Guns

[Northstar]

I have not seen evidence of this.

And you never will, because you can't record something that never happened. For instance, I can't prove that locking my doors has prevented unwanted people from accessing my property since as far as I know, nobody has tried and if they have, it's not like they are going to let me know about it.

The same can be said about any of the things you listed.

Having less cash in the register, advanced security system, bulletproof glass, Timeclock on safe, securityguard, securitydoors etc.

All those operate under the same premise as guns, making potential criminals feel it's not worth the effort of even attempting the crime. Criminals are lazy, they will go after the easiest target, it's why senior citizens are such a popular target for scams.

 

[Blood Eagle]

The premise that guns make you safer is just not true.

I'm very pro firearm but I tend to agree with this and I think it comes down to a problem with the way society currently perceives guns and gun owners. If you take into account the way some police even perceive gun owners in general, especially in densely populated urban and suburban areas where police and normal citizens might not have a positive opinion of gun ownership. They are quick to pull their own triggers at the sheer site of a gun on someone. This creates a mistrust/disconnection to the communities police are sworn to serve and also creates mistrust/disconnection of police on the civilian side. I'd venture to say that you as Joe Blow gun owner are more likely to get shot by police now than at any time in US history. This is very counterproductive to why we chose to arm ourselves in the first place. The stigma of guns to a lot of people is that criminals use them to commit crimes. Rarely do anti gun types see them as legitimate tools for protection. This is probably for a different thread but there needs to be a massive overhaul to the US police system and it probably starts with the way police perceive regular people rather than to expect the worst because of all the stuff they see on a regular basis. It starts at the academy. I think a fair question is have we as a society daemonized guns to the point that the sheer site of one is enough to trigger someone or get someone killed?

 

[Danoff]

The training barrier should be raised in my opinion.

I'm talking about the intrinsic properties of guns, not legal requirements. There is no raising how hard it is to learn the basics of gun operation. It just is what it is.

In this context I meant misuse in the sense of accidental discharge or other accidents.

Yea training definitely addresses that.

In my opinion prevension or deter is much more efficient in the sense of discouraging the intent to rob. Having less cash in the register, advanced security system, bulletproof glass, Timeclock on safe, securityguard, securitydoors etc. Having a gun does not discourage robbers the intent to rob. An argument in favor of gunownership is the idea that it is a good deterrent. I have not seen evidence of this. The premise that guns make you safer is just not true.

Well that's a non-sequitur. You went from saying that guns don't deter robbery to saying that they don't make you safer, not the same thing, and your conclusion is therefore not (and pretty far from actually) supported. I agree that guns don't discourage robberies. But showing a gun, or announcing that you have a gun, such as by loudly stating it or even putting a sign on the wall, that certainly could have an deterring effect. It would be hard (not impossible) to obtain that effect without actually possessing a gun.

Also the idea of the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is something I disagree with.

Just out of curiosity, how do you stop a bad guy with a gun then?

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm talking about the intrinsic properties of guns, not legal requirements. There is no raising how hard it is to learn the basics of gun operation. It just is what it is.



Yea training definitely addresses that.



Well that's a non-sequitur. You went from saying that guns don't deter robbery to saying that they don't make you safer, not the same thing, and your conclusion is therefore not (and pretty far from actually) supported. I agree that guns don't discourage robberies. But showing a gun, or announcing that you have a gun, such as by loudly stating it or even putting a sign on the wall, that certainly could have an deterring effect. It would be hard (not impossible) to obtain that effect without actually possessing a gun.



Just out of curiosity, how do you stop a bad guy with a gun then?

Ok We are on the same opinion on training then.

I was speaking about discouraging robberies like you are describing. I may have confused deter, discourage and prevent. However the situation you were descibing means that the robber does not come in with a gun? I assume in situations were both the robber and victim are potentially armed, the one who draws first has the dominant postion.

Apparantly the FBI examined 160 active shooter incidents that took place between 2000 and 2013.

The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated.

“Most of the time, if you’re talking about a civilian stopping a mass shooter, it’s the unarmed guy without the gun because they're right there,”

Remember the premis is that the NRA claims the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I cant conlusively say how you stop a bad guy with a gun, but a good guy with a gun has not shown to be edit: the only way to stop a bad guy.

