Mass shooting in Southern Texas Church

[Spurgy 777]

Except nobody's quite sure how many lives guns save - other than probably a ****ton.

Without that number, the facts in terms of lives saved are anything but clear.

Considering murder only makes up about 1% of just violent crime let alone other crimes, it's safe to say that most of those people who used a gun in self defense didn't have their lives in danger, and it says nothing as to whether a gun was necessary to protect them either. If as @TenEightyOne said the attacker was unarmed in most cases then you probably wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself in most of those cases.

In other words it's a useless statistic that gives virtually no indication as to how many people have been saved by guns.

 

[Famine]

In other words it's a useless statistic that gives virtually no indication as to how many people have been saved by guns.

Hence "nobody's sure".

And that aside, one doesn't need to be under immediate threat of murder for a weapon to serve to defend yourself.

There is absolutely no way to know how many crimes and of what severity they would be that any measure or action would prevent. By definition, they haven't occurred... We can't even know if a widespread public proliferation of firearms makes anyone who would commit a crime otherwise not commit a crime.

At best we can say that there is probably a non-zero amount of crimes against the person that a potentially armed intended victim has prevented, and probably a larger number that the presentation of a firearm by the intended victim has prevented.

We know that violence is the problem and that guns are commonly the tool used to perpetrate it where they are available. We don't know how often guns are the tool used to defend against it where they are available.

And without the knowledge of how many lives guns have saved, the facts are that the facts on how many lives are saved by removing guns aren't clear. We might know that fewer would be taken (although with violence as the problem, some will naturally be taken by other means), but we don't know how many more would be through the removal of a line of defence.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Considering murder only makes up about 1% of just violent crime let alone other crimes, it's safe to say that most of those people who used a gun in self defense didn't have their lives in danger, and it says nothing as to whether a gun was necessary to protect them either. If as @TenEightyOne said the attacker was unarmed in most cases then you probably wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself in most of those cases.

In other words it's a useless statistic that gives virtually no indication as to how many people have been saved by guns.

So you are a better judge of whether a gun was necessary or a life was in danger compared to the people who were actually there? A gun pulled on someone when it isn't necessary is a crime by the way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So you are a better judge of whether a gun was necessary or a life was in danger compared to the people who were actually there? A gun pulled on someone when it isn't necessary is a crime by the way.

The report doesn't assess the criminality of the defense but it's clear from the figures that lives weren't necessarily in danger during all those defenses.

Hence "nobody's sure".

And that aside, one doesn't need to be under immediate threat of murder for a weapon to serve to defend yourself.

Agreed, the report seems clear on that second point and little overall help on the first.

There is absolutely no way to know how many crimes and of what severity they would be that any measure or action would prevent. By definition, they haven't occurred... We can't even know if a widespread public proliferation of firearms makes anyone who would commit a crime otherwise not commit a crime.

We know from the crime reports that there's good evidence for the intention to commit a crime or that the perpetrator was indeed committing one at the time of defence. We can safely infer from the crime statistics of heavily-armed nations that a proliferation of firearms doesn't seem form a broad deterrent.

At best we can say that there is probably a non-zero amount of crimes against the person that a potentially armed intended victim has prevented, and probably a larger number that the presentation of a firearm by the intended victim has prevented.

We can be reasonably confident in the numbers, I'd say.

And without the knowledge of how many lives guns have saved, the facts are that the facts on how many lives are saved by removing guns aren't clear. We might know that fewer would be taken (although with violence as the problem, some will naturally be taken by other means), but we don't know how many more would be through the removal of a line of defence.

But the comparison of deaths-by-violence figures of countries with a lower number of available firearms gives a clear indication that the deaths per 100,000 are far lower. Some of that is sociological but it seems apparent that heavily-armed nations find it far easier to kill one another by default.

 

[Spurgy 777]

So you are a better judge of whether a gun was necessary or a life was in danger compared to the people who were actually there? A gun pulled on someone when it isn't necessary is a crime by the way.

You seem to be misunderstanding my use of "whether a gun was necessary to protect them". There will be cases where a gun isn't the only form of defence which could have been used to protect the person being attacked, which is what I was referring to. In those cases a gun isn't necessary for defence, i.e. the only thing that could have been used, but the person defending themselves also isn't wrong for having pulled one out. I would hope that cases where someone wrongly pulled out a gun haven't been included in that statistic.

