New school shooting, leftist response

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bjVvRAND58[/youtube]

@Silhouette

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:Gun_Homicides_as_a_Function_of_Guns_Per_100_People_(Worldwide).png

Some of the places with the fewest guns have the most murders.

This is where your favored democracy fails my friend and why I have chosen my current set of political beliefs. This crude destructive system will continue as long as it can until it can’t anymore, let us hope its destruction will come quickly in our lifetime.

Cognitive dissonance within Trump supporters and his inner circle? Say it isn’t so.

There will be more cognitive dissonance within the next few years that I can guarantee you.

Really not convinced you know how to read graphs.

If you cared to run a correlation between any of these stats, you’d notice very close to zero correlation as I said before. Looking at a handful of outliers doesn’t show a trend or a rule, it shows some anomalies. So back to my ponderings over what the zero correlation could mean to both pro- and anti-gun advocates…

But if you want to go into why about 10% of all countries that have around 10% gun ownership still have high gun homicides, then sure, we can look at them…

Personally I’d rather talk about my post on the previous page about what the anti-gun stance actually is, or at least what mine is.

I agree but it’s a subjective slippery slope on what constitutes “potential to damage more severely and numerously”. If ARs fell off the earth, I’d never notice, but once that’s established, then where does it stop?

Yes, that’s true and it argues for focusing on other causes because you’ll never sterilize the public of guns. All you’ll succeed in doing is driving the market underground like the drug war has with drugs, take people’s rights, and still not guarantee any measurable element of safety. Essentially a 2nd monster will have been created to fight the first and then not only would we still be subject to mass shootings, but we’d also be subject to governmental persecution.

Then it would be like the Texas shooter who was an atheist in a bible-thumping town and consequently snapped. The absolutists and relativists cannot get along peacefully.

Glad you’re around to argue your side of it.

First it’s speed limits and then seat belt laws and then after we’ve gotten acclimated to that tradeoff of freedom for security, now we have banned smoking in the car with children. What’s next? It’s the incremental taking of freedom in effort to minutely control every aspect of humanity, but people still die; if not this then that. Nothing has really been accomplished except an authoritarian wetdream.

I agree, but doctors are the 3rd leading cause of death. cnn.com/2016/05/03/health/m … index.html

Idiots are idiots regardless of accreditation. Those folks I went to school with… who didn’t perform as well as I… they are the doctors and legislators.

Those are the least of who should be armed. No sense in arming trained killers who wouldn’t flinch before shooting someone because they’ve gotten used to it. Also, consider the sorts who pursue that line of work… the ones with few other options in life who decide the military may be the way out and then decide a sense of self-worth may be found in tossing one’s weight around in harassing otherwise law-abiding citizens for trivial seatbelt violations as a career.

Every lawyer in the country will tell you “Do not talk to police!” Police can and will lie to you, entrap you, and are not your friend. Police are immoral by necessity of occupation and these are the sorts you would trust to not kill you? Naive. killedbypolice.net/ You’re FAR more likely to be shot by a police officer than anyone else.

Yeah, that’s a good point. Can you really see that happening in the US? Iraq is one thing, but the US?

I think the act of arming folks only deters violence in certain situations. Like: everyone in my neighbor is probably armed, so it’s not a good place to gamble on breaking into people’s homes as you’re too likely to be shot. But in other situations it won’t matter, like: waiting for an armed individual to walk out of a store then sniping him from a distance. Arming is not necessarily a full-equalization of power and if every prisoner were issued a gun for protection, murders would go up because people have to sleep an can’t watch every angle all the time. Then they’d ban together and shoot it out with the guards. It would be a nightmare.

In a disarmed situation, the bigger person has the advantage. In an armed situation, the most devious has the advantage. In the Wild West, those famed gun slingers weren’t notorious for being great marksmen, but having callous disregard for life. Their claim to fame is that they would shoot you and sleep like a baby that night. That is also true in bar-brawlers who aren’t necessarily the best fighters, but they don’t mind hitting people and they always hit first. Fight fair only as a last resort.

