Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of the economics book, The Black Swan, had a great take on this. I’m paraphrasing but he was like how Economists can go in the news, make a prediction, and if they’re wrong, nothing. But if they’re right, they become a staple of business news and sell out all of their books. So financially, it’s better to make a lot of predictions and hope to win the “I guess right” lottery.
That’s like me at the stop light trying to predict when it will change. “1, 2, 3… change”…“1, 2, 3…change”. “1, 2, 3 change” light changes. I feel smug in my elite ability to predict the change.
You’re very correct. The market is very much a predator and prey relationship, and the justifications afterwards are for the fans at home. I once saw the whole market tilt because one man (Bill Hwang) lost his leveraged multibillion dollar position.
There’s an old scam that runs the same way. On a 2 outcome wager like which team wins a game send 500 people prediction team A wins and 500 people team B wins. For the 500 people who got the right one send 250 team C wins and the other 250 team D wins. By the time you’re down to ~7 people they all received 7 winning predictions in a row, then you ask them for a bet on a ‘sure thing’ for the 8th game.
Definitely that, but it’s a two birds thing. Their base is horribly ignorant, but they are not. They are 100% malicious. Not only do they get to control the rights of people they’ve never empathized with, they get to do exactly what you said over time.
Yup. That’s why they ban books and cut funding for public education. They want uneducated people to keep voting for Republican candidates who put their own kids into private schools, and the cycle continues.
Not at all. Everyone should be entitled to a safe, healthy life no matter their traits or attributes. Restricting people’s reproductive choices is insidious and people can’t be trusted to do it properly, even if there was a ‘fair’ way to do it. It doesn’t stop conservatives from constantly doing just that, though.
What I am getting at is, the more stupid laws that get passed to ‘punish’ people for having sex, the more people on the end of the spectrum that have good critical thinking skills will choose to delay or avoid having kids in that place that’s making the stupid laws. It’s strictly about incentivizing behavior through policy.
That’s all true and fair. And I’m certain that’s part of the plan of Republicans. That doesn’t mean we have to also think the way they do about it. It creates a narrative of reproduction of certain people being less desirable as that of others. While that doesn’t restrict those people’s reproductive rights per se, it creates an ethical conundrum about who should and shouldn’t reproduce. Again, I’m sure rightists believe those things, but aren’t we above that? It also reinforces the narrative that things like rational thinking skills are genetic rather than the result of education or lack thereof, which is a wholly separate issue that also has to be solved. Can’t we focus the discussion on this, simultaneously making sure more people realize what we perceive as intelligence is mainly an issue of education and not much of genetics?
That’s all true and fair as well. But I think you’re arguing against a point I wasn’t trying to make. I never wanted to imply there was a ‘should’ group and a ‘shouldn’t’ group. I don’t believe the government (or the church) has any business in how many kids someone has. I do believe that laws like this add to the pile of reasons certain groups of people will delay or refrain from having kids at all. I know because I’m in that group.
The education part is a whole other conundrum, and you seem to feel that has a much bigger impact on the situation. I agree with you, if so. Access to a good education is the real equalizer in life, if you can say such a thing exists.
Sorry I phrased it in a way that made it sound like YOU were saying certain groups should or shouldn’t have kids. What I’m trying to say is that I personally feel like even just pointing out that something is making more ‘stupid’ people reproduce keeps the narrative of who should or shouldn’t have kids alive, even if that’s not the intention. I think we should try to let that narrative die. But yeah I think we agree about pretty much everything else. I know it’s a big current problem that people delay or even refrain from having kids. And I find it quite heartbreaking, I’m very sorry you have to consider all this in your family planning.
All I’m trying to say is maybe we should consider how we speak about these issues, because prejudiced individuals and groups could read it like we’re agreeing with their prejudice, which reinforces their prejudice. I hope I’m making sense? We’re trying to say republicans are trying to keep the masses dumb, and by this we mean they like that those who can’t access the education necessary to form critical thinking skills are having kids who also won’t be able to access this education. But without this clarification, it could sound like we’re saying that certain people having kids leads to a dumber population, which is good for rightists and bad for us. Am I being overly cautious maybe?
And yes, that is what what I was trying to say about education being a driving factor!
I’ll go with the over-cautious …. Maybe we’re phrasing it inappropriately, but it’s still an important point. The more difficult we make it to have and raise children, the more likely they’ll be parented by those with the least choice, the least resources, the least options.
And I’ll even say yes, it will lead to a dumber population. theres no reason this is genetic, although I suppose that’s possible. Children raised with poor nutrition, lack of morals, disrespect for education, inadequate support for their future, parents unable to dedicate sufficient attention to children, etc …… is that functionally different from a dumber population? It’s not our business to decide who can raise a child or how, but we can help them provide adequate nutrition and care, adequate healthcare and education, we can make sure they have opportunities if they’re willing to take it. We can help make it easier for parents to raise their kids well, and we can help that child to see opportunity as a functioning citizen…… is that functionally different from a smarter population?
I don’t think there are many people here who think the solution is for stupid people to stop reproducing, rather that our education system stop producing so many stupid people.
I didn’t specify in my original comment that you replied to. This is exactly my thinking. I just worry the original phrasing might be playing into eugenicists cards and feel we’d be safer if we specified that we mean exactly what you said.
