SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The love of guns in the United States has been well documented, as have multiple mass shootings across the country such as those in Orlando, San Bernardino, Newtown, and Virginia. The ease of access to guns in American society comes at a shocking cost.
As of September 2016, almost 11,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Despite this high death toll, mass shootings in America show no sign of disappearing.
The Stateside obsession with guns can appear baffling to UK observers unfamiliar with its origins. So just how did this gun culture become so deep-rooted in the American psyche?
BBC source: Why Are Americans so Obsessed with Guns?
Wikipedia: Gun politics in the United States
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Why Are Americans So Obsessed With Guns?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 324 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I don't want a pickle,
I just wanna ride on my motorsickle.
And I don't want to die,
I just want to ride on my motorcy.
Cle.
-- Arlo Guthrie
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @09:48PM
Break it down by ethnic demographic group and the results are interesting.
First of all, all my numbers vary year to year and decade to decade and I'm sure cherry picking can look better or worse so please no commentary about how I'm totally wrong about the 2013 white male murder rate in NYC vs the 1972 black male murder rate in Utah or something.
A couple white men die every year when deer hunting, mostly drunks driving off roads or into each other. Indirectly without guns they wouldn't deer hunt which means they wouldn't spend an hour in the field and then ten hours at the strip club drinking followed by driving unfamiliar roads and drunkenly killing each other. Directly with guns one dude shoots another every couple years, or somehow gets themselves while cleaning the rifle or whatever. Basic NRA gun handling rules and trivial hunter safety education vs "we dun built us a better idiot" and lots of booze, and millions go out to recreate while single digits die. In between about one heart attack in the woods per year (dead deer are heavy, hunting is better 10 miles from the road, etc) Aside from deer hunting if a white man is holding the gun the murder rate is roughly similar to Norway or Germany (pre-invasion) or perhaps UK. It DOES happen and usually involved domestic problems (catch yer wife with some other dude in bed, etc etc)
Now on the other hand, the black folks murder rate is better than, say, Somalia, but its still pretty bad, roughly like the Congo.
Education is kind of the same demographic situation. When people want to shit on the USA education system they point out that an average of all the kids regardless of race means we have the shittiest school system in the developed world. When like 1/3 our school kids were literally living in the 3rd world a couple years ago it makes more sense that their individual ethnic score is basically rural Mexico because they are rural Mexicans recently arrived. When you want a nice discussion of education in the USA, our white school kids perform to vaguely Scandinavian levels of education and our black kids are the highest performing Africans on the entire planet, crushing the entire continent of Africa. Of course the average across all school kids, again, of the top performing Africans (which is very low) and the white kids, averages out to something like Turkey or maybe Egypt.
As to why we pretend USA is a white country or is going to stay a white country, that's a longer term political discussion. Until certain people rammed thru an immigration reform in about fifty years ago it was a white nation. Not so much now. Maybe we need gun confiscations and tin pot dictators to match our future demographics. I mean, if we are gonna be "Cuba with snow" ya gotta take the gun confiscations and Castro revolutions with the ethnic food, ya know?
There's a meme going around about the Democrat archipelago where its like 1% of the landmass of the country and about 40% of the population ruled over by the left and its basically a 3rd world hellhole plus some rich people gated compounds where the violence and educational results are basically what you'd expect from Africa, vs the 99% of the landmass of the country with about 60% of the population ruled by republicans where the demographics and violence and educational results are basically Scandinavia, sure maybe not as smart as Korea or Japan supposedly but kicking some serious ass. We have two countries with two cultures and two wildly different levels of demographics and achievement unfortunately right next to each other. So averaging those two separate countries with separate cultures and demographics is going to give you nonsense as a result.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Monday January 09 2017, @09:52PM
How could anybody dispute your use of statistics when you cite no actual statistics or other sources in your comment? It's indisputable!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @10:00PM
How could anybody dispute your use of statistics when you cite no actual statistics or other sources in your comment? It's indisputable!
VLM has proven himself to be a congenital liar. [soylentnews.org]
Nobody should believe a single damn word he says.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:57PM
I still stand by that post proudly. Everyone else just triggered on the "ethics" dog whistle word and immediately went identity politics mode of us is good them is bad and I researched the situation deeply and documented why that office is objectively in fact totally worthless. I still say its totally worthless and no one wants to debate it beyond trivial level of "us is good thems is bad" or "anything ethics has to be good therefore its good no matter what they do".
