Gun control ... actual question

[KimGordon67]

So the solution to human rights being taken is to violate someone elses constitutional rights or curtail other rights?

I don't believe that we should be engaging in racist policy that prevents minority classes from attaining political power. We should accept that once someone is free from incarceration, that they have paid their debt to society.

There are actually plenty of gun rights advocates that are fighting to re-establish all rights for felons, including gun rights, along with voting rights.

I don't see how limiting a different right will right the wrong of the first infraction.

I can't respond to this properly on a phone, and I just found a link that speaks to at least part of this point ... I'll get back to it later.

 

[BotanyBoy]

What he's saying, is that he's a racist, and that black people are the problem.

He's not racist, facts are.

You ever come up with a privilege that is white or figure out why Asian people have more of it than white people?

Ok ... thanks for being clear. There's just do much I disagree with in this post I don't know where to begin, so I'll leave it.

*FACTS* oh noes!! Run away!!!

 

[Que]

What he's saying, is that he's a racist, and that black people are the problem.

His kind are the reason why we have gun control in the first place (from 1968 and 1939). Those gun control measures were fueled and fed by racism... he's happy to repeat the same mistakes again.

Yeah sure anybody that points out the obvious that over half of all murders in America are committed by blacks on blacks is a racist. Which is exactly what I said would be said about anybody pointing out these inconvenient truths.

What part of me pointing out that scotus was absolutely correct that just because you're black and live in a black neighborhood in a mostly black City you shouldn't have your rights to keep and bear arms curtailed just because statistically black shoot black more often than other people do.

what part of me calling for the ability for non felons in black neighborhoods to be able to carry concealed is racist, dick??

Given that one third of blacks are not permitted to carry weapons because of their criminal histories I'm not so sure that they should not have their gun rights restored once they have done their time. The mere fact that someone's done time in prison doesn't make them any more or less likely to have a need to defend themselves. Why should they be denied that?

Many former felons of any persuasion tend to live in higher crime neighborhoods because they're more affordable.

 

[richard_daily]

He's not racist, facts are.

You ever come up with a privilege that is white or figure out why Asian people have more of it than white people?

Have you ever experienced someone crossing the street when you're walking up to them because they're afraid of the color of your skin? You're Korean, so maybe you have. I haven't. I have privilege for the color of my skin.

However, have you had a police officer mis-judge you having a weapons in your hand because of the color of your skin and shoot you?

Over the course of several experiments, the researchers had white college students view images on a monitor and categorize threatening and nonthreatening objects and words after brief presentations of faces of various races and ages. The results consistently revealed that participants had less difficulty identifying threatening stimuli and more difficulty identifying nonthreatening stimuli after seeing black faces than after seeing white faces.

Researchers found that racial bias was equally strong for adult and child faces. The participants tended to more quickly categorize guns after seeing a black child’s face than after seeing a white child’s face. The participants also mistakenly categorized guns as toys more often after seeing a white child’s face than after seeing a black child’s face.

A final experiment revealed that even threat-related words — including “violent,” “dangerous,” “hostile” and “aggressive” — were more strongly associated with images of young black boys than with images of young white boys.

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/...wa-study-racial-bias-black-children/80021754/


Have you ever been denied a job interview because you have an "afro" sounding name?

Economists Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan wanted to explore racial bias in the job market....

...The resumes with white-sounding names spurred 50 percent more callbacks than the ones with black-sounding names.

After responding to 1,300 ads with more than 5,000 resumes, the researchers found that the job applicants with white names needed to send 10 resumes to get one callback, but the black candidate needed to send 15 for one.

It didn’t matter whether the employer was a federal contractor or was described as an "equal opportunity employer," as those also discriminated like the others.

"We find little evidence that our results are driven by employers inferring something other than race, such as social class, from the names," their paper states. "These results suggest that racial discrimination is still a prominent feature of the labor market."

http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/




So... white privilege, means that you can walk down the street without being mistaken for a threat, and you have an easier time finding a job.

is that summation simple enough for you?

 

[Que]

.....

 

[BotanyBoy]

Have you ever experienced someone crossing the street when you're walking up to them because they're afraid of the color of your skin? You're Korean, so maybe you have. I haven't. I have privilege for the color of my skin.

However, have you had a police officer mis-judge you having a weapons in your hand because of the color of your skin and shoot you?

Have you ever been denied a job interview because you have an "afro" sounding name?

No, I'm Asian male, I have more white privilege than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC in the country.

NOBODY has as much white privilege as asian guys.

I get better education.

Make more money.

I get better HC.

I practically never interact with the law.

I eat better food.

I have a bigger house.

I drive faster cars.

