Politics American Politics

SonOfDaws

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,775
Gender
Male
Country
Tartaros
What makes you think they would? "NeverTrump" part? Plus, I did say "fair," which would include republicans like McCain (the only example I can think of) who were/are against Trump.

Is it really though? I guess we'll see, but Biden still gives me doubts unless he can actually prove he'll be more left than he hints to be instead of buddies with republicans.


What they stand for also plays a part though, given what happened in El Paso, few gurudwaras here, and at a mosque in Canada and New Zealand. And how often do you see left-wing terrorism as opposed to right-wing?
Conservatives and progressives do damage in different but similar and complex ways
Because he makes it seem like this isnt the land of opportunity and wasnt built off the backs of slaves/immigrants/foreigners.
If you aren't native American.....
I dont believe you(whoever) has the right to say no one belongs here....ofc legally.
My 2cents...
Fortunately and unfortunately, the people who claimed this land before now are dead. What's left behind is what was built and survived. This nation was left behind and we are still known as the land of opportunity, but with no laws, there's relatively few opportunities beyond what is necessary to survive.

As far as platforms go, Trump doesn't seem to deviate from the above much. So, Trump has made plenty of mistakes, but making it seem like the country isn't a land of opportunity for the people here legally isn't one of them.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

I know it's anecdotal, but nothing could be further from the truth. Most republicans I know personally are most likely not voting for Trump next year. Now, I live in a mostly blue state, so that changes things in some ways. Trump simply has the most vocal opposition from within his own party that I can remember. Will that result in that being reflected when it comes time to vote, who knows. But it is a thing and it exists.


Anyone who commits mass murder is probably "fucked up". But yeah, he was an avowed socialist and supported Antifa.



I know I'm answering your question with a question, but given Trump's entire history of commentary on immigration, how exactly is he not misguided? There's the Wall, there's his completely ignoring the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country don't even cross either of our borders illegally. It's xenophobic, hate-mongering trash.

That's not to say there isn't a problem, but Trump's position is thermonuclear.
How aren't you misguided? How aren't I and everyone else? If we're talking about people being "misguided," then you're going to have to include a what, how, and why in order for it to be specific enough to be productive.

I'm seeing the what's, but not the hows and why's.
--- Double Post Merged, ---


If only all those evil knife-crazy idiots on the Food Network weren't around, then we'd finally be able to make the world a lot safer...

by only allowing trained officials to have knifes that other people will then take and use for themselves.

In all seriousness, people outside of the US have already tried these policies and they failed the law-abiding citizens spectacularly.

Gun-ownership per capita has little affect on rates of violent crime. Relative income inequality, the ginni coefficient is THE stat for predicting violent crime, but a lot people think the world is simple. So, we mainly only hear about simple, ineffective solutions.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
61,318
Reaction score
26,151
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
How aren't you misguided? How aren't I and everyone else? If we're talking about people being "misguided," then you're going to have to include a what, how, and why in order for it to be specific enough to be productive.

I'm seeing the what's, but not the hows and why's.
I don't really see why the burden is on me when Trump's public record on this issue exists. Sure, you can say some of what he wants is in line with what conservatives want, and border security is important. But acting like Trump's approach to this issue is reasonable is putting your head in the sand IMO. His main platform to get elected was The Wall, which is completely misguided, a waste of money, not pragmatic in any sense in the word, and built upon a false premise. He simply shouldn't be in a position to shape policy concerning this.

Gun-ownership per capita has little affect on rates of violent crime. Relative income inequality, the ginni coefficient is THE stat for predicting violent crime, but a lot people think the world is simple. So, we mainly only hear about simple, ineffective solutions.
The US has twice as many guns per capita than any other country. We're not the highest in gun deaths per capita, no. That's probably a testament to our country's wealth, healthcare, and laws. Violent crime doesn't need to increase with the gun ownership figure in order for there to be a relation to it. The issue is related little to no background checks, poor training, and lack of registration IMO. The laws just aren't comprehensive enough to deal with the amount of firearms in this country.

The issue we're facing with these incidents is very little or anything is ever done in response. Will anything short of banning all guns actually result in these things happening less often? We don't really know. The solution isn't to do nothing though.