I might even be wrong, but I did put in more research effort than ten of my opponents put together, so I deserve a participation trophy if nothing else.
I have written stuff thats outright false cause I'm just stupid sometimes, and I'll post follow up to correct the record when I notice it. Not this time. That office is useless paper pushing BS action for the sake of putting on good theater BS. In fact its actively bad because "we don't need real ethics, we gots us a committee already" That office is exactly what we don't need in government.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:03PM
> I still stand by that post proudly.
Of course you do! When you have no facts on your side, all you've got is the courage of your convictions.
If a strongly held belief is enough for you, it ought to be good enough for everyone else!
Tell us again how everything you disagree with is fake news. I love that one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday January 09 2017, @11:54PM
I've never uniformly modded ACs down before, but you guys really make me want to start.
Have the balls to make a damn account before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:09AM
before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
Was going to FTFY tango, 'til I realized it was not possible. Did you mean "hypercritical", or "hypnocritical"? And is it "whine", or some kind of "wine"? Could it have been "hippocratic wine"? Sorry that I have to post this as AC, but tango, you are defending a Nazi?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:27AM
> Have the balls to make a damn account before you hypocritically whine about a specific user.
The day VLM pays the price for his constant prevarications — his posts start at +0 just like mine do — is the day your complaint will have merit.
As long as he's going to get a +2 bonus for being pseudonymous despite regularly lying his ass of and being a racist sonofabitch then I have every moral right to hold him to honest account for his words. Obviously the karma system is failing to do it.
You want to mod me down for pointing out his history of lying? Go ahead, it is absolutely within you rights to be as petty and parochial as you desire. And since I post at +0 your spite will punish me for telling the truth more effectively than the same down-mod applied to VLM's lies would. You'll be a hero.
(Score: 2, Informative) by VLM on Monday January 09 2017, @10:46PM
It ends up a steaming pile of numbers looking like an ipv6 hosts file clouding the point. Then, pointless sophistry will follow along the lines of "citation needed" and "what about the result from 1972 for ... " BS that don't mean nothing.
None the less, lets have some pointless numerical fun to distract from the actual issues:
Lets talk about Iowa. Its basically all white people, not even illegal laborers. Needless to say its entire state gov and all but one congressman are R not D. There are some D just not many. Wikipedia reports a firearm death rate in 2013 per 100K of a whopping 8. Something called "Guns in Finland" (A real page turner I'm sure) claimed in 2013 per 100K to get a whopping 3. White SAT score in 1986 for reading was 524. Something called the PISA Reading Test in Finland provided the numerically identical 524 result.
Lets talk about Alabama. Alabama will be our proxy for black people. I've lived there, every white guy who graduated high school seems to move to Huntsville and be a rocket scientist and the rest of the state is a like all black. Anyway its 2013 per 100K gun death rate was 18, almost but not quite three times a white state. Its hard to get gun data from Africa but one of the few data points available is Swaziland at 37 per year per 100K. Black SAT score in 1986 for reading was 428 (like did you guys even try?) In the PISA Reading Test Swaziland was not one of the 65 participants and Tunisia is the only African country that even tried with a score of a whopping 404.
Lets talk about New Mexico. To quote Wikipedia "The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that 48% of the total 2015 population was Hispanic or Latino of any race, the highest of any state." so they'll be our proxy for Hispanics, because, well, they are in fact half Hispanic. The 2013 firearm death rate in NM per 100K people was 16, twice white states, but less than black states. In comparison most of them were recently living in say Guatemala which wikipedia claims 34 firearms related deaths per 100K people. Trump said they're not sending their best but I have to disagree with the God Emperor here in that the most civilized Guatemalans have moved here, leaving behind some trigger happy dudes in the old country. Hispanic "Mexican American" SAT score in 1986 for reading was 457, which is impressive for people who speak Spanish not English that they crushed the black kids taking the test who theoretically at least speak English. In the PISA reading test for 2015 Guatemala did not even try although as a point of comparison Mexico achieved a 424.
There's kind of an averaging effect where whites die in shootouts a little more in the USA than in the home country, and non-whites are dramatically less violent than back home, but still extremely violent compared to the whites. WRT education the trends are the same.
Its not entirely surprising... there is no magic dirt, so transplanting a "X" from "X-land" will naturally tend to get results extremely similar to "X" when they grow in different dirt.
