| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
FFGenerations
7088 Posts
There is one death by suicide in the US every 12 minutes. In 2014 there were 32,675 vehicle deaths, a drop from the previous year. 200 or 100 from police operations is not a big number if you put it next to the other numbers is it idk how the suicide number is accurate coz that would make suicide equally prevalent as car fatalities lol? welp apparently suicide is the 10th leading cause of death with 40,000/yr in the usa. now there's a number for you | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 08 2016 23:23 Wegandi wrote: You do realize that violent crime rates are at 20 year lows, and that being a police officer is not even one of the ten most dangerous jobs in the US, right? The danger that cops are in is vastly overstated. However, police killings of citizens are at one of the highest points it has ever been and police use of force complaints have skyrocketed the past ten years. There is a problem, and it's the police. I wonder what it would look like if you took police officers in big cities only rather than all of them lumped together including police officers in the suburbs and rural areas which are relatively safe jobs. Also there's the whole question of the perception of danger. I'm sure a police officer dealing with a dangerous situation feels in more danger than a logger 5 minutes before the accident that'll lead to his death. Anyway I'm not saying that police is innocent in this and it's just profoundly sad that that's what you read from my post, it's clear that there's a problem there. | ||
|
Assault_1
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9024 Posts
One of the most insane collective biases I've ever seen. It's akin to calling car owners that aren't against car registration or mandatory seatbelt wearing hypocrites. No wonder the discourse on this subject (and all popular political subjects in general) is such a shitfest when we can't even acknowledge the most basic principles of argumentation. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 00:21 Dan HH wrote: Several days ago I saw this story (saying 26 of the democrats that participated in the gun control sit-in own guns) on the front page of reddit with hundreds of comments calling them hypocrites, the general attitude was as if they were 'caught'. One of the most insane collective biases I've ever seen. It's akin to calling car owners that aren't against car registration or mandatory seatbelt wearing hypocrites. No wonder the discourse on this subject (and all popular political subjects in general) is such a shitfest when we can't even acknowledge the most basic principles of argumentation. Yeah. It's like they're actively trying to appear irresponsible. If you're the kind of person who opposes background checks and even the simplest, most reasonable gun control measures, what evidence does anyone have that you're willing to sacrifice anything to be safe with your firearms? Surely those are the kinds of people who'd jokingly point at their finger saying "that's my safety" while being sloppy about muzzle control. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43827 Posts
On July 09 2016 00:43 Djzapz wrote: Yeah. It's like they're actively trying to appear irresponsible. If you're the kind of person who opposes background checks and even the simplest, most reasonable gun control measures, what evidence does anyone have that you're willing to sacrifice anything to be safe with your firearms? Surely those are the kinds of people who'd jokingly point at their finger saying "that's my safety" while being sloppy about muzzle control. Don't a majority of gun owners support gun regulation anyway? As well as a majority of all Americans? This is just nothing more than being brainwashed by the NRA and the "Obama wants to take away all of your guns, ban all weapons, and set fire to the 2nd Amendment" Republican fearmongering. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 09 2016 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Don't a majority of gun owners support gun regulation anyway? As well as a majority of all Americans? This is just nothing more than being brainwashed by the NRA and the "Obama wants to take away all of your guns, ban all weapons, and set fire to the 2nd Amendment" Republican fearmongering. Yes. The majority of Americans have supported background checks and a bunch of other regulations. People would like the government to collect data on gun violence. Its like campaign finance reform. We want it, special interests don't, so we don't get it. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 00:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Don't a majority of gun owners support gun regulation anyway? As well as a majority of all Americans? This is just nothing more than being brainwashed by the NRA and the "Obama wants to take away all of your guns, ban all weapons, and set fire to the 2nd Amendment" Republican fearmongering. I think polls show a vast majority of americans saying they're favorable to background checks and other specific gun control measures, so long as it's not labeled as gun control or regulation. Those terms have been like blacklisted and tabooed in the US for some reason and they're really difficult to bring up politically. That being said, the NRA has an obscene amount of political power, and they've sold the slippery slope koolaid that says if we give an in they'll take a mile. "If they take drum magazines that can contain 150 cartridges, next they'll take our hunting shotguns and then our steak knives!" | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
The NRA supports oppressed people shooting their oppressors. The NRA supports taking up arms against your government if you deem them to be, for example, murdering people with impunity. Last night was the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment in full force. This is why the NRA is shit, and this is why the 2nd amendment is irrelevant in today's society. | ||
|
Cowboy24
94 Posts
On July 08 2016 21:03 FFGenerations wrote: shows him literally walking around with a fucking machine gun ROFL WTF It's an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Not a "machine gun" either literally or figuratively. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 09 2016 01:29 Jockmcplop wrote: According to the NRA, last night's events are exactly why gun laws can't be strengthened. The NRA supports oppressed people shooting their oppressors. The NRA supports taking up arms against your government if you deem them to be, for example, murdering people with impunity. Last night was the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment in full force. This is why the NRA is shit, and this is why the 2nd amendment is irrelevant in today's society. The gun manufacturers that fund more than half of the NRA just want to sell you, the police and criminals the guns. If everyone is terrified of everyone, they make endless profits. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On July 09 2016 01:53 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Pretty much the 2nd Amendment is a useless and antiquated law that dates back to when the Appalachian Mountains were the frontier. It's 2016 the frontier has been tamed and the West fully explored. ...and the 1st Amendment is also useless and antiquated because that law dates back to a time when printing presses were shit, there was no internet, flow of information was snail slow and assemblies consisted of a few hundred at most rather than tens of thousands. It's 2016 and the entire world is connected, the internet exists, social media exists, hacking exists, etc. Do you realize this is how your argument sounds, right? It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Contempaririness. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 09 2016 02:20 Wegandi wrote: ...and the 1st Amendment is also useless and antiquated because that law dates back to a time when printing presses were shit, there was no internet, flow of information was snail slow and assemblies consisted of a few hundred at most rather than tens of thousands. It's 2016 and the entire world is connected, the internet exists, social media exists, hacking exists, etc. Do you realize this is how your argument sounds, right? It's the Bill of RIGHTS, not Bill of Contempaririness. It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 02:22 Plansix wrote: It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. "You can't change the constitution" they say. "They're called fucking AMENDments" Anyway if anyone is trying to defend the morality and the utility of a state of affairs by arguing that it's legal/constitutional (or illegal/unconstitutional), odds are they don't have much to go on. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On July 09 2016 02:22 Plansix wrote: It is the Bill of Can be totally fucking amended because that is literally how it was created. And our concepts of those rights have changed over time as well. Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 09 2016 02:29 Wegandi wrote: Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all. The amusing part about all of this is that you claim we are going to scrap them, but its only you saying that. It is the classic response to any discussion about updating or changes the way we deal with and view fire arms: that any attempt will instantly result in them being taken away and the rights to own them removed. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9351 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 09 2016 02:29 Wegandi wrote: Of course it can be amended, but you know that it's literally impossible to get a new amendment ratified that annuls the 2nd, which is why you get stupid posts like StealthBlue's. Besides, if we took his argument at face, it also applies to almost all of the Bill of Rights. Hell, the Magna Carta and Common Law is over 900 years old, but are we going to scrap it because it's 900 years old? Let's get rid of jury trials because the "times have changed". I don't take arguments based on the age of a thing with the connotation of that thing being antiquated simply for being old as serious at all. It's antiquated because it's antiquated, not because it's straight up old... Are you kidding me? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Online Event
HupCup
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
Kung Fu Cup
SOOP
Dark vs MaxPax
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Serral vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Clem
PiG Sty Festival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs SHIN
The PondCast
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