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/active-shooter-study-2000-2013-1.pdf/view

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

 

[Famine]

Apparantly the FBI examined 160 active shooter incidents that took place between 2000 and 2013.

The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated.

“Most of the time, if you’re talking about a civilian stopping a mass shooter, it’s the unarmed guy without the gun because they're right there,”

Remember the premis is that the NRA claims the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I cant conlusively say how you stop a bad guy with a gun, but a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient.

In how many of those incidents were good guys prevented from having guns because of local regulations that the bad guys could ignore?

 

[PocketZeven]

In how many of those incidents were good guys prevented from having guns because of local regulations that the bad guys could ignore?

Thats another hypothetical that dont neccesarily have correlation.

edit: Edited to avoid another discussion

 

[Famine]

Thats another hypothetical that dont neccesarily have corellation.

No it isn't. Citizens with guns can't use guns to defend from gunmen if they don't have the guns. You can't use the data as you have done so unless you know whether the good guys have access to guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

No it isn't. Citizens with guns can't use guns to defend from gunmen if they don't have the guns. You can't use the data as you have done so unless you know whether the good guys have access to guns.

Is that a conclusion you made on the premise that people that have guns will always effectively kill the bad guy? That is probably outside the scope of the report. The incidents are mentioned though, but its a lot of work to go through all those states and find out how gunlegislation is handled in each. Why did you ask though? Do you agree the only way to stop a bad guy, you need a good guy with a gun?

Edit: wrong grammar

 

[Famine]

That is a conclusion you made on the premise that people that have guns will always effectively kill the bad guy?

No, it's a question. You drew the conclusion. I've bolded it for clarity:

The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated.

“Most of the time, if you’re talking about a civilian stopping a mass shooter, it’s the unarmed guy without the gun because they're right there,”

Remember the premis is that the NRA claims the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I cant conlusively say how you stop a bad guy with a gun, but a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient.

You cannot draw that conclusion unless you know in which incidents guns were available to the good guys.

Take Aurora, Colorado. That incident ended when the police arrested the shooter. That's one of your 134 spree shooting incidents in which good guys with guns absolutely failed to stop the bad guy with guns.

Except it isn't. The cinema did not allow the public to carry guns on the premises (and there seems to be a peculiar law in Aurora about discharging firearms outside a firing range, which would have made it an offence for anyone to fire one), so nobody else but the bad guy had any guns. You can't use that incident as an example of good guys with guns not stopping bad guys with guns, because the good guys had zero access to guns.

In order to use the data as you have - to conclude that "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient" - you need to know in how many incidents the good guys had access to guns. It might have just been the five they stopped, in which case it's extremely efficient. It might have been all of them, in which case it isn't.

This is why I asked you the question I asked you:

In how many of those incidents were good guys prevented from having guns because of local regulations that the bad guys could ignore?

Once we know that we can draw conclusions about the efficiency of citizen firearm self-defence...

 

[Danoff]

I was speaking about discouraging robberies like you are describing. I may have confused deter, discourage and prevent. However the situation you were descibing means that the robber does not come in with a gun? I assume in situations were both the robber and victim are potentially armed, the one who draws first has the dominant postion.

It's not the wild west. It's not a matter of who has "drawn" their gun first. If someone breaks into your home with a gun in hand, you can still scramble to get yours, and even shoot the aggressor first. Real life is just not this simple.

Apparantly the FBI examined 160 active shooter incidents that took place between 2000 and 2013.

The report found that in five of those incidents, armed individuals who were not members of law enforcement exchanged gunfire with the shooter, leading to either the shooter being killed, wounded or taking his own life.

By contrast, 21 of the 160 incidents ended after unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter,” the report stated.

I saw the exact same problem with this as @Famine above. So I won't repeat his comments. The only thing I'll add is to question how many of those incidents were stopped by law enforcement officers with guns.

 

[PocketZeven]

No, it's a question. You drew the conclusion. I've bolded it for clarity:

You cannot draw that conclusion unless you know in which incidents guns were available to the good guys.

Take Aurora, Colorado. That incident ended when the police arrested the shooter. That's one of your 134 spree shooting incidents in which good guys with guns absolutely failed to stop the bad guy with guns.

