theguyfromtheVale

Members
  • Content count

    5,084
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About theguyfromtheVale

  • Rank
    Social Justice Squire

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

6,268 profile views
  1. That's not what I said. My point was that there was one political movement in the past that combined those two positions because Marx was Jewish and so were many bankers. They were not particularly agreeable people, to say the least. I said nothing about the basis for your personal opinion.
  2. Indeed, there is only one political movement that I can think of that directly conflated communism and banking (by way of antisemitism...)
  3. Yes, that was indeed a typo. I meant that reducing fatalities counts as a success for me even if the number of violent crimes stays the same or evne if that increases, as deaths are far more consequential than bruises or even broken bones. I'm surprised to have to state this like some out-there radical new idea, to be quite honest. Because that's definitely not what it is.
  4. My reading of that clause is that the first comma in it is either archaic or a typo. Can't tell, I'm not a native speaker or a linguist. But the comma in there makes no sense syntactically. Without that comma, the sentence seems a lot clearer.
  5. Isn't reducing death and grave injuries that result from violence a worthy goal in itself, even if overall violence is reduced? Now of course, this will be a tradeoff, which is almost no place restricts access to kitchen knives, but almost every country on earth restricts access to guns. But the overall point is that violence involving guns is far more lethal than violence involving knives, which is again far more lethal than violence involving bare knuckles.
  6. Well... Should we take that as a good sign, that even such ingrained stupidities can eventually change? Or rather as a sign that the US is even less able to rectify wrongs than Saudi Arabia, of all places?
  7. OK, so how do we get the hands out of violent lunatics without also taking away the guns of some non-violent lunatics? How do we tell the difference? Or do you think we'll just have to wait until they get violent? Because in that case, we'll have no chance to reduce Vegas-style killing sprees. Or suicides, for that matter.
  8. No. Just numerically illiterate. It's quite frequent. MC at least knows that being a majority makes people of that group more likely to be found in any kind of position, which is progress, I guess, but this poster still has no idea what over- or underrepresentation is, apparently.
  9. The word you're looking for is "parabolic". Or possibly "elliptic".
  10. ... wait. I'm agreeing with Rush Limbaugh? We sure seem to have gone through one strange looking glass.
  11. Because far too many people in your country do own guns for "protection" (i.e., killing other humans in case they intrude). Which raises the stakes for criminals - but that only means they need to be armed, too. Which makes home invasions far scarier for all involved, far more scary than they need to be. People who say they own a gun for protection is what I'm mainly arguing against; those are the largest danger, as their gun ownership is simultaneously unnecessary and dangerous to them and their families.
  12. A market with low supply will also lead to lower demand, as the goods will be more expensive. Less guns lying around in homes means criminals have less access to guns. At the same time, less guns also makes guns less attractive to burglars. Yes, Law enforcement has guns, too, but they only very rarely catch burglars red-handed. So, burglars don't need guns to protect against Law Enforcement; their best protection against the police is speed, not arms. On the other hand, guns are very valuable for them to protect themselves against armed home owners trying to catch them in a shootout. Once guns are only found in very few homes, the burglars' need for guns evaporates.
  13. @Michael Seswatha Jordan Again, I'm not calling for a gun ban. I am calling for a change in gun culture. This is, in many ways, even harder. But it's the only way to make this work: The idea that people should own guns to kill other people (instead of animals, or target boards) needs to die. Quickly. If a ban accomplishes that, fine, but I don't think that's necessary, or even the best possible way to do it. And what I am saying is that this is not about whether you personnally own a gun or not. It's about whether you think owning a gun to kill other human beings is a socially and morally acceptable position.
  14. @Michael Seswatha Jordan Also, I do not want your pity. I am fine. Pity those children and young adults in your country who are not as fortunate as I was and who manage to kill themselves because their parents thought their guns would protect them and their offspring. I went on to live, they die, totally unnecessarily.
  15. I'm not necessarily advocating a full-out ban. I'm advocating a change in culture where people stop getting guns to protect themselves from intruders, only to introduce a high risk of successful suicide for anyone in that family who becomes depressed - something that, statistically, happens to around 30% of the population, far higher than the percentage of the population killed during home invasions. Most burglars want to just get in, grab the valuables and get out. The fact that so many people in the US have guns is what makes them gun up too, to protect themselves during their crime; home invasions would actually be less scary with less guns around! Also consider that guns are valuable - and so themselves a target for burglars. If you own a gun to hunt, or for sports, you can actually put it somewhere safe if you don't use it; if you have it to protect yourself from burglars, you need it readily available at all times - and so it becomes readily available for depressed family members or the very burglars you want to use it against. Once guns are less prevalent, it will also be harder for criminals to get their hands on them. Yes, there will be a time period where they will still have them, but once there are less guns around, both the need for criminals to be armed during their crimes as well as the availability of those very firearms makes even crime far less dangerous for the victims of said crimes. And those people who will die to criminals in that period? They would have died without a change in that culture, too - and many more like them would continue to do so.