ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Samantha Bee tells NRA members to join Scientology instead

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Reports from Newspapers, Blogs, and ' started by Enthetan, Mar 8, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Thank you, LBJ, and the entire liberal industrial complex for creating the modern welfare state, and for herding the vast majority of my people into your soul crushing degradation machine.

    Now witness the fruits of all your decades long efforts ---- 7,000 black men a day, murdered by other black men, and over 70% of black babies born out of wedlock.

    :censored:
     
  2. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    I remain entirely unconvinced and I would be able to take this piece of data seriously, only if countries in civil war are removed from the "rest of the world" category.

    Whenever we throw into the "vs the world" equation countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, we get skewed results. Then we are comparing crime victims to civil war victims. Apples and Oranges. Your comparison to Switzerland was a great example. This "mass of countries including civl war and failed states" UN study is not.

    I'd say that if we want to compare US crime (incl.Murder) statistics in a meaningful way, we should compare it to other large, rich countries that are not in a state of war. ie: (Japan, UK, Italy, Germany, Austria etc.) Feel free to refer to any "supporting studies and pertinent resources" that fulfill this criteria.


    As for Mass shootings:
    Mass shootings are skewed by single high-bodycount cases. Out of those 158 deaths in your France stats, 130 died in a single case of foreign terrorist attack. All in all, mass shootings are mostly unusual cases in taht they are mostly terrorism or acts by insane individuals. The underlying dynamic is entirely different than other forms of crime.

    My argument was not that tight gun laws are able to prevent terrorist attacks by organized groups. They may decrease the amount of "insane guy take his brotehr's gun to school" mass shootings, but not eliminate terrorsim.

    My chief argument was that tight gun laws help to decrease the rate of "everyday gun crime" - drug shootings, spousal murders, shootouts with police etc. This includes police homicide - if the criminal has a knife instead of a gun, the police will be more likely to subdue him without the use of lethal force.

    Yep, entirely agree. Which is why I choose to use "general homicide" stats in these sort of debates, ratehr than "mass shootings".

    I'm not saying we should disarm cops. I am saying we should disarm the public, so that the cops will very rarely find themselves in a situation that requires the use of firearms.

    I enjoy the fact that at 2.00 AM, I can take a night bus from the city center to my own (rather rough blue collar) neighbourhood without having to be afraid of getting robbed, shot or mugged.

    As for the government, the US army is the best equipped in the world. Should the US decide to employ its full military firepower in a domestic setting, the "armed citizenry" would be crushed utterly. The pump-action shotgun militias would not be able to stand against drone strikes, tanks and cluster bombs. Not to mention chemical weapons or nukes.

    The times when musket-armed farmers could fight musket-armed soldiers is long gone. That is precisely the sort of outdated enlightenment thinking that the constitution represents.

    Of course, the US is far too big and stable to collapse into such insane domestic military deployment.

    I think less guns in the streets would decrease the problem. If we turned 50% of these firearm incidents into knife-attack incidents, the bodycount would drop.

    But I do strongly agree with your main point. Guns are not the only issue in America. Ethnic and racial violence in terms of social fission is a huge factor.

    Thus every option to bring the nation from a state of fission into a state of fusion should be vigorously explored.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019
  3. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    Well, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, or so the saying goes, but if the above is true, why is it that I seem to be hearing about a mass shooting in the USA practically every other week, while mass shootings elsewhere in the world seem to be as rare as hen's teeth?
     
  4. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Wow. Dude, you are a left wing statist, through and through. Your ideas are repugnant to the very concepts of individual freedom and liberty.

    You think the way to make a country safer is to disarm the citizens so that only the police, the military, and criminals have guns. That is patently nuts on its face. If a bunch of armed thugs break into your house in the night, you'll perish before the police can arrive. That is exactly the sort of conditions that would be created under your utopian plan.

    According to your way of thinking, gun violence in America ought to be orders of magnitude worse than it actually is. There are an estimated 400 million guns in civilian hands in this country, possessed by an estimated 150 million people. How many of those 150 million people used a firearm to injure or kill someone in the last year? Maybe 10 thousand.

    If my math is correct that's 0.0001% of the of the gun owning population, or 1 in every 10,000 gun owners.

    But your answer to the one in ten thousand killers is to strip away the gun rights of the other 9,999 other gun owners who haven't shot anyone, justified or not.