It's worth noting that the statistic doesn't tell you how many people were defended by the guns being pulled, it could be that one person pulling a gun in self defence could also have protected others around them, which would make the number of people protected higher than 2.5 million. Again, not very useful for determining how many lives are saved by guns but there we go.

 

[Famine]

But the comparison of deaths-by-violence figures of countries with a lower number of available firearms gives a clear indication that the deaths per 100,000 are far lower.

The problem with the USA is that even if you were to remove every single firearm-related death from its death-by-violence statistics, and not replace them - as if somehow the access to a gun meant that death never happened, despite the implausibility - its numbers are still far higher than any other western country. Depending on the year used, you're 2-3 times more likely to be killed by someone not with a gun in the USA than you are in the UK.

And that is literally the problem. Gun-deaths are a mere symptom and, yes, possibly an enabler through the ease of getting them, operating them, and ending a life with them, but the problem is that somewhere around five times as many Americans think other American lives are so disposable that they can use violence to end them as Brits think other British lives are.

It leaves us with a number of statistics that can't easily be resolved with "getting rid of guns".
* Approximately 30,000 deaths-by-firearm in the USA each year, roughly 65% of which are suicide
* Approximately 2 million defensive uses of firearms in the USA each year†
* Approximately twice the death-by-violence without firearms rate in the USA compared to other Western nations


This was largely what @RC45 was sort-of conveying before he went a bit... rude - which partly goes to show that it doesn't matter how right you are if you're a complete berk about it - that getting rid of guns isn't an end-game, because it may be the case that defensive use of guns outweighs the offensive use of them, and whether it does or not, it doesn't address the problem that Americans really, really want to hurt each other.

Which is the message @Danoff has been trying to explain. People wanting to kill you matters much more as a problem to be solved than what weapon they choose to do it. It doesn't really matter how you die (although an instant death is commonly more preferable to a prolonged one, which explains why so many suicides in the USA use guns - more of an on the spot and painless result more often), when the issue is that someone else thinks you should and goes about making it happen. Twice as often as they do in the UK.


†If ~0.5% of those saved a life, that immediately balances the deaths-caused:deaths-prevented scale at ~10,000 apiece, meaning that guns do as much good as harm. But we don't know how many of those defensive uses saved a life, because a not-death is not statistically recordable; we also don't know how many deaths were prevented by the knowledge that the intended victim may be armed, because a not-crime is not statistically recordable either. And we don't know how many wouldn't have been needed if the perpetrator didn't have a firearm to defend from in the first place. It's an unknown-unknown.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The report doesn't assess the criminality of the defense but it's clear from the figures that lives weren't necessarily in danger during all those defenses.

I'd say it doesn't really matter in any case. If guns were used, the person using them felt the need, used it, and it worked, whatever the threat. No crime was committed as I would assume that wouldn't be a self defense statistic but a crime statistic. It's easy to stand back and say a gun wasn't needed in all cases or even many of them but who knows what would happen if those same 2 million situations occurred in a world in which the perpetrators knew there were no guns available to their intended victims. Perhaps a threat of violence where no weapons were presented by the criminal, which may appear to deem the gun "unnecessary" on paper, and resulted in the criminal backing down and running away when seeing a gun, would result in a violent assault or even murder without the "unnecessary" gun presented for defense. I can think of many situations in which a gun may not be "necessary" and some other weapon may have been used, but as mentioned earlier, most other forms of self defense require close contact and outcomes are far less certain. As I said, I presume the statistics are not from criminal proceedings, therefore no crimes were committed, therefore a gun was an acceptable form of defense legally.

You seem to be misunderstanding my use of "whether a gun was necessary to protect them". There will be cases where a gun isn't the only form of defence which could have been used to protect the person being attacked, which is what I was referring to. In those cases a gun isn't necessary for defence, i.e. the only thing that could have been used, but the person defending themselves also isn't wrong for having pulled one out. I would hope that cases where someone wrongly pulled out a gun haven't been included in that statistic.

