I was at the fireworks in Philadelphia. I could have been shot. I don't like that, and this has nothing to do with partisan politics. I just don't want to live with the constant stress of getting killed tomorrow. Thank you.

Actually, it does have to do with partisan politics because one party has made your, and my, exposure to murder a plank in its platform.

It's not your fault; you don't need to apologize for not wanting to die and you need not shut up about it. It's their fault. They have politicized the most basic needs (life) and functions (human sexuality) and thereby rendered those things partisan.

The GOP long since ceased to be a political party--meaning one that cares about politics--and became a nihilistic one. They don't get to redefine the terms.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was at the fireworks in Philadelphia. I could
> have been shot. I don't like that, and this has
> nothing to do with partisan politics. I just don't
> want to live with the constant stress of getting
> killed tomorrow. Thank you.

Don't drive a vehicle. Don't go out in public or try to cross a road or stand near one.

Shiz happens - and not all of it is nutcases going crazy with firearms.

That comes very close to suggesting that standing near a road is as dangerous as idiots with guns.

Do you really want to hang your hat on that?

You have the privilege.
AKA you feel entitled.
So did the parents of the little 2yo orphan covered in his parents blood.

No.

The Constitution does not specifically list such a right. Therefore, according to a majority of the current SCOTUS, such a right does not exist.

"I just don't want to live with the constant stress of getting killed tomorrow."

Israelis get by okay.

The per capita rate of violent deaths in the US is four times that of Israel.


https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/violence/by-country/

There you go again using reality. Not fair.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The per capita rate of violent deaths in the US is
> four times that of Israel.

Unfortunately for Israel, this is a misleading correlation.

At ANY moment of the day or night, every single day in the year, Israel could be bombed, be at war, or could be invaded.

Everyone in Israel knows this viscerally: that when they kiss their loved ones good-bye in the morning, or send them off to school or work or whatever, it could be the last time they will ever see this other beloved person alive.

In every way, it feels SO MUCH safer here in the USA! This may well not be the mathematical truth, but it sure is a much healthier and more contented way to live life: second by second, minute by minute, hour by hour, and day by day.

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In every way, it feels SO MUCH safer here in the
> USA!

It may feel that way but it is not.


-----------------------
> This may well not be the mathematical truth,
> but it sure is a much healthier and more contented
> way to live life: second by second, minute by
> minute, hour by hour, and day by day.

Your feelings are undoubtedly common to most Americans--until they or their communities are struck by a mass murder.

What the data tell us is that without major change, it's only a matter of time before we all know what it feels to be an Israeli citizen or even a Palestinian in a camp.

It has made me question if a I ever want to cross the border into your country again...seriously.

Definitely don't come to Texas. They've been authorizing guns for literally anyone down there.

A: A rational, sane person would say yes. An insecure white man who thinks his endowment is too small and walks around carrying a personal arsenal to make himself feel dominant and powerful would say no.

I am so tired of that small penis analogy especially when said by women. Could find something that teenagers are not partial to saying?

In this case the phrase dumbs down a very critical and complicated issue issue to a cliche.

Lest we forget, "an insecure *white* man. Racism is racism, anybody.

And I know plenty of guys of all races and religions that don't feel the need to do that. This phenomenon seems to be related to the white racial extinction / replacement conspiracy theory, "Christian" fear of atheists and other non-Christians, and general fear of being "taken over" and an emotional need to assert dominance.

Given the racial disparities in America, it's not something that you see many African American or Latino men doing as they would get immediate attention from law enforcement. Lots of documented cases that you can look up.

All of this is a matter of distorted perception. If you listen to crazy conspiracy theorists or TV preachers, you can't visit Detroit or LA without being attacked for just walking down the street. They say it's a dystopian hellhole just like "Escape From L.A." Well, I've walked down the street in a lot of places in Detroit and LA at night and nothing happened. I have had people try to grab or assault me on Massachusetts Avenue between MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, MA -- which has the highest number of college educated people per capita in America.

So, it would be fair to say that it is generally restricted to a small, but not insignificant, minority of white men and even smaller number of white women.

When I see guys in the grocery store or other places walking around with guns, I laugh at them. That gets them more than anything else -- a woman laughing at them in public.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 12:54PM by anybody.

