Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left

From where I stand, your left is my right.

I have a really nasty opinion of the whole political spectrum, but thanks to MoFo's coding all that would show up is asteriks. So I'll just put it like this: when people can stop whining like children at each other over a topic which needs only to be handled professionally, then I'll get back into politics. Its because of the extremists the OP mentioned that I hate politics through and through. It didn't take me long to notice that the liberals and the conservatives could be just as nasty about things as each other. Every discussion you get into is a chance to call each other a murderer, idiot, nazi, etc. I was willing to try and calm others down, but when I found out both sides were arguing over which political party is more like Nazis, I had enough. Now we're living in a country where it's normal to call each other NAZIS over a couple of common factors where everything else is completely different.

I used to love good political discussions when they were calm and mature. Nowadays, that's too much to ask from people and insults are the closest thing we have from a real political discussion that actually gets anywhere (which is nowhere). Every single little thing has to be a victimizing offense even though they'll just as easily offend you right back if they don't do it first, even if the arguments have NOTHING to do with them. It's all about being a child and throwing insults for both parties. I thank God I grew up with a conservative father who proved every extreme view politics holds wrong by just being himself and respecting other people no matter how different their views were.

I am a free man who is non-political and I don't give a damn what people think. Politics is a way to help the world, so why not help the world by telling everyone involved to chill out because such arguments will only make things worse? That's my final word on the matter.


Edit: this is probably the single most controversial post on MoFo.

Plenty of data on PEW research, as well. Here is one article of many from PEW:

Gun Violence

That is from 2015. As Yoda says, there has been a bit of an uptick in recent years, but it is still well down from its highs back then.



@JoaoRodrigues - I am not going to go item for item on your post, but I will say that as far as I am concerned, I try to read alternate news sources as much as possible, and from what would be considered a broad spectrum of political views, at least relative to the American political system. I do read The Intercept, as well as more right-leaning sources as well, and I watch commentary on YouTube from people like Styxhexenhammer (Libertarian), Jimmy Dore (Progressive), and Matt Christiansen (Right). I tend to avoid propaganda cults such as MSNBC or Fox News.

That said, I love my country, and I wouldn't live anywhere else. I will agree with you that America should meddle less in global affairs, on the whole.

__________________

One of the big issues in the upcoming presidential campaigns will be gun violence. Especially with the recent mass shootings of a few days ago this will be an important topic.

I wonder if we can discuss this without flaming or soap boxing? I'd be interested in hearing what key politicians are suggesting and what they suggest is the cause and possible solution to these mass shootings...and your guys take on all of that.

I haven't looked into pew or how they come about their numbers. So I'll try not to comment about them. My problem once again is trying to figure out if I can just get my message out without being so much of dick that you can listen to me. To put it simply, we've been lied to. How much you have been lied to really depends on how much you are willing to look into where your information comes from. The Washington Post for starters might be one of the worst offenders. And yet this rag has shaped millions of minds over the years. I've been accused many times of not trying enough to see the other side of things. I assure you, I obsess about the other side. Maybe not in the way you might think, but I do. So, care to journey with me? This guy says the Washington Post is the worst kind of fake news. He says the Post works for the CIA. Pretty interesting story. I hope you watch it. Is he completely full of sh*t?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

No matter what anybody thinks, whether they're a thug or not, this thread is painful to read.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

It doesn't come from the post, and it isn't really a report; it's a recounting of data compiled from the CDC. Official crime statistics, basically. What else could someone possibly base a stance on? If you are skeptical (it sounds like you are), what is that stance based on?

Sure it does. If you think it isn't hard to refute such a simple statistics, by all means, please do so. It looks pretty unassailable to me, but I'm happy to hear you out.

What most concerns me about these statistics is how suicide has ticked back up, and if the trend continues we will see numbers higher than the 90s. When people talk about mass shooters in relation to mental health it does a disservice to the real risk that firearms play to people with mental health issues. I can only speak for myself: I am currently unable to own a firearm, and I have a greater fear of offing myself than being unarmed during a mass shooting, which is why I haven't gotten them reinstated.

It is clear that unfettered access to firearms is the number one contributor to gun violence in America, but what isn't clear is how to restrict firearms without infringing on 2nd amendment rights. For instance, I am not in favor of banning assault weapons/weapons of war because, as crazy as it sounds, protection from your government's military necessitates that you can own the same hardware, or as closely similar hardware as possible. What does bother me is the ability of gun manufacturers to skirt legislation (bullet buttons and Hellfighter Mod Kit) to continue selling easily modifiable equipment (San Bernardino shooters removed the bullet button on their rifles) in places where the public has decided they do not want such hardware. I think gun rights has largely become a state issue (when it comes to what you can own) and we shouldn't allow gun manufacturers/third-party sellers the ability to skirt these types of laws. Just about every major shooting in the past decade has been committed by someone who, at the time of the shooting, owned hardware that was illegal for them to possess (the gun itself, the modifications, and/or the magazines). These most recent shootings show us just how easy it is for someone to go from gun noob to mass shooter. This has to stop and our country's access to guns is the best place to start.

It's about time we had a process for universal background checks for all firearm related purchases, including aftermarket modifications/hardware.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Some do. Some people actually use them to try to get at the truth. It's rare, and all of us are guilty of seeing it as a confrontation to some degree. But it doesn't have to be that way. And the really sad thing is that, if you go into an argument already thinking this way, it'll automatically become true. I'd encourage you to try to have a substantive discussion from the get-go. People will occasionally surprise you and reward that attitude.

