Aren’t these the same people who absolutely lost their shit over a “lockdown” that wasn’t a lockdown and “shutting down” the economy during a worldwide pandemic?
So, in some reality, they understand that wholesale shutting things down without a plan is a bad thing, huh?
When will anyone wake up and start screaming in these motherfuckers faces “You’re painfully transparently operating in bad faith, you piece of shit!”
They know they’re hypocrites. They’re ok with it. You can’t shame a Nazi as they are proudly goosestepping, that’s just an entirely pointless exercise.
Every dog is a reflection of it’s owner. Every time this debate comes up I just think how incredibly dumb these people are. Punish the dog fighters and abusers. People can make any breed aggressive and dangerous.
There are still differences between breeds. Some are naturally less aggressive than others (or a physically incapable of causing much harm) even when not properly trained. Statistics show that pitbulls are extremely overrepresented in unprovoked attacks with major consequences.
Possible but unlikely. Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. It just lays in their nature.
And even if that was the case, banning a strong breed physically capable of causing lifelong disfigurement or even death could still help reducing the amount of incidents.
I’m obviously not asking for all pitbulls to be euthanized. I’m just asking for them not being allowed to reproduce.
Do you have any actual science to support such an assertion, or is it just the infinite wisdom of anecdote? By way of anecdote, I’ve had far nastier experiences with retrievers than pitbulls or bulldogs.
You seem to be sliding right past the previous commenter’s point regarding assholes moving to the next trainable big scary and perpetuating the problem with German Shepherds.
I’d accept a reproduction restriction on pitbulls if it also applied to everyone participating in this wedge issue from some undeserved high horse.
No need to get personal. I don’t know what anecdotes you are talking about. Are you disagreeing with my assertion that certain breeds of dogs naturally exhibit certain traits? If not, then wouldn’t it be much more of an anomaly if a breed that was bred for fighting didn’t also possess appropriate traits? I do not have any studies to back up my statements, so I have not completely ruled out the possibility that there is no genetic basis, just found it unlikely.
Moreover, the same is true, of course, for any other dog breed that becomes a systematic problem.
Are you disagreeing with my assertion that certain breeds of dogs naturally exhibit certain traits?
I’m calling out your use of it just lays in their nature as some sort of objective truth, yes. Feel free to support the notion. I suspect you’ll at best be able to highlight a minor correlation between some breeds and certain behaviors, if that.
If not, then wouldn’t it be much more of an anomaly if a breed that was bred for fighting didn’t also possess appropriate traits?
I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”. The motivation for seeking to bring about a given change does not lend any validity to whether or not that change exists.
That aside, feel free to highlight traits unique to the conflated amalgamation of breeds known as pitbull.
I do not have any studies to back up my statements, so I have not completely ruled out the possibility that there is no genetic basis, just found it unlikely.
Don’t you think you should?
Moreover, the same is true, of course, for any other dog breed that becomes a systematic problem.
Has it become a “systematic problem”? I’m curious as to how you’ve drawn that conclusion. Media sensationalism does not a problem make.
I’m calling out your use of it just lays in their nature as some sort of objective truth, yes. Feel free to support the notion.
I never claimed it was an objective truth, I just believe it to be likely. Breeding is used to reinforce desired traits and I see no reason to believe that ‘inherent aggressiveness’ can’t be bred.
I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”.
Again, likelihood. It’s possible that humans were ineffective at achieving their goal of breeding an aggressive dog for fighting but reality gives me no reason to doubt it.
Don’t you think you should?
There is neither concrete evidence for or against it. Again, I came to my conclusion by applying the same logic I apply to other bred traits.
Has it become a “systematic problem”? I’m curious as to how you’ve drawn that conclusion. Media sensationalism does not a problem make.
Judging by the statistics, it has. Pitbulls are responsible for 65.6% of reported attacks in the US, yet only make up 6% of all dogs. Whether that’s the fault of the dog or poor training from the owner doesn’t change the fact that it is a systematic problem.
I never claimed it was an objective truth, I just believe it to be likely.
