration of the sale

dim rover
frigid axle
#

No, much more heavily registere, monitor, regulate and enforce their possession and use

#

Please, name a country they are banned.

dim rover
#

The issue with "holding manufacturers accountable" is that it makes no sense to punish someone who has done nothing wrong when an unrelated person uses a product in an illegal manner, and this is already being abused to completely shut down the ability of manufacturers to do business. Is that the intent? Put all manufacturers out of business? Put all gun shops out of business?

#

If allowed, there would be no justification for not holding all other manufacturers responsible for their products. Ford would be sued for drunk drivers. Bathtub manufacturers would be liable if a baby drowns. None of that makes sense.

frigid axle
#

There are inadequate controls and inadequate enforcement in the USA currently, along with modern corporate pushing for more deregulation etc. which has exacerbated the issue specifically in the USA

#

Guns are the problem because of the ease of use, and efficiency at causing death

#

Much like explosives are an incredibly useful tool

#

They are also incredibly dangerous

#

And regulated and treated as such

#

Guns, specifically in the USA, are treated and advertised as toys just as much as tools

#

Replace the guns in the advertising with a stick of TNT and see just how absurd it is

heady bane
#

fr

dim rover
#

Okay, you just responded to nothing I said.

#

You're just disliking comments and then ignoring them...

frigid axle
dim rover
#

"Name a country where they are banned"? Okay. Nazi Germany. Communist China. Cuba. Venezuela.

frigid axle
frigid axle
#

Not exactly the poster children for civilization

dim rover
# frigid axle Not exactly the poster children for civilization

Exactly. It tends to go hand in hand. It's very difficult to disarm a population without a gun registry. Historically, that's what tyrannies have used gun registrations for. Given the US history of fighting against tyranny, there's no way it makes sense to enact gun registration.

#

Many more people die when you try to restrict and control guns in a population compared to when you allow the population the freedom to be armed and defend themselves.

frigid axle
#

It's a fallacious argument that it's for freedom. A militia with small arms is going to do sweet fuck all to a modern military.

#

The entire rest of the western world is arguably more free because there isn't the looming threat of gun fire

#

Registry, licensing, and training does not prohibite gun ownership

dim rover
frigid axle
#

It does however put in safeguards to protect the public

dim rover
#

It certainly doesn't protect citizens from criminals, and it doesn't prevent the much more serious threat of government tyranny.

frigid axle
#

It's FAR harder to kill 70 people with a knife

dim rover
#

Why would a criminal who plans to use a firearm in an illegal manner care about registering that firearm?

frigid axle
#

Than to open fire on a crowd, or a school because you were missed off one day

dim rover
#

Why would someone planning on using such a firearm care if they had to register it or not?

dim rover
frigid axle
dim rover
#

That's the thing, you're assuming that control means a lack of access for law-abiding citizens.

frigid axle
#

And tou having a gun isn't going to protect you from the guy in the 40th floor window peppering a crowd

dim rover
#

Yes it is, actually.

#

The ability to fire back is quite useful in such situations.

frigid axle
#

Nope it's really not, and you thinking that just highlights your delusions

#

It's just MORE likely to get you killed

dim rover
#

I mean you're just justifying making sure people have access to rifles in populated areas, which I agree with.

frigid axle
#

If the USA let that stuff be studied you'd have even more data to show this

dim rover
#

Why in the world would being able to fire back make it more likely that people will die? Such gunmen intentionally target areas where they think people won't be able to retaliate. Data also show that the moment people actually start firing back in an effective manner, the situation ends very quickly.

dim rover
frigid axle
#

All of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc don't have the smell mass killings, that the USA does. They also have significantly lower homicide rates.
Guns also make it far easier to commit suicide.

#

They are a problem

#

In and of themselves

#

In addition to other systematic and sociological issues

dim rover
#

You're attempting to use a small snapshot of homogenous populations to say something about the US that just doesn't make sense.

frigid axle
#

Lol "small snapshot" of > USA population

dim rover
#

The US has lower rates of violence than most of the world. The US has lower rates of gun violence than most of the world despite drastically higher rates of ownership.

frigid axle
#

With more diverse multi ethics multilingual countriea

#

Back to being blocked

dim rover
#

Like, it's great to have an actual conversation, but you really don't seem interested. Peace.

dim rover
heady bane
heady bane
heady bane
dim rover
dim rover
dim rover
candid shell
# dim rover The US has lower rates of violence than most of the world. The US has lower rate...