I often see people bring up that this suggestion or that suggestion wouldn't have prevented the most recent thing from happening, and I think that's the wrong approach to considering solutions to address this. It could reduce the chances of things happening in the future.

I don't own a gun, but I do like that I can legally acquire one if I wanted. However, we're just not doing a good enough job on a national level.
 

SonOfDaws

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,775
Gender
Male
Country
Tartaros
I don't really see why the burden is on me when Trump's public record on this issue exists. Sure, you can say some of what he wants is in line with what conservatives want, and border security is important. But acting like Trump's approach to this issue is reasonable is putting your head in the sand IMO. His main platform to get elected was The Wall, which is completely misguided, a waste of money, not pragmatic in any sense in the word, and built upon a false premise. He simply shouldn't be in a position to shape policy concerning this.



The US has twice as many guns per capita than any other country. We're not the highest in gun deaths per capita, no. That's probably a testament to our country's wealth, healthcare, and laws. Violent crime doesn't need to increase with the gun ownership figure in order for there to be a relation to it. The issue is related little to no background checks, poor training, and lack of registration IMO. The laws just aren't comprehensive enough to deal with the amount of firearms in this country.

The issue we're facing with these incidents is very little or anything is ever done in response. Will anything short of banning all guns actually result in these things happening less often? We don't really know. The solution isn't to do nothing though.

I often see people bring up that this suggestion or that suggestion wouldn't have prevented the most recent thing from happening, and I think that's the wrong approach to considering solutions to address this. It could reduce the chances of things happening in the future.

I don't own a gun, but I do like that I can legally acquire one if I wanted. However, we're just not doing a good enough job on a national level.
Burden? I just asked for your view. You replied and I asked for more clarification. I'm not assuming I know what you think and asked to hear about it, but you're acting as if I should already know the burning truth that has graced me from some dude on a forum for Japanese cartoons. How is anything good going to come from reacting like that?


The correlation could be positive, negative, or statistically irrelevant. When I researched this, the relationship between was barely there. Does this mean changes to background check laws won't do anything, no. I'm actually in favor of that, but a complete firearm is far too simplistic of a solution to a very complex problem.

You can see a similar mindset when it comes to drugs. People are trying to put things back in pandora's box. It's just not possible. Ban a drug and the desire for it doesn't go away. That's a big reason why mafias became so prominent in the wake of prohibition and why Mexican drug cartels are so prominent now. The Crux of the issue isn't the existence of the drug; it is why people feel the need to use them. Likewise, the Crux of the issue leading to all these bloody tragedies isn't the existence of firearms or any other weapon for that matter; it is why people feel the need to cause such atrocities.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
42,879
Reaction score
12,850
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
I see no reason to differentiate between the two incidents other than to talk about political ideology. Both were clearly inspired by extremist beliefs on both sides of the spectrum. Both were politically motivated, to what degree, I don't know. We might never know in the case of Dayton, since the killer didn't live.



I'm not talking about people switching parties necessarily
It matters because of motivation and such. If the Dayton shooter didn't live, then how do you know there was a political reason behind his action? And the El Paso was extremely politically motivated... his reasoning was that he's against immigrants, especially thanks to Trump.

I'm actually defending some republicans here, which is pretty rare given how I really feel about them. Otherwise we need far more republicans to speak up and condemn Trump, prove they don't condone his bigotry and bullshit. Many of the politicians just seem to tweet criticisms but do nothing. though, Pelosi had every chance to move towards impeachment and still hasn't.

Conservatives and progressives do damage in different but similar and complex ways
Conservatives do far more damage in order to benefit the wealthy and corporations at the expensive of average citizens. Progressives probably do damage financially as more of them believe in helping fellow people.
If only all those evil knife-crazy idiots on the Food Network weren't around, then we'd finally be able to make the world a lot safer...
It's not hard to understand the differences between knives and guns. Knives have other use and aren't that deadly. Guns have no use outside of killing and are very deadly because they make it easier to shoot multiple people quickly. How many people have knives killed in one go?