“Shepherds do not need to be taught to herd. Pointers do not need to be taught to point. Retrievers do not need to be taught to retrieve. It just lays in their nature.” These are assertions with no room for ambiguity or compromise… unsupported assertions, at that. You use them as if they’re some sort of objective truth - you do not state you think shepherds do not need to be taught to herd.
Again, likelihood. It’s possible that humans were ineffective at achieving their goal of breeding an aggressive dog for fighting but reality gives me no reason to doubt it.
Unfortunately, “likelihood” really cut it in rendering a motivation for a thing relevant. A reminder, the criticism wasn’t that humans are ineffective but rather that I’m not sure how “bred for X” is particularly relevant to your assertion that “X will Y”. - that intent is irrelevant to the action and its impact or validity.
There is neither concrete evidence for or against it. Again, I came to my conclusion by applying the same logic I apply to other bred traits.
Sweeping generalizations born out of explicit ignorance… nifty.
Of note, you still ignore the criticism of the validity of bred traits as relates to actual behavior, particularly relevant as the previous commenter’s point regarding assholes moving to the next-best breed still applies. You do nothing about the behavior of shitheads in seeking to develop insert dog breed into an aggressive fighter suitable to the same tasks.
Judging by the statistics, it has. Pitbulls are responsible for 65.6% of reported attacks in the US, yet only make up 6% of all dogs. Whether that’s the fault of the dog or poor training from the owner doesn’t change the fact that it is a systematic problem.
Firstly, I’ve already highlighted the issues with the over-representation in stats, a thing you just kind of seem to keep ignoring -
“Are they perhaps also over-represented in ownership by dipshits tending toward incredibly aggressive behavior and/or other scumminess?
An overrepresentation highlights nothing more than an anomaly we should seek to understand; on its own it’s nowhere near sufficient for a conclusion.”
Secondly, I’m curious as to what system you believe this problem is related to, along with how the fault of … poor training from the owner would somehow uniquely reflect on the dog.
Republicans pulled this same shit during Obama’s tenure. They have no intention of negotiating in good faith. They want the shutdown so they can point their fingers at Dems during their campaigns in the coming year. We’ll have a shutdown, suspending important government agencies and furloughing hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans just to manufacture an anti-liberal talking point.
This is an annual occurrence now. It’s just break time for senators while they get to point fingers. You’re right on all accounts here. We should have term limits on these senators and get some new people who may actually want to… idk… govern or something
It’s the House that is the problem right now. The Senate might actually ram a bipartisan spending bill down their throats, they are apparently tired of this shit as well.
In Canada and the UK, if the government fails to pass a budget, it triggers an automatic vote of no confidence, parliament is dissolved, and it triggers a general election.
US politicians do not suffer any consequences for failing to do their job.
Shit, they did the same thing this year with the debt ceiling. And now they’re already going back on the promises they made. No reason to negotiate with these terrorists.
I can see an argument for the proposition that maybe we don’t need dogs that are big and powerful enough to injure or kill people.
But, I take claims about how a breed “is gentle” with an entire ocean of salt- individual dogs might be calm and well-trained or socialized, it’s the ones churned out of puppy mills to be sold at top dollar to shitty people who want a tough, scary dog that seem to be sketchy.
I’ve been around lots of well-adjusted big dogs that are just big hunks of love and slobbery affection, but really I hate seeing stories about how some dog that “is a good boy” mauled a child and if I had my druthers, dog owners would be required to carry liability insurance proportionate to the dog’s size or bite force or some factor correlating to its breed, and to the dog owner’s income or wealth. Oh, that would make big, dangerous dogs too expensive to own? Maybe they should be.
Its not really about the size, though. These dogs have been bred to have a trait called “gameness”, which is prized in fighting dogs, because it means they will disregard exhaustion, injury and all other distractions when in aggressive mode. They don’t let go, ever. Where most dogs, even big ones like German shepherds or rottweilers, will bite and tear and then let go and usually retreat, bull terriers will not stop until they or the prey are dead or incapacitated. Sometimes they will continue to attack even when their prey has stopped moving. That’s why these dogs are dangerous. Any dog can snap and attack. Yes, even your auntie’s 17-year old Bassett hound. Any dog. But when a bull terrier snaps it’s potentially life threatening.
