Jan 25, 2023·edited Jan 25, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
I used to say in 2015 if Hillary wins she'll be the first president to drone bomb American citizens on American soil.
Now try imagining the woke brigade administering a CBDC. They will try to eliminate guns be eliminating the purchase of anything relating to the gun. Now imagine a woke military backstopping a woke CBDC.
I find it slightly amusing that Ukraine has to ban oppo parties, etc. Yet, I haven't seen much of the same for Russia. Makes one question who is in the wrong. No, I'm not saying Russia is right, just pointing it out.
What do you say to the low information grifters who claim that those genocides were for the "greater good"? I have actually come across this argument on the collapse reddit.
Statistic analysis of defensive gun use suggests that somewhere between 1-2 million lives are saved every year by DGU, suggesting that eliminating gun ownership would be a genocide in itself. We'd "save" at best 12,000 lives at the expense of a million or two.
To be fair, that number rides on a presumption that each of those instances of DGU averted a murder, and I'm not sure that's entirely true. Certainly a few averted a murder, but most probably averted much less egregious offenses, such as theft.
In order to make this case, we'd need to figure out some way to determine what ratio of the crimes averted by DGU were murders, and I'm not sure how we'd go about doing that.
Jan 26, 2023·edited Jan 26, 2023Liked by Handwaving Freakoutery
I think anytime someone feels they need to pull a gun to defend themselves it's because they feel their lives are in danger. A businessowner taking the cash drop to the depository, approached by what look like gang members, pulls a gun not just because the loss of a day's receipts might bankrupt him, but because if he tries to resist without a gun, he's likely to be beaten to death or at least suffer serious injury from which he may never recover. A woman who pulls a gun on a man who is stalking her on her way home may only have lost her quality of life if he'd been able to rape her, but that's her life. It matters. And rapists do kill their victims at a rather high level.
I've had these conversations with people who think it's just fine for criminals to ruin the lives of those who weren't doing any harm to them. They would rather people die, be seriously injured or bankrupted rather than have the ability to defend themselves. That's justification of criminals victimizing people. Quality of life matters! Maybe more than life itself. A friend of mine who was raped 35 years ago is still suffering the after effects of that assault. She probably would have been better off if she'd shot and killed the bastard, and frankly, he deserved for that to happen to him.
I don't disagree with any of that, and in most cases the threat of life ending danger is a legal requirement to pull the gun. But that doesn't necessarily translate to "would have died with 100% certainty without the gun." If it did, then we'd see murder rates in other countries without guns thousands of times higher than they actually are.
I think we might be able to map over the relative rates of total violent crime and get an idea of how bad things would be without DGUs. Perhaps say 50% of DGUS stop a violent crime of some sort, and then break down the violent crimes by ratio, and back our way into a murder number. But even then we'd be spitting in the wind because we don't have a good sense of how many violent crimes are deterred by the prospect of the victim being armed.
This does point out that big cities are dying away because of gun restrictions and violence from criminal gun use. Chicago may become the next Detroit as people leave. Then perhaps Baltimore. The poorest among us constantly victimized because they can't afford to move out. Won't need to nuke them, they will just collapse. The EU sadly is too dense to appreciate the decline of cities.
back in the days i actually used reddit, the argument was continually made by the little children that we should use the military against our neighbors who don’t see eye to eye on the ‘accepted’ policies. maybe it hits them that they’re one in the same as us in the eyes of the government after it’s too late, or maybe they cheer their own deaths as long as they know their ‘alt-right’ fox watching neighbors are also going up in a mushroom cloud.
All Americans do not live in a war zone - that's ridiculous. People who compare absolute numbers instead of rates should stop trying to think without assistance.
But some Americans do live in a war zone. For example, black New Orleanian men between the ages of 15 - 24. By a recent estimate, 1 in 8 will show up at University Medical Center with a gunshot wound during that span of their lives. All the trauma, fear, and 20,000 deaths that Murray is talking about? That is disproportionately borne by a marginalized few.
If we want to go by the recent California shootings, clearly we should be outlawing geriatric Asians. No shooter, no victims, no crime, no problem. @GavinNewsom!
Nuking cities to reduce the murder rate seems like a modest proposal.
I want to pick the cities, like Lyndon B. Johnson.
I trust you to be fair and balanced.
I used to say in 2015 if Hillary wins she'll be the first president to drone bomb American citizens on American soil.
Now try imagining the woke brigade administering a CBDC. They will try to eliminate guns be eliminating the purchase of anything relating to the gun. Now imagine a woke military backstopping a woke CBDC.