That's a bit disingenuous. The US is ranked 28th, but basically every country above us is a country without a stable government or entrenched in drug trafficking warfare.

And compared to other stable countries in Europe and Asia we are off the charts.

To me it really comes down to this. Does the government have the right to regulate weapons at all? The answer is yes, this has been upheld many times by the Supreme court.

Depending in the state, sawed off shotguns, machine guns, grenades, bombs, two states require permits to own a flamethrower, switchblades are illegal in dozens of states.

From a reasonableness standpoint, I think anyone who owns a gun should need to pass a test to show they can properly handle one much like a car.

From a practicality standpoint, I would be fine with this only being required if you bring your gun out in public. If you want to be a dumbass at home and shoot yourself or someone you love I guess that's on you, but the rest of us shouldn't have to deal with incompetent firearm handlers.

I've seen you state before that having more people armed in public is good and you cited a couple of examples where armed civilians stopped public shootings.

This has diminishing returns though. Having a few people who are well trained and have the capacity to handle themselves in a situation like that armed can be positive. Having 50 people out if 100, half of whom may have never actually shot their gun more than a handful of times, thrown into a life or death confusing situation it going to likely be worse than a single gunman. By the end of it no one will even know who the original shooter was and you'll have a mountain of bodies.

dim rover
# candid shell That's a bit disingenuous. The US is ranked 28th, but basically every country ab...

What's disingenuous? You're acting like stable government is a completely disconnected thing. It's not. Countries immediately bordering us with democracies are fighting major battles that directly relate to their citizens having no power to defend themselves.

It's a crazy thing how government doesn't get tyrannical with heavily armed populations. That's why in a lot of really heavy examples of tyranny, one of the earliest things they do is disarm the population, and it's always the public good that's cited, right before they turn extreme tyrannical.

#

There's nothing wrong with an expectation that if someone has a firearm, they ought to know how to use it. But it's also the case that those without experience are much less likely to have a firearm or bring it out instead of just running, so it's highly unlikely that you get a situation where inexperienced people pull out firearms and start blasting. There's plenty of firearms in the country owned by inexperienced people, and the situation is quite unheard of.

#

No one is arguing that people should be forced to carry firearms. That's never been an argument that people make.

tawdry vale
candid shell
# tawdry vale It's not even diminishing returns. "Not having guns all over the place" protects...

Sure, but it does sometimes happen that a civilian stops a mass shooter so my point is that even if that does sometimes help that is not an example of more guns being better. The more you add, the more chaos and casualties tend to get added. There have also been times when people pulled out their guns to help in a situation and were then gunned down by police who thought they were the initial shooter.

tawdry vale
#

Enabling the existence of civilians who stop shootings, also enables the existence of civilians who carry out the shootings.

candid shell
tawdry vale
#

Generally speaking, carrying a gun around because you think you might need to act like a hero and shoot a mass shooter is a pretty good indicator that you're not the sort of person who should be trusted with guns in the first place.

candid shell
tawdry vale
#

They are not a positive addition to a society.

candid shell
tawdry vale
tawdry vale
#

Unless ancient Japan invades, of course.

candid shell
tawdry vale
candid shell
cold osprey
#

Im not afraid of being attacked by someone thats never been the reason I carry

#

same reason I'm enlisting in a few months

#

if nobody owned guns then maybe I would turn mine in

#

but the bad guys have them

#

and police here are useless

heady bane
heady bane
#

and wasnt there a case where the US military shot at university protesters?

#

and if youre gonna say but that was the police (idk if it was)
thats just because the US police is so militaristic it doubles as a military

dim rover
# candid shell Sure, but it does sometimes happen that a civilian stops a mass shooter so my po...