It's worth noting that the statistic doesn't tell you how many people were defended by the guns being pulled, it could be that one person pulling a gun in self defence could also have protected others around them, which would make the number of people protected higher than 2.5 million. Again, not very useful for determining how many lives are saved by guns but there we go.

There will be cases of course where a gun isn't necessary but happened to be handy. But see my response above for my thinking on that. A gun is a great equalizer. Little men become big, women become much more powerful, the weak, less skilled and more isolated are suddenly a force to be reckoned with. Is it necessary to pull out a gun because a guy is cutting across your backyard? Likely not...in a country where guns are not readily available and in the hands of criminals. But there aren't many weapons that people instantly respect and don't require a great deal of skill to create a deterrent. Most of them bring someone into close quarters where the odds tip significantly and they would likely never be the weapon of choice if a firearm is available.

 

[Corsa]

The problem with the USA is that even if you were to remove every single firearm-related death from its death-by-violence statistics, and not replace them - as if somehow the access to a gun meant that death never happened, despite the implausibility - its numbers are still far higher than any other western country. Depending on the year used, you're 2-3 times more likely to be killed by someone not with a gun in the USA than you are in the UK.

This doesn't say much as our population here in the states is 5X greater than that of the UK.
More people, more problems so definitely there's a greater chance of you being harmed in some way
here in the states.
I conceal carry everywhere I am legally allowed to.
It affected my wife and I personally one evening so I can attest to it's effectiveness.
Without diving into a novel, we left a Red Robin restaurant in Chattanooga TN after dark and were met by two men at our car demanding my wallet. I ignored it initially because I don't care for confrontation and quickly got my wife in the car.
The larger of the two stepped toward me quickly I pulled my 9mm from the holster and shoved it in his face.
They walked away slowly calling me derogatives, the end.
Lucky? Probably.
Did it save our lives? Possibly.
Did it save my wallet? Definitely.
The strange bit about it is after the police were finished, on the drive home I felt a bit guilty.
I shoved a loaded gun in another human beings face. Had it escalated I would have done what? Shot him?
He appeared unarmed, did not brandish a weapon I could been liable as self defense walks a fine line.
If you wait until they have their hands on you attacking, chances are that gun will be useless, if you act before you're attacked you're in trouble so what's the answer?

 

[Spurgy 777]

This doesn't say much as our population here in the states is 5X greater than that of the UK.
More people, more problems so definitely there's a greater chance of you being harmed in some way
here in the states.

Famine is talking about per capita statistics, so the population size has already been taken into account and is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Famine]

Famine is talking about per capita statistics, so the population size has already been taken into account and is therefore irrelevant.

Indeed.

I conceal carry everywhere I am legally allowed to.
It affected my wife and I personally one evening so I can attest to it's effectiveness.
Without diving into a novel, we left a Red Robin restaurant in Chattanooga TN after dark and were met by two men at our car demanding my wallet. I ignored it initially because I don't care for confrontation and quickly got my wife in the car.
The larger of the two stepped toward me quickly I pulled my 9mm from the holster and shoved it in his face.
They walked away slowly calling me derogatives, the end.
Lucky? Probably.
Did it save our lives? Possibly.
Did it save my wallet? Definitely.
The strange bit about it is after the police were finished, on the drive home I felt a bit guilty.
I shoved a loaded gun in another human beings face. Had it escalated I would have done what? Shot him?
He appeared unarmed, did not brandish a weapon I could been liable as self defense walks a fine line.
If you wait until they have their hands on you attacking, chances are that gun will be useless, if you act before you're attacked you're in trouble so what's the answer?

And I'm not sure that this should be part of a response to me either, given that I already argued in favour of guns as a defensive tool and am presenting statistics that are in favour of or, at worst, inconclusive about continued firearm possession - as the numbers suggest that guns seem irrelevant to the fact that violence is the problem.

 

[EamerRed]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns. No number of case studies, indisputable statistics, or awareness of capitalist propaganda can sway a belief that is clearly so ingrained in your society that it is basically immovable. It must be the rest of the modern world that has it wrong! I find it reprehensible, but hey, that's cultural differences right? There's an enormous amount that the UK does wrong and that America does right, this isn't a US-bashing I've wanted to go on.

John Oliver sums it up very nicely.


