Bare hands kill more than guns!
Hands are required to hold most guns, heâs not lying.
I see no flaw. Hands bad.
pretty sure the massive amounts of fentanyl flooding this country are coming in smuggled at ports of entry where the border is very much under heavy scrutiny. That much shit isn't being smuggled in on some guy's backpack that is hiking through the desert and climbing walls and shit. Even the shit that is smuggled in via mules is pretty much all going through ports of entry. half of it is brought in by Americans returning to America that are paid to pack shit. Seems odd they think drugs are only getting here because of open borders rofl
also, 'open borders' isn't a thing. there have been more arrest for illegal crossings, and more drugs seized at the border, under biden than under trump.
There have been many stories about immigrants coming to the border because republican politicians told them that it was open, so I guess it's partially true?
They don't think that. But they know if they lie loudly enough, their voters will.
The talking point leaders know that. Their audience does not. Literally Trump could be in charge tomorrow and actually make smuggling at checkpoints easier but if he tweeted that he secured the border they would suck his cock. Literally zero could change once he was in charge and they would jerk off that he is a hero that secured our borders. Literally. They already think that more drugs being seized at the border under Biden proves that he lets more drugs through than Trump. It is literal moron laughing stock shit
Jake drank the cool-aid
he's a republican politician, of course he has
Then he literally repeats what his media is telling him
it will never happen but the government could damn near end the drug trade by decriminalizing, legalizing, and regulating narcotics.
i know it sounds stupid but we've already tried the reagan approach and that's obviously worked so well.
I'd they do that then there is no one to fill the prison system with money, or I mean people.
Cheap manual labor, especially in agriculture. Pennies an hour.
And it would require an expansion in hospitals, treatment centers, and mental health facilities. No one wants that helpful shit!
/s
War on drugs is over as the drugs won. Sooner they admit their loss the better we can recover from the disaster that this whole idiotic agenda was. Legalize and regulate. Geez, how hard is that to grasp. But, then again, cops would not have any reason to lock up innocent people over residue on their dashboard or center glove compartment.
Can not agree more. Legalize, regulate. Just like we should do with sex workers. Keep people safe and healthy. Of course there will always be illegal markets, shitty drugs and shitty people human trafficing kids, etc. But it should be easier to find those illegal holdouts.
If they want to fight drugs we need a better health/mental health systems in place to support the people, not 'discipline'. Plus, I am of the mind, as long as I am not hurting someone else, let me put in my body what I want, let me do what I want to myself.
He's got his stats wrong. In the FBI database, Hands,  clubs and "other" do indeed kill more people than rifles. Most people killed by guns are killed by handguns.Â
Bingo, and this is why people wanting to ban âassault riflesâ arenât coming from a position of data, only emotion.
You know, just because AR style weapons arenät the BIGGEST killer does not mean they aren't a problem.
Which is what people who bring up this statistics to blame the pro-gun control for not knowing enough are saying, and that is not based on anything but feelings and opinions.
Can you prove that gun rights are essential and not use your own beliefs as an argument? Decades of data across nations, the evidence that gun rights are essential should be obvious and easy to find. Go find it for me, will you? I have no problem doing so when it comes to any other right, thousands of books have been written about them and we can prove the effects. Can you do the same with gun rights? Remember, it should be EASY TO DO if it is so obviously true.
Sure, that's a reasonable request. After all, if we want to apply a more scientific approach to this, we'd have to look at the data for and against. It's the same approach that we should (IMO) apply to anything. Talking to an anti-vaxxer, they'd refuse to believe that vaccines save lives, right? Their bias won't let them.
I've noticed a similar pattern with anti-gunners, their bias won't let them acknowledge that guns save lives. But to your point, is that just a feeling? A news article here and there where a teenager or an old lady protects their lives by using a gun? Or is there a way to quantify this in a more concrete way?