    And your bit about the US military having firepower sufficient enough to subdue a bunch of patriot yahoos with shotguns is laughable. Americans own ten times more modern fighting rifles than the US military does, as well as a plethora of other deadly firearms. Given that our government has no more than 1.6 million active duty combat trained personnel, just how do you suppose they're capable of suppressing 150 million armed citizens? It can't (and won't) be done - even with advanced weaponry.

    In the Iraq war, there were never more than an estimated fifteen thousand insurgents in country at any given time, yet they tied up the entire US military for ten long years. What sort of odds would you give that same military, if it were facing a hostile domestic populace with 150 million armed resisters?

    And do you honestly believe that every federal troop would obey orders to subjugate the American people through force? Do you really believe they'd fire on their own people without blinking? I guarantee you, most would not. No, there would be instant mutiny in the ranks, should such an order ever be given, and heads would be on pikes all the way to the top.
     
    Type4_PTS likes this.
  5. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Because the armed American population is the world's last remaining bulwark against the creation of a one world government and the final enslavement of every person on the planet.

    The deep state knows this all too well, so uses their propaganda arm, the MSM, to push the anti-gun agenda in every way possible, and as much as possible. Liberal Democrats, being the useful idiots of the globalists push the same message day in and day out.

    It's vital to their plans to disarm the US population. Every homicide or mass shooting MUST be amplified and sensationalized to the max to shape an anti-gun message that they hope will lead to greater and greater calls for gun control laws, confiscations, bans, and ultimately, the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
     
  6. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    I consider msyelf a right-wing (pro-free market, pro-family) statist.
    I knew there was a reason why I made a career in the ethics section :biggrin:

    Works really well in the place where I now live. I like to go forward with ideas that I saw proven right with my own eyes.
    I'd ratehr have a bunch of guys armed with melee weapons . By the time they brake into my building, then through the corridor gate and then through my apartment door, I'd be ready and have my neighbours help me out. The police would be on its way as well.

    Now the US variant would be to have thugs with firearms attack, while I try to defend with my own gun. What's the point of me shooting two of them dead, when one bullet will be enough to send me to the morgue or intensive care.
    Far too many. Let me quote your own words from post #41: "(...) 7,000 black men a day, murdered by other black men"

    Works perfectly fine where I live. :biggrin:

    Won't stop cluster bombs or napalm, or chemical weapons, or MRLS or drones... Look at the modern civil wars in Syria or the Ukraine to get an idea.
    One man at the red button could kill half a million people in a few seconds. Of course all that is crazy speculation, not because the US army couldn't do it, but because they would never want to do it.
    Of course not. The whole idea of the US state becoming genocidal against its own citizens is absurd to begin with. Armed-citizenry or not.
    You have a lot of democratic highly stable states without armed citizenry.
     
  7. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    It's not every news outlet that is committed to the 'anti gun agenda' you describe, in fact there are many many social media outlets sympathetic to your cause, but I don't see them reporting mass killings elsewhere in the world either.

    I'm not opposed to the people's right to bear arms in the USA, but it's a shame that the current incident (Virginia Beach) and so many like it are happening as a result.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019
  8. Voodoo

    Voodoo Free Your Mind And Your Ass Will Follow

    Freedom comes with risk.

    A wise man once remarked, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
     
  9. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    With certain European countries, if you average in over the last hundred years the number of murders of civilians by their own governments, the total dwarfs the average US homicide rates.

    Historically,before governments started mass murder programs against their own people, they started with a program to demand that the people disarm themselves.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    More precisely, the problem involves unemployed young men, raised by single mothers on the dole, who see themselves as having no future, and nothing better to do with their days than to get in fights and kill each other over minor slights.

    This is not just a black thing, although they are disproportionately represented in the statistics. For example, in my middle class neighborhood I have black neighbors who you should have no worries about. But if you travel though welfare-class neighborhoods, you have plenty to worry about.
     
  11. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    The US homicide rate is around 5/100K in 2018, DOWN from 10/100K in 1980. Meanwhile, gun ownership has gone UP since 1980, and laws regarding concealed carry have become much more relaxed since then.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    Yeah. Absolutely.

    A couple things here...

    This problem of concentrated demographic crime associated with ghettos has always existed in the U.S.

    There's been Italian ghettos and their crime...Irish ghettos...Jewish ghettos...the list goes on.

    What was different? Why aren't these ghettos still extant? Why are black perpetuating?

    I believe it's welfare and socialist Democrat bribery for votes policies. Democrats want people dependent upon their party for benefits. Robert Creamer lays that out in the book Shut Up and Listen to Your Mother: How Progressives Can Win.

    The other thing is the numbers don't lie. The problem is small but entirely out of control.