OK here's your numbers let the sophistry and distraction begin!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:46PM
Tach accuses you of just making up numbers.
So in response, you ... make up more numbers.
I swear you have an illness.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:53AM
Exactly how is it "sophistry" to dispute your numbers when you produce blatant falsehoods?
Lets talk about Alabama. Alabama will be our proxy for black people. I've lived there, every white guy who graduated high school seems to move to Huntsville and be a rocket scientist and the rest of the state is a like all black.
According to the U.S. Census [census.gov], the white population in Alabama is 68.5% of the state population in 2010, and estimated to be 69.5% in 2015. "Black or African American" was 26.2% in 2010 and 26.8% in 2015. Thus, roughly 2.5 white people live in Alabama for every black person. And since the Huntsville [wikipedia.org] metropolitan area (I'll be generous and not just count the city, but the entire metro area) is somewhere between 417k in 2010 and 441k in 2014, and the entire population of Alabama according to the Census in 2015 is estimated to be 4.85 MILLION -- that means even if every single person in Huntsville's 400k+ population were white (not true), the rest of Alabama would still have over double the amount of white people compared to black people.
Anyway its 2013 per 100K gun death rate was 18, almost but not quite three times a white state.
Interestingly, you omit what the gun death rate is BY RACE in Alabama. Here are the numbers from 2014 [kff.org] for example. The black rate for gun deaths is 20.5, but the WHITE rate for gun deaths is 15.3. So actually the gun death rate for WHITES was "almost by not quite two times a white state." Oh wait, by the majority of its population, Alabama IS a white state!
Take a look at that last link, actually... you might notice any interesting pattern. Generally speaking, you are correct that gun violence in black communities is higher than white communities. You could have just cited national stats to prove that -- I have no idea why you feel the need to label various states as "white states" and "black states." But ALSO generally speaking, when the overall gun violence rates go up, they go up significantly for BOTH black and white communities. When they go down, they go down for BOTH black and white communities. (Note Massachusetts, where the black gun death rate is 7.3 -- even below that of a white state!! Same with Connecticut! And the white death rates there are proportionally lower than average too.)
How does that fit into your racial narrative? Is just the random proximity to black people enough to cause white people to go crazy and start shooting each other?!
Yes, there are some exceptions to that general trend, but overall it seems what you're actually proving is that some states have OVERALL higher rates of gun violence than others. Why?
Well, here's an article [theatlantic.com] that actually looks at a much broader selection of statistics than you do to try to tease it out. Turns out that some of the best correlations between gun deaths and states exist when you look at poverty level within a state and percentage of working class jobs in the state economy.
Basically, poorer people shoot each other more. The end. You could have skipped your entire rant and weirdly selective stats and just said that. It so happens that black folks (and hispanic folks) tend to be poorer that white folks in general too. Amazing coincidence?? No. Turns out that when you control for socioeconomic status that the vast majority of your supposed race gap in gun violence disappears.
Its not entirely surprising... there is no magic dirt, so transplanting a "X" from "X-land" will naturally tend to get results extremely similar to "X" when they grow in different dirt.
Interestingly, when black children are raised in upper-class white households, turns out they erase most of the supposed "racial gap" in intelligence, educational performance, etc. Huh... maybe changing the "dirt" does matter... maybe what you're talking about are cultural and demographic trends, not actually primarily caused by race itself.
That's not "sophistry and distraction" -- it's an alternative explanation backed up by statistical evidence. Now, I'll grant you that in such studies there are often still smaller gaps that appear between racial groups, but it's interesting that MOST of the discrepancies can be eliminated when you control for various factors (socioeconomic background, educational level and parents' educational level, being the most important). Is the remaining gap the result of racial differences or more minor confounding factors? Statistical evidence can't yet prove one or the other, but what's certain is most of the numbers you're citing are misleading and sometimes completely bogus.
The broader lesson here is that if you choose to see the world through a racist lens, you will find evidence to support your racism. If you open your mind to the possibility that there are other confounding factors though, you might realize there's a lot more going on here.
(Score: 3, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:05AM
By the way, I realized that I forgot to mention an important qualification -- the racial breakdown by state is by race of VICTIM, not perpetrator. I used this as a proxy because I couldn't quickly find data by state that also broke down by race for perpetrators. But we do know from numerous crime statistics [fbi.gov] that intrarace homicides (white kills white, black kills black) are MUCH more common than interrace (white kills black, black kills white) crimes. So it's a reasonable assumption that the pattern in most states for race of offender follows race of victim, at least overall.