I see your point, but I’m as ballsy as they come, yet have a sense of right, wrong, and fairness. I’ve camped in the wilderness by myself with bears looking at me. I blast through the woods at 60mph with no helmet. I say its the opposite… people who don’t play fair are too scared to play fair. If the warrior really had balls, he wouldn’t be a warrior because he’d have no fear to underpin the persona necessary to be a warrior. The art of intimidation: tattoos, piercings, shaved heads, rough talk, etc. All that exists to instill fear because they are afraid of what might happen if they didn’t. So maybe the people in prison are the most scared among us.

I forgot who it was who said, “To discern what your enemy fears, see what means he uses to scare you.” Something like that.

It’s worrisome that so much of the population would bend over so easily in response to fear. It’s a double-edged sword in that they are peaceful, but also willing to not fight for rights.

Stefan proved that wrong in the video I posted, which is counter-intuitive. Poverty and crime are inversely correlated. -0.57. I think what is correlated to poverty is suicide and drug use. If you feel hopeless, are you going to shoot someone else or yourself?

So a sense of entitlement from a prosperous society engenders violence. People don’t know what it’s like to actually starve and think hate speech is the biggest deal. It’s not a feeling of hopelessness, but a feeling of righteousness, which leads to violence. Stefan correlates crime to broken families, r=.98 or so.

It could be that people who choose to arm themselves also choose to stand on their own feet and therefore have a sense of integrity, not entitlement.

The people who choose to own guns also choose to regulate alcohol-use on sunday. They’re in favor of the drug war and capital punishment. They’re a colossal pain in the ass, but they won’t kill you unless you attack them, which they will beg for you to do so they can have the opportunity to justifiably pump you full of lead, but they cannot until you make the first move. I think that is the main difference. There is no mechanism to go on a violent crusade.

They also accept consequences and shun handouts, which is a mechanism to relieve pressure rather than exploding in violent uproar out of a sense of entitlement.

It boils down to: Will you shoot someone under any circumstance other than self-protection or will you not? So we can divide people into two categories: those who will and those who won’t.

Those who will… why do they will? What’s the common variable to all shootings not out of self-protection or necessity? Is it righteousness? What else could it be?

Alan Watts said in the 60’s that wars fought not out of good old fashioned greed, that is, ideological wars, they are the most evil and destructive. Of course he was referring to the war against communism and said it would be preferable for us to make war with Vietnam in order to capture all the beautiful young girls and bring them back home than to launch a crusade against communism.

So, how many shooters were out to capture the women or to pillage the village? None. They were all ideologically motivated.

Paddock shot a bunch of right-wingers at a country concert
The guy who shot the church in TX was atheist.
The nightclub was an Islamist against gays.
Columbine was a crusade against bullying.
I’m not sure what prompted the FL school shooting, but it wasn’t greed or poverty.

Idle hands are the devil’s workshop and when kids sit around all day playing violent videos games for lack of any necessary chores because life is too easy, it allows time to develop a good sense of entitlement.

I see your point.

I’m not sure about having more T. There is a white bodybuilder arguing the opposite notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/1 … an-whites/ And I know the Okinawans retain T longer than anyone, yet don’t seem to be aggressive. The evidence is mixed.

People argue that it doesn’t stick.

Assuming it’s hormonal.

That’s hard to imagine lol

That makes sense. It seems to suggest a correlation to iq. The dummies skew the stats. But it just occurred to me that none of the mass-shooters were black. Is there even one? Paddock was far from stupid. So blacks account for most of the generic shootings while whites account for the mass-shootings. Hmm…

@Silhouette

Intuitively it looks a little better for the right than the left on this, but I’m going to examine the graph and statistics more carefully.

Well the left really only has one non-reason for wanting to take guns away, where as the right has many reasons for wanting to keep them, so have fun trying to come up with some half-baked excuse on the fly so you can cling to your position, instead of relinquishing it in light of the facts.

@Zero Sum

By democracy I meant something quite different than we have today, ideally at least, really we may have to form a new party within the existing political infrastructure.
I meant either militias democratically running things, or a philosophically educated and trained constitutional oligarchy.

Apparently you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is.