I still respect you guys and your opinions, even if I vastly disagree, so we move on .

 

[Famine]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns

I'm not American.

 

[KungFury]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns. No number of case studies, indisputable statistics, or awareness of capitalist propaganda can sway a belief that is clearly so ingrained in your society that it is basically immovable. It must be the rest of the modern world that has it wrong! I find it reprehensible, but hey, that's cultural differences right? There's an enormous amount that the UK does wrong and that America does right, this isn't a US-bashing I've wanted to go on.

This article sums up what it is I can see, and there is no need for any capitalist propaganda to let me know how great a gun is as a multi-use tool. My culture? No, my right, my fundamental undeniable right.

Assuming that gun ownership is a cause of crime as opposed to a reaction to crime.
Segregating out firearm-related violence from violence generally with no justification.
Comparing U.S. crime statistics to a cherry-picked selection of disparate countries.
Over-hyping gun laws as a factor in crime when the data is equivocal at best.
Citing public health research, even though public health is a left-wing monoculture.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns. No number of case studies, indisputable statistics, or awareness of capitalist propaganda can sway a belief that is clearly so ingrained in your society that it is basically immovable.

Nothing was said in response to what you provided? If this was about cultural ingraining you wouldn't have been given counter facts and arguments, and I probably would have argued for the ideas that were popular in my culture and not against them.

I also gave a very clear out to going in circles when I asked about alternatives to bans, but this was ignored.

 

[UKMikey]

Comparing U.S. crime statistics to a cherry-picked selection of disparate countries.

This one is kind of rich considering what you tried to pull a few pages back by cherrypicking London stats.

 

[Danoff]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles.

Yup, here's the circle:

1)EamerRed posts something that isn't supported by any data provided. Sometimes data is provided, but it's not effective at supporting the position.
2) Danoff and others respond with counter-example data and good reasons why EamerRed is wrong.
3) EamerRed returns to step 1.

 

[TexRex]

1)EamerRed posts something that isn't supported by any data provided. Sometimes data is provided, but it's not effective at supporting the position.
2) Danoff and others respond with counter-example data and good reasons why EamerRed is wrong.
3) EamerRed returns to step 1.

That doesn't sound the least bit one-sided. No...

 

[Danoff]

Yup, here's the circle:

1)EamerRed posts something that isn't supported by any data provided. Sometimes data is provided, but it's not effective at supporting the position.
2) Danoff and others respond with counter-example data and good reasons why EamerRed is wrong.
3) EamerRed returns to step 1.

That doesn't sound the least bit one-sided. No...

You must not have been reading along then.

I'm going to keep repeating my point because no one is answering it. It's not a question of morality, it might not be fair, but no laws are 100% fair. It's what works for society, and this means there has to be a trade off, and if it means saving lives v people not being able to have a toy they'll never use, and that the vast majority of the Western world can live without, then I'm all for banning them. Answer me these questions:

• Why is saving tens of thousands of lives less important than the enormous 'immorality' of you not having a gun?
• Why is every other Westernised country able to cope but you guys aren't?

This is the "America should just do what the rest of the world does", argument.

I explained that to you, in a fair amount of detail. Most countries don't concern themselves with morality when it comes to laws it seems. The US tries (Bill of Rights) but falls short anyway. One of the places where we've drawn a line in the sand when it comes to morality is the government preventing people from owning guns. The reason is because they're such an effective tool for self-defense, which is a human right.

It does not matter how many lives are saved, the ends do not justify the means. You can't do it. Your utility function doesn't trump anyone else's, so you don't get to use force to enact it. So what do you think? do you kill the healthy guy and harvest his organs? You'd save 10 lives at the cost of one. That's the moral dilemma your post above fails.

Your post is based entirely on the bold bit being true so let's focus on that.

I've mentioned it, but I'm going to mention it again. Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one, which blows your statement out of the water. Or maybe it was just coincidence...

I love America, I really do, I'm not trying to be nice because of our argument, but I despair, it's only the US that can't see it, and it's tragic. The only argument is this - people shouldn't take away my guns, I'm a responsible gun owner, so why should I have to give them up (despite the fact that they would be missing out on NOTHING by not having them). Well saving 30,000 lives per year in the US alone is a start...

