If your boat is on fire. And has been for a while. And you start throwing water on it - but at the same time someones at the top of the boat are actively throwing gasoline everywhere - you aren’t going to put out the fire.
This isn’t an error. It’s people claiming to have done a thing they did not do and demanding to be added to the count. To be clear, cops don’t stop violence either, most mass-shooters kill themselves in the end, but lone-gunmen are not out here protecting anybody. Guns only and always make confrontation deadlier than it has to be. There is no situation where having a gun makes you safer, whether you possess a license or not, and the statistics on mortality and gun ownership back that up, going back a long, long time.
Agitating for people to go fight the government with fucking handguns and long rifles is effectively carrying water for the people you hate. There are methods of resistance that are far less likely to get young people gunned down en masse, and by leveraging those methods first, the violence that eventually ensues can be reduced and contained as much as possible.
You have quite a few absolutes in this comment, and not all of them are correct.
Having access to a gun does statistically make you more likely to die of a gunshot, including significantly higher rates of suicide.
HOWEVER, stating that there are zero situations where having a gun would be better than not having a gun is just incorrect. It is highly unlikely for a gun to improve a situation, and it is an anomaly for a gun to make a difference, but there are well documented instances where a gun prevented the start of, or the continuation of, violence.
Flatly stating that there are no situations where a gun can make you safer is untrue. Pushing this hyperbole only helps keep the conversation on the wrong topics.
I mean, I simply disagree. Violence is always a failure, either of policy, or of personal behavior. Enabling people to escalate that failure to a deadly one with the twitch of a finger is simply not an acceptable paradigm. An armed society, contrary to the witticism, will never be a polite society, because it makes it stupendously easy for bad actors to cause disproportionate harm, relative to the ability of the community to reasonably prepare for. Removing guns entirely is the only reasonable solution if you actually want a free and peaceful society.
A disarmed society is not a free society, its completely reliant on the state for personal defence, when that responsibility should rest with the individual.
You are already reliant on the state for defense, whether you admit it or not. The very existence of states requires a functional monopoly on violence, and private gun ownership is just a fig leaf to obscure that fact. A fig leaf that leads to massive, unnecessary loss of life. If your definition of freedom is so limited that not owning a gun makes you automatically un-free, you do not actually believe in freedom, you believe in the right to violently interject yourself into the lives of others. That is pretty much the opposite of freedom.
I’m reliant on the state for defence on a larger scale, but in our personal lives, the state can do little to defend us from other individuals in a timely manner. That is why I believe everyone that is able to should be responsible for their own personal defence.
I’ve no desire to injerect in others lives, but I do have a desire to protect myself and my family where the state cannot or will not.
Okay, but following that logic, getting rid of all of the guns is still the best thing we could do, because it makes it much harder for people to quickly inflict a huge amount of harm. Ensuring that your local community is free of guns would do far more to protect you and your family than bringing a gun into your home, which you have already acknowledged is a highly dangerous thing to do. It’s like arguing that because your neighbor keeps a bear chained up in his yard, you ought to go out and get a bear, to protect yourself from his bear, when the clear answer is just to get the bears out of the neighborhood.
Ensuring that your local community is free of guns
Nice in theory, impossible in practice.
We spend $30+billion/year ensuring our communities are free of drugs. How’s that working out? From where I sit we may as well just put the cash in a giant pile and set it on fire, at least that way it would keep somebody warm.
Guns are easier to make than drugs. Any half-decent machine shop can make a gun, and unlike a drug lab, the machine shop has a lot of legitimate ‘day shift’ uses. Hobbyists make their own (legal) guns all the time in their basements. And the advent of cheap CNC machining tools makes it even easier.
Don’t get me wrong- I’m all ears for any proposal that disarms criminals. I don’t believe that disarming the law-abiding will help disarm criminals, at least I don’t see anywhere in our nation’s history where that has worked.
Australians now own more guns collectively than they did prior to Port Arthur just FYI, and their buyback only got about 1.2 million of the estimated 3.2 million guns in circulation at the time.
This is a nice idea, unfortunately it’s not generally realistic. It’s very ivory-tower idealistic.
Between rational people like you and I- yes I agree, violence is a failure. But not everybody is rational.
The fact is there ARE people in society who would harm their fellow humans, either for fun or for profit or because they just don’t know any better. I wish that wasn’t the case, but it is.