If someone who supports much of what Trump has said and done so far, then openly disagrees with something Trump now does, that is not “cognitive dissonance”.

You really actually are as retarded as you seem, aren’t you?

Correct. Cognitive dissonence can arise when one notices that Trump is going against things he said but noticing this means that one would have to question the idea of Trump on has and so one functionally does notice, while feeling a discomfort one tries to distract oneself away from. Pretty much every president has caused this kind of cognitive dissonance in his followers and not mildly. Obama and Trump both running to Wall Street with puckered lips and knee pads in place led to brief cognitive dissonance and then denial in a majority of americans. Clinton and the Bushes ran there just as fast, but this led to less cognitive dissonance.

What you’re experiencing is confirmation bias. You’re focusing on those exceptions and making a rule out of them to satisfy what you already believe. Calling it intuition lends it a limited amount of credibility, but implying a near zero correlation corresponds with your intuition that there is a correlation has no credibility.

You were doing so well, implying you gave a damn about an objective analysis of your stats, but you immediately betray this as a token gesture by implying that you have after all already supplied facts that suggest it to be reasonable to relinquish any beliefs contrary to said facts. You still haven’t examined the graph and statistics more carefully (like you said you would) and you’re already claiming some kind of victory. I even read your initial version of the post before you edited it, which previously contained some remarkably ironic statements…

A very, very poor show.

@Silhouette

If the rule appears to be close to zero correlation between guns and homicides, and the handful of exceptions have far fewer guns and much more homicides, than that’s still better for the right’s position than if the handful of exceptions had much more guns and much more homicides.
While I didn’t crunch the numbers when I concluded it appeared to be a little better for the right’s position than the left’s, neither did you when you concluded it appeared to be neutral.

You, consider, banning something when the data shows it’s overwhelmingly more dangerous than safe, like crack and meth arguably are, not when it’s shown to be neither more dangerous than safe, nor more safe than dangerous.

Are you going to say the places that have lots of gun control need it to keep people safe, and the places that don’t have lots of gun control don’t need it to keep people safe?
And therefore we should have lots of gun control across the board, because at best, it’ll make some places safer, and at worst, it won’t make any places more dangerous?
But at this point that’s just your opinion, I could just as easily say the places that have lots of guns need lots of guns to keep them safe, and the places that don’t have lots of guns don’t need lots of guns to keep them safe.
And therefore we should have lots of guns across the board, because at best, it’ll make some places safer, and at worst, it won’t make any places more dangerous.

I could say something like: in places where people are more prone to violence, committing dozens of murders per 100 000 people per year, guns deter them from committing even more violence, and in places where people are less prone to violence, guns neither deter them, nor entice them, but the data presented here thus far doesn’t show any of that, it shows that it doesn’t matter, much, altho we can examine it more thoroughly to see if subtler connections can be drawn.

If teachers are going to be armed, then librarians should be given silencers.

Those old biddies would use them too. :laughing:

I don’t know man, I’ve always thought of old librarian women as sawed off shotguns type of gals. Something about making huge bangs in the silent no talking areas of the library is just a guess.

Leftists assume personal irresponsibility as the default position, therefore it makes perfect sense to a leftist that people should not be allowed to own guns. Leftists do not see adults, they see only weird hybrids of man-children, millennials with man buns and ironic T-shirt’s living with their parents, spending their time between Facebook, Snapchat and Starbucks.

That is how leftists see humanity. So obviously leftists can’t possibly frame any of these issues correctly. Leftism as an ideology actively militates against even the possible existence of adulthood, i.e. mature self-responsible and free citizenry.

Republicans don’t exactly believe in self-responsibility either, that’s why they’re always telling us what kind of drugs we can take, what kind of sex we can have, what kind of music we can listen to, what kind of religion we can practice (Islam is scary, etcetera), and when we can have an abortion, etcetera.
Republicans are hardly more libertarian than democrats, they’re both authoritarianism-lite in their own way.
There’s liberal, matriarchal fascism, and there’s conservative, patriarchal fascism, and it’d be interesting to run through some of the differences and commonalities between the two.