There's pretty much no examples of extra guns harming a mass shooter situation. Even in the scenario you pointed out, it was the police that made it worse, not the actions of the defender who stopped the mass shooter. Civilians have a better track record than police at correctly identifying targets and not shooting innocents. Why wouldn't we want more of the people with a better track record than police? Data show clearly that in mass shooting situations, when civilians intervene with firearms, outcomes are much better than if police are the ones to intervene. It's not even close. And it makes sense, based on how long it takes police to arrive.

dim rover
#

Concealed carry holders are by far the most law abiding segment of the population. It's not even close. They have a far better track record of following the law than police.

dim rover
# heady bane thats pretty small scale

It's small scale because the 2nd amendment prevents it from becoming large scale. Why do people assume that we have to have large issues in order to justify the thing that prevents large issues??

dim rover
heady bane
dim rover
#

Ordinary people have plenty of firepower here. They also don't have a reason to use it against police, because the police provide a service to citizens. They aren't there to harm people.

frigid axle
#

And/or when the proliferation is to such an extent that it's impossible to enforce

#

I've never been advocating for banning guns, and I'm on record in this conversation for thinking Canada has overreaching and absurd gun laws

#

I also think there needs to be degrees of regulation and restrictions based on geography

#

E.g. within city limits guns and ammo should be stored and locked up separately. vs rural areas with lower population density

#

Also, IMO if the USA is going to base its identity partially on thier ownership, make it part of the education system

#

Do what the Swiss do and make it mandatory basic training for all civilians

#

Teach respect of the tool

#

Put in age restrictions, pass laws on the advertising requirements/restrictions

#

Much of the problem is from the laissez-faire attitude to gun manufacturers and the gigantic and idiotic lobbying of the NRA etc

#

Another big issue is the social services and abject poverty in such a developed nation

#

Something that gun proliferation only magnifies, Guns being a force multiplier tool

#

If the consequences of lethal force aren't worse than your current situation it's no wonder you have "bad people with guns"

#

Again, it's a multifaceted issue, and there are many problems that exist, but guns by and of themselves are 1, and they are an amplifier for many of the others

frigid axle
# heady bane and wasnt there a case where the US military shot at university protesters?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings?wprov=sfla1

National Guard

Kent State shootings

The Kent State shootings (also known as the Kent State massacre or May 4 massacre) were the killing of four and wounding of nine unarmed college students by the Ohio National Guard on the Kent State University campus. The shootings took place on May 4, 1970, during a rally opposing the expanding involvement of the Vietnam War into Cambodia by Un...

dim rover
dim rover
dim rover
# frigid axle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings?wprov=sfla1 National Guard

That's state, not federal. When we talk about the military, we're not talking about state forces. That really isn't the same thing. A state's National Guard is much closer to a police force than the US military in both mission and capabilities. Specifically, their mission focuses mostly on domestic threats or threats to their own state's borders, while the US military is aimed at foreign threats and threats to the whole country. US citizens could absolutely resist the forces of any state's National Guard very effectively with the weapons they own today.

#

Additionally, allow me to point out that even this example from the state national guard is over 50 years old. Can you come up with a single example of the US military attacking citizens of the US inside the USA? You probably have to go back to the Civil War.

heady bane
dim rover
heady bane
dim rover
heady bane
#

okay let me put it this way

#

american men, trained by your government, financed by your government, shot people

dim rover
#

Not accurate.

heady bane
#

may i add armed by your government

#

elaborate

dim rover
#

State governments and the federal government are not the same.

heady bane
#

regardless

dim rover
#

Claiming the US military has attacked US citizens inside the US is wrong. A state national guard attacked people inside the state. That's not the same.

heady bane
#

okay US states have attacked US citizens and those states have not suffered any repercussions

#

look we can go into these legal technicalities all day

#

but fact of the matter is

#

US armed forces shot civilians

dim rover
#

It's not "regardless". US citizens can easily outmatch state national guards in firepower.

heady bane
#

oh but can they?

dim rover
#

Easily.

heady bane
#

correct me if im wrong

#

but isnt the national guard a reserve force

dim rover
#

No.

#

The national guard is active duty.

#

You're confusing the National Guard with state national guards.

#

They're not the same.

#

So sure, the National Guard is a reserve force. That's not the force that was used.

heady bane
#

im talking about these guys?

dim rover
#

State national guards are their own thing. All of them are different.

dim rover
#

Because they're all different.

#

And you're pretending the federal national guard is what we're talking about. That's not the force that was used.

heady bane
dim rover
#

Sorry, I said no when I should have said yes. The national guard is a reserve unit.