Except it isn't. The cinema did not allow the public to carry guns on the premises (and there seems to be a peculiar law in Aurora about discharging firearms outside a firing range, which would have made it an offence for anyone to fire one), so nobody else but the bad guy had any guns. You can't use that incident as an example of good guys with guns not stopping bad guys with guns, because the good guys had zero access to guns.

In order to use the data as you have - to conclude that "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient" - you need to know in how many incidents the good guys had access to guns. It might have just been the five they stopped, in which case it's extremely efficient. It might have been all of them, in which case it isn't.

This is why I asked you the question I asked you:

Once we know that we can draw conclusions about the efficiency of citizen firearm self-defence...

I did not conclude that good guys with a gun are not efficient at stopping a bad guy. The data doesnt say that. I merely stated that the data shows conclusively there are other means of stopping a bad guy with a gun. You again are focusing solely on one specific word you interpet differently then the whole sentence is saying. For argument sake I corrected it in an edit. Efficiency wasnt meant in the way you are asking.

You need to highlight the sentence before that. My statement was based on disproving the claim that only a good guy can stop a bad guy. Based on the data provided 21 out of 160 already disproves that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy. If only a good guy can stop a bad guy, then there shouldnt have been any cases of unarmed restraints. Based on the data and the premise that other then good guys with a gun it shouldnt be possible to stop a bad guy without a weapon.

 

[Danoff]

You need to highlight the sentence before that. My statement was based on disproving the claim that only a good guy can stop a bad guy. Based on the data provided 21 out of 160 already disproves that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy. If only a good guy can stop a bad guy, then there shouldnt have been any cases of unarmed restraints. Based on the data and the premise that other then good guys with a gun it shouldnt be possible to stop a bad guy without a weapon.

Do you suppose that this is what anyone meant when that person hypothetically said "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Or do you suppose that they didn't mean it literally? Do you think that anyone believes that it is literally impossible to stop someone with a gun without using a gun yourself? If so, they need to watch more Batman movies.

 

[Famine]

I did not conclude that good guys with a gun are not efficient at stopping a bad guy.

Then who wrote this in your post?

I cant conlusively say how you stop a bad guy with a gun, but a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient.

You again are focusing solely on one specific word you interpet differently then the whole sentence is saying.

This is how words work. Words have meanings - very specific ones. I can only respond to the words you use, not words that you don't use, or words you meant to use but didn't, or what you actually mean but didn't say. I'm not sure how one is supposed to interpret a sentence that says "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient" at stopping bad guys with guns in any other way than a good guy with a gun is not very efficient at stopping a bad guy with a gun. The whole sentence says that, because that's the words you used.


If you use data that shows five from 160 spree shootings were stopped by citizens with guns and 21 were stopped by citizens without guns to conclude that "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient", I'm going to ask you how you've come to any conclusion on efficiency (which is, in essence, a success rate from a number of attempts) without knowing in how many of those incidents citizens had access to guns. As I did. You've now changed the words in your post, but it's weird that you deny posting that at all. I quoted it, and I can see it in your post's history.

If you weren't moving the goalposts, I'd also then ask how many of the remaining 134 spree shootings were stopped by law enforcement officers with guns (like @Danoff did). My earlier example of Aurora - where no civilian with a gun could have stopped the shooter, because they have no access to guns - is among those stopped by law enforcement officers (police, military, mall cops) with guns. Or do they not count as "good guys" (I guess it depends on your race)?


As for what the NRA says... I don't really care. It's a lobbying group that is inherently biased, and nobody in here is presenting or arguing for its claims (as also noted by @Danoff above). I'm still not American, I have nothing to do with the NRA, and the its opinion doesn't come into a discussion on the efficiency of "good guys" with guns stopping "bad guys" with guns from data that, as presented by you to us here in this thread, gives no information on firearms access. If you want to argue against the NRA's opinion, do it where the NRA will see it.

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you suppose that this is what anyone meant when that person hypothetically said "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"? Or do you suppose that they didn't mean it literally? Do you think that anyone believes that it is literally impossible to stop someone with a gun without using a gun yourself? If so, they need to watch more Batman movies.