Statistically speaking I'm almost guaranteed to not be murdered or die in an industrial accident.

Nobody fears me, except the ones smart enough.

Nobody has low expectations of me.

Everybody wants my science skills.

My cultures art adorns the bodies of hot white boys n' girls the nation over and is revered by white western civilization.

From bonsai trees to high fashion....anime to race cars.

So... white privilege, means that you can walk down the street without being mistaken for a threat, and you have an easier time finding a job.

is that summation simple enough for you?

That is not a privilege even REMOTELY close to being exclusive or inherent to white people.

In fact there are numerous categories of POC and historically marginalized minorities, such as Asians, Jews and a quickly growing population of Latinos, out there right now, TODAY in the USA, under the evil Nazi regime of Trump.....

Who all have MORE white privilege than white people.

Making the privileges not white.

Is that a complete enough of a refutation of racist bullshit fantasy of "white privilege" for you?

 

[richard_daily]

No, I'm Asian male, I have more white privilege than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC in the country.

NOBODY has as much white privilege as asian guys.

I get better education.

Make more money.

I get better HC.

I practically never interact with the law.

I eat better food.

I have a bigger house.

I drive faster cars.

Statistically speaking I'm almost guaranteed to not be murdered or die in an industrial accident.




That is not a privilege even REMOTELY close to being exclusive or inherent to white people.

In fact there are numerous categories of POC and historically marginalized minorities, such as Asians, Jews and a quickly growing population of Latinos, out there right now, TODAY in the USA, under the evil Nazi regime of Trump.....

Who all have MORE white privilege than white people.

Making the privileges not white.

Is that a complete enough of a refutation of racist bullshit fantasy of "white privilege" for you?

You're conflating your terms again... Not that I'm shocked.


Can you point to any empirical evidence that you are the "least oppressed" racial group out there?

Any studies? Any evidence?

 

[McFlippant]

World's Fastest Shooter vs Bump Fire!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddPTyoV-Irc

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're conflating your terms again... Not that I'm shocked.

No, I'm not. You and your racist bullshit just got dusted and you don't know what the fuck to say so you're deflecting with that usual bullshit.

If anyone is conflating anything it's you conflating instances of racism with the privilege of an entire racial demographic. Which is why I call it out for the racist shit that it is.

If other people, like Asian males, have more "white" privilege than white people....if "privileges" like not scaring people with your appearance (if you can even call that a privilege) isn't exclusive or inherent to whiteness, then explain how that privilege is white or admit they aren't really white privileges.

Can you point to any empirical evidence that you are the "least oppressed" racial group out there?

Any studies? Any evidence?

The same evidence you are using to prove that white people are oppressing POC with their whiteness.

Income, social standing, political power, job opportunities, police interaction, crime rates, education level, access to healthcare, nutritional food and adequate housing.

Google it, and look at something other than an antiFa/Salon blog. We (Asian males) are fuckin' KILLING IT!!! in the USA.....proportionally speaking of course. There is no better place on the planet to be an asian guy than in the USA. Jews and a rapidly increasing number of Latino's are right behind us in a large and expanding number of those categories.

The privileges aren't white....if anything they are green.

Unless you're a passive agressive bigot and you just want to be on the "Fuck white people!!" bandwagon while being to chicken shit to just come out and say it. Then of course, those "privileges" that are in no way shape or form exclusive to, reserved for or inherent to being white could be considered white.

 

[lickitandstickit]

This one might have to go in the "FOR" gun control bucket.

http://fox8.com/2017/10/10/woman-to...n-on-barber-taking-too-long-to-cut-sons-hair/

 

[richard_daily]

The same evidence you are using to prove that white people are oppressing POC with their whiteness.

Nope. I posted actual empirical evidence, backed up by data and studies. You haven't done that.

Feel free to give it a shot though... Show me any studies or empirical evidence that backs up your claim.

 

[Ishmael]

Nope. I posted actual empirical evidence, backed up by data and studies. You haven't done that.

Feel free to give it a shot though... Show me any studies or empirical evidence that backs up your claim.

Read

THIS

Ishmael

 

[richard_daily]

Read

THIS

Ishmael

You do realize that article backs up my point, right?

It is true that although Asian-Americans do remarkably well at school and university, and have high average incomes, in the workplace they are under-represented in top jobs. A “bamboo ceiling” seems to apply. Asians do well in the lower and middle levels of companies and professions, but are less visible in the upper echelons.

 

[Ishmael]

You do realize that article backs up my point, right?

No it doesn't, even the Asian-Americans cited referred to the cultural reasons. And the fact that that too is changing. The great big example in the article is the law suits they're filing based on racial discrimination. It's about time they did and I'm loving every minute of the process. It's been a dirty little not so secret for years and the major Univ. have been discriminating against Asian-Americans because they over-achieve. Got to make room for the 300 SAT pt's below the norm students in the name of "diversity."