Will anything short of banning all guns actually result in these things happening less often? We don't really know. The solution isn't to do nothing though.
Stricter gun control laws can reduce these things from happening. YOu shouldn't be able to buy multiple guns within a month or two, and there should be some sort of cap. Plus, no one with mental health issues (like depression or anger) should be allowed to buy guns, nor should anyone with a violent past (usually the common denominator tends to be domestic violence).
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
九千以上だ! / Kyuusen Ijou Da! / It's Over 9000!
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
9,068
Reaction score
2,472
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Stricter gun control laws can reduce these things from happening. YOu shouldn't be able to buy multiple guns within a month or two, and there should be some sort of cap. Plus, no one with mental health issues (like depression or anger) should be allowed to buy guns, nor should anyone with a violent past (usually the common denominator tends to be domestic violence).
our president is advocating stronger and more thorough vetting, its the democrats that need to get a move on with doing it.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
61,318
Reaction score
26,151
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
Burden? I just asked for your view. You replied and I asked for more clarification. I'm not assuming I know what you think and asked to hear about it, but you're acting as if I should already know the burning truth that has graced me from some dude on a forum for Japanese cartoons. How is anything good going to come from reacting like that?
Yeah? and I did give my view. I simply meant that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to retread Trump's stance on it as you don't seem to be unaware. I got "misguided" turned back on me as if I didn't give any reasons for using the word.

Are you even for the Wall? I'm not really sure what we're even arguing about.

The correlation could be positive, negative, or statistically irrelevant. When I researched this, the relationship between was barely there. Does this mean changes to background check laws won't do anything, no. I'm actually in favor of that, but a complete firearm is far too simplistic of a solution to a very complex problem.
A complete firearm ban? I know there are some suggesting that, but that's not something anyone in the business of creating policy is seriously discussing, despite whatever the NRA wants people to believe.

It matters because of motivation and such. If the Dayton shooter didn't live, then how do you know there was a political reason behind his action? And the El Paso was extremely politically motivated... his reasoning was that he's against immigrants, especially thanks to Trump.
Because of his social media accounts, first-person accounts from people in his life like his ex-girlfriend, etc. People didn't just make it up. You might not be hearing about it on MSM as much, but it doesn't make it untrue.
 

SonOfDaws

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,775
Gender
Male
Country
Tartaros
It matters because of motivation and such. If the Dayton shooter didn't live, then how do you know there was a political reason behind his action? And the El Paso was extremely politically motivated... his reasoning was that he's against immigrants, especially thanks to Trump.

I'm actually defending some republicans here, which is pretty rare given how I really feel about them. Otherwise we need far more republicans to speak up and condemn Trump, prove they don't condone his bigotry and bullshit. Many of the politicians just seem to tweet criticisms but do nothing. though, Pelosi had every chance to move towards impeachment and still hasn't.


Conservatives do far more damage in order to benefit the wealthy and corporations at the expensive of average citizens. Progressives probably do damage financially as more of them believe in helping fellow people.

It's not hard to understand the differences between knives and guns. Knives have other use and aren't that deadly. Guns have no use outside of killing and are very deadly because they make it easier to shoot multiple people quickly. How many people have knives killed in one go?



Stricter gun control laws can reduce these things from happening. YOu shouldn't be able to buy multiple guns within a month or two, and there should be some sort of cap. Plus, no one with mental health issues (like depression or anger) should be allowed to buy guns, nor should anyone with a violent past (usually the common denominator tends to be domestic violence).
The left and right have their places, positives, and negatives in society. A lot of people thought the Communism Revolution in Russia was a great idea that would help equalize all people, not as many did after Stalin and Holodomor. People thought the same thing about the French Revolution, one of the first democracies of the Western World, not as many did after the rise of the "Committee of Public Safety" and the Great Terror.

The left:
- Purpose in society is to move society

- Recognizes that there's issues in societies that could be addressed. For example; the rates of violent crime

- Uses openess and creativity to find possible solutions

The Right:
- Purpose is to make sure societal movement is actually for the better

- Recognizes that there is value in the current ways of life and that most change that could happen in life would be bad. For example, Earth moving a few inches out of its regular orbit would eradicate the entire human race, along with a large portion of other Earth life. I'm sure similar argument s can be made about man-made climate change.

- Uses an above average predisposition to conscientiousness to maintain the tried and true and bring a necessary caution to change


Both sides have their flaws, but both also have their places in a society.