I think this is the wrong way to frame it. Really, it will come down to people with a strong enough upbringing to understand their choices. A lot of people have children because they didn’t have good guidance from adult figures in their lives, it’s not because they’re stupid. A lot of those folks are just poor.
Exactly. The goal in red states is to cultivate a large population of angry and unintelligent people by essentially forcing the impoverished to have kids and sending them through dismantled education systems. They are creating a feeder system for the military and for Republican votes. That’s just my conspiracy theory.
I’m fifty. Joe Rogan is fifty six. Even though I was young in the eighties, by 1992 I had already lost six people I knew to AIDS. Joe, being six years older than I, would have witnessed peak AIDS apocalypse as an older teen. He was even from New Jersey, not some suburb in the midwest. He would have seen some shit. All he has to do is remember, but he chooses willful ignorance.
We are all living through global climate change, and the collapse of late stage capitalism, etc. These and their I’ll are selling copium to the masses of folks who can’t face reality and choose to live in fantasy.
Even those of us in the Midwest knew enough about AIDS by the 90s to understand this is just utter bullshit. I’m from Indiana, which is where Ryan White was born and died.
Maybe not individually, but if you care about the subjects that he talks about at all, it’s good to at least keep an eye on what he’s telling his millions of listeners.
Maybe he was lucky, I’m 46 and lost almost only old people through more or less old age. I feel really lucky about it. And I know people who lost people right and left, suicide, accidents, plane crashes…
They didn’t “Swarm” anything, they threatened the lady governor en masse under the cover of darkness like the pussies they usually are, maintaining that thin veneer of legality so that the governor can’t go after them.
Now the Nazi punks are acting like they’re the KKK to a sitting governor, time to start curb stomping some Nazis kids, before they come to curbstomp the rest of us.
My only problem with it is I imagine swarm like how hornets enter a bees nest or how conservatives try to break down barricades at the US Capitol. When we’re this close to civil war, we don’t want to use words that imply the fighting has already started.
Technically, losing the thin veneer at previous events is why they got brought to court to being with. The group frequently instigated violence and unlawfully harassed and attacked based on protected classes and the Governor and AG are handling the 26 page complaint, which is why they decided to gather outside of her home.
If you have a problem and you call the cops you now have two problems
Edit: Also, who administered the ketamine? Had they received training in appropriate dosing? Or did some dumb cop just shove a needle into a kid and hope he didn't die.
He’s an insecure, narcissistic, ignorant, idiot… and this is the reason why so many Americans worship him… because he makes them feel like their negative personality traits are a good thing.
Apologies if this is not allowed, but if you are a person in Texas who needs access to reproductive healthcare or want to help those who do, here are some resources:
Resources for Texans seeking access to healthcare:
these sites offer access to abortion pills, even in Texas. Please be safe and be aware of clinics (e.g. Crisis Pregnancy Centers) that give out dangerous misinformation on abortions and pregnancy.
If you want to give money to some pro-choice charities, try here:
fundtexaschoice.org - The Dallas-based nonprofit Fund Texas Choice assists Texas residents with lodging and transportation expenses to abortion clinics in and out of state. It also provides information on organizations that can help with funding the procedure.
www.laslibres.org - Las Libres is a Mexican feminist organization that supports women seeking abortions and control of their own bodies; this now includes those who contact them from the United States.
teafund.org - Texas Equal Access Fund provides funding to low-income people in the north, east, and Panhandle regions of Texas who can’t afford an abortion. It also offers emotional support through a confidential text line, support group, and virtual clinic companion program.
janesdueprocess.org - Jane’s Due Process helps young Texans navigate parental-consent laws and confidentially access abortion and birth control. It offers Texas teens and young people free legal support, one-on-one case management, and a text line for those needing information on birth control and family-planning services without parental involvement.
www.lilithfund.org - The Lilith Fund, an Austin-based nonprofit, provides direct financial assistance to Texans in central and southern regions of the state who need an abortion. It also offers an emotional-support hotline.
www.theafiyacenter.org - The Afiya Center, or TAC for short, is a reproductive-justice organization in North Texas that provides refuge, education, and other resources to Black women. The center has its own “economic enrichment campaign” focused on funding projects for women of color living with HIV/AIDS (and those at risk). It also supports programs that are providing abortion access in the state.
thebridgecollective.org - The Bridge Collective serves central Texans by offering transportation to abortion clinics for people within 100 miles of Austin. It also provides free reproductive-health resource kits to those who are within 30 miles of Austin. The kits include Plan B, pregnancy tests, condoms, and information on sexual and reproductive health.
avowtexas.org - Avow (which was previously NARAL Pro-Choice Texas) fights for abortion rights through community building, education, and political advocacy. The Avow Foundation funds research, public education, organizing, and more to educate Texans on the importance of abortion access.
If you need to come to my area (Bay Area) from TX to get an abortion, I will let you crash on my sofa. My GF lives here too; she loves to cook for people. Hope you like Thai food, but she can make pasta if you don’t.
I don’t know man cops are shit but kids are great at hiding. How annoyed would you be if you went and searched all over the fucking county looking for this kid and you found out the kid was hiding behind an open door in their parents bedroom and fell asleep like I did to my parents when I was a kid.