I'm sure the omission of such a qualification (even though it's plain from the link I gave in my first post) will have some people here brand my entire argument as "fake news" or something. Oh well. I'm just trying to provide a more complete perspective.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:12AM
Exactly how is it "sophistry" to dispute your numbers when you produce blatant falsehoods?
Standard tactic - accuse your opponents of your own failings. Everything that bot posts is sophistry.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:36AM
Biiiiingo. The holy trinity of the neo-reactionary right is hypocrisy, projection, and ignorance.
This means you, VLM. Uzzard. J-Mo. Kyuubey, if you're still here. Runaway, you too sometimes. You don't fool anyone with their eyes open, and for the benefit of those whose aren't, I'll point it out every--single--*fucking*--time--one of you festering shitgluttons decides to piss in the meme pool.
Mod me down all you like; all it does is expose your own hypocrisy and taint your souls even further.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:47AM
and
You realise that if the intra-race murders were mostly black, and the inter-race murders were mostly blacks murdering whites, then the figures would come out as you say while still matching what VLM said?
Statistics by the victim's race are useless here, you need the statistics by perpetrator.
(And isn't dividing by race of victim racist anyway? Are black lives worth less so you count them separately?)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:12AM
Black-on-black crime accounts for about 90% of black victims
White-on-white crime accounts for about 85% of white victims
Your objections are without merit
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @11:40AM
Taking the big assumption that your figures are correct, and applying them only to the murder rates above, then :
4,850,000 population 69% White 31% Black :
3,346,500 White 1503500 Black
20.05/100000 * 1503500 * .9 = 271 Black Kills Black
20.05/100000 * 1503500 * .1 = 30 White Kills Black
15.3/100000 * 3346500 *.15 = 77 Black kills White
15.3/100000 * 3346500 * .85 = 435 White kills White
465 White killers in total /pop 3346500 *100000
348 Black killers in total / pop 1503500 *100000
=
Blacks are killers at 23 per 100000
Whites are killers at 14 per 100000.
Isn't playing with numbers fun? I wonder what those numbers become if you manage to exclude gun suicides.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:05PM
So, you're saying that, based upon your numbers, black-skinned people are 1.6 times as likely to murder someone as white-skinned people?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:25PM
Kill someone, not necessarily murder. Those figures include suicide and lawful kills too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Monday January 09 2017, @09:56PM
> 60% of the population ruled by republicans where the demographics and violence and educational results are basically Scandinavia
Have you checked the stats of the red states? That's some serious delusion, man...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:57AM
Plus, the writer may be mixing cause and effect. Is the political angle a result of bad conditions or a cause? There are plenty of well-to-due progressive areas such that progressivism by itself does not appear to be the primary cause of region rot, such as rust belts.
Rust belts appear to be the result of the well-to-do and well-educated leaving when the bottom falls out of a regional industry. It's harder for the uneducated to move, exasperating an already bad situation, creating a feedback loop of despair.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday January 09 2017, @10:52PM
I'm impressed with the self-control it must have taken you not to throw a single racial slur, not even once. I mean your entire post condenses down to someone shouting the n-word for 5 minutes straight, but you have the skill to disguise it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 09 2017, @11:49PM
Sorry, your ad hominem is invalid. The term "racist" was thrown around so much that it has passed the point of becoming meaningless. You'd have a more effective noise to use as an insult if you merely pressed your lips together and blew.
"Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday January 09 2017, @11:58PM
"Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
You know, curiously, this is the kind of thing only a racist would say! You fucking racist, trying to obfuscate the fact that VLM is both a racist and not smart enough locate actual facts, but is smart enough to do a whole comment without once using the n-word. One almost can come to admire such clever levels of racist sub-intelligence. The only thing more devious would be an attempt to erase the word "racist" entirely. And, bless your heart, here we are! Epic racist fail! This is why we cannot have white supremacy!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:05AM
Exactly.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:20PM
For the record, we have it on record that VLM is a fascist, because he openly advocated forced labor and extermination for undesireables. The code word he used was 'immigrants,' but he was talking about Latinos, Muslims, and other assorted brown people, but certainly not Irish overstaying student visas or Eastern Europeans sneaking in on container ships.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @12:34AM
> "Racist" is meaningless; it died in 2016.