As for the comment about guns and knives, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun than it is with a knife, but unless you have a somewhat arbitrary line you would like to draw between weapons, that fact is besides my point: mass killings won't be (relatively) slowed much by any level of gun control. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any. It just means the mainstream dialogue about this is missing the mark.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

Yeah? and I did give my view. I simply meant that I didn't feel like it was necessary for me to retread Trump's stance on it as you don't seem to be unaware. I got "misguided" turned back on me as if I didn't give any reasons for using the word.

Are you even for the Wall? I'm not really sure what we're even arguing about.


A complete firearm ban? I know there are some suggesting that, but that's not something anyone in the business of creating policy is seriously discussing, despite whatever the NRA wants people to believe.


Because of his social media accounts, first-person accounts from people in his life like his ex-girlfriend, etc. People didn't just make it up. You might not be hearing about it on MSM as much, but it doesn't make it untrue.
I wasn't asking you for Trump's stances and views: Neither one of us can say that with complete certainty or without some level of arrogance. I wanted to get details on your own personal view, that's it. However, if it is this big of a thing and that much of a burden, then nevermind.
 
Last edited:

SharkBait

MH Senpai
九千以上だ! / Kyuusen Ijou Da! / It's Over 9000!
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
9,068
Reaction score
2,472
Gender
Male
Country
United States
Finally. My party is moving in the right direction thank you mr majority leader you continue to be a strong leader during these trying and difficult times.

 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
42,879
Reaction score
12,850
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
our president is advocating stronger and more thorough vetting, its the democrats that need to get a move on with doing it.
No he's not, he's just pushing for a bullshit ban on innocent countries while doing nothing about the countries that have actually attacked the US. Our vetting system is extremely stringent and thorough to the point that at best, maybe a handful of refugees have committed any acts of terrorism. All the meanwhile, white supremacists kill people and commit mass shootings, but nothing is being done about that.

Also, still waiting for you to back up your statement with sources with actual facts in them.
Because of his social media accounts, first-person accounts from people in his life like his ex-girlfriend, etc. People didn't just make it up. You might not be hearing about it on MSM as much, but it doesn't make it untrue.
So, what did they say his motivation was?
The Right:
- Purpose is to make sure societal movement is actually for the better

- Recognizes that there is value in the current ways of life and that most change that could happen in life would be bad. For example, Earth moving a few inches out of its regular orbit would eradicate the entire human race, along with a large portion of other Earth life. I'm sure similar argument s can be made about man-made climate change.
Wrong on both counts, given they do absolutely nothing to improve anyone's life but the wealthy's. Majority of them don't care about climate change because it might mean them losing money. I"m sure the left has its faults, but the right seem to have far more worse faults that actually hurts people.

As for the comment about guns and knives, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun than it is with a knife, but unless you have a somewhat arbitrary line you would like to draw between weapons, that fact is besides my point: mass killings won't be (relatively) slowed much by any level of gun control. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have any. It just means the mainstream dialogue about this is missing the mark.
Mass killings will be slowed down quite a bit with stricter gun control. Mass killing is harder with knives than it is with guns, and the objective is to reduce deaths/mass killings.
 

SonOfDaws

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,775
Gender
Male
Country
Tartaros
No he's not, he's just pushing for a bullshit ban on innocent countries while doing nothing about the countries that have actually attacked the US. Our vetting system is extremely stringent and thorough to the point that at best, maybe a handful of refugees have committed any acts of terrorism. All the meanwhile, white supremacists kill people and commit mass shootings, but nothing is being done about that.

Also, still waiting for you to back up your statement with sources with actual facts in them.

So, what did they say his motivation was?

Wrong on both counts, given they do absolutely nothing to improve anyone's life but the wealthy's. Majority of them don't care about climate change because it might mean them losing money. I"m sure the left has its faults, but the right seem to have far more worse faults that actually hurts people.



Mass killings will be slowed down quite a bit with stricter gun control. Mass killing is harder with knives than it is with guns, and the objective is to reduce deaths/mass killings.
Read your view on the left and right, but can you elaborate on why you think I'm incorrect?