And the latest one I love is the black student union at Colgate demanding that the school doesn't allow any more African students to enroll. It seems they just aren't authentically black enough and aren't 'down with the struggle' because they never suffered the indignity of slavery. And I can't help but wonder how many of those fucking morons that wrote those demands up were just recently released from bondage?

I can only hope the administration invites those SFB's to transfer to another school or keep their ignorant mouths shut.

Ishmael

 

[BotanyBoy]

You do realize that article backs up my point, right?

No, it doesn't....because this...

in the workplace they are under-represented in top jobs.

Is not a proof of privilege or oppression on anyone's part.

Nope. I posted actual empirical evidence, backed up by data and studies. You haven't done that.

Feel free to give it a shot though... Show me any studies or empirical evidence that backs up your claim.

No you didn't you posted some bullshit about people not considering you a threat being a white privilege, that's not in any way shape or form exclusive to white people.

If the "privilege" is not exclusive to white folks, it's not white now is it??

Name a white privilege or get over the fact that there is no such thing, unless you're a racist shit stain and just want to persist in your racist bullshit.

 

[mark_j]

That's basically what I was saying. Although, as the research I linked to demonstrates, there is evidence to suggest that access to a gun does increase suicide rates. Did you actually read either my post in response, or the link that was embedded in there?

Yes, I did.

Here is the key passage from that link:

Guns are more lethal than other suicide means. They’re quick. And they’re irreversible.

About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)

Attempters who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have some time to reconsider mid-attempt and summon help or be rescued. The method itself often fails, even in the absence of a rescue. Even many of those who use hanging can stop mid-attempt as about half of hanging suicides are partial-suspension (meaning the person can release the pressure if they change their mind) (Bennewith 2005).With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back.

So interpreting that passage it is very easy to infer that the presence of a firearm in the home greatly increases the likelihood that the suicide attempt will be successful. No surprise there. Guns are very efficient machines.

Does that mean that this same presence in the home is more likely to cause suicide? I don't know. That might be stretching it to make that particular cause and effect. One thing is certain. If you attempt suicide with a gun, chances are pretty good that you will be successful.

 

[KimGordon67]

Yes, I did.

Here is the key passage from that link:



So interpreting that passage it is very easy to infer that the presence of a firearm in the home greatly increases the likelihood that the suicide attempt will be successful. No surprise there. Guns are very efficient machines.

Does that mean that this same presence in the home is more likely to cause suicide? I don't know. That might be stretching it to make that particular cause and effect. One thing is certain. If you attempt suicide with a gun, chances are pretty good that you will be successful.

It's probably not likely to cause more suicide attempts, but even by your own reckoning, it's likely to cause more success. It's successful attempts that create the suicide stats. In answer the question you ask, I again quote this: ""Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states." That seems to suggest that guns in the house are more likely to cause more successful suicide attempts - i.e. more suicides.

It's the same basic reason I'd suggest guns as a weapon of choice result in more attempted homicides becoming actual homicides. I'll admit that I've never attempt to kill anyone with any sort of weapon, so I'm basing this on assumption ... but my assumption is that if you want to kill someone, it's probably easier to do so with a gun than with a knife or a blunt object. (I guess a car might be a bit easier again, but with some obvious recent exceptions, they don't seem to often be a weapon of choice.) I don't want to introduce mass shooting into the general discussion, because I think they're an aberration in statistic terms ... but there's a reason the guy in Vegas decided to use guns rather than knives. As someone (RD? I lost track of who was making that argument), it's apparently 'lucky' he didn't poison the water or use a bomb ... but I doubt the actual victims feel that's the case ... and we could equally say it's unlucky that he didn't decide to use a knife.

But, again just to be clear, while I think that the issue of suicide rates needs to be addressed, I'm not convinced that gun control is the best solution. And while mass shootings are obviously total tragedies, I suspect they don't contribute massively to the overall stats of gun-related homicides/injuries. I don't think that means they shouldn't be prevented, but the people who do that are unlikely to deterred by gun control laws ... as RD(?) quite rightly pointed out, there are other options.

 

[KimGordon67]

Not for anyone who is not a black gang banger killing or being killed by other black gang bangers, and frankly I don't consider that much of a loss.

Even if you are black but not a gang member your chances of being killed drop dramatically. If I were black and a non felon living in a black community and for whatever reason I could not get myself in my family out of there I would want to be able to carry concealed. In most of those cities you're not permitted to do so.

Your entire premise is based on statistics. If I'm a white guy living in Iowa why would I care about statistics that have absolutely nothing to do with the America that I live in?