Anybody, you don't know who's armed and who isn't.

https://www.upworthy.com/guns-in-grocery-stores-make-america-not-great

"Last summer, my husband and I went to a grocery store in Sandpoint, Idaho to pick up some ice cream. As we started walking down the frozen foods aisle, my husband grabbed my arm to stop me. He gestured to the couple ahead of us, and I saw what he saw—a handgun sticking out of the back of the man's pants.

Sandpoint is an idyllic, small mountain town on a pristine lake, where people come to stay for water sports in summer and skiing in the winter. It's also not far from the Wal-mart where a two-year-old had pulled a handgun out of his mom's purse and killed her with it several years ago."

We turned around and left the ice cream aisle, choosing to wait until the openly armed shopper left. And we were irritated. Seeing a man with a gun in a grocery aisle feels like living in a war zone—meanwhile, Sandpoint's violent crime rate is half the national average.

Twitter user "Cacky" shared a similar encounter in an Oklahoma Trader Joe's, with a photo of a man with a handgun in a holster on his hip at the salad display.

"I have no idea if this guy is stable or mentally ill," she wrote. "Is he bothered by the heat and have a short fuse today? What if someone makes him mad and he has poor impulse control? I'm not willing to risk my life for groceries, so I just left Trader Joe's."I had the same thoughts in the ice cream aisle in Idaho. Not only do we not know this person's mental state, but with a gun so openly broadcast, what's to stop another unstable shopper from grabbing the gun from them? I'm sure these guys think they'd be quick to stop someone from doing so, but there are dozens of scenarios where that confrontation ends very badly for them, as well as for the innocent bystanders who just want to buy some freaking lettuce.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 01:07PM by anybody.

Again, you don't know who's armed and who isn't.

anybody, I am tired of your small samplings. Kathleen is right.

I watch the news here in LA every night and guns are an equal opportunity employer.

Your racism against white men is easy to get away with these days isn't it what with all the other kids doing it.

Racism is not going to stop until you stop it too.

I'm talking about nuts with guns who go around armed on purpose to intimidate people or who are "asserting their 2A rights" (i.e. afraid) -- in grocery stores, restaurants, shopping malls, convenience stores, and other public places -- the vast majority of whom *are* white males who live in the few *red* states that allow this where they under no real threat of violence -- except the fear that exists in their own minds.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 02:16PM by anybody.

Nope. It’s conveniently disguised racism. Look at your other threads, anybody.

I call 'em like I see 'em, and this is what I see with my own eyes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 02:26PM by anybody.

Yes you see your small sampling that suits your racist agenda.

Try a scientific sampling if you want some cre.

And BTW. I have known three men with micro-penis in my life. One adopted four brothers and was the most wonderful father ever.
The other two were absolute sweethearts.

When you use the small endowment as your go-to you only demean yourself.

this is it.

Frankly, I don't know or care about these guys' private parts.

All I know is they feel the need to go around armed for reasons of their own that defy logic and common sense.

Ask yourself: When was the last time you felt the need to go to the mall with a rifle slung on your shoulder or a pistol on your belt? Or a gas station or grocery store for that matter?

There are plenty of interviews online so you can see these men -- there are a few women but the vast majority are white males -- for yourself.

If you want to think this observation is racist, fine.

I don't care.

It's ridiculous to even say that.

The only other places I've ever seen such behavior (civilians openly walking around with guns) in modern times is in war zones.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/07/2022 03:00PM by anybody.

Perhaps you have noticed that shooters in general, and mass shooters in particular are almost exclusively male. Actually I can't think of a single example of a female mass shooter.

Also, while there is much criticism in this country that the justice system disproportionately locks up minority offenders, there is no such imbalance among the mass shooter criminal element. They aren't exclusively white, but whites are very well represented, especially in the large mass shootings.

I decided to see if there is any data on the racial composition of the average mass murderer. My assumption was that "anybody" would be right.

I read several articles and looked at several data sets. Many of them don't characterize events by race, which could reflect politically correct biases. Among the others, there were certain patterns take seemed constant no matter who was doing the counting.

1) There were a cluster of studies that said white men account for about 54% of mass murders. The flaw in those studies is they are all based on the same data set, which appear flawed.

2) There are better data, at least more consistent data, from independent statistical efforts indicating that white men account for 63, 64, or 67% of mass murders. Of course the margin of error is such that these are basically indistinguishable; we could call it 64 or 65%.

3) The 64-65% figure is very close to the 67% of adult American men who are white, meaning that caucasians engage in mass murder at the "normal" rate or perhaps a bit less. In any case, it does not appear sound to explain the phenomenon by white race or by white racism.