One stat followed by a re-assertion that America should do what the rest of the world does. Pretty much completely ignoring my arguments.

You have yet to explain to me how me taking my guns out of my safe and handing them to the government would save lives. Are you assuming that 30,000 people would not be killed if guns were banned? That seems like a MASSIVE leap. Absolutely, almost unquestionably wrong. You'd have a hard time showing that US homicide rates would even decrease.

Here's a list of mass-killings in Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia

Looks like one in 2017, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2011... the US has more of course, but our population is also what... 13 times that of Australia?

The top 9 US cities for population make up Australia's entire population. It'd be as if we took those 9 cities and spread them out across our entire country (at least the contiguous 48 states). We also share a border with Mexico, one of the scariest places on Earth. One reporter who had spent time in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan covering war over there is quoted as saying that Mexico is the scariest place he has ever been. That's our neighbor, and the border between our countries is some dust and a highway (not that I'm advocating building a wall).

Looks like the US homicide rate has dropped slightly more than Australia's since 1996.

Only a terrible example because it goes against your point. Try answering the question then, was it coincidence? Same goes for Europe, you can't tell me that is a tiny island, and we cope just fine.



Okay then, let's distort the figures per capita. So that population isn't affecting the results. Gun homicides are 25 times higher than in other high-income countries - http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Of the 17 deadliest massacres in recent decades, 6 have been in the US. 2 have been in Europe + Australia, despite having a combined population double that of the US - https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/mass-shootings/

Another one for you - https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/WgN...set/file/9371299/gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg

Fact is people, more guns = more deaths.

Who said it has to be just murders? Would you not hope that removal of a weapon would make it harder to kill yourself, give you time to think? See point 10 - https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts

The facts are out there guys. It's not a coincidence... It's overwhleming.

Stats that don't support the conclusion (as explained below), re-assertion that America should just do what the rest of the world does. Not really responsive to the argument I provided.

"Gun homicides" is a pointless statistic. "Homicides" is what actually matters. "Gun massacres" is a pointless statistic. "Massacres" is what matters. This is why you incorrectly stated that "Australia had 13 massacres in 18 years pre-1996. In the 21 years since, there hasn't been one", which was (as I demonstrated) a complete falsehood. You made the mistake yet again when you said "the 17 deadliest massacres" above... and then linked me to something that involves "shooting". One of the deadliest massacres in US history was a car bomb. We also had a bigger one involving some box cutters and passenger aircraft (note the non-gun homicide rate in my chart in my previous post during 2001).

I'm not pretending that we can't influence "gun crime" statistics in the US. But I see no reason to focus on the particular weapon used in crime. If homicides go up and gun homicides goes down, that's a net loss. How is that not clear to you? Our homicide rate is falling at at least the same rate as Australia's since your gun ban, if not faster (at least until 2010, I didn't find handy charts that went further). Tell me again how much we need it... Tell me again how much safer Australia's gun ban is making it than the US...

The US has 5 times more intentional homicides than the UK (population adjusted, as always)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#By_country
Or 3.5 times more if you look here, either way, it's more:
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people

Murders with firearms are 138x higher in the US v UK with population adjusted.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Murders-with-firearms-per-million#-amount

Using the same source, the UK has more 'petty' crime than the US, much more, so it certainly suggests that for the Americans, the ease at which a violent crime can occur is causing a problem. The great thing is that having no weapon gives you a certain amount of time to think.

Part of this post has an attempt at responding, by pointing out the difference in homicide rates. But it's late as that was addressed beforehand, so it ignores what I've already provided. The rest of it misses the boat for reasons pointed out ahead of time.

No weapon? Guns are not the only deadly weapon. Someone in this very thread quoted to you statistics on lots of people being killed by hands and feet. Why are you still quoting "gun crime" statistics at me?

Yes, the US has a larger homicide rate than other developed countries. In order to show that the homicide rate would go down with a gun ban, you'd need some figures to back that up (not that I'd be all for it even if you did have those figures, just helping you with your argument here). It doesn't help your case that the US homicide rate has roughly tracked other developed nations since those nations have banned guns. Dropping roughly on par with Australia and faster than the UK.

