I’m a big fan of wine, liquor, and gambling.
How many people die because of them every year?
I guess it depends on who you gamble with and if you lose.
I’m also a fan of good booze and gambling.
You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.
I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.
Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.
They are both statistically zero - correct?
.00X vs .0000000X 🤷ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸
All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.
Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.
You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!
Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.
Did you intent to prove my point?
I switched sides. I am no longer worried about the risk of shootings because I don’t think I am personally at risk. Let’s convince the rest of these fearful sheeple to think like us!
While it is sad to consider domestic murders, gang violence, suicides, school shootings, road rage shootings, mall and concert shootings, shootings at churches and stores, accidental shootings, I am just thankful that I’m probably okay.
I don’t even know those people, you know? Their deaths are the price I’m willing to pay for my freedom.
I think we need to spend more time and energy advocating about the low risk to me and you. It’s a good use of our time. If we can maintain the status quo or at least keep the risk of harm to us low, then I think it’s worthwhile.
If this flippant sarcastic approach to the difficult conversation is how you need to manage your emotions and interact with people who hold different views than you then Godspeed. I hope it works out well for you.
Pot calling the kettle black.
You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.
I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.
Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.
They are both statistically zero - correct?
.00X vs .0000000X 🤷ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸
All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.
Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.
You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!
Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.
Did you intent to prove my point?
I switched sides. I am no longer worried about the risk of shootings because I don’t think I am personally at risk. Let’s convince the rest of these fearful sheeple to think like us!
While it is sad to consider domestic murders, gang violence, suicides, school shootings, road rage shootings, mall and concert shootings, shootings at churches and stores, accidental shootings, I am just thankful that I’m probably okay.
I don’t even know those people, you know? Their deaths are the price I’m willing to pay for my freedom.
I think we need to spend more time and energy advocating about the low risk to me and you. It’s a good use of our time. If we can maintain the status quo or at least keep the risk of harm to us low, then I think it’s worthwhile.
If this flippant sarcastic approach to the difficult conversation is how you need to manage your emotions and interact with people who hold different views than you then Godspeed. I hope it works out well for you.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Except my post to her was sincere. She has a history of flying off the hinge and letting unregulated emotions get the best of her. And it detracts from having a legitimate discussion. I find a complete distinction between calling posters out who use that as a tactic against those with whom they simply have a difference of opinion.
For her sake and the sake of discussion I really do hope she is able to sort herself out.
You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.
I feel the need to address the common pitfall with statistics that you so confidently stepped into.
Simply because something has magnitudes more probability of happening still doesn’t mean it’s likely to happen.
They are both statistically zero - correct?
.00X vs .0000000X 🤷ðŸ»â€â™‚ï¸
All I know is if I’m evaluating the risk of unwanted danger to me from something I don’t think it’s realistic to be worried about either of those.
Especially if the one with greater risk is actually cut in almost half due to the fact that it includes intentional self-harm.
You can cut the risk to yourself even more since women are far more likely to be killed by a gun by their male partner than vice-versa. So don’t include suicides or victims of domestic violence, and you’re practically worry free!
Exactly. And if you’re not hanging out with gangs, buying drugs, or walking the inner cities of Baltimore or NOLA at midnight it’s even lower. Almost like there’s data normalization around specific situations that alter the relative risk.
Did you intent to prove my point?
I switched sides. I am no longer worried about the risk of shootings because I don’t think I am personally at risk. Let’s convince the rest of these fearful sheeple to think like us!
While it is sad to consider domestic murders, gang violence, suicides, school shootings, road rage shootings, mall and concert shootings, shootings at churches and stores, accidental shootings, I am just thankful that I’m probably okay.
I don’t even know those people, you know? Their deaths are the price I’m willing to pay for my freedom.
I think we need to spend more time and energy advocating about the low risk to me and you. It’s a good use of our time. If we can maintain the status quo or at least keep the risk of harm to us low, then I think it’s worthwhile.