4) There are other aspects of the problem in which racial generalizations are more reasonable. For example, white mass shooters are killed by police at a lower rate than on-white mass murderers. And the most glaring disparity: the media pay much greater attention to mass murder when it occurs in white communities, which may be one reason why it seems the malefactors are generally white men.

5) I am curious as to whether the racial pattern is changing of late. Most of the articles I've perused don't include at least the last two or three sanguinary months. It's possible the data will incipient changes in the demographic patterns although thatis just a question in my mind.

A good article on this is

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/27/numbers-undercut-myths-about-mass-shootings-white-men/

Worrying about getting shot is one of our very special and exclusive freedumbs that we enjoy as Americans.

But you can have guns to protect you from those people you fear might shoot you.

... Along with the option of shooting first.

There is no such thing as rights. There is such a thing as leverage and lawyers and politicians with their own interests and the ebb and flow of the tides.

Take advantage of what is available to you to help navigate the best life you can.

Done & done wrote in part:

"There is no such thing as rights."

Oops! There go the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

You got me, haha.


What with slick lawyers and everything "open to interpretation" a la SCOTUS and on down, what I meant was, "Don't count on them."

Some things are only good on paper.

There are rights to food, free education, paid maternal leave, regular lunch breaks, etc. None of those rights exist in the vast majority of the world's countries.

What that means is there is a difference between aspirational rights and actual rights, the latter depending on the willingness of a society or state to enforce them.

blindguy and D&D are thus arguing over the difference between the promises and the reality. Both perspectives are equally reasonable, but I daresay that in practical terms D&D's view is more relevant.

You have the right to worry or not worry about whatever you want.

You also have the right to defend yourself if someone is trying to harm you.
In America, that means you can own weapons (including guns).

I'm not sure what your point is.

That's nice but it's not working.

Tell us how you are supposed to use your gun to protect yourself when someone is hiding on a roof in public and you don't know you are about to be shot.

Most of the mass murder victims did not have the time or knowledge that someone was imminently going to kill them.

Heck, you can't even sit on a toilet without having a giant war mass killing weapon ever ready just in case?

Of course it's working.
Lives are saved every day by people who carry a gun for self-protection, including stopping would-be mass shootings.

Nothing is perfect. There isn't much you can do to protect yourself from a rooftop sniper or a car bomb or someone crashing an airplane into a building.

In most civilized countries people do not have cause to worry about any of those things. That seems so difficult to grasp for many here.

You are one of a few I like here Elder Brother, but, Dagny is dead on here.

We have been pushed into a dog eat dog world here in what is now Tombstone America.

I'm thinking of starting a business that sells holsters on gun belts so you don't waste time getting them out of your purse or pocet. And tools to notch the handle of your gun. Pink for the ladies. Kidding of course about that. Would be big sellers no doubt but that is not how I would want to make a buck.

The horrific nature of a mass shooting makes it easy to sensationalize and lose perspective.

For example, swimming pools are WAY more dangerous to children than school shootings.
About 1000 children drown in America every year. And yet, nothing is really done about it because most people LIKE swimming pools.

However, if something tragic happened and a lot of children drowned all at once, there would probably be a push to do something about it.


Some people HATE guns and want to get rid of all of them.
To me, there are valid reasons to own guns. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course.

In a country where there are no guns, nobody needs them.

Is there a country that has no guns?
How would they enforce that?

Shootings are now the number one cause of death for children and teens in the US. Swimming pools are somewhat farther down on the list.

But nice try.

I specifically said "school shootings" and that statistic on cause of death is highly skewed.

My point was that people tend to react very differently to a lot of little tragedies vs one big tragedy.

Drownings are a fraction of annual deaths attributed to guns. Besides, swimming pools offer something of value and are not designed specifically to kill.

Once again...not comparing drownings to shooting.

Comparing a lot of small tragedies to one large tragedy and how people react to them.

Elder Brother Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
> Comparing a lot of small tragedies to one large
> tragedy and how people react to them.

That's a curious statement to make. It would be only reasonable for people worry less about small and rare tragedies than extraordinarily frequent and much larger ones.

The situation becomes clearer still when you realize that the frequent and large events are entirely unnecessary. Countries that control guns--like the UK, Japan, New Zealand--have virtually no mass murders. To deny the correlation and the causation would be ludicrous.

Let me try one more time...

1000 children drown every year = no public outcry

20 children die in a school shooting = public outcry


That was the point I was trying to make.