That’d require the child be home, first. Mom was worrying because he hadn’t come home from the bus and no one was picking up the phone at the school or the bus company. I’m going to guess that getting into the house would have been noticeable because calling the cops was not mom’s go-to move – and they proved her prioritization correct by being useless.
yeah, you act kike children become invisible. I’d say they are actually not that great at hiding and police officers should be competent enough to find one. This story tells it all.
But he wasn’t hiding, he was lost and needed help being found. If the cops had listened to the mom he would’ve been found sooner without the unnecessary invasion of privacy.
The 5-year-old was honking the horn on the bus for help when he was found, she said.
But the cops have no reason to think the child is in the home at all? The mom called them because the bus never dropped him off and couldn’t get ahold of the school or bus company. She KNEW 100% her kid wasn’t home, they just refused to take her at her word.
Because they’re black, so obviously, they make/have illegal drugs in their house. It’s simple police-math. And they’ll shoot their dog, just for good measure.
I don’t want to downplay the racism that is absolutely rampant in situations like these, they treated me, a very white guy in the same way. My now ex-wife and young child disappeared while I was in meetings. I came out of my home office, tried for a while to contact her, and after getting no reply called the police. Neither vehicle was gone, no notes, no indications of where they went.
They searched my house, my vehicles, even threatened to break into the camper we had to search it when I couldn’t immediately find the key.
It took them hours to locate them, and after wouldn’t tell me anything other than they were found.
Turns out she had taken my kid to her family’s cult compound, I immediately started court proceedings, then COVID helpfully came along to drag that out for years. I now have 50/50 custody, moved us all far away from that cult so she is less likely to take her back there, paid out the nose to get my ex to agree.
I did put my dog in the bathroom before they arrived, cause I know how that goes…
Thank you, I really appreciate it. There’s a LOT left out of the abusive conditions I lived in leading up to that, I was forced to sleep on the floor for a couple of years, forced to physically abuse myself for her amusement once I was well and truly broken. She used my kid as a pawn to manipulate and control me and it worked. She used my size to intimidate other people to get what she wanted. Burned down our home.
Cut me off from all of my friends and family.
I’m doing a LOT better these days, it’s been a few years now. Through therapy and giving myself space I uncovered memories of being sexually abused by a priest in my youth, which surely didn’t help, and the legal ramifications of that are still turning as we speak.
I’m still a broken human, but I’m a much better version of myself than I was a few years ago. I struggle, and fight the constant feeling that I should cease to exist, but as long as my kid needs me I have a thread holding me down.
I have the most amazing partner now, who has shown me what it is really like to be loved beyond being a parent. Something I never experienced until the last couple of years.
I’m writing a letter to my kid, that I will give her when they are much much older, outlining what those years were like. I know they can see the evil in their mom, but can’t name it yet. I haven’t said a word about it to them, and have no plans to until much much later or until they start to ask me about based on their observations.
I had intended to just say thank you, but … it feels good to let it out. Very very few people who know me have heard that much of the story. Thank you for hearing me. I truly appreciate it.
Dude… Just… Dude… I cannot fathom going through what you’ve written here. It’s like being in hell… I’m really glad to hear you’re doing better, and I’m REALLY glad you’ve found someone who loves you for who you are! And u don’t know why, but I’m actually thankful that you shared. Possibly because I’m struggling myself right now (with 1st world problems, which cannot be compared to what you’ve been through at all - I’m just winter depressed).
I cannot confirm this, but I sincerely think your kid will appreciate the letter(s) - I know I would’ve.
When I’m back at my computer tomorrow, I’ll write to you directly 😊
I don’t know if they needed to or not. But if they did for whatever reason, official procedure or what not regardless if I agree, then couldn’t both things be done in parallel.
There’s definitely a lot more to this story. If she’s a neighbor of Sheen’s, she’s not some random deranged fan or anything. This was in Malibu, which is very expensive and was very expensive before this latest real estate crisis. This is a wealthy woman who had some sort of personal issue with Sheen.
I’m not trying to defend her actions or anything, they were obviously inexcusable. I just think this goes beyond ‘random crazy person.’
Gee rich people who put me into power, 300k just isn’t enough to live off of and if I don’t get more money I might resign in a year a liberal would pick me replacement…
I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I’m no puritan, but genuine “sex work” (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it’s decriminalised. I’m not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.
I think most people who’ve actually thought about it would say either “sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people” or the same but with “oversensitivity”, depending on which side of it you’re on.
For years I’ve contemplated the idea if I came into a bunch of money if starting a porn studio where the customer is an actor/actress in the porn.
We have a building and several “sets” with cameras recording, customer picks their “partner” and “set” and “shoot the porn”, after they are done the video is burned on to a dvd(or blue ray or potentially put on a private file server).
The customer isn’t paying for sex, they are paying for the video.
Pretty sure it would have a ton of legal push back and I would need a lot of money for the lawyers to fight the cases.
But 1. Safer for everyone imvolved(it’s video taped so you won’t beat/hurt/kill the other party) 2.technically legal just like shooting porn
This is actually a great idea for couples! The issue of course would be to make sure that the couples are actual couples.
You could have them sign a release indicating that it’s a “photo studio”, and you can have different prices: one for commercial use ($5,000 per hour) and one for private use ($100 an hour, and you’re not allowed to commercially distribute the DVD.)