Yes it is exactly what they mean. Their whole idea is that there is no way to stop a bad guy without a gun. Not everyone is a multi millionaire/billionaire playboy though.

But in all seriousness, what the NRA essentially wants is to have more gunownership. But like its hard to prove that less guns is less crime it is just as hard to prove that more guns would mean less crime.

Then who wrote this in your post?



This is how words work. Words have meanings - very specific ones. I can only respond to the words you use, not words that you don't use, or words you meant to use but didn't, or what you actually mean but didn't say. I'm not sure how one is supposed to interpret a sentence that says "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient" at stopping bad guys with guns in any other way than a good guy with a gun is not very efficient at stopping a bad guy with a gun. The whole sentence says that, because that's the words you used.


If you use data that shows five from 160 spree shootings were stopped by citizens with guns and 21 were stopped by citizens without guns to conclude that "a good guy with a gun has not shown to be very efficient", I'm going to ask you how you've come to any conclusion on efficiency (which is, in essence, a success rate from a number of attempts) without knowing in how many of those incidents citizens had access to guns. As I did. You've now changed the words in your post, but it's weird that you deny posting that at all. I quoted it, and I can see it in your post's history.

If you weren't moving the goalposts, I'd also then ask how many of the remaining 134 spree shootings were stopped by law enforcement officers with guns (like @Danoff did). My earlier example of Aurora - where no civilian with a gun could have stopped the shooter, because they have no access to guns - is among those stopped by law enforcement officers (police, military, mall cops) with guns. Or do they not count as "good guys" (I guess it depends on your race)?


As for what the NRA says... I don't really care. It's a lobbying group that is inherently biased, and nobody in here is presenting or arguing for its claims (as also noted by @Danoff above). I'm still not American, I have nothing to do with the NRA, and the its opinion doesn't come into a discussion on the efficiency of "good guys" with guns stopping "bad guys" with guns from data that, as presented by you to us here in this thread, gives no information on firearms access. If you want to argue against the NRA's opinion, do it where the NRA will see it.

I stated it in the post I was going to edit it to correct the confusion. The corrected post reflects what I meant much better. I have been stating there are other means of security then guns .

 

[Danoff]

Yes it is exactly what they mean. Their whole idea is that there is no way to stop a bad guy without a gun. Not everyone is a multi millionaire/billionaire playboy though.

Certainly that would be beyond stupid to think that. Because you could point out countless examples where someone without a gun has stopped someone with a gun. What they mean is that is that this is the most effective, least dangerous way to do it. Literally believing that it's not possible would be disproven in moments.

 

[McLaren]

Those examples are when robberies are already in motion. Foiling a robbery isnt the same as preventing a robbery from happening.

It is the same thing in this scenario.

Prevent
1.
keep (something) from happening or arising.
"action must be taken to prevent further accidents"
synonyms: stop, put a stop to, avert, nip in the bud, fend off, turn aside, stave off, ward off, head off, shut out, block, intercept, halt, arrest, check, stay;

If by pulling my weapon as thief comes in demanding money and he runs, I kept a thief from robbing me. Whether he had just asked for money, or I caught him with his hand in the register is semantics. I still prevented him from stealing from me.

The statistic you seem to be looking for (can a gun just being around prevent a robbery) is one that likely doesn't exist. I think it's already been well established in this thread that just leaving a gun out in full view of anyone is highly looked down upon to begin with, even if your goal is to "prevent" someone from robbing you (assuming they don't decide to take it) & it's not exactly accepted for a business to have guns on display either.

 

[PocketZeven]

It is the same thing in this scenario.

If by pulling my weapon as thief comes in demanding money and he runs, I kept a thief from robbing me. Whether he had just asked for money, or I caught him with his hand in the register is semantics. I still prevented him from stealing from me.

The statistic you seem to be looking for (can a gun just being around prevent a robbery) is one that likely doesn't exist. I think it's already been well established in this thread that just leaving a gun out in full view of anyone is highly looked down upon to begin with, even if your goal is to "prevent" someone from robbing you (assuming they don't decide to take it) & it's not exactly accepted for a business to have guns on display either.