Okay, then let me restate my point.

1000 kids die in individual swimming accidents = no public outcry.

1000 innocent people die in a month of completely unnecessary bloodshed, and then it happens again, and again, and again = public outcry.

That's entirely reasonable.

And you know what else is reasonable? That if three kids die in the same swimming pool, society will get extremely upset, figure out what went wrong, and fix it. Whereas with mass murders, enormous numbers of people die from the same cause, we all know the cause, and yet we refuse to fix it.

Your comparison and conclusion are specious.

I think that sensible gun ownership laws, such as they have in Denmark, would go a long way towards helping. I think that right-wingers in the U.S. have lost their collective minds when it comes to gun laws.

My father was a longtime NRA member, and he never would have approved of ordinary citizens owning AR-15s or similar.

"ordinary citizen"

Who among would accept this title?

Your father is correct, Summer, no ordinary citizen needs an AR-15 or similar.

I agree with you and your dad, summer. Guns were made for one purpose: to kill. I think more restrictions on firearms and mandatory training to be allowed to carry a gun (it could be incorporated into Hunter's Safety courses) would be an improvement over the current laws. If you don't understand that a gun is a weapon or are eager to use it to intimidate and kill people, you shouldn't be allowed to carry one.

And don't get me started on the Rambo wannabes.

Guns keep us safe from a government run by people who demand power over others in the name of equity, we keep getting a bigger and bigger buerocracy that keeps their power by duping the young and uninformed in believing that they're going to solve the problems fix the bad guys, so they organize special interest groups who's main purpose is to take the bonanza of American tax dollars and pay the beast. I heard recently that LA is spending $60,000 a year per homeless person yet there are more homeless people than ever before. The more they spend the more trouble happens. Currently california is $500,000,000,000 in debt, and just wait they're going to place the blame on the middle class and squeeze them. This is why we need guns because of the demon party, that have too much power and they want to steal our stuff.

Also if we outlaw guns like Mexico has, then only the bad guys have the guns. And if America is so dangerous why do all these economic migrants (who come from gun controlled countries) keep wanting to show up in this dangerous country with guns?

> I heard recently that LA is spending $60,000 a year per homeless person

You hear a lot of very strange and dubious things.

We outlaw hand grenades, though they can be pretty handy for self-protection, which is why the military uses them, That seems to be working out OK.

We don't outlaw hand grenades.
They are regulated by the National Firearms Act, just like machine guns, suppressors, and short-barrelled rifles.
You just have to fill out the right form and pay a $200 tax.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/weapons-firearms/is-it-legal-own-hand-grenades

"Hand grenades are regulated under the National Firearms Act ('NFA'), a federal law first passed in 1934 and amended by the Crime Control Act of 1968. The 1968 amendments made it illegal to possess 'destructive devices,' which includes grenades. (26 U.S.C. § 5801.) There's no doubt that a live hand grenade designed for military combat fits within the law's provisions — non-military people may not possess them."

"While it's obvious that military-style grenades are illegal to possess, it's not so obvious when dealing with other items that could, under the law's definition, be classified as a grenade."

"So… Is it Illegal to Possess a Hand Grenade?
The short answer is yes, when that's a military style, live grenade. But people who build devices themselves, or simply gather together the components of what could become a grenade, cannot know for sure whether their items, even assembled, will land them in legal hot water. The answer will depend on the approach of the federal court in the area where any prosecution might be brought."

----

As for "filling out the paperwork and paying a $200 tax,"

https://aerocorner.com/blog/can-civilians-buy-grenades/

"The government also imposes a $200 tax stamp on each transfer. Due to the high costs and extensive application process, most civilians are unlikely to qualify to purchase grenades. Law enforcement officials are unlikely to approve the sale of a hand grenade and there are no verifiable accounts of such transactions."

Maca, you're an idiot.

"Currently california is $500,000,000,000 in debt"

No, California is not $500 billion in debt. In fact, the state currently has a record $97 billion SURPLUS.

https://calmatters.org/politics/2022/06/california-budget-surplus-explained/

Maryland has a law that the books must be balanced every year. It's worked out just fine for us. We live within our means.

Maybe the Federal government could do the same.

Like I said, he hears many strange and dubious things.

Most of which he hears from the nowhere but the voices in his mind.

You know, like where he gets his spelling conventions.

I find multiple spellings of a word in the same post particularly creative.

"This is why we can't have nice things" - gun thread subcategory. ;) :-/