#

The Ohio national guard is a reserve unit.

#

In the sense that you lead a normal civilian life and then occasionally train.

heady bane
#

thats an army reserve

dim rover
#

They act as a type of police force.

#

And they aren't better equipped than police.

#

Civilians would easily overpower their firepower if they wanted to.

#

They aren't poorly equipped, but you're underestimating the effectiveness of civilians and civilian weapons by a lot.

heady bane
#

forgive me if im wrong

#

doesnt the state guard literally use tanks?

#

bro 💀

#

you are not winning this argument

dim rover
#

Sure, they have like 30 of them. What's your point?

heady bane
#

30 tanks???

#

bro they have a lot more than that

#

they are literally a reserve force

dim rover
#

Lol, you're really getting confused aren't you.

heady bane
#

if your reserve force has only 30 tanks youre honestly fucked

#

then elaborate please

dim rover
#

You have no idea that there's a difference between federal and state national guards, even though I explicitly told you.

heady bane
#

what is a federal national guard

dim rover
#

So the United States has 50 states.

#

Every state has a national guard, pretty much. Some might not.

heady bane
#

thats a state national guard

dim rover
#

Yes

#

Those are commanded by the governor of the state

heady bane
#

yeah

#

im with you so far

dim rover
#

The there's the national guard for the whole country. That's a reserve force for the military.

#

Not at all the same force, different people in charge. That's commanded by the president.

heady bane
#

how confident are you about this?

dim rover
#

?

#

What exactly are you doubting here?

heady bane
#

yeah so youre talking about these guys

#

and trust me a bunch of heavily armed rednecks are NOT going toe to toe with apaches and m1a1's

dim rover
heady bane
#

whats that supposed to tell me

#

i already saw that article

dim rover
#

Every time the military has ever been used against US citizens, all summed up for you.

#

Six times in a couple hundred years.

#

I mean, this is just since the Civil War, and one was during the Civil War so I'm not even sure that counts.

heady bane
#

what about the ones i mentioned

#

and as im saying your police force is one of the most militarised police forces in the world

#

there is little that happens that they cannot handle

dim rover
#

Amazingly enough, in zero of the cases were tanks or helicopters fired. Marines didn't fire on the crowds. No one dropped bombs on the population.

#

I don't think you understand the ramifications if any of these forces actually decided to use these weapons.

heady bane
#

yeah and that hasnt happened anywhere in the world

dim rover
#

We're talking about the US.

heady bane
#

yeah

dim rover
#

We're talking about why that hasn't happened in the US.

heady bane
#

but you cannot say that america does not use excessive force whilst policing

dim rover
#

There's precious little context to go with that.

heady bane
#

so do you believe that america does not use excessive force with its police?

dim rover
#

Are you talking about random isolated incidents?

#

That's like saying "Europe." It's far too broad, broad enough to be meaningless.

heady bane
#

unlike america europe isnt united under 1 country

dim rover
#

I haven't seen much to say that the US has a larger problem with that than other countries.

heady bane
#

and i know youre gonna say something about 50 states

#

but at the end of the day same government

dim rover
#

We do actually have 50 states. And amazingly enough, the federal government doesn't control the police. Each individual state does, and they each have their own rules.

heady bane
dim rover
#

So no, not the "same government." State governments.

heady bane
#

anything i mention will be used as an "isolated incident"

dim rover
#

I can respond with countless incidents from Europe. What would that prove?

#

There are many instances where police abuse their power.

#

This is true everywhere. Why should I believe it's worse in the US than other places?

heady bane
#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police#United_States

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

Police brutality in the United States

Police brutality is the use of excessive or unnecessary force by personnel affiliated with law enforcement duties when dealing with suspects and civilians.
The term police brutality is usually applied in the context of causing physical harm to a person. It may also involve psychological harm through the use of intimidation tactics beyond the sco...

Militarization of police

The militarization of police (paramilitarization of police in some media) is the use of military equipment and tactics by law enforcement officers. This includes the use of armored personnel carriers (APCs), assault rifles, submachine guns, flashbang grenades, sniper rifles, and SWAT (special weapons and tactics) teams. The militarization of law...