I think this is what so many people miss from both sides of the argument. I don’t think pits are naturally violent or aggressive dogs, someone further down talks about how they were originally bred to be loyal family dogs and that makes a lot of sense to me with the pit bulls I’ve known in life. I’m sure for many others as well.
The problem is that when they do bite it has potential to be more dangerous and deadly than other common breeds. On top of that they are like alligators and lock their jaw, and some of the breeds are extremely muscular too. No dog owner should ever consider “bad” or dangerous behavior to be impossible for their pet. Respect you own a breed that has the potential to be deadly if anything goes wrong. That really actually should probably go for most larger dogs too.
But ffs can we stop acting like the 10s of pit bull dogs attacks a year in a country filled with hundreds of them mean the breed itself is bad and violent? Dogs snap. When this breed does it makes the news.
Hate to tell you this, but ‘locking jaw’ in any breed is a myth. There’s no such thing; ‘lockjaw’ is a bacterial infection, but has no relationship to breed (and in any case, won’t result in the jaw locking only after a bite).
Oh! That’s fascinating thank you!! I’ll read the link when I have the time but I always appreciate learning something new, it is especially fun when it’s about common myths.
It’s a metaphorical lock jaw. For instance, most dogs will let go when being attacked in the face and eyes. Pits will not. This ability to continue a hold, even in the face of danger is what people mean by jaw locking. So yes, it absolutely exists.
In the US most home insurance policies charge more or require and additional rider for some breeds of dog because of the increased liability. If you have a “dangerous breed” and don’t notify your insurance company, you might not have the liability insurance you thought you did.
The problem is not the dogs size. A Golden Retriever is about the same size as an American Bulldog (bitches usually a bit taller). The problem is which type of people a breed tends to attract. Retrievers are considered a nice cuddly family dog, bulldogs are seen as aggressive protection dogs.
However a retriever can be a dangerous dog and very able to kill humans if trained the wrong way. Protection dogs need to be trained to the highest degree, never go for the throat and immediately release on command.
I have a lab. She’s 30kg and the textbook “good girl” - a decent depiction of the breed standard.
I got her because her terperment was semi predicted in line with her breed, but I still have public liability insurance and don’t let her approach kids because she’s still a dog.
What other recourse do you suggest? That we ban people from suing when an organization or some members thereof know or have been made aware that another member is doing something wrong but does nothing to stop them? If you dig a little deeper, you’d find that the rapist had been accused of sexually assaulting students time and again over seven years, but the school district did nothing, despite a state law that mandated they inform the authorities.
That’s what I meant when I said I can’t fix it. That money doesn’t come from the administration that failed to protect students either, it comes from people whose only sin was living near the rape school.
I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with jail time for every mandatory reporter who failed to report, though. That might be a start.
4x10 hour work weeks are nice. I had negotiated for that at one location I worked at. I had Wednesday off. This had me working only 2 days in a row and with that Wednesday off I could get errands done that are normally difficult on weekends.
That said I do not think they should only have to work 32 hours for 40 hours of pay. Maybe that is their way of asking for too much and allowing the company to feel like they negotiated a little.
The argument is that the 40 hour standard was introduced when we were much less efficient with our labour, thanks to technology our productivity has skyrocketed while wages and working hours remain largely the same. The companies have been enjoying all the success while the workers who actually produce the value of the companies get scraps
Then make the standard 32 hours to keep full-time benefit but get paid for 32 hours. Additionally, all of these technologies that aid in efficiency are purchased by the company, and the workers are not working as hard as they used to.
If it were being sold as they want to make a Full time job be 32 hours and a 25% increase in hourly pay, it would actually sound more reasonable and essentially be the same...
But ultimately if all the worker bees start earning more and producing less, the cost of stuff will increases to adjust.
Right now we produce in 40 hours what used to be 200 hours and the corps are the only ones benefitting from that. We’re being screwed here. They can easily afford to pay us the same for 32 and still profit billions. And if they price gouge to punish us then the government can step in to slap them for it. You don’t have to just stand there and let corps fuck you over forever and you thank them for the honor, demand better because you deserve it
Still the argument stands, we produce more because of technology advancements (funded by the companies), which in turn makes the job actually easier and usually safer. If the cost of business increases because working less hours for the same amount of money, the product's cost will increase.