You could burn it to a dvd or whatever, delete the file, and give the customer the only copy. Whether they choose to keep it or destroy it is their own choice.
Not to mention the possible tie ins…imagine if the studio partnered with onlyfans… Or offered special spaces with live streaming(with permission) to people’s Webcam sites.
“remember to join the stream this Saturday where we will be on location in the pleasure dome’s sunset beach set for a special sex on the beach adventure”
Which is bollocks anyways because illegalization actually makes things less safe for all sex workers, but especially for trafficking victims who are now legally marginalized into dark number status
Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn’t democracy silly.
You’re correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren’t. Murder isn’t, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.
Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization. Studies across Europe have shown that countries that outlaw prostitution see a decrease in human trafficking victims while countries that legalized or decriminalized it see an increase.
Unlike with drugs, you don't just create a way to increase the supply. A very small minority of women actually want to engage in sex work. And the few who do, usually envision the high class escort lifestyle. But working in a brothel charging $100 per client isn't something many want to do.
But legalizing prostitution increases demand. Which makes it more profitable for criminals to utilize human trafficking to fill that demand.
It also doesn't help at all with protecting victims of human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are already protected. But they don't step forward because of threats against their own well being and that of their families. Something that doesn't change just because their work technically is legal now.
Which leaves a small percentage of people who fall into financial hardship and consider prostitution as a method of overcoming said hardship. For them that might slightly improve their situation. But that still means exploiting vulnerable people and isn't people engaging in sex work because they want to. And it's even questionable if people in these scenarios would follow the legal way.
So while initially it might seem like legalizing it solves a lot of issues, it is more difficult than that.
Thanks for the data. I think the issue here is not that legal prostitution creates problems, but rather the government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.
There are other industries in which people “sell their bodies” for profit (the military and construction come to mind), and if those can be quite regulated, why can’t prostitution?
We all sell our bodies for profit. To be fair though, wage theft is the most common form of theft. We’re all prostitutes and we’re almost all being taken advantage of, and we’re in a system where we can’t really get out.
government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.
My guess is that it’s just more difficult to control prostitution than it is to control construction work. Construction happens in the open, you need to get tons of permits, multiple companies are involved, inspectors check everything regularly. It would be difficult to force some people to work on a construction site without anyone realizing. But how are you going to make sure that each sexual intercourse in some strip bar is ‘legal’? Are you going to put inspectors in bathroom stalls? How can you check every cash transaction? It’s pretty much impossible. You can monitor the sex work that’s advertised and happening ‘in the open’ but there will always be some grey and black market for it. And the ugly stuff will happen there.
Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization.
Yes, because legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps. It’s very easy to see an (alleged) “rise in sex trafficking” when the legalization shuffle allows politicians to all of a sudden decide what is “allowed” sex work and what is “sex trafficking.”
This is why shitty studies like the one you linked is so thoroughly non-credible - it was performed without the input of the people who actually know what they are talking about - ie, sex workers themselves.
legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps
So what’s the solution?? You just made random assertions without any sources and didn’t suggest any alternatives. All while skimming over the very real trafficking/coersion problems unique to sex work.
ROFLMAO! No, genius… trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form. If you weren’t filled to the brim with anti-sex work hysteria you’d have known that already.
Do tell… is this the first time you’ve actually considered what sex workers themselves have to say about (so-called) “legalization?”
The sex workers with those opinions usually are the already more well off workers who perform escort or cam services, and isn’t reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences. It also doesn’t address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.
trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form.
Lol I’d love any source on this whatsoever. I’m not sure how you defend this line of thought, or why you feel this way. You don’t think human trafficking shares any of the same risk factors or conditions as sex work?
I reckon that even though sex work is legalised, and still caused issues, the problem is that there is no government regulation. It’s one thing to say by the government that they won’t prosecute sex workers, but if it’s not regulated and abuse still happens then nothing changed for all intents and purposes. Best analogy I could think of is like allowing food factories to manufacture food, of course. But if there is no regulatory watchdog to monitor and test to make sure food factories are not putting random and dangerous stuff into food, then legalising an activity is pointless.
Basically, the sex industry having been legalised by many countries is unofficially a libertarian set up. Yeah, the government exists and allow sexual transactions between agreeing parties, but they’re hands off on how the practitioners in the industry would conduct business. There is no government agency for sex workers to complain to if they’re abused. I know people would ask, how exactly would the government regulate sex? That, I will leave to policy experts.
I see this single study trotted out every time the subject comes up and the key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
Just because more is reported doesn’t mean more isn’t also happening. In fact, one could reasonably expect reporting to go down as a percentage of incidents due to ordinary citizens not expecting sex workers to be involved in trafficking since sex work is now legal. That the number goes up after the stigma is removed seems to strongly indicate a correlation with a rise in actual trafficking.
Sure, but all you have is assumptions and you’re assuming the increased reporting of trafficking means that trafficking is increasing rather than it just getting caught more. It’s like when some governments fought over covid reporting. Keeping it hidden doesn’t mean less of it is happening and making it more visible doesn’t mean more of it is happening.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It’s an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam’s Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did. We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.
You didn’t present anything but you certainly act like you did.
I did no such thing.
