NorthernComfort wrote:Gun owners commit suicide at a higher rate, since the combination of speed and potency is very well-suited to rash decisions.
Yes, that's the fallacy the CDC says is wrong. But maybe the CDC is working for the NRA to stage a cover up?
This is also just common sense
Much of what counts as self-assured "common knowledge" or "common sense" is, unfortunately, anything but.
The truly sad part is this is totally orthogonal to a debate about the 2nd amendment, but that's their point.
Well, to be fair, saying that guns cause suicide while ignoring the actual causes of suicide and debating the best way to prevent them, while myopic, is still less frustrating than completely ignoring causes of violence and instead trying to ban one of the tools used--and not even the most prominent version of it, in fact one of the least. We have actual problems we can actually address, and we continue to ignore them in favor of trying to strip law abiding citizens of their rights in the name of "common sense legislation to keep our children safe."
I believe you know the definition of a mass shooting and what per capita means.
Alright. You don't have to make a big deal of it. </Colin Quinn>
But seriously, you said simply there are more mass shootings per capita. You're probably right whichever way that's supposed to be taken, but the definition of mass shooting has been twisted quite a bit recently depending on which anti-gun propaganda piece you're reading, and there are generally three primary arguments you could've been making, arguments that others sometimes use:
1) There are more occurrences of mass shootings per capita
2) There are more people killed in mass shootings per capita
3) There are more people killed per mass shooting per capita
The one thing the authors of the anti-gun pieces generally choose to bury is how many of those mass shootings are committed in places where it's either directly illegal to stop them or is at least functionally so. Which is pretty much all of them. I haven't yet been able to come up with a single one that bucks that trend. Of course, there's no guarantee that just because it's not illegal to stop it that someone will be able to. But you can guarantee they won't when you make illegal to do so.
I support the 2nd, and vehemently reject the NRA. There is a middle ground of sanity. And trust me, the sane side is not hanging out with Trump and defending the absolute bullshit that’s pouring out of his mouth. NRA are a bunch of hacks and they are betting on a total faker bullshit artist. Fuck those clowns.
I understand how you got there. But while I think it's likely your view may be colored by the constant attacks by the anti-gun types (or just stuff like The Daily Show in general), which sometimes have a point but are sometimes just Trump-like unfair denigrations, I can also understand why they'd back Trump. Like most single topic groups, that's all they're taking into account. Hillary has repeatedly reinforced her desire and intention to undermine the Second Amendment. Trump claims the opposite. Therefore they back Trump. Not because they believe he's an amazing human being and a great overall choice to be president, but because he claims to support their cause, or at least to not be hostile to it. If they were ideological purists instead of pragmatic realists, they'd be backing Johnson, either
instead or at least
also. But they're hitching their wagon to what they see as the horse with the best odds that won't shit all over their single issue.
Uhhh you read the village voice? Did not see that one coming.
Everyone tends to think that anyone who sees things differently or has a different perspective is an idiot, or worse. I think that's kind of the point of that piece.