As far as gun control is concerned, the stats on that are pretty clear. If you have a set of data you want to supply, then by all means.
 

SharkBait

MH Senpai
九千以上だ! / Kyuusen Ijou Da! / It's Over 9000!
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
9,068
Reaction score
2,472
Gender
Male
Country
United States
No he doesn't, he is full of shit. and even if he does, McConnell will block him.

In regards to whom? To their bases, I'd say Biden would be more out of touch except to maybe centrists and old sharts who are okay with him being creep. Are centrists really that popular though? Maybe among moderates, but I don't see them being that popular. The right will go with whoever aligns with their values, and it'd take a fair right winger to think about voting center. The left (or at least I) may not think centrists are hard enough on bigoted/hateful stancse and/or stuff like misogyny and issues that plague us. I certainly think Biden would defer to republicans more than most democrats would. They'd prefer someone like Warren.

It doesn't, but the way Biden shrugs it off or refuses to learn from it and move on is what's hurting him. and on top of that, some of the things he says about millennials doesn't help his case either, like saying they should do something like his generation did (which is what we're doing).


This is incorrect, and the past few days have shown that white supremacists are bigger threats to national security with their domestic terrorism. I think we've had more right wing white supremacists kill Americans than Muslims since 9/11, including 9/11.
Okay at least for 2018 you're right.
 

Pat

The Tech of Oz
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Tech
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,680
Reaction score
6,769
Gender
Male
Country
Gotei 13
As for the comment about guns and knives, yes, it is easier to kill with a gun than it is with a knife, but unless you have a somewhat arbitrary line you would like to draw between weapons, that fact is besides my point: mass killings won't be (relatively) slowed much by any level of gun control.
There's an interesting article on CNN website:


I'll share some snippets from the link:

  • "Americans own nearly half (46%) of the estimated 857m civilian-owned guns worldwide."

  • "There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world."

  • "In February 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a measure that scrapped an Obama-era regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people."

  • "In other countries, restrictive gun laws have proven to make a difference in curbing massacres. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Mass shootings have become rare in Australia since the introduction of tight gun control measures."

  • "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries."

AFAIK Japan seems to have banned all kinds of guns and that kind of gun control has been really successful in reducing homicide rates. As an outside point of view, IMHO the gun industry is so big, so powerful in the US that even the loss of human lives can't lessen its influence. I don't criticize the US for this, they make billions from this business and they can't simply shut them down. Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ", that might hold true in 1791, can we say, in year 2019, that the militia can, in any capacity, replace, substitute or oppose the US Army? Can it still be used as a justification to let people possess enough weapons and ammunition to kill off even dozens of people at a time? That requires serious consideration by the US administration, IMHO.
 

Arjuna

The Emperor Who Rules the World
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2015
Messages
14,617
Reaction score
21,682
Age
24
Gender
Male
Country
India
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

There's an interesting article on CNN website:


I'll share some snippets from the link:

  • "Americans own nearly half (46%) of the estimated 857m civilian-owned guns worldwide."

  • "There are more public mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world."

  • "In February 2017, US President Donald Trump signed a measure that scrapped an Obama-era regulation aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of some severely mentally ill people."

  • "In other countries, restrictive gun laws have proven to make a difference in curbing massacres. In Australia, for example, four mass shootings occurred between 1987 and 1996. After those incidents, public opinion turned against gun ownership and Parliament passed stricter gun laws. Mass shootings have become rare in Australia since the introduction of tight gun control measures."

  • "Gun homicide rates are 25.2 times higher in the US than in other high-income countries."

AFAIK Japan seems to have banned all kinds of guns and that kind of gun control has been really successful in reducing homicide rates. As an outside point of view, IMHO the gun industry is so big, so powerful in the US that even the loss of human lives can't lessen its influence. I don't criticize the US for this, they make billions from this business and they can't simply shut them down. Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ", that might hold true in 1791, can we say, in year 2019, that the militia can, in any capacity, replace, substitute or oppose the US Army? Can it still be used as a justification to let people possess enough weapons and ammunition to kill off even dozens of people at a time? That requires serious consideration by the US administration, IMHO.
Didn't know my country has the second largest stockpile of Guns.
 