We’re agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn’t mean more human trafficking is happening.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Refer back to my example about covid case reporting.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn’t even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn’t have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
Incorrectly citing Occam’s Razor doesn’t strengthen your argument.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn’t apply. You can’t just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don’t have any, then you don’t even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It’s entirely possible that you’re correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you’ll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it’s true.
Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it’s an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even “empowering” thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn’t fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.
The vast majority of “self-employed” people are utterly impoverished people doing survival work, Clyde - please tell me you don’t buy into the “entrepreneurship” fairy tales Reagan and Thatcher spooned into your parents’ brains through the telly back in the 80s. If you believed that, you might just as well believe in magic glass slippers that grants royalty.
You are confusing being self employed with gig economy bullshit. There are a lot of fields of occupation where being self employed makes sense und gives you more freedom. By the way - I’m talking from own experience being self employed fore quite some time now.
There are people living in shacks within a kilometer from where I’m typing this, Clyde… every second person living there has more (so-called) “entrepreneurship” in their big toe than you have in your entire body because they literally have to do it for survival.
I’m not confusing squat… the only thing you’ve managed to demonstrate here is that you talk from privilege and nothing else.
I like how even you write “entrepreneurship” in quotation marks and ad “so called”, but than dismiss my point completely, that we might not be talking about the same thing. And than you get personal for no reason. Is everything OK, buddy? You need to went some anger and frustration? I would recommend some physical activity - much better than arguing with strangers on the internet.
I like how even you write “entrepreneurship” in quotation marks and ad “so called”
That’s because I view the neoliberal fetishization of “entrepreneurism” no differently than I view the garbage anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers buy into.
but than dismiss my point completely
Your “point” was treated in the appropriate manner - your “point” merely revolved around the choice the privileged has when it comes to employment. This makes your “point” utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
You read correctly the first time. It’s a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)… this should not be too difficult to understand.
This isn’t a capitalist thing.
All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.
Due to both criminalization and demonization, sex workers are prevented from performing very necessary work in our society - such as being the only people that are qualified to perform sex education, for instance - so yes… it is quite unfortunate that sex work cannot be performed as a service to the public.
Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works. None of that is related to sex work. Sex work is about making people feel good.
You’re reading too much into it. The primary reason is puritan values. To be fair, the taboo on promiscuity is likely due to the lack of contraceptives and risks of getting sexually transmitted diseases. But access to contraceptives and education would lessen the risks these days. Though people are still creatures of habits so sex and sex work are still taboo for many without questioning why it has been in the first place.
I disagree with this entire claim. Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything. I would say they are more susceptible to doing disgusting shit for money. There’s a reason why there’s an ongoing joke about sex workers getting shit on during their trips to dubai.
Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything.
And what do you think the rest of us do, eh Clyde? How many sex workers have to piss in bottles to make Jeff Bezos richer?
There’s a reason we don’t use the term “prostitute” any more - it’s got something to do with the fact that understanding how capitalism works very quickly makes it real clear who the real “prostitutes” are…
I think sex workers are pressured to get into progressively more disgusting shit because that’s what pays. The market is flooded at this point and the only thing you can do to stick out is either be famous or be willing to degrade yourself.
I’m expressing my opinion on a public forum. I hate how internet comments have become an eternal game of gotchas. I can be aware of a topic without participating in it.
In case you were wondering how an obviously insane person comes to be that rich, it's from stealing your data.
Apparently he was the founder and chief data scientist at SMA Communications. From their website:
SMA Communications owns data on over 247 million consumers and over 49 million business contacts. We also have over 179 million registered Voters, 165 million automobile owners, Social media connections and more.
Good luck. If you want to interact with the modern world- have a smartphone, use social media, streaming services, etc., you’re going to have your data sold. And if you don’t do it, the corporation you work for is probably doing it. The horses are already out of the barn. Our data is not ours anymore.
A lot of jobs ask you for social media contacts. They also advertise via LinkedIn and Indeed, which require personal data. So you don’t have to be, but you’ll be lucky if you get one. And, like I said, once you get one, the company could easily just sell the data you give them. Are you going to refuse to give them your information too? Why would they hire you? Why would they keep you?
This is the same “everyone can do what I did” nonsense I get from rich libertarians.
I agree, but this list doesn’t sound particularly like digital behavior, though I’m sure that’s included. Credit card companies were selling your receipts long before online shopping, voter reg (though not it’s history) is public, a lot of this is just buying straight from companies or scraping.
Jesus, imagine being next-of-kin and this was your inheritance. If it were a physical factory I’d order it shut down and burn it, then leave the smoking ruins as a warning to others.
You misunderstand, the Federal government should be small so it doesn’t get in the way of the state government doing whatever the hell it wants. Individual rights are a canard to get religious conservatives and 2A enthusiasts on board with dismantling federal protections so that state governments can oppress The Right People^TM^. Never mind that religious conservatives and 2A enthusiasts are not oppressed and their revenge fantasies are founded on an astro-turfed victim complex.
Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.
Good to see common sense prevail. Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t brown, black, female, queer, progressive, poor or school children).
If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that’s a right or wrong interpretation, but that’s a somewhat common argument I’ve seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force
So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.
Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn’t able-bodied also wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment.
I’m no legal scholar, I don’t know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we’re stuck with.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
It is also the interpretation that has been proven in court to be incorrect. Both lingustic and historical readings demonstrate it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The poster above has no grounds to stand on in arguing that women do not have a right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.