If this flippant sarcastic approach to the difficult conversation is how you need to manage your emotions and interact with people who hold different views than you then Godspeed. I hope it works out well for you.
Pot calling the kettle black.
Except my post to her was sincere. She has a history of flying off the hinge and letting unregulated emotions get the best of her. And it detracts from having a legitimate discussion. I find a complete distinction between calling posters out who use that as a tactic against those with whom they simply have a difference of opinion.
For her sake and the sake of discussion I really do hope she is able to sort herself out.
Maybe you’ll have some thoughts and prayers for me? lol
I’m getting the evangelical gun-nut vibe from you. i recognize that brand of Christian charity that begins with discounting the risk of harm to others and ends with empty words.
That brand of Christian charity is known for being riddled with holes of meanness and selfishness while professing to care for others.
One thing I liked about Kamala’s speech last night was when she said that her mom taught her that if others are poor, that makes us poor. A harm suffered by others is a harm suffered by us.
I think Australians have a better developed sense of this. If we truly care for others (like women who are at a higher risk of gun violence or children growing up on the ghetto), then their risk of harm from from gun violence is my risk of harm from gun violence. We internalize their risk of harm because we care about them.
The concept is also known by the Latin phrase nemo resideo, or “leave no one behind.â€
Maybe you’ll have some thoughts and prayers for me? lol
I’m getting the evangelical gun-nut vibe from you. i recognize that brand of Christian charity that begins with discounting the risk of harm to others and ends with empty words.
That brand of Christian charity is known for being riddled with holes of meanness and selfishness while professing to care for others.
I’m really not sure through which lens you view life. But I’m almost certain the lens through which you view yourself has quite the shade of self-righteousness. With quite a bit of hypocrisy as well.
The fact that you act like you’re a breath of fresh air for the world and post accusing others of meanness is sad considering the absolutely hateful drivel over the years, the rants, and the recent timeout you were given.
To say nothing of the fact that your bias takes over because despite the almost decades-worth of posting you still cannot accept that I’ve been clearly outspoken against our current gun culture and the fact that I am no longer religious for almost twenty years. I have a different opinion than you therefore I must be an evangelical gun nut.
Ok. Have a good day.
One thing I liked about Kamala’s speech last night was when she said that her mom taught her that if others are poor, that makes us poor. A harm suffered by others is a harm suffered by us.
I think Australians have a better developed sense of this. If we truly care for others (like women who are at a higher risk of gun violence or children growing up on the ghetto), then their risk of harm from from gun violence is my risk of harm from gun violence. We internalize their risk of harm because we care about them.
The concept is also known by the Latin phrase nemo resideo, or “leave no one behind.â€
I read your post while in the car park of the National Museum of Marines. The US Marines exemplify the idea of “leave no one behind”.
As a nerd I like the Spock quote
“Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”.
Gotta love the LR.
- MH was correct. “Akin: related, close, near, comparable, equivalent, alike…”
With shooting deaths in the US averaging about 48,000 per year, and shark deaths averaging about 1 per 2 years (the horror year of 2023 notwithstanding, when there were 2, not 36) there is nothing “akin” about the statistics however you try to spin it. You are nearly 100,000 times as likely to die by gun as by shark in the US. Your characterisation was disingenuous. We know you didn’t say “the same”. Got it. You said “akin”. You’re wrong.
Australians have been shot while visiting the US. By cops (that very American pastime), by drug dealers, by idiots in bars, by unidentified strangers. There’s been at least a few dozen instances. It is a valid risk to consider. Even those offering reassurance here are saying to avoid many of the places that a tourist might reasonably want to see. Here’s my tip for anyone visiting Australia: go wherever the fuck you want, you’re not going to get shot. That’s a difference you can’t even imagine.
- MH offered a light-hearted apology and your response is to say “I can’t spell, and I insist that you spell incorrectly if you are addressing me”. There truly is a sub-class of Americans that value whining about nothing even more than guns.