I'm not too afraid of the woke military. The pre-woke military was easily banished by the Iraqi public and the Taliban. That's the standard to meet.
The reason there wasn't widespread Ukrainian rifle ownership prior to the war is they would have been turned on the government generations ago.
I find it slightly amusing that Ukraine has to ban oppo parties, etc. Yet, I haven't seen much of the same for Russia. Makes one question who is in the wrong. No, I'm not saying Russia is right, just pointing it out.
If you are aware of the Minsk agreement and it's subsequent violation, it's pretty obvious IMO.
Agreed. However, why would we discuss facts or anything? You act like we are supposed to be informed or something.
What do you say to the low information grifters who claim that those genocides were for the "greater good"? I have actually come across this argument on the collapse reddit.
Offer to kill their families for the greater good. See how that hits.
"Go fuck yourself" seems like a reasonable place to start with that sort... ;-)
looks like a typo in the legend of the y axis of chart #1 (76 deaths per capita...). Ha. Maybe deaths per 100,000? deaths per million?
Per 100k, good catch, I'll change that now. Thanks.
Statistic analysis of defensive gun use suggests that somewhere between 1-2 million lives are saved every year by DGU, suggesting that eliminating gun ownership would be a genocide in itself. We'd "save" at best 12,000 lives at the expense of a million or two.
To be fair, that number rides on a presumption that each of those instances of DGU averted a murder, and I'm not sure that's entirely true. Certainly a few averted a murder, but most probably averted much less egregious offenses, such as theft.
In order to make this case, we'd need to figure out some way to determine what ratio of the crimes averted by DGU were murders, and I'm not sure how we'd go about doing that.
I think anytime someone feels they need to pull a gun to defend themselves it's because they feel their lives are in danger. A businessowner taking the cash drop to the depository, approached by what look like gang members, pulls a gun not just because the loss of a day's receipts might bankrupt him, but because if he tries to resist without a gun, he's likely to be beaten to death or at least suffer serious injury from which he may never recover. A woman who pulls a gun on a man who is stalking her on her way home may only have lost her quality of life if he'd been able to rape her, but that's her life. It matters. And rapists do kill their victims at a rather high level.
I've had these conversations with people who think it's just fine for criminals to ruin the lives of those who weren't doing any harm to them. They would rather people die, be seriously injured or bankrupted rather than have the ability to defend themselves. That's justification of criminals victimizing people. Quality of life matters! Maybe more than life itself. A friend of mine who was raped 35 years ago is still suffering the after effects of that assault. She probably would have been better off if she'd shot and killed the bastard, and frankly, he deserved for that to happen to him.
I don't disagree with any of that, and in most cases the threat of life ending danger is a legal requirement to pull the gun. But that doesn't necessarily translate to "would have died with 100% certainty without the gun." If it did, then we'd see murder rates in other countries without guns thousands of times higher than they actually are.
I think we might be able to map over the relative rates of total violent crime and get an idea of how bad things would be without DGUs. Perhaps say 50% of DGUS stop a violent crime of some sort, and then break down the violent crimes by ratio, and back our way into a murder number. But even then we'd be spitting in the wind because we don't have a good sense of how many violent crimes are deterred by the prospect of the victim being armed.
This does point out that big cities are dying away because of gun restrictions and violence from criminal gun use. Chicago may become the next Detroit as people leave. Then perhaps Baltimore. The poorest among us constantly victimized because they can't afford to move out. Won't need to nuke them, they will just collapse. The EU sadly is too dense to appreciate the decline of cities.
back in the days i actually used reddit, the argument was continually made by the little children that we should use the military against our neighbors who don’t see eye to eye on the ‘accepted’ policies. maybe it hits them that they’re one in the same as us in the eyes of the government after it’s too late, or maybe they cheer their own deaths as long as they know their ‘alt-right’ fox watching neighbors are also going up in a mushroom cloud.
I'm completely shocked that the antis would lie to achieve their goals. Also, yesterday was my zeroth birthday!
Edited: "lie" not "like". Duck you, autocarrot.
All Americans do not live in a war zone - that's ridiculous. People who compare absolute numbers instead of rates should stop trying to think without assistance.
But some Americans do live in a war zone. For example, black New Orleanian men between the ages of 15 - 24. By a recent estimate, 1 in 8 will show up at University Medical Center with a gunshot wound during that span of their lives. All the trauma, fear, and 20,000 deaths that Murray is talking about? That is disproportionately borne by a marginalized few.
If we want to go by the recent California shootings, clearly we should be outlawing geriatric Asians. No shooter, no victims, no crime, no problem. @GavinNewsom!
"Gavin Noisome"