Within context I meant deter. It is a top 3 reason I hear for people to justify the right of owning a gun in the USA. To keep criminals from initiating the act. To be clear I make a difference between stopping the criminal act and keeping it from initiating. I am not certain which word is more applicable deter or prevent.

Certainly that would be beyond stupid to think that. Because you could point out countless examples where someone without a gun has stopped someone with a gun. What they mean is that is that this is the most effective, least dangerous way to do it. Literally believing that it's not possible would be disproven in moments.

That is exactly how one should describe the NRA.

 

[Danoff]

That is exactly how one should describe the NRA.

I know it's tempting to dehumanize the people you consider to be your opponent, but I would urge you not to.

 

[PocketZeven]

I know it's tempting to dehumanize the people you consider to be your opponent, but I would urge you not to.

I am not commenting their members, I am commenting their organisation. I have respect for people that have legitimate reasoning to defend their rights. However the NRA as an organisation has gone far beyond that. Especially when you view their reactions on incidents of gunviolence. Their role in using feartactics and demonization.

 

[Danoff]

I am not commenting their members, I am commenting their organisation. I have respect for people that have legitimate reasoning to defend their rights. However the NRA as an organisation has gone far beyond that. Especially when you view their reactions on incidents of gunviolence. Their role in using feartactics and demonization.

The organization is just made up of people who believe in protecting certain rights. They're individuals that believe they're doing what's right.

 

[PocketZeven]

The organization is just made up of people who believe in protecting certain rights. They're individuals that believe they're doing what's right.

I would have no problem with that if they didnt demonize, used fear to backup their beliefs and spread unthruths. I dont have problems with the members. According to a survey among NRA members:

84% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members (vs. 90% of non-gun owners) supported requiring a universal background-check system for all gun sales; 76% of gun owners and 62% of NRA members (vs. 83% of non-gun owners) supported prohibiting gun ownership for 10 years after a person has been convicted of violating a domestic-violence restraining order; and 71% of gun owners and 70% of NRA members (vs. 78% of non-gun owners) supported requiring a mandatory minimum sentence of 2 years in prison for a person convicted of selling a gun to someone who cannot legally have a gun.

So in which way does the NRA represent their members? They choose to take an extreme stance in gun control.

 

[Danoff]

I would have no problem with that if they didnt demonize, used fear to backup their beliefs and spread unthruths.

If that's your basis for dehumanizing people, you can do it for just about anyone. Certainly any religion, but also for political parties (both sides in the US), and even news organizations.

 

[PocketZeven]

If that's your basis for dehumanizing people, you can do it for just about anyone. Certainly any religion, but also for political parties (both sides in the US), and even news organizations.

I am not dehumanizing any person? Why would you suggest that? I really dont understand what yuou mean with dehumanizing? Define dehumanizing whithin this context.

It is literally word for word quote that the organisation pushes and even sells t-shirts of. Or would you prefer me to specify it to LaPierre who actually said it?

https://www.nrastore.com/nra-good-guy-with-a-gun-t-shirt

 

[Danoff]

I am not dehumanizing any person? Why would you suggest that? I really dont understand what yuou mean with dehumanizing? Define dehumanizing whithin this context.

It is literally word for word quote that the organisation pushes and even sells t-shirts of. Or would you prefer me to specify it to LaPierre who actually said it?

https://www.nrastore.com/nra-good-guy-with-a-gun-t-shirt

Certainly that would be beyond stupid to think that.

Do you honestly think that the people who made that shirt, and the people who bought that shirt, believe that it is literal? That human history lacks examples of any person taking out a bad person with a gun without using a gun?

Do you think this guy never drinks water by itself?

 

[PocketZeven]

Do you honestly think that the people who made that shirt, and the people who bought that shirt, believe that it is literal? That human history lacks examples of any person taking out a bad person with a gun without using a gun?

Do you think this guy never drinks water by itself?

Different context. The text in above shirt was not quoted by the CEO of a influential political organisation.

Edit: response seemed passive-aggressive, which wasnt the intention, so I edited it.

 

[Danoff]

Different context. The text in above shirt was not quoted by the CEO of a influential political organisation.

I'm not entirely sure why that matters. Let me ask this question in a different way. Do you think if you asked anyone in the NRA organization whether anyone in the history of humanity has ever stopped a bad guy with a gun without having a gun themselves that they would say "no".