Ignoring this fact does not prevent such people from harming others, or protect those victims. And saying we should remove the means of self-defense because violence is failure is like saying we should remove airbags and seatbelts from cars because crashes are failures. Sure crashes and violence are failures, but sometimes failures happen and you are either prepared for the consequences or you’re not.
The other issue is that ‘remove guns entirely’ is simply not possible. You can disarm the law-abiding, but that will NOT disarm the criminals and those with no respect for the law. If you feel the law will prevent them from obtaining guns, then please explain why an anti-gun law will be any more effective than anti-drug laws (which we’ve been trying at for 30+ years, with little or no success).
Apples to oranges. Australia doesn’t have the same society as us- nowhere near the levels of drug problems and drug cartels, and they are more likely to treat addicts like patients who require treatment than criminals who should be punished by locking them up with even more violent criminals. Australia has WAY better mental and phyiscal health care and better protections for workers. It’s much closer to a socialized society than the USA is.
As a result they have significantly different problems, specifically, they DON’T have anywhere near the same level of drug problems and violent crime. Their culture doesn’t glorify violence as much as ours does, and we don’t have that mixed in with a much more ‘FU you’re on your own’ type socioeconomic policy.
THOSE changes are why much of AU is a safer society. I strongly advocate for making many of those changes in USA. Specifically- health care should be a human right (including mental health care), we should treat drug addicts like patients not criminals, and we should otherwise reform our society for the benefit of the people rather than the benefit of the corporations in the economy.
At this point you are arguing that gun reform can’t work simply because Americans are special. You are incorrect, and your position isn’t supported by anything other than propaganda.
Don’t be obtuse. I’m arguing that because America is different than Australia, what worked there isn’t guaranteed to work here, and that the causes of our gun issues run a lot deeper than guns. Therefore, rather than taking a simpleton answer of ‘it worked for them it’ll work for us!’ it makes sense to actually think about what are the underlying causes of our problems and if that solution will work or not.
I am absolutely not the one being obtuse here. Nothing you have claimed here is supported by actual evidence, unlike the pro-gun control position, and I’m not prepared to base our gun policy on vibes alone. You can spend all day saying ‘that’s different!’ but the facts are not on your side.
I’m not prepared to base our gun policy on vibes alone
Okay now we’re getting somewhere. I agree entirely, public policy should not be based on ‘vibes’ or emotions of any sort, no matter whose vibes they are. In a ‘Free Country’, if you’re going to set a policy or restrict someone’s freedoms (especially Constitutionally-enumerated freedoms), you need a damn good reason and some proof that your policy will have the desired effect. My ‘vibes’ are insufficient and so are yours.
So I as I see it, the answer, from real numbers, is pretty simple.
Per FBI Uniform Crime Report, there are about 10k-12k homicides by firearm per year.
I’ll take a moment to point out that rifles, which include the ‘assault’ rifles everyone wants to ban as well as other rifles, are used in about 200-350 homicides/year, which is less than half the 600-700 people who are punched and kicked to death. Not a huge threat there.
But back on subject. 10-12k firearm homicides per year.
In comparison, there are minimum of 55k defensive gun uses per year. A DGU is when a law-abiding person uses a legal firearm to stop or prevent a crime. The vast majority end with no shots fired- the criminal sees the gun and runs away.
The exact number of such incidents is much harder to nail down, because unlike homicides, they aren’t centrally tracked. Many DGUs don’t get reported- the criminal runs away quickly so there’s not much to report; and there’s no central reporting or tracking as there is with homicide. Thus DGUs must be tracked by various statistical survey methods, leading to the a wide disparity in numbers. Anti-gun researcher Hemenway puts it at 55k-80k/year, pro-gun researcher Lott puts it in the millions. I say it’s probably somewhere in the hundreds of thousands.
So I look at these two pieces of data. 10-12k firearm homicide per year, a large % of which is done by prohibited persons and/or illegal guns (which are already illegal). On the other side, 55k+ DGUs, the vast majority of it done by legal persons and legal guns.
And I conclude if we enact anti-gun policy, it will affect the people who follow the law more than those who don’t; namely; it will reduce DGUs at a greater rate than firearm homicide. And that is not a good trade in my book.
My thoughts are that you are literally pulling a conclusion that the numbers don’t support out of your ass because you ‘feel’ the numbers are probably higher. The entire premise is flawed from the beginning anyway, because any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn’t make anyone involved safer. Any interaction between two gun wielding individuals is similarly not a case of a good guy preventing violence. If neither had guns, neither would get shot. It is literally that simple.