You got that exactly backwards. 2016 was the year that all those accusations of racism were validated.
Nearly half the voting population just proved they don't mind textbook racism. [cnn.com]
You know what kind of people are OK with racism? Racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:42AM
It was her turn, wasn't it?
Sorry, friend, but the trump train is coming into station and if you don't get off the tracks you're going to get blown the fuck out.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:53AM
You poor fool...you're rejoicing over the very instrument of your own demise. That "train" is going to go over the cliff with you on it. Are you so completely nihilistic you'll kamikaze yourself just to get "those damn lib'ruls" too, or are you just completely out to lunch concerning what kind of electoral disaster we've just had? You utter illiterate moron, do you think a man who literally lives in a gold-plated penthouse in Manhattan and considers a million-dollar loan "a small amount" gives even the tiniest shit about We the People?
This isn't some fucking football game, you imbecile. We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:57AM
Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something about the person you were supporting but it won't because that would require critical introspection.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:42AM
> Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary.
Yeah it means their worldview is warped as fuck.
> that would require critical introspection.
That's rich coming from the lips of someone in the running for least introspective person on the site.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:18AM
You don't seem to remember all the posts I've made about not liking Hillary, do you? And, hel-LO, the people who voted for him obviously do NOT know "precisely what he [is]" for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to. Reading comprehension does not seem to be your strong suit. I get that you're a permanent nihilist, but at least try to keep up appearances, hmm...?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:44AM
for the exact reason stated above in the post you just replied to
We ALL lost. In the worst case, this could lead to the end of human technological civilization. We may very well end up in a world war which blows us all back to the Iron Age, without leaving us any more easy oil to jumpstart a second industrial revolution. THAT is what we're facing here.
What is the chance of this? Do you have any evidence to show that Trump will end human technological civilization? We've had warmongers as presidents and this hasn't really happened yet.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:11AM
We've never had a warmonger who was also this completely bugfuck insane, though, and there have always been cooler heads in the cabinet. Look reeeeeal close at who we got now. I'm not saying this necessarily WILL happen, but the conditions are much too ripe for my liking.
Trump himself really isn't the issue. He's a loose cannon, but he's not, by himself, focused enough to see something like that through. It's the Dominionist contingent in his cabinet who are the real problem. We're talking about people who want to start another war in the Middle East for the sole purpose of bringing on Armageddon, do you get that? To make this clearer: we have our own Taliban and they are now in power.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:33AM
Trump is on the record wanting the Saudis to have nukes. [breitbart.com]
He's also on the record refusing to rule out nuking europe. [independent.co.uk]
Is he just bullshitting?
I dunno. But he's literally the first president to ever say these things. That is not a good sign.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Tuesday January 10 2017, @08:15AM
1/ I read your first link. The article says Trump wants them to have weapons, many times. But if you take out their commentary, and only read the actual quotes you get :
Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
2/ Does not the President have the duty to defend the USA? Any President who flatly rules out the use of a weapon is either lying or failing in his duty.
Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true, whereas all the pundits are basing their estimations of his beliefs on adjusting for the usual amount of political bullshit.
(Tech analogy: you have a meter that always reads exactly 3 volts high, you use it check AA batteries. 4.6 is good, 4.4 is on the way out. One day you get a battery that bypasses the 3 volt error and reads 1.5V. Standard response is "WTF, that's crazy!!".)
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @09:06AM
> Sound to me more like he thinks it's inevitable rather than desirable. Don't you want a president who faces reality?
What kind of bullshit apologia is that?
Even if he thinks its inevitable that doesn't make it "reality" it means he's ready to give up and let it happen.
I do not want a president who gives up. Especially when it comes to nuclear proliferation.
> Maybe he is just blowing everyone's minds because he is saying what he thinks is true,
Ok, you are one of those idjits who voted for him aren't you? Because "blowing everyone's minds" about nuking europe is the kind of thing only a delusional fool would find admirable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 12 2017, @10:08AM
You have reading comprehension problems don't you. Get someone smarter to explain it to you.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:10PM
You make that sound like he intends to nuke Europe. That's not the context of what he was saying. He was saying that when you're talking about defending your country you never take anything off the table, so that the enemy knows you're prepared to go the full measure if necessary. It makes sense, if you're bloody-minded.