Well you're in luck, that's been done! And no, not just NRA publications where they sent mailers to their oldest members, there are actual legit scientifically sound research out there. It tends to get drowned out by media articles that profit off tragedies (outrage clicks lead to ad revenue, cha ching!)
- Here's one from a CDC-funded study from 2013: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)."
- Here's a more recent one with the largest formal scientific survey to date, which found an average of 1.67 million defensive gun uses per year! Wow. And that's no informal surveymonkey survey, this comes from Georgetown University from a Harvard-credentialed author, and this made it through the Georgetown IRB for scientific accuracy.
- You also mentioned other nations, one I've done a deep dive into is Australia. Turns out Australia's gun bans in 1996 had no measurable effects on overall homicide trends per their official published crime data. That's probably why they pivoted to "it was to prevent mass shootings", but that still leaves us with proof that gun bans don't save lives, they just shift how people get murdered.
- Another fascinating one is with people that choose to end their lives. Your experience may have been similar to mine, where you've heard the claim that easy access to guns = more suicides. Is that true though? Have gun-free countries like Japan eliminated suicides? Not by a long shot, according to suicide rates. There must be other factors that drive those rates, not the guns.
So you're right, it's easy to do. I'm happy to do a deep dive into that data or more examples if you'd like. My professional background is in healthcare data analytics, so I'm always all about the hard data, and not feelings.
defensive gun uses ..
...is a statistis how many times they were used. Not if they were the only option. That is what you need, statistics of cases where guns were absolutely the only way to handle it. "Handling" also means "get the fuck out in time and don't stay just because you carry a gun". It also does not mean brandishing it and then self reporting that "i prevented a crime". So. no.. this is far from what you need. I usually pre-empty this so no one has to embarrass themselves:
You have NEVER thought that this statistics is about gun use. Not if they were necessary... Right? Because if you had, you would've not offered it.
I read the rest later, i'm late from sauna.
Who said they had to be the only option in order to be valid? Maybe there are less effective methods, that doesn't invalidate defensive gun uses.
Maybe someone could have swerved or decelerated earlier instead of slamming on their car brakes to avoid an accident. Does this mean we don't need car brakes?
So, you are saying that self defense statistics are not a proof? If there are other options how to solve the problem, it is strong indicator that guns are not essential. I didn't say anything about invalidating anything. What i am saying that this piece of evidence is not.
This is not true with any other essential right. You have to make it follow the same rules as freedom of speech, freedom to assembly etc. It is not hard at all to show that those rights are essential. Why is it so hard with guns?
Cars are not a good analog, at all, and the way you used it there... isn't really related to anything. I never said that cars are an essential right. Also: i'm REALLY fucking certain that we can EASILY find that cars need brakes. Don't be stupid. Think better, this is not even close to the level you need to be.
So, you are saying that self defense statistics are not a proof?
I'm saying the opposite. Self defense statistics ARE proof. People would not be alive today if it weren't for guns - if you don't think preserving life is a necessity, I'd like to end this conversation.
Self defense statistics ARE proof.
HOW? How is that proof? How can countries that do not have gun rights measure? Better? So.. how the FUCK is gun use a proof that they are essential?
if you don't think preserving life is a necessity, I'd like to end this conversation.
I said already once: don't be stupid. This is just an excuse for you to slip away with a "win" in your score card. I never said it isn't. And this is again an insult: how the FUCK do you think the rest of the world manages to handle same problems? Are you fucking saying that 8 billion people don't care about preserving life?
STOP BEING STIUPID AND THINK. This will not be easy for you. What you didn't do was: post any evidence. You are talking about principles and opinions. Really, you can't get away that easy, you have to think really, really hard, harder than you have about this topic in your life!!! If you beat me, you can beat anyone about this topic. You will have ultimate proof that does not rely on anything subjective. A simple, "shut the fuck up" proof that silences billions of those that support gun control.
Think better.
HOW? How is that proof?