I said that given two biased partisan researchers who produce a high and a low number, I feel the reality is probably somewhere between them. That seems pretty logical to me. If you disagree, can you explain what you think the correct number of DGUs is and how you come to that conclusion?
any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun, and certainly doesn’t make anyone involved safer.
This is easily disproven. Here’s one obvious scenario.
Single mid-20s attractive female is legally armed with carry permit. She is walking home from work when she’s confronted by a would-be rapist who blocks her way and insists he comes with her. She draws her weapon and orders him out of her way. He immediately surrenders and does the whole ‘I’m sorry I didn’t mean nothing you don’t gotta overreact like that’. No shots are fired. She then leaves the area and continues home unharmed.
That woman is safer and unharmed and unraped BECAUSE she carried her gun.
any situation where a person pulls a gun on a person without a gun is not a defensive use of a gun
"You must defend from your assailants with an attack of equal or lesser hit points or it doesn't count." Am I allowed to pepper spray someone punching me? Or do I need to know what they bench first? Where do knives rank on the chart? And how does this system scale with multiple assailants?
Any interaction between two gun wielding individuals is similarly not a case of a good guy preventing violence
Regardless of whether violence is a failure of policy or personal behaviour, you need a solution for violence happening to you. What’s your recommendation for Zelenskiy, for example? The violence is happening right now, whether he likes it or not. It is too late to decry that it happened; all he can do now is attempt to deal with it. And to date, no known human has pitched a nonviolent, feasible method.
Zelenskiy is the democratically elected head of state, he has as good a mandate as anyone to use force on behalf of his people. The fact that Russia was allowed to invade in the first place, despite security guarantees from both Russia and the US is the failure here. In any case, that argument is a complete non-seqitur to what I actually said. I never said violence was completely preventable, but you absolutely can make it much harder.
This isn’t an error. It’s people claiming to have done a thing they did not do and demanding to be added to the count.
You're allowed to read the article, you know. They literally cite with corroborated news articles every single claimed omission, they didn't compile this from Google form submissions. They're not "I had a knife pulled on me in an alley" stories, they're instances of live fire into crowds that the FBI is drastically undercounting due to reliance on either local law enforcement reporting incidents or national news media reporting on them. I don't think these are the numbers you'd get with omniscience, real story here to me is that the FBI undercounts so drastically (and potentially with such bias) that you can cite enough new instances to swing their results by an order of magnitude.
I did read the article, and you are not understanding what the article is claiming. All of those events have been counted, as a separate category of firearm incident, and gun-advocacy groups want them counted a different way. The total number of gun-related events is not in dispute, only whether they make good propaganda points for the death cult side of the argument. They are trying to claim that a ‘good guy with a gun’ frequently prevents violence, and that is simply not what the data presented shows. They are trying to claim that a methodological error has been made, when the reality is that they are just wrong and trying to lie about it.
Stand back and pick up the soap, nutty. I hope they send him to wherever they lock up the Bloods and Crips gang members they arrest, maybe he can explain to them how he’s not a racist.
As a historian, I can say something over 1000 years old that is not fragmented or on the verge of being fragmented is very good condition. Not missing anything or any notable pieces too? Damn near mint
On top of the other comments, I’m also depressed because I don’t see myself having much of a future. I’m likely not going to be able to retire because I won’t be able to afford it. We are already seeing people reite later and later. It’s a slow build, sure. But where are we gonna be in the next 30 years when I should be at that age? Am I gonna be working till I’m 75? Can we even retire at all? Most of us can’t get enough money to build a retirement fund. We are way behind fancially where we should be. That’s not only harming us now, but at this point I’ve seen a lot of people say they just don’t have any hope at retirement. It’s just no longer a thing people are striving for, because it doesn’t look like it’s gonna be possible. Right now you’re looking at needing around a million for many people, and we can’t even get a couple thousand saved up.
On top of that, I have to worry about global warming. Which not only will fuck up things even more for the stuff in the first part, but I don’t even know if I’ll be alive to retire. And living is gonna fucking suck in so many ways. I’m in Oregon, and we have fires every year now. Last year we had some days reach 115°F. Things are going to be fucked.
It’s sometimes hard to be happy and optimistic when there’s not a lot to look forward to in the future.
I’m old enough to remember a time when the future seemed bright and optimistic. It felt like everyone was excited about what’s next, and we wanted to get to the future more quickly. In the late 80’s and part of the 90’s we had tv shows like “Beyond 2000” that painted this utopian future, and all the promises of the democratization of ideas and information were promised by the internet.