#

thats all im gonna leave you

#

and thats just wikipedia

#

if i really had the time id write my thesis on this

#

pakistan has less police killings than the United States

#

but hey at least youre close to syria

dim rover
#

We're waaaaaaaay bigger than all those countries. What is that supposed to prove?

heady bane
#

a country that has been in a civil war for the past decade

#

even if you scale the population up you end up worse off than pakistan

#

how on earth??

dim rover
#

And?

#

Does Pakistan count civil war deaths in those statistics?

#

Do you know anything about how those statistics are calculated?

heady bane
heady bane
dim rover
#

All you're doing is convincing me that US citizens should be well armed.

#

Because you clearly can't trust police.

heady bane
#

right now at 2

dim rover
#

Also I don't count "police shootings" and "police brutality" to be the same thing.

heady bane
#

that sounds real good for the optics here now doesnt it

dim rover
#

What kind of optics are you going for?

#

I don't actually have any idea what you're trying to prove.

heady bane
#

"okay i admit our police shooting rates are the highest of any developed nation but its okay because at least police shootings arent directly proportional to police brutality"

dim rover
#

All I know is that I'm supposed to believe that the police in the US kill people, so obviously the US population should probably arm themselves because you shouldn't trust police.

tawdry vale
heady bane
#

good point

dim rover
heady bane
#

because shooting someone is unusually brutal

#

acorn cop

dim rover
heady bane
heady bane
dim rover
tawdry vale
#

What I'm seeing is 250 years where having an armed populace has done absolutely nothing except cause a shit ton of extra murders.

heady bane
#

may I also ask why your prisons are so largely made up of 1 particular ethnic group?

#

and while im at it

dim rover
heady bane
#

why are your prisons so filled?
land of the free eh

dim rover
#

Does that ethnic group have a rate of fatherhood much lower than other groups?

heady bane
#

and why do you think that is?

dim rover
#

Government intervention

heady bane
#

(if what you are saying is true)

dim rover
#

Welfare destroyed homes

heady bane
#

what do you mean by government intervention

dim rover
#

People were paid to be single parents, and so we broke homes apart.

heady bane
#

how does CHINA out of all countries have a lower prison population than you do

dim rover
#

You really think they accurately report statistics?

heady bane
#

despite calling them

  1. a dictatorship
  2. having a population nearly 4 times as large as you do
heady bane
#

china isnt hidden behind an iron curtain

#

you can freely visit it

dim rover
#

You clearly have no idea how tightly the internet is controlled in China.

tawdry vale
dim rover
#

Are you this new to the world?

#

I highly doubt people commit all that many crimes in China. You don't have to throw people in prison to control them.

#

Fear does powerful things.

heady bane
#

okay russia then

#

so how come russia has 400 000 people in prisons

#

despite russia being a dictatorship that locks people up willy nilly

dim rover
#

I literally watched people get arrested off the street for conducting an unauthorized interview.

heady bane
dim rover
#

Same question, why would you need to lock up a bunch of people to control them when fear works just fine?

heady bane
#

so in your opinion there is a justification behind america having the largest incarcerated population in the world

dim rover
#

If you focus on locking up political enemies, it's amazing how quickly opposition disappears.

dim rover
heady bane
dim rover
#

But comparing us to China or Russia is pretty idiotic. We have more people willing to commit crimes probably because we have much lower rates of brutality when it happens.

heady bane
#

in russia people dont get shot on the street due to an acorn falling

#

in china too probably

dim rover
heady bane
dim rover
heady bane
#

then im an absolute idiot

#

because im having a conversation with a stubborn american expecting to get through to him

dim rover
#

Did people tell you how horrible things were while you were in Russia? Did you hear lots of people complaining about the government?

heady bane
#

but no more than anywhere else

dim rover
#

I don't know that I have any particular reason to trust you

heady bane
#

maybe i am kgb agent number 3

#

paid 5 roubles a message

dim rover
#

I mean you're acting like China doesn't control what people say, so how am I supposed to take you seriously?

heady bane
#

okay take russia then

#

china has the firewall

#

cant argue with that reasoning

#

russia has free internet traffic between the world

#

their incarceration rate is going to be pretty accurate

#

besides modern intelligence satellites would have told the world about any big russian prisons in the middle of siberia

dim rover
#

Why would you think that Russia has freedom of expression when they literally have journalists killed?

heady bane
#

these things are generally sought after