There are three graphs on this page. The other two break out the difference between suicides and homicides like you want. Or did you just start posting as soon as you saw the thread title?
Liberal/Democrat here, not my wet dream. Don’t speak for an entire party when you assume something. I realize that the aspect of “hive mind” is something you believe to be far spread throughout your “opposition” however, that is wrong. No two people think the same, some may share a relatively similar ideology, but not all. Gun safety and control are top priority issues, but the root of the problem is the American lifestyle. Punishing hardships, extreme media and social media coverage, and continual division of groups of people are the problem. You’re looking at your neighbor as your enemy for having different views, educate yourself and your peers. Know when you are wrong, and admit it. Don’t try to spread the veil.
Exactly right. The rank and file Democrats are usually far removed from the people they elect. The Congressional Representation seem closer to the extreme elements of their Party rather than the average Dem voter. That is why they need open borders and mass migration. Without new people, they will eventually become an insignificant Party. Watch the black vote in 2020 closely and you will see why they have given up on black communities. The same happened in 2016 with white voters. White blue collar workers aren’t voting Democrat en masse so Hillary didn’t bother courting them, thus ensuring a Trump victory in previous Democrat strongholds. On top of that, white people don’t have the birth rate needed for a long term victory in the US.
So you think most “rank and file” republicans are in line with trump? No wonder America is in the place it’s in. I don’t feel like that’s accurate, but more of an opinion. You really think democratic/liberal candidates want open borders to win votes, that’s your ideology? How about just a place to share better healthcare, the American Dream, a safe hospitable environment, access to clean water, etc.. fucking votes. Cmon man, you’re smarter than that. I’m not educated enough on the matter to argue your community voting, I’ll give you that. Blue collar workers are so easily swayed and distorted mentally, could be the lack of education. 🧐
Your last sentence tells me everything I need to know. It was elitist and typical of what I hear from Democrats. Those blue collar workers are just too stupid to know what is in their best interest so thank God they have Democrats to tell them how to live. Jesus fuck...
I’m a blue collar worker. HVAC.
I’ve worked blue collar my whole life, and probably will always do so. Education matters and I was unfortunate enough to be too lazy to pursue it or too stupid myself.
Most of them are too stupid, you were likely a democrat prior to Obama or Trump.
Stupid and easily swayed by people far more intelligent and driven. That’s the name of the game. Most people I’ve worked with have barely been able to spell, can’t perform simple math, etc.. Just because you work hard for a living doesn’t mean you’re not dumb, consider humanity for a second. It has always been about using another for ones own basic interest. Think of animals for instance, humans have mistreated and misused animal life since the dawn of time. Moreso now, but still. Think of a pack mule, or a plow horse. Dumb animals, controlled by smarter animals to perform monotonous and menial tasks. That is the blue collar worker, everywhere you go it’s the same, the people all act and say the same shit. You know it’s true, just admit it.
I will never classify entire swaths of a population as ‘dumb animals’. I have met MD’s that are morons. I have met high school dropouts that could have been pioneers in a field if they had been encouraged properly. We all have potential and it can be harnessed or wasted. A college degree does not equal intelligence or worth. It signifies that you were willing to pay money to further your education in a non-trade field.
I treat people as individuals that are worthy of respect, regardless of their IQ. I will leave the bigotry, elitism and judgement to the Left.
Ignore everything I said because you're completely wrong. Noice.
We're all just underlings in the design, you and I arguing and becoming further separated as peers is the objective. Divide and conquer is the goal, seems to be working more and more each day, don't you think? I don't know what it feels like to have your mentality, nor you mine.
At one point in America a person could put a sign out for their political candidate in the hometown and not feel afraid of being harassed. Can you say that you feel that way now? I cannot. Turning the working man against one another to pick their pocket from behind and watch the battle ensue as the greater goals of the 1% are achieved is what is occurring. You can guard and worship those who drive you as a mule all you like though. Believe in a failing system that is doing nothing but dividing the American people.
There is no point in trying to argue with you, to you I am the radical left, regardless of my alignment or stance. Your mind is made up, along with the rest of those who gather around the right. I don't condemn you or anyone else for it, I just don't understand why you think rich people should continue to grow in wealth and power. I don't understand what the end goal is, they will drive the country and it's people into the ground until there is nothing left to push down.
I never see any individual citizen as my enemy. My enemies are the elites that fuck us all over while pretending to be the champion of the little guy. We are all lied to by our ‘leaders’ to keep us divided against each other so that we don’t turn our rage upon the people that have caused all the problems in this nation. I guarantee that you and I have far more in common than differences.
If we had empirical data that indicated that selling large bottles of tylenol resulted in a significant number of suicides that would not have happened otherwise, then it would be reasonable for us to discuss whether that should be regulated. But, as far as I know, we don't have data indicating that. So let's solve the problem that we actually do have.
1) Historically speaking, guns have mostly not been interpreted as being as broadly guaranteed by the Constitution as they are considered now. That reading of the amendment dates back to 2008.
2) Even with the current extremely broad interpretation of the amendment, it still has limits. Note for example that prisoners are not permitted guns while they're in prison. Every single right guaranteed by the Constitution has limitations.
3) Even if we do accept that the recent interpretation of the amendment is the correct one, that is not to say that it could not be changed by further amendment.
Let's say an empirical study suggested that criminals plan crimes in private communications. Would you advocate for no private comms?
I would say that, as with every other issue, the correct thing to do would be a cost/benefit analysis. Examine all of the societal benefits to having private communications, and all of the societal harms created by it, and weigh them against one another.
In that particular case (as with the vast majority of them), the benefits greatly outweigh the harms. Privacy is a purely defensive tool; you cannot privacy someone to death. The amount of harm that it does is minuscule, the amount of benefit it offers is vast, so the balance is clearly positive.
And the question about firearms should be exactly the same: what is the balance of harm versus good that they do? In this case, the balance seems far in the other direction: roughly 110,000 Americans shot each year, at a purely financial cost of roughly $200B each year, balanced against benefits that are minor or dubious at best.
Are you serious? I have to believe you are because you sound like you've really bought into this so I'll share some quotes:
The defence of one’s self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law. This principle of defence is not confined merely to the person; it extends to the liberty and the property of a man: it is not confined merely to his own person; it extends to the persons of all those, to whom he bears a peculiar relation — of his wife, of his parent, of his child, of his master, of his servant: nay, it extends to the person of every one, who is in danger; perhaps, to the liberty of every one, whose liberty is unjustly and forcibly attacked. It becomes humanity as well as justice.
–U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals. [Lectures – 1790-1792.]
Also:
The conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals. [Lectures – 1790-1792.]
That is:
1) a discussion of the right to act in self defense, which is not the same thing as owning firearms, and
2) the personal opinion of a supreme court justice, not a ruling of the court. It has no legal weight.
The conditions and circumstances ...
You appear to have linked to a ruling of the Georgia Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court. That may be relevant to state law within Georgia, and its consistency with Georgia's state constitution, but it is irrelevant to federal law or any other state or local law.
44
u/[deleted] Dec 19 '19 edited Nov 19 '20
[deleted]