Here’s a general question on American gun culture. If the chances of an average law-abiding citizen being shot are so low (like the chance of being struck by lightening in the belly of a shark holding a winning lottery ticket) why do many of them want to go everywhere with a gun; whether concealed or open carry?
Here’s how it works when I leave the house. I take my car keys if I want to drive. I take my phone in case I might want to talk to someone or buy something. I might take a snack in case I get hungry. I might take a jacket in case it gets cold (but probably not). Just whatever I’m likely to need.
There are Americans (including a couple who have said as much on this forum) who don’t leave their house without their gun. In case they want to kill someone. They don’t take an umbrella in case it rains. Fair enough. It probably won’t rain. But the gun? The chance to kill someone? ALWAYS. Not an opportunity to be missed.
It is impolite to ask “WTF is wrong with Americans?” So tell me, WTF is right in the thought processes of such a person?
Besides guns, what America has is a lot of is bullies - people who like to intimidate other people. It’s a big part of American culture that one rarely sees internationally. For some it’s lifted pick-up trucks, others it’s loud motorcycles and pseudo “biker gang” attire, still others it’s a lot of tattoos, or a lot of muscles on display, and for some it’s “gun” stickers everywhere alluding that they may be armed, or even (rarely) open carry, or all of the above. Whatever makes them feel powerful and threatening, and that might also include concealed carry. Most of these people also have money, jobs, families, and therefore a lot to lose if they got into an actual fight - so while they might try to intimidate someone, they don’t really want to engage.
The people who are truly dangerous usually have criminal histories, drug histories, mental issues, and very little to lose, and they don’t need a gun to be a threat. I walk past such people every day in downtown Seattle and I’ve seen them do plenty of strange and mildly threatening things although nothing truly physically harmful. But if it were at night with few people around I would be very wary and avoid walking alone through homeless areas such as parks - and this is consistent for most major cities’ downtown areas. For most situations and most people a quality pepper spray would be better defensively than a concealed handgun and is legal for anyone to carry.
One thing I liked about Kamala’s speech last night was when she said that her mom taught her that if others are poor, that makes us poor. A harm suffered by others is a harm suffered by us.
I think Australians have a better developed sense of this. If we truly care for others (like women who are at a higher risk of gun violence or children growing up on the ghetto), then their risk of harm from from gun violence is my risk of harm from gun violence. We internalize their risk of harm because we care about them.
The concept is also known by the Latin phrase nemo resideo, or “leave no one behind.â€
How does Oprah or someone of her status internalize the gun violence prevalent in downtown LA when she is living in her multi-million-dollar mansion, surrounded by walls and security systems and bodyguards?
It’s not your job or my job to cure gun violence or make the world safe. That is why we vote and why we have laws that are to be enforced by law enforcement both locally and nationally.
It’s not your job or my job to cure gun violence or make the world safe.
No. You’re wrong. It is our job—responsibility—to cure gun violence and make the world safe for ourselves, our loved ones, and our neighbors.
We can do this through voting.
Also, speak up loudly with family, friends, and neighbors.
Encourage—pressure—others to act in a safe and responsible manner.
And, promote financial activism (e.g., successful pressure on the parent co. of Giro and Bell to divest itself of several of its weapons and armaments brands).
Don’t sit idly. Do something.
1 Like
It is everyone’s job to arm themself and protect their friends and family, and the United States, from tyranny.
It is everyone’s job to arm themself and protect their friends and family, and the United States, from tyranny.
I’d actually argue against this. It is every citizens RIGHT to arm themselves should they choose to do so. There are many who choose not to exercise this right and that is unquestionably acceptable.
But it is no one’s job to do this.
Unfortunately and very sadly, this prediction was correct. In america, it now appears that there are three certainties:
Death, taxes, and mass shootings.