Pat

The Tech of Oz
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Tech
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,680
Reaction score
6,769
Gender
Male
Country
Gotei 13
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---



Didn't know my country has the second largest stockpile of Guns.
Yup, going by this list, India is 2nd and China is 3rd in total which makes sense since these countries are the most populated in the world, firearms per 100 people is a more reliable measure though to make an accurate comparison between countries IMHO. There are other factors such as what percent of population has guns (many people have several guns) or approximately what percent of population has unregistered guns, the latter is probably a main cause of crime especially in less-developed countries.

If we check high-income countries (on this list, the most recent IMF one) and the intentional homicide rates in these countries (on this list), the US has a particularly high homicide rate, 5.3 victims per 100,000 inhabitants. Excluding Puerto Rico which is a US territory, in comparison all the countries on the IMF list have less than 2 victims down to #38 Lithuania which has comparable stats to the US. That makes a very strong case that guns contribute greatly to the homicide rates which of course can also be derived with a logical deduction since gun is an instrument of, well, killing.

If the US government is serious about introducing more strict gun control measures and reducing gun-related crimes, that would be great news for the Americans. Of course there will be serious pressure from the gun lobby and I guess some of them directly or indirectly supported Trump in his presidential campaign, let's see whether the apparent efforts will be watered down to amount to a simple diversion until people calm down and forget.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
61,318
Reaction score
26,151
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
The Right:
- Purpose is to make sure societal movement is actually for the better
I don't really agree with thisl. If you think about every social issue in modern times, the GOP is mostly always on the wrong side of history - Racial Equality, Interracial Marriage, Reproductive Rights, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Marriage Equality, etc.

The better way of putting it is that they're almost always for the status quo, especially if they think it conflicts with religious beliefs.

I wasn't asking you for Trump's stances and views: Neither one of us can say that with complete certainty or without some level of arrogance. I wanted to get details on your own personal view, that's it. However, if it is this big of a thing and that much of a burden, then nevermind.
Well, I did that by stating what he's done/said that I take exception with. Not claiming I know the answers and I'm not for open borders either (That's a GOP talking point for the most part anyways, but I digress). But yeah, didn't mean to be dismissive or shut down conversation. I don't think i had it in me to retread that topic at the time.

Just like the tobacco companies had denied the harmful health effects of smoking for years, gun companies and politicians who serve their agenda conveniently ignore the relationship between guns and gun-related deaths, IMHO.
Even though these crazy incidents occur here, guns still serve a utilitarian purpose. Can't really say the same thing for tobacco products. Big Tobacco not only lied about harmful effects, they straight up said the opposite and suggested there were health benefits. The NRA might appear delusional with some of the things they say, but you can't really deny the useful application guns have.
 

Pat

The Tech of Oz
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Tech
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
6,680
Reaction score
6,769
Gender
Male
Country
Gotei 13
Even though these crazy incidents occur here, guns still serve a utilitarian purpose. Can't really say the same thing for tobacco products. Big Tobacco not only lied about harmful effects, they straight up said the opposite and suggested there were health benefits. The NRA might appear delusional with some of the things they say, but you can't really deny the useful application guns have.
I see a benefit for the armed forces of a state, the officers that protect a country against inside and outside threats, I'm not sure how civilians, ordinary citizens can make use of a gun that will have a positive effect on the society. Well, it has recreational uses like hunting or it may be necessary if you live in the wilderness of Alaska but under most circumstances, the danger, the risk they pose to other people far outweighs the "useful applications" IMHO.

My country suffers from a similar problem, although mass shootings are rare here, it's quite common for someone to get enraged during an argument and just shoots the other person in the heat of the moment. They usually feel remorse later but what was done can't be undone and tragedies occur. I can't help but wonder how many innocent lives wouldn't be lost if these people didn't have easy access to guns. Honestly, I don't like the possibility of getting shot just because I had a disagreement with my neighbor, perhaps I wouldn't care less if I was a bachelor but I have a family now and I'll have kids tomorrow, I'd feel much safer if I knew our security wasn't entrusted to the common sense of some random stranger.

Just my two cents.

[Edit] I wasn't taking a dig at you when I said "if I was a bachelor", sorry if it came out the wrong way. :sweat
 
Last edited:
Top