I would say in certain contexts, it is quite necessary that we speak as he has. China needs to remember that we hold a trump card (no pun intended) in our nuclear sub fleet, and can bring an abrupt end to their 5,000-yr old civilization in 15 minutes if necessary; it constrains their ambitions. Maybe it's not the warm fuzzy that some like to hear, but neither would the attempt to build the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere be, either.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:06PM
Yes I know what he was saying.
A sane person says, nuking europe is not on the table.
Because it fucking well isn't.
And same thing with China. We are not in a cold war with china. Threatening china, and yes what you wrote is a literal threat, is the kind of thing that causes wars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @06:11PM
Sane according to an insane person who apparently claims to be able to see the future.
Every means of war is always on the table for sane people who look reality in the face and deal with it. Europe would have already been nuked had the technology been ready before Germany surrendered. Or maybe you just like Hitler so much that you want the option "off the table" before his successor arises, is that what you're saying?
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:11PM
They are never not in power.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:45AM
Most of the Trump voters I've talked to knew precisely what he was. And still picked him over Hillary. That should tell you something
It tells me they had no fucking idea who or what they voted for.
Like this person who publicly celebrated today's Senate vote to repeal Obamacare [tumblr.com] because they had ACA health insurance.
THAT is how well informed your loudest Trump voters are.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:17PM
I'm pretty sure Hillary Clinton knew nothing about technology. She did not set up that email server herself, nor has she ever understood the basics of the Internal Combustion Engine nor any other component of our technological civilization. I'm equally sure Donald Trump has no clue about it, either.
I'm pretty certain that people like us know that stuff and do that stuff, even with all the H1-B's. I'm also pretty certain that no matter what happens to any government at any level, people like us will still know that stuff and do that stuff because it's in our blood. As long as people like us exist, human technological civilization will continue.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:10AM
Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists. Our country's voting system is defective by design and locks out alternative choices in most people's minds, so people will vote for the candidate they believe is the lesser evil. This means that voters don't necessarily vote for someone because they believe they're good, but just because they believe the person is less evil than the other candidate. Maybe many Trump voters disagreed with him on many issues but ultimately saw him as a lesser evil. I'm not seeing how this necessarily indicates they're all racists; it's classic team politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @02:38AM
> Even if it Trump is racist, it doesn't follow that all or even most of the people who voted for him are also racists.
It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.
Watch the regulars chime in to agree that's not just a belief, its a fact.
And if you think liberalism is worse than racism, you've never really been on the wrong side of racism.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:12AM
It does follow that for them being a liberal is worse than being a racist.
Which, even if true, still doesn't make them racist. But it's not even necessarily true, because many people who voted Trump simply despised Hillary Clinton.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @05:51AM
Sure that's what they said.
But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.
When such strong emotions have such weak foundations its because people don't want to acknowledge their real motivations so they grasp on to whatever fig leaf is handy.
You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.
True?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:43AM
But typically their underlying reasons for hating her are built on quicksand.
Hardly different from usual, then.
You strike me as somebody who think racism is a purely conscious phenomenon.
It doesn't need to be. I just can't read minds or generalize so broadly based on a mere vote.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:03PM
That dismisses the 30 years that Hillary and her husband spent in the national spotlight, which we were all treated to. It's hardly quicksand to watch them cheat and parse and sin and thieve and wriggle and never, ever face real consequences for anything. We all discussed the particulars ad nauseum during the election campaign, so you can trawl through the archives or google if you really want the citations.