I argue quite the opposite. It is everybody’s right not to live under the tyranny of gun violence. Proper gun control in 6 of the G7 countries works and I see no evidence of this so called tyranny. Lots of people own firearms in a safe and reasoned manner in those countries, just not for the purpose of shooting another human. If you talk about protecting friends and family if it is not from wild animals then it must be other humans, hence you must intend to use said firearm against another human. In those other G7 countries (and in general the rest of the advanced societies), people do not worry that every other human on the street may be carrying a concealed or any other form of firearm so there is no reason for this fear in a general sense. It is rare for firearm deaths that are random, of course it is not unheard of, but much less likely. When such terrible events occur, there is often a significant review of why the system meant to protect citizens failed.
In the case of random firearm violence the statistics are clear, the US is an outlier and if you can not join the dots… I feel sorry that you must be relegated to live in fear.
1 Like
JDV and DJT said as much: Gun violence is a “fact of life” in the USA and to “get over it.”
The R’s have no plans to address mass shootings.
Deflect. Blame. Mention “thoughts and prayers,” and move on to the next massacre.
This quote is circling a lot right now and I have to say it is being presented in poor context.
Shootings are assuredly a fact of life. They are a reality. And he said “I don’t like that this is a fact of life.”
He was arguing for more security at the schools.
You want to argue against his idea of how to secure the schools that’s fine. But let’s not be so disingenuous as to pretend like he said something wrong.
Racism is a fact of life. Car accidents are a fact of life. Cancer is a fact of life. Death is a fact of life.
Acknowledging something as fact of life is not a bad thing. The left acknowledges it as a fact if life because they want to stop it. He’s saying the same thing except his means to stop it is different.
So you defend JDV with false equivalences? Those aren’t arguments; they’re excuses and distractions.
Slight-of-hand arguments and distractions from it with “school safety/security” blame-shifting doesn’t decrease gun violence.
But people can—and do—rationalize anything.
Gun violence is nearly 100% preventable.
But we, as a society in the USA, choose not to prevent it.
Which isn’t a great argument for me. He speaks of “psychos going after our kids” as if the typical school shooter is some kind of unknown outsider who shows up out of nowhere. They’re typically not. They’re typically insiders. I’ve seen lots of schools that have installed prison-like steel barriers, and they don’t make much sense to me. Because I know any kid can get stuff around that barrier with ease. Even if they have to walk through a metal detector in the morning, the holes in physical security throughout the day are impossible to implement without huge amounts of money and personnel.
More armed adults in schools, which I’m not opposed to, may have only very marginal benefit. There is very little any number of GGWG can do to stop someone suicidal from getting off 10-15 rounds.
In many of these cases, including the most recent, it seems like the danger of these kids was not unknown. Seems like a better approach to security might be to prevent the kid from ever showing up on school property with a gun. Rather than trying to respond to such situations at the very last possible moment, when the kid is already on the property with a gun.
Not opposed to implementing some stuff to handle the last possible moment. Just doesn’t seem to be the most efficient or safe method. And the last possible moment seems to be what JD is talking about.
Same with the Trump assassination attempt. It was great that a Secret Service sniper was there to handle the very last possible moment and limit the attempts to a few shots. But handling it at the last possible moment is properly considered a massive failure.
I don’t live in fear because I have plenty of arms.
Was this reply to me? What false equivalence?
And what a lot of people fail to acknowledge (in this discussion) is that you cannot magically get rid of all the guns. The horse is out of the barn. If we’re going to have a serious discussion about addressing the issue then we have to have a realistic discussion; not one rooted in talking points. Guns are already out there.
There is no Thanos snap to make them all disappear. individuals are not going to magically turn theirs in.
Politicians are never going to agree to get rid of them all or pass legislation for door to door confiscation. Criminals are not going to give theirs up. They are here, people will do bad things, and that by default means gun violence is a harsh reality. Period.
What’s the point in rambling on and on about it like we can change that? In my opinion that’s basically trying to close the door after the horse is out.
Wanna have a real discussion on addressing the gun issue? Then we need to agree on a starting point. Gun violence is no more preventable than car accidents. I would ask you to prove with specifics your idea that gun violence is “nearly 100% preventable” in a country where hundreds of millions of guns already exist with no practical means of dropping that number.