It's a catch phrase, it's a feels-right but isn't-technically-right truthiness. It's an exaggeration, hyperbole, meant to evoke the right mental picture while glossing over details. This technique is absolutely everywhere and with varying degrees of accuracy and with mixed results. It's used when people refer to America as "free". It's used when people talk about the rich paying their "fair share". It's used when people talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's used when people talk about white privilege. It's used when people talk about gas guzzlers, health care access, rock bands, and sports cars.

It's used when people talk about NFL quarterbacks. I mean, Brett Favre is totally over rated... totally... except for a couple of areas which I don't care to mention because it doesn't fit my narrative (I do honestly think Favre is over-rated).

What you're doing is called selective rigor. You're taking a very well known conversational technique and drilling down to specific technical accuracy in this one example while ignoring it in others. In doing so, you're painting your opponents as complete buffoons, and you're fine with that because they're not human to you.

Edit:

BTW, in case you missed it, I just did what I was talking about by saying "they're not human to you". It was tongue in cheek, but I wanted to point it out just to be sure.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm not entirely sure why that matters. Let me ask this question in a different way. Do you think if you asked anyone in the NRA organization whether anyone in the history of humanity has ever stopped a bad guy with a gun without having a gun themselves that they would say "no".

It's a catch phrase, it's a feels-right but isn't-technically-right truthiness. It's an exaggeration, hyperbole, meant to evoke the right mental picture while glossing over details. This technique is absolutely everywhere and with varying degrees of accuracy and with mixed results. It's used when people refer to America as "free". It's used when people talk about the rich paying their "fair share". It's used when people talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. It's used when people talk about white privilege. It's used when people talk about gas guzzlers, health care access, rock bands, and sports cars.

It's used when people talk about NFL quarterbacks. I mean, Brett Favre is totally over rated... totally... except for a couple of areas which I don't care to mention because it doesn't fit my narrative (I do honestly think Favre is over-rated).

What you're doing is called selective rigor. You're taking a very well known conversational technique and drilling down to specific technical accuracy in this one example while ignoring it in others. In doing so, you're painting your opponents as complete buffoons, and you're fine with that because they're not human to you.

Edit:

BTW, in case you missed it, I just did what I was talking about by saying "they're not human to you". It was tongue in cheek, but I wanted to point it out just to be sure.

I truly seriously believe that there are many people who truly believe that. But by spreading such speak, smore people will eventually start to believe. For example Trump saying Mexicans are rapists (some are good people), the mueller report is a biased deep-state conspiracy, saying he is a stable genius etc. It normalizes such speak and in the example of Trump I think many of his followers truly believe what he is tweeting. I mean there are people who believe flat-earth! I know you are an intelligent person with common sense, but dont assume everyone is.

Why do you think I think they arent human? Stupid or dumb people are human too.

edit: correction

 

[Danoff]

I truly seriously believe that there are many people who truly believe that. But by spreading such speak, smore people will eventually start to believe. For example Trump saying Mexicans are rapists (some are good people), the mueller report is a biased deep-state conspiracy, saying he is a stable genius etc. It normalizes such speak and in the example of Trump I think many of his followers truly believe what he is tweeting. I mean there are people who believe flat-earth! I know you are an intelligent person with common sense, but dont assume everyone is.

Why do you think I think they arent human? Stupid or dumb people are human too.

edit: correction

If someone is catastrophically stupid they do not have rights, and their opinion is to be disregarded, much like any other animal.

 

[PocketZeven]

If someone is catastrophically stupid they do not have rights, and their opinion is to be disregarded, much like any other animal.

uh. Now you are dehumanizing? Have you ever read the immensily stupid comments on rightwing opinionated shows on videowebsites, reddit etc?

 

[Blood Eagle]

uh. Now you are dehumanizing? Have you ever read the immensily stupid comments on rightwing opinionated shows on videowebsites, reddit etc?

Personally, I've heard dumb stupid comments on right and left wing platforms. I don't think one side is any smarter. Hard core polarization is very dangerous and the more anyone abandons logic for either side, the further away we are going to get from moving the needle to the right direction and do anything meaningful and not in bad faith.