It's like the entire fraud that is the black lives matters movement. Your odds of being a black guy shot by a white police officer while you are unarmed is lower than the chances that you will be struck by lightning.

Assuming it doesn't spill over their border why should the Turks care what the death rate is in Iraq?

What have I been saying for days here? It is not a problem because it doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently as the anti-gun nuts would conflate statistics to imply that it would for any average non-suicidal, non-black non-gang member non-drug-dealing non-drug-consuming person in America.

It obviously isn't a problem for blacks living in black communities because a) they continue to do it and b) anyone that points this out is a racist and c) anyone involved in policing their community to remove violent offenders in jail them is a racist.

We have a problem with teenagers from MS-13 lopping each other's heads off with machetes. that's a very oddly specific problem which has nothing to do with America has nothing to do with any machete culture in America has nothing to do with machete ownership in America.

I don't know how I can make this any more plain. Half of our murders in America are black gang members killing other black gang members if I'm not a black gang member I don't care. At all. whether you choose to accept that rationale or not that is the rationale that every non-black non-gang member in America considers when they determine whether they are or are not safe walking down their street.

Nobody in Iowa worries for their personal safety when they hear that yet another weekend 100 people got shot in Chicago.

If the gun statistics worldwide went up next week next year or next decade they double triple or went up fivefold but in your neighborhood they stayed the same why would you be concerned for your personal safety?

My fundamental response to the final question here is 'yes', because I care about other people. If gun deaths are concentrated to a specific group of (already fairly disadvantaged) people, I don't assume that's the result of a series of individual poor-decision making that, for some bizarre reason, is limited to that very specific group of people. I assume something structural is going on, and that, as a society, we have some responsibility to work out what that is and fix it.

 

[KimGordon67]

So you think people who have violated society should get to retain their say so in how it's run. Just like I said.




No they weren't created by a document drafted by human beings. If you really believe that then you have completely misunderstood the Constitution and the American political/legal culture.

The document drafted by human beings is a list of RESTRAINTS ON THE GOVERNMENT not to violate our rights, that we are inherently born with. The BOR is not a list of rights granted to us by the government.

If you're really curious to know about our culture/politics you should try reading it sometime, it might help you better understand the USA and it's legal/political philosophies and culture.

Did they come from God then?

 

[KimGordon67]

So the solution to human rights being taken is to violate someone elses constitutional rights or curtail other rights?

I don't believe that we should be engaging in racist policy that prevents minority classes from attaining political power. We should accept that once someone is free from incarceration, that they have paid their debt to society.

There are actually plenty of gun rights advocates that are fighting to re-establish all rights for felons, including gun rights, along with voting rights.

I don't see how limiting a different right will right the wrong of the first infraction.

OK, the utilisation of the 'felons not voting' example was more a generalised response to the whole 'Constitutional rights are inalienable' argument, by demonstrating that they clearly aren't. Obviously our positions on that situation are pretty aligned, so there's no point in debating that.

Sorry, but I've reread your post a couple of times, and I don't really understand the rest of the point?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Did they come from God then?

No, they come from just existing as a human being.

In our legal structure it's assumed that these rights are inherent to existing and the Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government not to violate them.

It's not a list of privileges granted to the citizens by the government.

 

[KimGordon67]

No, they come from just existing as a human being.

In our legal structure it's assumed that these rights are inherent to existing and the Bill of Rights is a list of restrictions on the government not to violate them.

It's not a list of privileges granted to the citizens by the government.

So how do you work out what these eternally existent and universal rights are?

 

[BotanyBoy]

So how do you work out what these eternally existent and universal rights are?

I didn't say they were eternally existent and universal, those are entirely different concepts.

And we don't, because it's really irrelevant to our legal philosophy. We just restrict the governments ability to infringe on the ones we find most important and in need of protecting from government fuckery.

1A

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It's a restriction on the government.

2A

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It's a restriction on the government.

The language of the BoR goes on like that. They are all restrictions on the government, not a list of privilages granted by the government.

 

[Que]

.....

 

[KimGordon67]

I didn't say they were eternally existent and universal, those are entirely different concepts.

And we don't, because it's really irrelevant to our legal philosophy. We just restrict the governments ability to infringe on the ones we find most important and in need of protecting from government fuckery.

1A



It's a restriction on the government.

2A


It's a restriction on the government.

The language of the BoR goes on like that. They are all restrictions on the government, not a list of privilages granted by the government.

I do understand what the concept of a 'right' is - I get that they're not privileges bestowed by anyone. But how is it established that free speech, arming bears, etc are the things that are 'rights' that the government shouldn't infringe on?