    I personally believe we're born here again and again and I, for one, wouldn't want to be born into that.

    We need to eliminate this crap and make certain our liberties are there and we get an education instead of a liberal indoctrination such as Karakorum's.
     
  13. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    If you want to compare countries' homicide rates, Mexico, our neighbor to the south, with VERY strict gun laws, has a homicide rate FIVE TIMES the US rate, at 25/100K.

    Meanwhile, in the US, if you look at murder rates by state, you will see a wide range in rates, despite it all being in the US, with one culture and language (at least on the surface), and mostly equal access to guns. The homicide rate goes from a low of 1.0 in New Hampshire (a state with liberal laws regarding concealed carry) to 7.8 in Illinois (a state with historically strict gun laws) 9.0 in Maryland (another strict gun law state), all the way up to 12.4 in Louisiana.
     
  14. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP


    Experts agree that gun control works! :yes:



    experts agree.PNG
     
  15. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Now, a bigger question: why are poor countries poor? Does their poverty come from some evil magic property of the dirt they sit on? Or is it because of a dysfunctional culture of the people?

    Bonus question: would the US do better, or worse, if we allowed millions of members of those dysfunctional cultures to come here? Is Europe doing better after allowing in massive Third World immigration? Look at Paris in present time. Take a walk through Malmo, Sweden.
     
  16. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    It's pretty obvious that LBJ, and the Democrat machine, had a vested interest in creating and perpetuating a dysfunctional black culture, in order to make them dependent upon the Welfare State, and thus having to vote Democrat. There's a famous quote by him on the subject, which the Left has been trying hard to bury and disavow, but which has too many sources.

    The system in the cities is widespread and insidious. The Democrats have a system of precinct captains and block captains. If you need help filling out the paperwork for all the various welfare programs you might be eligible for, see your helpful block captain. You need help with your son who's just been arrested? See your precinct captain. They will help you fill things out, and connect you with helpful people. BUT, come election day, you better show up and vote for the correct people, or it's the last time you get any help.
     
  17. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    Very true. The country I now live in lost a lot of good men to Hitler, because western democracies failed to help it when it was invaded. It then lost a lot of good men to Stalin and his sucessors, because FDR and churchill sold the country to Stalin during the Yalta conference.

    In both cases, the local army and the population fought bitterly against the foreign invaders and lost to the totalitarian behemoth.

    You can't expect the smaller states, with armed populations or not, fix the errors of the major leaders of the world. Peace and freedom are a global issue. A failure in one place ripples through the whole world.

    There are many causes, each country is its own story. In most cases, history, foreign rule and the lack of natural resources are the main causes of poverty. Let's take one example:

    India is poor predominately because it was mismanaged by British colonial rulers who bled it dry. It sufered several catastrophic famines during British rule (the last one in Bengal was in the 1940s) with hundreds of thousands of people dead.
    Ever since independence, India did not suffer any more such major famines. It remains relatively poor, but is now doing much better than it was.

    This is thanks to self-rule and capitalism.

    The major contributors to global povery over the past 100 years was the British Empire, USSR, Nazi Germany, the US and Colonial France.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2019
  18. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Your scenario has your neighbors willing to fight for you. In some high-crime neighborhoods in the US, it would be your neighbors who would be the ones most likely to want to harm you.

    Meanwhile, in my neighborhood, I would have armed neighbors able to help if the shit hit the fan.

    [​IMG]


    There are some American Indians who would disagree with you.
     
  19. Enthetan

    Enthetan Master of Disaster

    Venezuela was once one of the most prosperous countries in South America. Now, it is a basket case. No foreign rule.

    Hong Kong was ruled by the UK for a long time, and prospered immensely under British rule. And I have a feeling that India was not prosperous before the Brits came along. While the Brits may have been exploitative, one thing they provided was peace and stability, which are prerequisites for prosperity.
     
  20. Karakorum

    Karakorum supressively reasonable

    Communism/socialism sucks as an economic system. No argument there.

    It prospered as a trade outpost at the enormous expense of China as a whole. While China was not de jure colonized, it was de facto coloniezed from the economic point of view, starting from the latter part of the XIX century. Boxer rebellion case in point.

    The consensus amongst historians is that China and Mughal Imperial India were the two most powerful economies in the world in 1700 AD.

    For a concise summary of this issue, see here:
    https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nomic-glory/articleshow/66929904.cms?from=mdr

    For a more in-depth thing, you might want to chekc this book:
    https://www.amazon.in/Economy-Mughal-Empire-1595-Statistical/dp/0199450544