Skill issue. Line them up so you kill multiple targets with 1 round, and learn how to reload faster.
Actually a popular use for those guns is hog hunting, and you definitely want as many bullets as humanly possible when hunting hogs since they travel in packs.
My step dad shot one point blank in the face with a 9mm pistol and all it did was stun it long enough to grab a rifle.
Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy. And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.
The issue isn’t with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it’s with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren’t stern or thorough enough.
If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you’ll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.
It’s important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.
Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven’t added to the conversation?
Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I’m in the regulated land of Oz so you don’t need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I’m familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.
Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn’t really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.
The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That’s a person v person shooting.
Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?
Personally I don’t agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it’s a legally legitimate option.
The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It’s a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.
The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).
People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm ‘rights’. But that’s too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that’s a bit smaller than what it once was.
The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect
I find this a weak argument. Cigarettes and ICE cars were equally if not more so pervasive, and through legislation we have seen change occur to the use rates of both of those, albeit much slower in the case of the former.
You are right in that effective gun regulation in the US will be a monumental task, but not impossible. It’s just the best time to have started was yesterday.
I referred to them as examples of societal mainstays that have been/are being phased out generationally. But true, it’s near impossible to find a good comparison.
Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc.
The overwhelming number of gun deaths that aren’t suicide are ordinary crime. Fixing the economic conditions that lead to crime would probably have the single biggest effect. Cramming tons of poor people into a small geographic area, and then ensuring that they have no realistic way out of poverty sure as shit hasn’t helped.
Extremism creates orgies of violence, but poverty creates the daily grind of violence.
And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice.
Yes and no. A lot depends on both shot placement and the firearm being used. Centerfire rifles with bullets traveling more than 2200fps (roughly; some estimates say 2800fps) will stop a person much faster than a pistol, since the temporary wound cavity becomes a permanent wound cavity. But that’s going to be true for nearly any centerfire rifle, aside from old cartridges that were designed around black powder (e.g., .45-70); an AR-style rifle isn’t going to be more lethal than any other fast-moving centerfire rifle cartridge, it’s just a fairly lightweight and easy to use rifle compared to grandad’s M-1. Pistol cartridges can stop threats as effectively as rifles, but you require better shot placement, and you generally want to have defensive (e.g. hollowpoint) ammo. (There’s a reason that “failure to stop” AKA Mozambique drills are a good training tool.)
So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy
A rifle is, for an able-bodied person, easier to shoot accurately and effectively than a pistol. Part of that is because you have a longer sight radius, and part of it is because you have a shoulder brace (…and a pistol with a shoulder brace is a short barrelled rifle, which is generally illegal without the BATF gittin’ all up in yo shit). It’s pretty easy, relatively speaking, to hit a target at 100y with a rifle, and very difficult with a pistol.
many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws
Eh. Civilian gun ownership is difficult and expensive in many European countries. However, many European countries do have combined violent crime rates (defined as murder, robbery, forcible rape, and battery) significantly lower than the US. Violent crime, in general, is lower in Europe. So it’s not just that gun crimes are less likely, but that you’re also less likely to be sexually assaulted, or get jumped and beaten. There’s almost certainly something different going on in social conditions that make violent crime less likely, and that would make it less likely even if European countries had gun laws that were more relaxed.
The discussion is about the pointlessness of the magazine restrictions. I’m aware of ballistics and the ease of different systems to shoot, but since it’s not about that, it wasn’t mentioned.
And in regards to the final point, yes. That is literally what is being said.
Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves and not every shot you make is going to be a cool john wick™ shot through their eye, they may take multiple rounds and you may miss one while they’re shooting back at you, yeah that’s exactly when you need standard capacity magazines.
What, do you think this is for people shooting a bunch of unarmed pedestrians in a tight space with poor egress paths? Magazines are quick to reload if you aren’t being actively shot at, it’s trivial for them to “press button, grab other mag from wherever it was staged, slap in, charge round, and go” takes about 2sec if you’re untrained, fraction of a second if you practiced in your room for a month with your gear and these fuckfaces plan their shit for months, they have the time. Look up a couple videos on reloading anything with a detachable magazine, mag bans are meaningless.
I mean, if the guy is faster than me that is frankly irrelevant and I’m quickly aging as humans usually do. Or if it’s numerous guy(s), that changes it as well.
And which would you rather have to defend with, a kinfe or a gun?
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.
Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?
Well, that stat was completely made up by you. Especially with anemic handgun rounds people can take a lot of shots before they flee or go down, depending on caliber, motivation of the attacker, what drugs are in their bloodstream, and the anatomical significance of the shots (or them being on target at all.) There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking. The actual stat is that civilians (unlike police) are unlikely to reload in defensive encounters and so do fire less but it still may need to be more than 6 in many cases. (The reason may surprise you: Civilians, unlike the police, are actually responsible for what their rounds strike. The police don’t have to give a fuck, citizens do.)
I’ve done this dance before. I spend the time looking up a stat I have read before and the person I am talking to denies its validity for whatever reason. Here’s the first source I found.
I know you’re not going to accept it so don’t even bother.
There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking.