How is people alive thanks to guns proof that they are necessary? The same way as people alive thanks to seatbelts, vaccines, etc is proof they are necessary too. Unless you think seatbelts, vaccines, etc aren't necessary?
how the FUCK do you think the rest of the world manages to handle same problems?
This is something called survivorship bias. You know what happens to some of the people in some countries that can't defend themselves with guns? They die. Just like how sure, some children survived car accidents before child seats were invented. Now more survive because of them. Same with guns.
A simple, "shut the fuck up" proof that silences billions of those that support gun control.
There's that false consensus effect again. You speak for the billions that support gun control, I'll speak for the billions that support gun rights. Welp guess we canceled eachother out, time to drop that empty rhetoric.
Every year 1,670,000 people prevent negative outcomes by using guns. If you don't think preventing negative outcomes is necessary, we'll never see eye to eye on this scientific research.
Ok, one sauna later.
You posted another "use of a gun" statistic but you weren't aware at that moment how it is not a proof of anything but usage of guns. Which would be quite weird if the nation with most guns didn't use them the most.
Australia: Not a proof that gun rights are essential. Remember, i'm not arguing if they are not, or that they are bad. I'm asking if they truly are essential.
Suicide: again, not a proof of ANYTHING.
You see, i picked this approach simply because i got so fucking tired of the bullshit that pro-gun gave. Opinions. Proof that "well, it isn't worse".... That is not proof that guns are essential. That is just proof that they aren't as bad as it may seem. Which is something i never argued.
You don't have any proof. I know you don't. I did my research, could not find antyhing. I have had this argument now probably 30 times, or more. NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Not one!!! And if they are essential, it would be fucking hard to miss the evidence!
No other right is that hard to prove. Just think about that for a minute. You are welcomed to try again but at least you are now aware what the fucking question was.... and that your usual memorized list of things does not work.. because it is designed to work on morons who are asking the wrong fucking questions and then are foolish enough to fall into the pit of opinions and beliefs. I did that too, for so long until i started to delve deeper, past guns and principles and beliefs and opinions. I am going after results.
It is not just enough that you show "it is not so bad". And the thing is, every other right is easy to prove that they are essential... except one, which is not a right in pretty much any other nation than USA. If it was essential: how fucking stupid do you think 8 billion people are that they haven't noticed it yet? In behalf of that 8 billion: fuck you too. If that is how lowly you think our intelligence truly is, then your opinion is an insult too.
PS: for round two, i am going to hit you with "there are other factors that are far more important", if this goes like normally it does. Also, i love this tactic since i don't have to do any research, i don't have to find links to any study. You have to do all of it. I've done my research, i'm prepared, and i know there is no proof. The whole point of this is to wake you the fuck up: Why is this so hard, why is there no evidence. That is the fucking clue you should pick up. If it was true, it would be easy.
Let me make sure I understand your position properly:
- You want me to prove X is necessary using data.
- I provided data that X is used to prevent a negative outcome 1.67 million times a year, therefore it was (is) necessary.
- You say they don't count because they could have used Y.
Is that about right? Because we can substitute all sorts of things here that puts your logic into serious jeopardy. Are car brakes not necessary because someone could have swerved instead to avoid an accident? Are vaccines not necessary because someone could have avoided going into public? Is hand soap not necessary because someone could have just not touched something dirty? etc etc etc Is your logic here consistent, and you're also anti-brakes/-vaxx/-soap? Or have you painted yourself into a corner with this unreasonable burden of proof you don't apply to car brakes or vaccines or soap?
I mean, you've made it clear you're asking in bad faith (no amount of evidence would convince you of the position you've entrenched yourself in "over 30 times"), which probably explains all the vitriol from your last reply.
PS you don't actually think you're the mouthpiece for 8 billion people, do you? Please tell me you understand that not everyone thinks like you or they're wrong.
You want me to prove X is necessary using data.
Yes and that should not be hard IF you are right.
I provided data that X is used to prevent a negative outcome 1.67 million times a year, therefore it was (is) necessary.