I've shown you where I get my info. And while I can appreciate general skepticism, the idea that "corporations" run crime statistics for the CDC is kinda ridiculous.

But here's the larger problem. Let's say you're right to dismiss any data you get from the CDC (nevermind that it's a government entity and not a corporation). Hey, I can't stop you from disbelieving any official statistics. BUT, even if you're right about that, the only logical position left is for you not to have an opinion either way, because you have no reliable data, right? And yet you seem to not only have opinions, but very strong ones. So the thing that's allowing you to ignore inconvenient facts--your blanket skepticism of any statistic I give you--should simultaneously stop you from having a contradictory opinion. Yet you do.

We can haggle over "enormous," but it's not material, because this isn't what you said, or what I contradicted. You seem to have no sense of the frequency or nature of most military conflicts.

Yes, this happens in all places I'm sure. But it doesn't mean that it's sophisticated to go to the polar opposite position of thinking literally every fact or number is false, either.

Somehow I suspect any source that contradicts these ideas will turn out too have a "hidden agenda" that lets you dismiss them.

But how about this: let's flip the burden of proof. Let's say you're right and you can only base opinions on these kinds of sources. That means you should be able to show me independent sources that form the basis for your broad opinions about gun violence, right? I would like to see those. Please show me the independently-sourced evidence that gun homicides are going up, for example.

I saw this after I posted my reply. I'm happy to watch it, and I don't take a lot of convincing to be skeptical of mass media. I think this goes preeeeetttty far, and I think we can see from the current President how dangerous it is to give yourself license to throw out any reporting we don't like based on indirect funding, or whatever the excuses may be.

HOWEVER, none of this matters, because I'm not asking you to trust the Washington Post. That's just an article about the data I'm referring to.

Gun violence obviously is a problem, but even if you took guns away completely there would still be mass killings. I could take 50 people out in about 30 seconds with my truck when Fenway Park lets out, and it doesn't take much to make a bomb. I think guns are more of a problem with the violence that doesn't include mass killings.

I've been at Fenway Park after it has let out, and there's no way you could take out 50 people in 30 seconds. Whilst I see your point, it doesn't account for the fact that we design pedestrian heavy zones to minimize the speed and the type/amount of traffic. We can do that yet we continue to do nothing to prevent people from getting tools designed to make killing more efficient.

Wholeheartedly agree with the bold, though.

I can agree with that. As far as I know the mass shootings in America seem to be a recent phenomenon and have only occurred with any regularity in the last 20 years. So what changed? More guns? I don't think so. There were plenty of guns around a half century ago and yet we didn't get people 'going postal' back in the 1950s. Hell they didn't even know what 'going postal' meant. From the first mass work place shootings it morphed into school shootings and very recently has become mass shootings of complete strangers. I don't think we can tag easy access of guns as the cause, as we've always had easy access of guns in America.

@Citizen Rules: August 1, 1966 was our nation’s first mass shooting, and I would argue that it sets the model for what we continue to see today: angry and isolated individuals who see, whether fairly or not, systems of power operating unjustly and with impunity.

And a strong argument can be made that had it not been for other armed citizens that day the dude would have killed a lot more people.

You sure? I've been on Landsdowne St. in my truck with a crowd like that completely filling the street. I literally could not move an inch and had to sit there for a half hour. They pack it so tight that there is nowhere to go.

I half wonder if it's the celebrity of it. I don't mean specifically as a search for fame, but I mean if someone is angry for whatever reason and feels that nothing is being done against the cause of whatever anger, then as a matter of mutant principle they may think making a stand/statement/example may be the catalyst to enact whatever change they feel is needed to fix their perceived problem. Or that at least they have done something for their bastard cause.

The celebrity draws attention. News and, worse, social media thirst for biting headlines so of course names and faces will spread like wildfire. Perhaps they think their distorted views of the world will gain traction in other like-minded people.

I do not condone that btw. I'm just trying to empathize or project possible motivation to do something so extreme. I can't argue that guns are a cause, but they do make an easy choice for such an action. This is a huge gray, feathering area of cause and effect dynamics. I imagine it would be difficult at best to form some type of equation from all the variables at play.

__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you." - Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy." - Captain Steel

"I just can't get pass sticking a finger up a dog's butt." - John Dumbear

I'm positive. That's an image from 2007. Pre-London and Westminster bridge attacks (2017) and even those attacks didn't have near as many fatalities as you claim is possible to achieve. They now have the Landsdowne St locked down to thru traffic when there are major events going on, so the conditions don't exist anymore because event planning has changed. What hasn't changed is our unfettered access to guns.

Believe me, I find myself in those crowds often and 50 people don't take up a whole lot of space, and when it's part of a bigger crowd there's nowhere to run. Of course as a truck driver, I have better access and know the spots, but anyone can get a job driving a truck. Imagine being behind that bus but turning right instead of left.

@cricket: Mass + speed = force. So I am positive it's not possible and the bigger the crowd the harder it would be.

Let's go back to something that, so far, we have all been able to agree upon. We need to approach gun ownership from this angle if we are to have any hope of preventing gun violence/deaths, including mass shootings.

It's not only possible, it wouldn't be that hard. Maybe if you were me, you would know.