Those are called action movies. Not reality. In reality people run if they even see a gun pointed at them. It doesn’t even have to be loaded. The idea that you are going to need to pump 10+ rounds into a psycho monster on angel dust simply aren’t reality and should not be the basis for law. I guarantee that if you got shot with a .22 you would be laying on the ground crying like a baby.
That is indeed an interesting study, guns are even more effective for self defense than I thought. But that still doesn’t remove the possibilty that you encounter someone (or one of those groups of up to 7 mentioned in your study) that is more determined (or numerous) for whatever reason, which would necessitate a larger (standard) capacity magazine. While it may be statistically likely you’ll fire less than 10, if you do need 15 for whatever reason then statistics will be of little importance as your gun runs dry during the defense.
I was going to compile a list of incidents where more than 10 shots were required, but I’ve been really busy for the past few days, if I have time this weekend I’ll try to compile a few and edit this, but you can also do the same by just paying attention to it gouing forward (but I reccomend videos over articles if you can find them, sometimes they shoot more than they need to, articles could skew it my way.) They do happen, even if it isn’t statistically the most likely, and when it comes to life or death it helps to cheat the odds in your favor any way you can, like by carrying a reasonable amount of ammo (too much gets heavy.)
One thing that study also points out is that if people fire more than 2-3 shots,they keep firing until they empty the magazine. The problem with this is it greatly increases the odds of an innocent bystander being hurt or killed. I think we need the balance the outside chance that a civilian needs to use a high number of rounds on a target versus the chance that someone out of fear fires all their ammo and kills a bystander. The latter is unfortunately far more likely than the former from the data I have seen.
I remember a particular story from my city where a homeowner fired at a burglar who then jumped in his car and fled. The homeowner then kept firing at the car as it drove away until he ran dry. Thankfully none of the stray bullets struck a bystander but that is such a huge unnecessary risk. Civilians can panic and keep firing even after the threat has gone. Larger capacity weapons simply make this a greater risk for very little reward IMO.
Imo that balance is “if you hit a bystander you’re getting charged, so make sure to be careful and avoid prison.” Besides that, the chance to hit the bystander exists at any point a shot is fired, having less rounds and making it less effective at saving lives isn’t worth the negligible decrease in liklihood (especially when it doesnct have to be rnd 11 that hits the bystander, rnd 1 or 2 can hit just fine too). Personally I’d rather not give the two intruders with guns better odds, between them they have at least two dudes usually as per your study and the “action team” typically all has arms and at least 22 rnds loaded (10+1), I deserve 15+1 (pistol) or 30+1 (rifle) to balance it a little considering I’m the one defending, not attacking.
Yeah that happens sometimes, but in my area I’d go to prison for it. Even if the shooting was justified, once he flees continuing to fire would be seen as punitive rather than defensive and “that is the role of the court system not the citizen.” In most areas in the US that’s the case actually, but your DA may neglect to file charges on those cases because that is literally up to them (singular, gender neutral). In fact, “Steve” could do that Monday and have no charges filed, but then “Jerry” does the same on Wednesday, and the DA’s Tuesday this week was a shitshow, wife’s been on his ass and such, so Jerry gets charged for the same crime Steve didn’t even see a police station for in the same week. Much better to not go off “this one time I saw on the news a guy didn’t get charged…” and instead actually look up the laws from your area (imperative if you own guns, informative otherwise.) If your state does allow firing at fleeing felons (unadvisable even if legal, for the reasons you mentioned), you’re better served making that practice itself illegal than limiting the number of rounds they are allowed to wing wildly, that number should be “0.”
If you fire even one shot at two intruders, they are going to run. They aren’t going to stand their ground and try and kill you. Watch a few videos of home invasions. They always flee. That’s a big reason why shotguns are the preferred home defense weapon even though they usually only hold 5-6 rounds.
Even if they were there specifically to kill you, once they lose the element of surprise they will flee. They aren’t sticking around waiting for cops to show up to find out who is shooting.
Gun policy shouldn’t be based on action movies and it seems like you’ve got a bad case of confusing those for reality.
They may run, or they may return fire. Depends, are they there for your TV like you seemingly assume, or is it a methed up abusive ex here to “take back his kid no matter what gotdammit?” Those two situations are going to be wildly different. Hell, even if they’re here to steal your shit, they don’t always run especially when there’s multiple, you ever hear the phrase “prepare for the worst and hope for the best?” Even if it only happens at the same rate as mass shooting homicides, it’s still something one should be able to prepare for if they so choose.
Gun policy also shouldn’t be based on ineffective feature bans under the pretext of mass shootings when mass shootings would be entirely unaffected. In fact one of the most well known, Columbine, the one all these fucks are copying, only used 10 rnd (or less) mags. It doesn’t effect them at all, the only people who might be effected are those using it for defense who may lack the time to reload becaudr “deadly threat,” so why do it then?
Most mass shootings as the law defines them aren’t like Columbine. They are gang members doing drive-bys or opening fire in crowds. Reducing the number of rounds in a gun absolutely improves on this problem. It has been proven again and again in states which have passed magazine restrictions. Deaths and injuries from such events drop significantly.
For every abusive ex that uses a gun to save themselves or their child, there are multiples more who are injured or killed by their violent ex. The net gain is negative. We absolutely need stricter laws nationally to take away gun rights from violent partners, but gun rights people consistently fight against them.