Pumpernickel is right--there were many, complex reasons why people chose Trump over Hillary. Glossing over them will not only obscure the reality but will also prove a material impediment to your winning next time.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:29AM
Well, I can't speak for what is in the hearts and minds of every Trump voter, but it is crystal clear what they were voting for. He did not in any way try to hide his bigotry and xenophobia. In fact, he revelled in it. At the very least, his clearly articulated bigotry and xenophobia were not enough of a turn off to persuade Trump voters to choose someone else. Unfortunately, I think it understandable if many come away with the conclusion that a sizeable number of his supporters agree with his repugnant views.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:48AM
Concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism isn't "bigotry or xenophobia". So, what exactly were you referring to here? Those are the only examples I can recall.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:28AM
Oh, come now. I expect much better than this sort of facile (and erroneous) analysis from a reader of SN. Do I really need to rehearse one more time his public statements about Mexicans, specifically, and minorities more generally? [huffingtonpost.com] Or his blanket proposal to deny approximately a fourth of the world's population their basic human rights? [cbsnews.com] Well, OK, he only wants to deny First Amendment rights to Muslims living inside the borders of the USA. But that is a rather Earth-shattering departure from the ideals that our nation's leaders have touted since before I was born that the First Amendment is considered sacred for all Americans and that we would champion basic human rights for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live, wouldn't you say? This goes far, far beyond mere "concern over illegal immigration or islamic extremism". Yes, this is bigotry and xenophobia we are talking about here.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:20AM
Hey, dumbass, "ad hominem" is an UNSUBSTANTIATED attack ON THE PERSON, not the argument. Not only was "wow, you basically just got drunk and hung out the window and shouted "eeeeeEEEEEEeeeeyyynigganigganigga!" for 5 minutes straight" an attack on his argument, not him, it was also *entirely* on the mark.
You don't know what words mean, do you?
And contrary to "racist" becoming meaningless, this shitshow of an election has made it more topical and urgent than ever. When the goddamn KKK is supporting your rallies, when your chief strategist is basically David Duke in plainclothes dress, you have a racism problem. Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out, and may you fry in hell for your part in the coming collapse of this nation.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @03:28AM
Blame your SJW allies if you must. "Racist" is attached to the person now, and because it's ALWAYS attached to a person a special snowflake SJW (and allies) disagrees with, it is now a meaningless term, devoid of useful definition.
It is sad, in a way, but you brought this situation on yourselves, much like with Trump getting in because the The Other Side of the Same Coin demanded that it was Hillary's turn. You pushed so hard that the blowback blew you out of the water.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday January 10 2017, @04:22AM
So if I understand you right, insulting someone at any point in any way during an argument makes that argument null and void, no? Looks like all the "special snowflakes" won this round then :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 10 2017, @07:01AM
Winning sure does feel good, doesn't it?
Hm - that actually sounds familiar...
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday January 10 2017, @01:47PM
a racism problem
What is that exactly? The problem, specifically.
So the original problem is some loose rambling about Americans shocking cost of easy gun access, which actually isn't all that much of a cost for a 320 million person nation, seeing as its like 1/4 the cost of suicides or well under a tenth the cause of generic accidents (slip and fall) and with well over 2.5 million deaths per year total, guns are a microscopic fraction of a percent basically not worth worrying about. 11K deaths per year sounds like a lot if you live in the UK where a big town is like 500 people or even 11K shootings in London would be kinda noteworthy, but the BBC has to face facts that "the colonies" have expanded slightly since the revolutionary war and we're now a modest integer multiple of the population of the old home island... So it would be like freaking out about 1000 knife deaths in the entire UK, interestingly enough the UK does score a bit less than 1K murders per year... You're almost certain to die from eating too much carbs and not exercising too much with a side dish of cancer from environmental exposure to various chemicals, or from drinking booze, or in a car accident, but not from a gun.
The reason to ban guns is purely political, not practical and not for safety reasons. Also massive progressive signaling points by claiming support.
I proposed that effective gun control could take race into account, the only really useful response pointed out that their statistical samples imply a moderately better correlation with income, which is basically a stealth race measurement so whatever. Either way you slice it, a rifle in a white $75K/yr deer hunters hands in the hunting woods is harmless to society and a pistol in a black $0/yr hands in the inner city is going to fill coffins, and regulation should respect those outcomes.
So anyway, what exactly is the problem?
Fuck you for trying to silence the people pointing this out
Speak up, here's your podium.... Try something deeper than "I'm a better person for pointing out its a thoughtcrime double plus ungood". How about in the spirit of a physics thought experiment, if either what I'm suggesting or you're imagining or a mix of both is implemented, then the result will be ... um ...
in the coming collapse of this nation
Historically either what I'm actually talking about, or what you're signalling against because you're holier than I am, and those two topics may or may not have much if anything in common, regardless it has never been a nation or civilization ending problem. Civilizations have fallen for a lot of reasons, but not that. Either way, it sounds very "sky is falling". Better to worry about gun control or global warming or ozone holes or Russian hacking or whatever other imaginary boogeymen and things the go bump in the night. Or bad diet, lack of exercise, chemical contaminants, smoking, etc.