Society How is your government reacting to the pandemic? + illusions about the future

[Le Chat Noir]

I never settled anything with Muay Thai, probably never will have to.

is it possible that there is a stat on the amount of people that carry guns in the US related to the number of times they actually used it related to the number of times someone used a gun that was available to them and killed others for no reason?

I also can’t get behind the idea of “if something happens I’ll just shoot someone and get on with my day”. People get traumatized for life with post traumatic disorders. it would be so much easier to drastically reduce the amount of guns that exist in the first place.

Women are often traumatized from little things like abuse, rape, and murder.
Why do you want women unarmed? Are you operating under the delusion that they can fight a man off with a taser or pepper spray?

Whole nations have been traumatized by governments stealing their belongings, tossing them in prison, and murdering them.
Are you advocating that government police and military shouldn't have guns since they have killed far more than any private citizen?

You are so focused on "guns are bad" that you are blind to the simple truth of the human condition.

Le Chat Noir
©

 

[regular john]

since killing others for no reason only happens once or twice a year, and about 46% of Americans live in a household with a firearm...

look, i'm all for universal disarmament, but the governments need to disarm first.

the government first? wouldn't that be dangerous? the whole time I was under the impression that you wanted to have guns to protect from criminals first.

you guys consider the posibility that if the government went out against the people you'd band with a dozen guys with your handguns and offer resistance the US army?

 

[ThatOneDude]

the government first? wouldn't that be dangerous? the whole time I was under the impression that you wanted to have guns to protect from criminals first.

you guys consider the posibility that if the government went out against the people you'd band with a dozen guys with your handguns and offer resistance the US army?

That assumes people don't have high powered rifles, the knowledge to make IED's, or the will to fight. Afghanistan is a perfect example of what people banding together to stop a major military force looks like.
Your statement also assumes the members of the US military would carry out those unlawful orders.

Basically you're statement shows you are naive and stuck on buzzwords and liberal mainstream media talking points.

 

[regular john]

Women are often traumatized from little things like abuse, rape, and murder.
Why do you want women unarmed? Are you operating under the delusion that they can fight a man off with a taser or pepper spray?

Whole nations have been traumatized by governments stealing their belongings, tossing them in prison, and murdering them.
Are you advocating that government police and military shouldn't have guns since they have killed far more than any private citizen?

You are so focused on "guns are bad" that you are blind to the simple truth of the human condition.

Le Chat Noir
©

We are operating under different underlying assumptions. I don't have a really educated opinion about the gun issue but I have an opposite broad assumption regarding guns than the average american which makes me biased towards one view, while you are biased towards another. The first, fundamental step to deal with our confirmation bias is to recognize it and work around it. From other threads you seem like you don't recognize
your own bias, like you believe there is an objective reality that can be measured with a mathematics equation.

I've read a tiny bit some time ago about the debate within the US where a certain group questions the application of the Second Ammendment to modern times. Frankly to me the pro gun arguments sound silly. IMHO the energy and time spent glorifying guns and enabling a toxic industry vs. the real posibility of them being used for any good does not amount to an intelligent solution.

 

[regular john]

That assumes people don't have high powered rifles, the knowledge to make IED's, or the will to fight. Afghanistan is a perfect example of what people banding together to stop a major military force.
Your statement also assumes the members of the US military would carry out those unlawful orders.

Basically you're statement shows you are naive and stuck on buzzwords and liberal mainstream media talking points.

No I don't even have a formed opinion on the issue so how could I be stuck on either side?

The american "liberal" narrative was strategically constructed just like the conservative narrative was strategically constructed. The first was constructed by "technical" political analysts from within the Democratic Party and the second was constructed by radical religious and elite businessmen and was bankrolled by corporate money and artificially inserted into the Republican Party. Both are biased and have been used for political gains. It doesn't make any sense to attach yourself to either one, specially considering that both are used to the same end goal of favoring financial corporations and fucking the people.

 

[ThatOneDude]

No I don't even have a formed opinion on the issue so how could I be stuck on either side?

The american "liberal" narrative was strategically constructed just like the conservative narrative was strategically constructed. The first was constructed by "technical" political analysts from within the Democratic Party and the second was constructed by radical religious and elite businessmen and was bankrolled by corporate money and artificially inserted into the Republican Party. Both are biased and have been used for political gains. It doesn't make any sense to attach yourself to either one, specially considering that both are used to the same end goal of favoring financial corporations and fucking the people.

I don't see how you could say what you initially said and not have an opinion.

Everything else I agree with.