Gun policy also shouldn’t be based on ineffective feature bans
I agree completely. The only feature that matters is the number of rounds a gun can fire. A gun can be fully automatic and it still won’t be significantly more dangerous than a revolver if it has the same number of rounds. The second it takes to reload might not seem like much until you are the one being shot at and it gives you a second to escape.
I’ve seen no evidence of “It has been proven again and again in states which have passed magazine restrictions. Deaths and injuries from such events drop significantly.” Actually what I have seen is that the '94-'04 AWB (during which you had your way) wasn’t linked to any of that at all, in fact studies showed there was no meaningful impact on gun violence from the AWB. Not only that but the Columbine shooting took place during that, with banned weapons. Also, the VT shooter (which was the deadliest for a long time) used only 10rnd magazines and changed magazines a whopping 17 times. Same with the '91 Luby’s Diner shooting, mag changes were not an issue for any of these people, the law is ineffective at targeting its supposed targets favoring instead to target those who actually are using it in self defense (or, since you don’t agree with that since you say “if you need 11 rnds, that’s so rare you deserve to die,” the law targets nobody and is completely pointless.)
For every abusive ex that uses a gun to save themselves or their child, there are multiples more who are injured or killed by their violent ex
Not all family annhialators use firearms, listening to a podcast right now about a guy who had a fight with his wife, went out and grabbed a 2x4 and an ice pick, beat her to death with it, and then killed his two kids, the child with the wood and the baby with the Ice pick. Then he stabbed himself (barely) and tried to pass it off as related to the then-recent LaBianca murders. So, seemingly, guns aren’t necessary at all for that, however with the disparity in force between most couples it could be a real boon for the defender. Would a shot or two have been sufficient to make him flee? Maybe, fight or flight doesn’t work how you think it does, but he already knows his wife is going to report him for attempted murder if he doesn’t “win” this fight, so what does he have to lose? Assuming fight or flight did work how you think (it’s a reflex, but if we’re ignoring that and claiming they “will definitely run,”) I claim that knowing all is already lost will push them towards “fight” rather than “flight.”
Btw “violent partners” as in “those convicted of domestic violence” are already barred from gun ownership by federal law. Yes, somehow Vermont has decided it doesn’t apply to them, but it’s still federally illegal, I guess it is like legal states and weed. Still though, already a law.
The second it takes to reload might not seem like much until you are the one being shot at and it gives you a second to escape.
Again, may I referrence the VT shooter’s 17 reloads, the Luby’s Shooter’s at least 3 reloads, etc. Maybe. Typically not though, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how long it takes to slap in a new magazine, I’m gonna try to find you a video in which someone does it real fast…
Ok I’m back. Best I could find was this instructional video (hope that time code worked, the part is at the end.) I was looking for one that wasn’t “worlds fastest reload zomg guys so cool” because I wanted one that was more “normal,” this about suffices, if the shooter practices (and you can practice reloads at home in your room) it takes about one of these videos and a week if you’re mentally deficient to learn how to do it as quick as he did in the video. That might allow someone to escape, all things are possible, but it’s not likely.
I don’t expect gun restrictions to reduce family violence to zero, but you can honestly say that guns don’t make it easier.
Btw “violent partners” as in “those convicted of domestic violence” are already barred from gun ownership by federal law.
Not enough. Convictions take time and money many victims do not have. Temporary firearm restrictions need to be able to issued by judges based on credible complaints.
Typically not though, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding about how long it takes to slap in a new magazine
I see your two examples of shooters reloading a lot with three examples of shooters being stopped because they had to reload.
Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.
I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.
Sure. But they aren’t, and they can’t be legally disarmed. And the cops aren’t on the side of LGBTQ people. So LGBTQ people better get strapped and trained, because no one else is going to be looking out for them.
I’m gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren’t exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we’re still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I’m so glad I’m not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?
And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!
I know there’s something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.
Again, I’m sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don’t think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.
That’s likely because I’m an American, living in the US, and subject to US laws and court rulings. Like the one that you’re commenting on.
Far more trans people are killed by guns
Sounds to me like more trans people need to get strapped, because the cops sure as fuck don’t care about them. I’m guessing that you’ve avoided reading about anarchists and groups like the various John Brown Gun Clubs defending drag queen story hours and groups feeding homeless people?
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Texas or Florida. But I also wouldn’t vote for Illinois, because I’ve known queer people in Chicago that have been the victims of attacks, and I’ve seen just how few fucks the cops give. Here’s the blunt truth: cops aren’t going to save LGBTQ people, because cops are on the side of the people hurting them. The sad truth is that queer people need to be able to protect themselves, and that means having access to lethal force.
Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide.
Yes, absolutely. But magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide. But again - the problem isn’t the gun itself, the problem is that LGBTQ people are treated like shit by a society that largely doesn’t care about them. Removing guns doesn’t remove their misery. Fix the real problem, and the suicides fix themselves. (And yeah, we’ve got social and fiscal conservatives preventing solving the real problems too.)
But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety.
How many cases of defensive gun use are there annually in the US? The most conservative estimates are around 1.5M. How many lives are saved as a result of defensive gun use? That’s the real question, and there’s no way to answer it, since you can’t possibly know if someone would have definitely, 100% died if they hadn’t had a firearm to protect themselves.
I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.