I don't recall any "negro" nations being participants in either WW1 or WW2 - the two greatest examples of mass killing in the history of the world!
New Zealand gunmen kill 49 people at two mosques
- Thread starter The Berean
- Start date
I don't recall any "negro" nations being participants in either WW1 or WW2 - the two greatest examples of mass killing in the history of the world!
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So it turns out that no particular race has a monopoly on cruelty and murder.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Is this a surprise to you?
No. I thought it was surprise to you.
just a reminder...
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Well of course not. The fact does remain that the risk that black men face of being murdered in the US is dramatically higher than it is for all other men. And I'm willing to bet that the risk of Latino men being murdered in the US is dramatically higher than it is for all other non-black and non-Latino men as well, but the analysis I read lumped together whites and Latinos into one category, but did separate out black men specifically. So there is a problem with black communities, that's just what the statistics say, correctly interpreted. The alternative is that this statistical signal is random 'noise,' but the odds of that being the case, statistically, are on the order of 1000-to-1 against, or even longer than that. So it's not reasonable to ignore that there is very probably a problem in black communities in the US.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Many states, New Hampshire included, have made laws recognizing what's known colloquially as 'Constitutional carry,' which means that no permit or license is required to carry guns either concealed or openly in those states.
The laws extend to anybody in the state this freedom, not just to residents of the state.
The Congress took up 'national reciprocity' of concealed carry permits /licenses (same idea as reciprocity of drivers licenses) in 2017 I believe, the House passed it but the Senate did not.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
WWI and WWII are two of the greatest confirmations that the Second Amendment is absolutely correct to forbid government /police from meddling in gun markets, and with however the people wish to arm themselves (to bear arms means to carry guns).
WORLD WAR !
Total military deaths (from all causes) - 8,573,054 to 10,824,236
Total military and civilian deaths - 15,486,153 to 19,174,335
Military wounded - 22,101,100 to 23,665,873
WORLD WAR 2
Total military deaths (from all causes) - 21,000,000 to 25,500,000
Total military and civilian deaths Civilian deaths - 70,000,000 to 85,000,000
Military wounded - N/A
RWANDA GENOCIDE
Total casualties - 500,000 - 1,071,000
********************************************
I wasn't aware that the Rwanda "genocide" (1 million casualties) qualified as the equivalent of the two "World Wars" that resulted in a combined total of approximately 100 million casualties!
Terms like "non sequitur" and "logical fallacy" are nothing more than "ok doser's" way of sidestepping those arguments that he's not prepared to address!
Last edited:
Please explain. Are you suggesting that the wars could have been avoided if everybody had guns at home?
Aimiel
Well-known member
While the best arguments from Americans for gun control by the German government having allowed the Nazi's to gain control are called preposterous or dubious at best; the people of Venezuela would argue that their rights would not have eroded so quickly had their guns not been confiscated, especially when armed police officers would come to their homes to rob them of groceries or other items.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Obviously armed civilians won't prevent all war, but I do think that wars would be less likely when civilians are commonly armed. Just for the obvious reason, that invaders would think twice about invading territory where civilians are commonly armed (especially with standard issue military weaponry), but the overall concept is that nations need to allocate more resources to invade lands with commonly armed civilians, than when they are generally unarmed.
But more importantly, the atrocities would have been minimized. Millions of people would have been saved. There's no possibility that it could have been worse, had many more civilians had their inalienable right to keep and bear arms recognized, acknowledged, affirmed, and protected, instead of civilians commonly being unarmed.
So in short, yes. But, supra.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's better to have a gun and need it, than it is to not have a gun and not need it. -Ricky
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
a reminder of a question I asked you that you have avoided answering? :freak:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
those "arguments" were the arguments of a retard
me: "80% of gun related murders in the united states are negro on negro"
retard: "Oh yeah? Well, 75 and 100 years ago, a whole lot of white, asian and black people killed each other!"
stop making retarded statements
Rather, I note that where gun control of the sort I advocate is found there are, objectively speaking, fewer deaths by gun AND that you find lower rates of murder, that the elimination of guns does not, as some have suggested, simply shift the means from one thing to another after an observable fashion.
I don't know that you can do that. Rather, we can understand there will be fewer guns of a kind. The kind that make the execution of great numbers of people in little time relatively easy to accomplish.
No, I haven't proffered that point. What leads to murder, more often as not, is passion or enterprise. That is, either the moment or our natures overwhelm whatever restraint keeps us from taking the life of our neighbor as a matter of routine. Then it becomes a question of what instrument allows for what outcome.
That's an odd way to spell anecdote, but a solid way to illustrate its want of efficacy within itself.
No, that would be you saying that because it is raining at your home it should reasonably be raining everywhere else, and I've noted the better data field is larger (I've used both comparisons within the nation on the whole and whole nations) and more indicative of a rule than the anecdote and cherry picked particular.
Not necessarily true. What I mean is that large concentrations of people bring with it factors not found in the hinterlands, like concentrations of poverty, wherein is found, disproportionately, criminal activity of various sorts.
My claim isn't that population determines, but that there are things associated with population that greatly impact. It's one reason why larger sample sizes are always more valuable for determining rules. It's why you don't just call one guy in Boise when you're conducting a poll. In looking at diverse populations you want that representation in as many ways as you can find it. So you don't confuse the tendency of culture and climate with a larger trend that might not be in evidence, might be confounded by casting a wider net.
It isn't for the reasons noted and a few more.
And when we cast a better, wider net, we find that states and nations with strict gun laws have appreciably fewer deaths attributable to firearms, on average, that those who do not. More, we find that murder rates are lower, dispelling the notion that taking particular instruments out of the stream of commerce simply shifts method to another and different means.
Rather, you're illustrating that a little knowledge can be worse than no knowledge at all.
You seem peculiarly caught up in trying to diminish the value a thing I haven't rested any part of my argument upon. And given your repeated addressing of it, let me respond in one particular...the value of any serious education is its impact upon the function of intelligence. The law, as with philosophy, is an instrument that places particular emphasis on the honing of critical thinking. As such, its value impacts any number of things outside the narrow strictures (considerable as they might be) of the particular study of law.
Of course. But people who are going to commit suicide can do so with any number of weapons. People who want to commit mass murder have fewer options, in terms of efficacy.
I invite anyone inclined to credit you to examine the rates I've noted and their objective certainty. I'm not going to get into the racial profiling part of the narrative.
Sorry it took a while to get back to this. :cheers:
There is more than enough gun control. We reach a point where people just have to live with the fact that, in this world, people kill people; always have, always will. It happens. Move on and live your life. If we get wadded up over every bad thing that happens on the planet we will never be able to just live life.