Stop being stupid. You have to understand how this is not proof. If you don't, then you are not up to the task and you have to surrender. Just proving "it is not that bad" is not proof. We have much better proof for all essential rights.
You say they don't count because they could have used Y.
THINK FOR FUCKS SAKE!!! If i use a hammer to eat a soup does that mean hammers are essential for eating soup? No. It just proves that hammer was used.
If you are right, this should be far easier for you. All you got to do is fucking think. I've done that part already, you have not.
I mean, you've made it clear you're asking in bad faith
HOW?? How the fuck is asking "prove that gun rights are essential rights in bad faith? Isn't that the whole fucking foundation of EVERYTHING you believe about gun rights? How is it bad faith then? Again, you are trying to find an excuse to slip away.
I'm warning you, this question challenges your faith. You will go to stupid lengths to protect it. But.. WHY IS IT THIS HARD TO PROVE SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS CLEARLY OBVIOUS??? Would it be this hard to prove that free speech is essential?
I am begging you: THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK. Test your own hypothesis first. And be prepared for the possibility that you are wrong. I am prepared for it, there is no way to ask this question without being prepared to change. I don't have any stakes in this game, it doesn't really matter to me if gun rights are essential or not. It is not part of my identity, one way or another.
But it is part of your identity and belief system. There is a way out: admit that you can't prove it and that you need to think about this longer. That is understandable. You don't need to know right now. But if you can't prove it, you have to be man enough to say it! "I can't prove it right now, but i still believe it is". That is ok answer because that is the actual truth. And you know i'm right about that.
It's not hard to prove to people that are asking in good faith. You however, are not.
Here, I'll prove you're not by using an example. Are car brakes necessary? After all, you can just let up on the accelerator, swerve, etc to avoid accidents too. If your logic is consistent, then your answer is no, car brakes are not necessary.
You won't answer this direct question though, you'll just deflect somehow like trying to find a difference. The reason is because it reveals your logic error.
t's not hard to prove to people that are asking in good faith. You however, are not.
That is demonstrably false, this is your tactic to slip away. Your comment is fairly short, and it does not have a single link to any study, research, statistics.. you know.. facts.
You won't answer this direct question though, you'll just deflect somehow like trying to find a difference. The reason is because it reveals your logic error.
What question? That are car brakes necessary? GO AND FUCKING READ MY REPLY AGAIN. I answered it alreadyl Now, can i take any analogy in the world and just claim it applies and if yo usay it doesn', i can trot around and call myself a winner? Why aren't boats flaoting if gun rights are essential? What, you are going to deflect?
I said long time ago: fucking THINK.
And to answer your question: car brakes are necessary. Now, how is this related to anything? IT ISN'T? How curious. None of that PROVES anything about gun rights.
I am sensing that you are not very clever.
Can you prove car brakes are necessary?
[ ] yes
[ ] no
Did he just say he questioned what he believes because its the truth? WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN
Guns are by far the most used murder weapon in the US, involved in roughly 70% of all homicides.
Why do conservatives continually lie about this?
I am waiting for the facepalm . _.
Guns don't kill people, the hands that hold them do. đ
Its really mostly the trigger finger. The pinky did nothing wrong!
What a total asshat.
You know who doesn't kill? Dude with no arms. How does a guy who is unarmed kill anybody???
Checkmate, bitches.
Bare hands bear arms.
that combination of total ignorance and smug condescension is republicans defining trait and gift to the world.
"Fentanyl from the open border"
Yeah. This guy is "based" and not influenced by political propaganda at all.
At least it wasn't "diseases from the military aged, foreign, gang raping, groomer vermin".
Typical lies from a republicans. Not news. Spin rinse spin rinse spin spin spin
Did you know that MMA fighters can get extra charges if they get into a fistfight with someone and the fight wasnât in self defense?
And when they travel overseas they need to declare their hands a weapons and leave them in checked baggage on the plane.
59 missing replies
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the rules.
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail here or Reddit site admins here . All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.