Now it’s just wealth gaps, social media poisoning society at large, climate change intensifying, and the consolidation of the social middle class into a uniform lower class. We don’t see the seeds of any positive change, and only expect things to get worse.
The one thing I can say is that the future also looked bleak around WW2. We had come off a world war, pandemic, the Titanic sinking, and then went right into WW2. I could understand why people back then had even more dire survival types of concerns. Not that it makes us feel any better today, because the catalysts for progressive changes back then were horrifying events.
If anything that makes me feel worse, as the true fix for today’s issues mean we have to be super-fucked before it’ll get better. Right now we’re just fucked.
the early days of airbnb was basically this concept.
they didn't start out as a marketplace for unregulated hotels that destroy housing markets. that didn't happen until after they started cashing checks venture vulture capitalists.
So many people forget this origin. Air mattress in your spare room (in SF), iirc.
As much as I, personally, prefer a house when away - either with the family or as a couple - this is one of the drivers behind the crunch in housing. People can’t possibly afford to by a place to live when the competition is a wanna-be property “entrepreneur” who is going to get 2-4x market rent by doing short term rentals.
Originally my mum moved my brother and I into the same room and rented out the empty room for $40 a night. The cleaning fee was $20 and we still cleared $2,000 in one summer.
My brother and I each got a 5% cut and we bought ice creams from Safeway every day for a week until we got wicked stomach aches
Hasn’t Hawaii (at least on Oahu) had this for some time now? I know when you look up AirBNB and VRBO there are mentions of it, and to contact the owner directly, etc.
It’s had it for a while, but enforcement was pretty spotty. I believe they’ve recently gotten buy-in from AirBNB to not list properties that weren’t permitted.
The free market isn't going to solve this problem. It isn't profitable to solve climate change.
This is where Governments are meant to step in, to serve the best interests of the people... instead they're too busy bickering over bullshit, and giving themselves and their cronies handouts.
If you’re impressed by your number, you just don’t understand how big China is…
And tarrifs on cheap foreign profits is really the only way to stimulate internal production. Not sure where you were a few years ago, but COVID should have taught you why domestic production is important
Because the people working those sweatshops have such great lives too.
Their lives are demonstrably better than before those opportunities arrived, and the increased wealth enables governments to grow inclusive institutions that ban sweatshops and still benefit from the relative value of the US dollar to local currency
People with my views do run the economy. This is economic orthodoxy.
No I didn’t bring up slavery at all, and equating paid jobs that do not exist until a company invests in a developing nation with slavery is disgustingly offensive.
Developing nations are developing because of outside investment, and equating that to the rape of their lands and people that was chattel slavery is a monstrous thing to do.
Sweatshops, while terrible working conditions, are paid labor and people seek out those jobs because the money is so much better than what they were doing before.
I am not pro sweatshop. International trade is so good for developing nations that even sweatshops are better than what they had. I’m all for treaties that straight up require investment capital to regulate that any foreign suppliers meet a certain level of safety and health regulations.
The reason that foreign investment in labor is profitable is not because of sweatshops but because of comparative advantage. An easy example is Mexico where the US dollar is currently worth 18 pesos, meaning you can pay a Mexican laborer 1/5th of what you pay an American and still are actually paying them more relative to their cost of living than an American.
This is true worldwide and is the essence of global trade, and it is impossible to call this a bad thing without just straight up saying you don’t give a shit about the livelihood of the Global South.
Comparative advantage is the reason that standards of living are rising worldwide. This investment spurs local capital growth, grows institutions to be inclusive instead of extractive, and in the long term encourages democratic reforms.
The US should, and does when our President isn’t a drooling imbecile, see global trade as a form of soft power and spreading of democracy.
So after reading the article, there is no information as to what China is spending $6 trillion on. The vast majority of the article discusses how China is building a really long road and that they will be depending on coal until at least 2050.
The free market is the only solution to climate change, and it is absolutely profitable to solve climate change.
The problem, as the article indicates, is that we currently subsidize fossil fuels and do not tax them to pay for their externalities, stacking the deck in favor of fossil fuels companies and away from green energy transitions.
Even with that in place, capital is flying toward green/renewable energy.
A carbon tax is 100% needed, and dividends can be handed out to bottom quintile earners to offset the cost for those who literally cannot survive the increases a carbon tax causes. Problem there is just that taxing fuel in the US almost guarantees you lose your next election.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.