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

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Hollowway, Mar 23, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3,864
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    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."
     
    possumkiller likes this.
  2. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,459
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    Jeez guys. Let's enact some stricter control on paragraphs.
     
    groverj3, Lemonbaby, StevenC and 2 others like this.
  3. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3,864
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    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.
     
    NateFalcon likes this.
  4. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3,864
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    :lol:
     
  5. NateFalcon

    NateFalcon Party’s over

    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    897
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2017
    Location:
    The belly of the liberal beast
    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
     
    Randy likes this.
  6. NateFalcon

    NateFalcon Party’s over

    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    897
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2017
    Location:
    The belly of the liberal beast
    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
     
  7. NateFalcon

    NateFalcon Party’s over

    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    897
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2017
    Location:
    The belly of the liberal beast
    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
     
  8. Science_Penguin

    Science_Penguin SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    230
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2013
    Location:
    Nowhere
    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 :lol:
     
    possumkiller and Hollowway like this.
  9. Crash Dandicoot

    Crash Dandicoot » Supra-ise!

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    467
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    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?
     
    Unslaved likes this.
  10. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,459
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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.
     
  11. Crash Dandicoot

    Crash Dandicoot » Supra-ise!

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    467
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2010
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    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.
     
  12. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,459
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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.
     
    Crash Dandicoot likes this.
  13. Unslaved

    Unslaved SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    21
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Location:
    San Fran, CA
    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.
     
  14. MaxOfMetal

    MaxOfMetal Likes trem wankery. Super Moderator

    Messages:
    28,918
    Likes Received:
    7,206
    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    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.
     
    Watty likes this.
  15. MFB

    MFB ExBendable

    Messages:
    12,152
    Likes Received:
    1,394
    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2008
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    [​IMG]
     
  16. Lemonbaby

    Lemonbaby SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Location:
    Germany
  17. narad

    narad SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    6,459
    Likes Received:
    3,871
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Location:
    Tokyo
    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!
     
  18. Lemonbaby

    Lemonbaby SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    790
    Likes Received:
    481
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2015
    Location:
    Germany
    Fully agree - never felt the urge to travel to Namibia, Guatemala or El Salvador either. :cheers:

    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".
     
  19. Unslaved

    Unslaved SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    21
    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2018
    Location:
    San Fran, CA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2018
  20. Drew

    Drew Forum MVP

    Messages:
    27,509
    Likes Received:
    2,888
    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Somerville, MA
    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. :lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page