Meme & Quote Thread

[57Brave]

Based on this image alone, I'd wager she has very little knowledge on the subject

[57Brave]

[57Brave]

[sturg33]

Yes, thinking rationally and logically is the problem.

I missed it when the left was the party of facts and science

[sturg33]

[sturg33]

Since I'm certain you won't open the article because you're scared to debate data...

American children do not "risk their lives" when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American's lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.

[Julio3000]

Yes, but this cuts both ways, doesn't it? It flies directly in the face of industry lobbying and marketing which aims to convince that it's necessary to own/carry in order to protect your family.

[Julio3000]

There's a bit of sleight-of-hand here, too...does the declining crime rate mean that we shouldn't care about the 10,000 gun murders? It's not a well-thought-through proposition.

[sturg33]

Yes, but this cuts both ways, doesn't it? It flies directly in the face of industry lobbying and marketing which aims to convince that it's necessary to own/carry in order to protect your family.

Well, as you say in your next post, that doesn't mean gun violence doesn't exist. It just means that the emotional protests of today are misguided.

But sure, you're free to make the argument that because gun violence is dramatically down, that I don't need to buy a weapon. But you're not free to make the argument that because gun violence is down, we should change our laws to ensure I can't buy a weapon

[sturg33]

There's a bit of sleight-of-hand here, too...does the declining crime rate mean that we shouldn't care about the 10,000 gun murders? It's not a well-thought-through proposition.

I don't think anyone doesn't care. It's just not the biggest issue at hand.

I don't know if you work in business or not, but you have to prioritize things. Frankly, gun violence just isn't a large issue in our macro. I'm not saying it's not an issue, but there are things we need to tackle first that are far more of a problem*

*this is assuming you insist government fixes problems, which I of course do not

Meanwhile, because it's not the largest issue we face today, I don't see why there's such a push for changing our constitution to solve it

[sturg33]

We will take the big and we will take the small, but we will keep fighting. When they give us that inch, that bump stock ban, we will take a mile.

^ one of the marchforourlives speakers.

And y'all wonder why 2nd amendment advocates resist the "common sense gun laws"

[50PoundHead]

I don't weigh in much in this cesspool anymore, but the folks at Reason really don't tell the whole story in their assertions. John Lott and company (although Lott isn't associated with Reason as far as I can tell) contend that "the more guns, the less gun violence" because perpetrators feel potential reprisal from someone carrying a gun. There may be some truth to that at the margins, but I think the more pertinent statistic in terms of gun violence is that the percentage of households in which there is a gun is dropping and now hovers just above 30%. It was just over 47% in 1980. It would seem (and I am using the word seem) that trend is more salient than the total number of guns in the population (which is now getting close to one gun for every citizen).

[mqt]

^ one of the marchforourlives speakers.

And y'all wonder why 2nd amendment advocates resist the "common sense gun laws"

I wonder if there might be a difference between a teenager's goals in the wake of watching her friends get shot and a legislated set of laws designed to help limit gun violence. Whether you believe in gun control arguments or not, taking an emotionally charged speech from a literal child and using it as a rebuke of the entire idea of gun control is a bit ridiculous.

[sturg33]

Oh the irony

[sturg33]

I wonder if there might be a difference between a teenager's goals in the wake of watching her friends get shot and a legislated set of laws designed to help limit gun violence. Whether you believe in gun control arguments or not, taking an emotionally charged speech from a literal child and using it as a rebuke of the entire idea of gun control is a bit ridiculous.

No it's not... If the left insists we take these kids seriously - and it appears they do by parading them all over the networks and the country - then I'll take their words seriously.

[sturg33]

I don't weigh in much in this cesspool anymore, but the folks at Reason really don't tell the whole story in their assertions. John Lott and company (although Lott isn't associated with Reason as far as I can tell) contend that "the more guns, the less gun violence" because perpetrators feel potential reprisal from someone carrying a gun. There may be some truth to that at the margins, but I think the more pertinent statistic in terms of gun violence is that the percentage of households in which there is a gun is dropping and now hovers just above 30%. It was just over 47% in 1980. It would seem (and I am using the word seem) that trend is more salient than the total number of guns in the population (which is now getting close to one gun for every citizen).

The numbers I've read are in the low 40's... but when you consider the growth in population, there are still more gun owners in the country than there were decades ago, despite the lower %.

But I'd be curious to know how the household data is compiled... my suspicion is that the numbers are skewed by urban areas - but not sure where to find those details

[mqt]

No it's not... If the left insists we take these kids seriously - and it appears they do by parading them all over the networks and the country - then I'll take their words seriously.

There's a difference between taking a group of people seriously and enacting legislation based on everything they want to see happen.

[sturg33]

[mqt]

As much as I disagree with them, I agree that it would be good for their marches to be thoroughly covered.

[sturg33]

As much as I disagree with them, I agree that it would be good for their marches to be thoroughly covered.

The media is too liberal to allow that