 

[regular john]

I don't see how you could say what you initially said and not have an opinion.

Everything else I agree with.

I have an opinion but it's not a thoroughly informed opinion. that's why I'm debating here in the first place. the members who engage in civilized conversation have enlightened me and maybe changed my initial view by a tiny percentage.

 

[ThatOneDude]

I have an opinion but it's not a thoroughly informed opinion. that's why I'm debating here in the first place. the members who engage in civilized conversation have enlightened me and maybe changed my initial view by a tiny percentage.

Ok, now your opinion makes a lot more sense.

 

[Le Chat Noir]

We are operating under different underlying assumptions. I don't have a really educated opinion about the gun issue but I have an opposite broad assumption regarding guns than the average american which makes me biased towards one view, while you are biased towards another. The first, fundamental step to deal with our confirmation bias is to recognize it and work around it. From other threads you seem like you don't recognize
your own bias, like you believe there is an objective reality that can be measured with a mathematics equation.

I've read a tiny bit some time ago about the debate within the US where a certain group questions the application of the Second Ammendment to modern times. Frankly to me the pro gun arguments sound silly. IMHO the energy and time spent glorifying guns and enabling a toxic industry vs. the real posibility of them being used for any good does not amount to an intelligent solution.

You admit you're uninformed, you pretend as if all opinions are equal, then condemn guns as "toxic and unintelligent" which is just empty leftist rhetoric.

You ignore the past century where government after government disarmed the citizens for the "good of society",
then proceeded to abuse, steal, and murder their citizens at rates never seen in human history. That's not an opinion, it is a historic fact.
I would say ignoring history and pretending it will not repeat is the most unintelligent thing a person can do.

You ignore a very simple fact that the only way for women, the elderly, etc.. to successfully defend themselves is with a gun.
Guns are not the problem, evil people are, and taking away the average persons ability to defend themselves does nothing but help
criminals.

So the logical conclusion of your stance is you support government oppression and criminals.
That's a very uninformed and regressive world view.

Le Chat Noir
©

 

[jason73]

So in short

Bolsonaro is fucking up huge
Trudeau is fucking up huge
Boris is fucking up huge
Trump is fucking up huge

Its almost like there is no plan for a pandemic,market crash and oil price war at the same time

 

[regular john]

(...) the logical conclusion of your stance is you support government oppression and criminals.

... and rape and murder.

 

[Filthy]

the government first? wouldn't that be dangerous? the whole time I was under the impression that you wanted to have guns to protect from criminals first.

you guys consider the posibility that if the government went out against the people you'd band with a dozen guys with your handguns and offer resistance the US army?

exactly how do you propose that we disarm criminals?

 

[Filthy]

No I don't even have a formed opinion on the issue so how could I be stuck on either side?

The american "liberal" narrative was strategically constructed just like the conservative narrative was strategically constructed. The first was constructed by "technical" political analysts from within the Democratic Party and the second was constructed by radical religious and elite businessmen and was bankrolled by corporate money and artificially inserted into the Republican Party. Both are biased and have been used for political gains. It doesn't make any sense to attach yourself to either one, specially considering that both are used to the same end goal of favoring financial corporations and fucking the people.

you think the Democratic party is too intelligent/esoteric and the Republicans are Evil.

that's a very nuanced perspective...if only the Democrats could get support from elite businessmen and bankrolled by corporate money...

 

[regular john]

you think the Democratic party is too intelligent/esoteric and the Republicans are Evil.

that's a very nuanced perspective...if only the Democrats could get support from elite businessmen and bankrolled by corporate money...

you are tripping mate. I put "technical" in quotes because the "technical" political analysts of the LBJ government were just as biased as the corporate-funded conservatives of the 70/80's. The whole post you quoted is an effort to showcase how every political agenda is built from ideology. There is no such thing as "technical policy making". Public policy is not made in a vacuum. Looks like you are so focused on _______ that you are blind to ________.

And why do I have to propose a policy to disarm criminals?

 

[Filthy]

you are tripping mate. I put "technical" in quotes because the "technical" political analysts of the LBJ government were just as biased as the corporate-funded conservatives of the 70/80's. The whole post you quoted is an effort to showcase how every political agenda is built from ideology. There is no such thing as "technical policy making". Public policy is not made in a vacuum. Looks like you are so focused on _______ that you are blind to ________.

And why do I have to propose a policy to disarm criminals?

well, you implied that criminal citizens have to give up their guns before lawful citizens.

but I grant the State a monopoly on initiating violence in order contain criminal citizens.
have you seen the Philosophy of Liberty video?