Even if you removed all guns from the US (including homemade), and so it was impossible to kill someone with a firearm, and for the sake of argument, supposing that NOBODY who would have been killed by a gun got murdered any other way, and supposing nobody got killed due to a lack of being able to defend themselves, our homicide rate would still be 2 times the UK homicide rate (rate... meaning population adjusted). Tell me yet again how guns are the difference. Tell me yet again that it is the weapon to blame and not anything else.

By the way, higher petty crime rates can easily be explained due to petty crime perpetrators not having to worry about the victim being armed.

I don't know. The drug cartels in Mexico certainly don't help. The war on drugs in general certainly doesn't help. But I don't know why it's a US-only problem. See above as to why guns are not the culprit.

^ This is a direct rebuttal aimed squarely at the most relevant information brought up in the previous post. And his response...

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns. No number of case studies, indisputable statistics, or awareness of capitalist propaganda can sway a belief that is clearly so ingrained in your society that it is basically immovable. It must be the rest of the modern world that has it wrong! I find it reprehensible, but hey, that's cultural differences right? There's an enormous amount that the UK does wrong and that America does right, this isn't a US-bashing I've wanted to go on.

John Oliver sums it up very nicely.


I still respect you guys and your opinions, even if I vastly disagree, so we move on .

Re-iterate that America should just do what the rest of the world does. Blame propaganda, closed-mindedness. There is a lot of substance in the responses to his posts here, responses that are aimed squarely at the "America should just do what the rest of the world does" argument, and what I get back is almost always a post that ignores what came before it, sometimes with lazy stats that don't line up with the argument, and a repeat of the same unsupported conclusion.

So yes, it is one-sided.

 

[KungFury]

This one is kind of rich considering what you tried to pull a few pages back by cherrypicking London stats.

Which never happened, we already went around that I thought. It was all about coping and I've yet to get an answer to that. How do these western European countries cope better than the U.S.?

:?:

 

[TexRex]

You must not have been reading along.

I've read along enough to see...

I'm giving up.

...followed by your unnecessary and argumentative attempt to goad them back into a conversation they opted to bow out of. And while nothing may come of it, I'm compelled to inform that I reported that post as well as any comments regarding it, so this post may be futile.

Now since I'm not compelled to add yet another person to a certain list because I haven't found all of your comments across the forum completely irritating, and an alert I got moments ago indicates you may be in a similar position regarding me, I'm going to ask you to either not reply to this (and to that end I even removed something else I was ready to bring up) or do so in an edit so that I can bow out of this conversation at this time.

I believe there is a problem and am more than willing to view attempts at coming to a solution, but the belief that there isn't a problem and comments that reflect this are infuriating.

 

[Danoff]

I agree that there is a problem worth solving.

There is a problem worth solving, which is trying to identify, intervene, and monitor the people out there who want to kill innocent people indiscriminately...

The US has a culture problem, it's violence.

This is a hot-button topic, and people get angry about it (like so many topics in the opinions forum). That's partly what makes an internet forum such a great place to hash out these topics, rather than at the holiday meal table where hot tempers and shouting result in smashed fruitcake. Mic-dropping in these threads is common.

Just for the sake of anyone reading, I haven't hit the report button on this site in months (I think the last time I did it was for a spam thread). Anyone should feel free to report any of my posts that they think are inappropriate without concern that I might counter-report them back out of some sort of sense of spite.

 

[McLaren]

I'm giving up. We're going around in circles. I love America and most of it's people, but it's you and you alone who a) can't see it, and b) can't seemingly live without guns. No number of case studies, indisputable statistics, or awareness of capitalist propaganda can sway a belief that is clearly so ingrained in your society that it is basically immovable. It must be the rest of the modern world that has it wrong! I find it reprehensible, but hey, that's cultural differences right? There's an enormous amount that the UK does wrong and that America does right, this isn't a US-bashing I've wanted to go on.

John Oliver sums it up very nicely.


I still respect you guys and your opinions, even if I vastly disagree, so we move on .

1. This seems like the age old Australia argument that's already been discussed.
2. Why do certain people in this country rely on comedians (pretending to be news hosts) to get their news? They're as awful as mainstream media for spinning facts since the end game of these shows is to make you laugh.