Don't get me wrong, I am a worker bee also. But I work hard at what I do and make an honest days pay for an honest days work. I would love more money for less effort but ultimately I just see it all being a wash or saving less as everything gets more and more expensive. I do not see the government currently stepping in for the price gouging that is already going on.
Pitbull isn’t a breed, it’s a colloquialism that is used as a catch-all for any breed with a certain look. They’re either American bullys, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs, or a mix of these breeds. If you aren’t collecting separate data for each of these breeds individually, then the best we can do is divide the total number of bites between those breeds by 5.
Dog breeds are defined separately for a reason, you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes who buy dogs only to isolate and ignore and/or mistreat them, will just choose the next most aggressive breed, then treat them the same. Statistically, that will mean that German shepherds will be the next banned breed, as they routinely come up as the second most deadly specific breed of dog. Say goodbye to your GS.
you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes … will just choose the next most aggressive breed
This is the same problem behind attempts to “solve” firearm violence through arbitrary bans and has strong parallels in ongoing knee-jerk reactions and other clout-chasing behavior in response to any events.
At the end of the day, we aren’t going to see any improvement in either until we assess the assholes part of the equation.
Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
Like, firearm bans do objectively work at reducing gun violence, and banning pitbulls would reduce the average severity and rate of dog bites.
They’re not root cause solutions but if your root cause solution is to just not have any more irresponsible assholes in the world then you might want to rethink your problem space.
Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
It really is.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues while sliding by the callouts of lack of data/fact behind your assertion even aside from the poor reasoning itself, all while trying to mount your own high horse.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues
I recognize that you’re the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause when the root cause is infeasible to address (like people occasionally becoming unhinged).
Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.
I’d rather have a mass stabbing epidemic than what we’ve got.
Interestingly enough, when one addresses the root issues - the motivations and pressures behind the violence - you end up with neither mass shootings nor mass stabbings… which is the point.
I’d rather not only care that violence is done by X implement - I’d rather we do something about the violence, categorically. Incidentally, this would have the side benefit of, say, improving lives.
Except that the root cause of gun violence is that the human brain is inherently fallible and didn’t evolve to own point and click murder devices.
You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.
The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.
“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.
You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.
By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?
“People increasingly experience desperate extremes and surprise surprise you get more desperate actions” is both a more reasonable, rational fit and actually tied to reality.
The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.
It’s similarly absurd to pretend that the only relevant difference between the United States and pick a country is the presence of firearms.
“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.
The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership? You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.
By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?
Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.
The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership?
“Track with”? Did you mean poorly correlate with?
You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?
I’m still waiting for support for the first absurd assertion and you’ve gone and added another.
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.
Oh, my - and now you’ve got to support the absurd notion that humanity only evolved for violence by hands despite our use of tools generally being considered a unique and crucial evolutionary advantage. It’s ironic that your criticize understanding while demonstrating your own shortcomings.
Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.
I’m not sure how a direct criticism of your argument’s flaws is somehow weaseling. I’m getting the impression you don’t understand what correlation even is, let alone whether or not it serves to prove causation.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause
Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed.
Firearm violence is no different. Pitbulls are no different.
Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.
First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.
Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.
Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed
Yes, when the root problem is unaddressable, like in the case of a cold virus or say, HIV, we instead treat the symptoms as the next best option… so when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness" or the root cause of doog attacks is “people being bad dog owners” things that are just statistical realities of the human race that you’ll never be able to eliminate, then you treat the symptoms to make them less severe.
Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.
First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.
Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.
Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.
Again, you’re the only country where people are regularly mass murdered. It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are. You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’. Like Jesus fucking Christ, gain an ounce or thimble or whatever dumbass unit you use full of perspective and self doubt.
when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness"
And here’s where the statement falls apart - you’ve provided nothing showing the root causes of firearm violence to be unaddressable. Heck, specific to mass shootings, the problems - including “unhingedness” - are very well-understood and very addressable. Specific to aggressive dogs, the common theme raised in these discussions - especially in criticism of this breed-behavior nonsense - is that the person behind the dog is the problem. I’m interested in hearing how you see that as unaddressable.
Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.
Would that be the NEJM study which directly recognizes the reasons for such an anomaly are unclear in the same breath it recognizes the overlap with the time of crisis and desperation (hmm, where have we seen that before…) that was the COVID-19 pandemic as if to highlight an explanation, ignores that there were other significantly more severe increases in causes of child deaths (e.g. drug overdose and poisoning), intentionally combines suicide and homicide as if they’re the same, and generally disregards everything in favor of a single distilled talking point? One that specifically avoids asking why and exploring the anomaly?
“Boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021. Girls accounted for 17%.”
"Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021"
“Racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. In 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved Black victims, even though only 14% of the U.S. under-18 population that year was Black. Much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved White (32%), Hispanic (17%) and Asian (1%) victims.”
“There are also major racial and ethnic differences in the types of gun deaths involving children and teens. In 2021, a large majority of gun deaths involving Black children and teens (84%) were homicides, while 9% were suicides. Among White children and teens, by contrast, the majority of gun deaths (66%) were suicides, while a much smaller share (24%) were homicides.”
I wonder if there are, say, any long-standing inequality issues regarding opportunity & desperation between some of these demographics, issues which may be thematically similar with observations raised of mass shootings… Nah, it’s gotta be what the headline said.
Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.
I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.
It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are.
Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.
You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’.
Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred. You could learn a thing or two from seeking to improve lives. Also, never wrong about anything? Lmao.
I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.
Eliminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.
Read some fucking history before making dumbass comments like that.
Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.
Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water
Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred.
Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.
Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?
You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!
You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.
liminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.
Biased selective breeding quite literally is eugenics. Try picking up a dictionary sometime.
Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.
More bland hyperbole? Neat.
Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water
Projection, from you? No way! One of us is operating entirely on bullshit, I agree - but it isn’t me.
Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?
You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!
Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.
You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.
Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.
Lmao, you’re right, the denial and cognitive dissonance that Americans have to live with every day would drive anyone to the breaking point
It’s fortunate, then, that we only have to live with your cognitive dissonance and denial through your disingenuous shitposting on the internet, and that despite your fearmongering and other sensationalism, such breaking points are still pretty rare.
I think his point is that keeping guns broadly but e.g. banning “assault” weapons doesn’t keep people safe.
In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.
Compare that to the much broader restrictions in Australian or British gun laws, and it’s no surprise why you still have many, many more mass shootings in NY.
In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.
I would argue that the primary driver of that ineffectiveness is not the fact that they’re trying to ban specific types of guns, but that all of those things are completely legal in neighbouring or nearby jurisdictions with no border controls between them. It wouldn’t solve the whole gun violence problem but if America as a whole banned them I think you would see much more of an effect than just a singular state.
Look at last year’s mass shooting in Buffalo, where a racist drove halfway across the state to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood. He shot 12 people, including a “good guy with a gun” that the NRA claims stops attacks like that.
He had bought his rifle legally in NYS, but went across the border to PA to buy 30 round magazines, which are illegal in NY.
Having access to 20 more rounds per mag than NY’s max certainly didn’t help things, but that terrorist attack would probably still have happened if NYs laws were nation wide.
The problem is both that location-specific gun control is ineffective because you can just go a state/city over, and that passing effective gun control even in a state like NY is almost impossible.
Man you nailed it, in today’s world. But there definitely was an American pitbull breed and there still is but all these designer and backyard breeders fucked it all up. It’s been a while since I’ve looked into this but either the AKC or UKC would list them officially.
As much as I support this, I’d be shocked if they were able to reproduce what Microsoft experienced in a white collar environment. White collar engineering gigs are VERY different than a factory line that has been optimized for efficiency for decades.
How is this news? “Be aware, some rando you never heard of before or will hear about again did a bad in a way that will never affect your life in any way.”
That doesn’t change the fact that this isn’t news. Crime is only newsworthy if it stands a chance at meaningful affecting others in the rest of the country. Why do you think we don’t write a news article for every robbery?
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.