Politics

[blueflower999]

While not demonspawn literally, there are certain groups that I would personally deem to hold incredibly dangerous ideologies and whose proliferation is detrimental to not just the US, but global society.

Of course. Both sides are going to think that about the other side always and forever. And that's okay.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Interesting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.

[FireArrow]

Well yeah I get that negatively attacking your opponents is a way to be successful, but there's pointing out  flaws and there's making baseless and extreme accusations. Obama isn't a demon-spawn, he isn't a terrorist, and he isn't a Muslim.

Similarly George Bush isn't a demon-spawn, terrorist, or the devil. You can like or dislike whatever you want but baseless accusations are just childish.

Why is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.

Interesting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.

The real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.

I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

The real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.

I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.

[blueflower999]

Why is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.

It's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.

[FireArrow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.

I don't mind people owning muskets and hunting rifles, the more potent modern guns we have though should stay in the military.

EDIT: Basically japan gun control.

[FireArrow]

It's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.

I understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.

I still love you blue <3

[blueflower999]

I understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.

Because it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.

[FireArrow]

Because it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.

Bob: "you're so tall"
Short person: "eh not really"

Bob: "you're straight"
Gay person: "nah I'm not"

No, it's because of society subconsciously favoring one over the other.

[Dude]

FA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument

[KefkaticFanatic]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.

imo there's no legitimate reason for anyone to own lethal weaponry outside of purely recreational hunting, or property defense from like bears and shit when you're way in the wilderness.  The second amendment is an antiquated establishment that served its purpose long, long ago, and should now be put to rest.

[FireArrow]

FA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument

Spoiler

Did you not know I was gay or am I missing something? I'm gay, everyone assumes I'm straight unless I go around wearing pink skinny jeans, the adjective used to denote my sexuality is also a general term for anything undesirable. When talking about someone who was super sensitive about being called gay, my friend said "Well I can't blame him, that would be horrible if anyone thought I was gay... (sees my expression) ...unless you are gay, then it's fine of course." Homecoming freshman year, even though my friend knew I was gay, I was expected to take a girl on a date "as friends" and I was supposed to be perfectly comfortable about it. Hell, I'll be comfortable with that as soon as I see two straight guys take each other on as prom dates "as friends." I know what it's like to live in a redneck community because I went to an entirely Mormon (the bad kind of mormon, for any mormon folks here who aren't like that) private school around the same time they were petitioning prop 8 (ban gay marriage.) It was kind of an odd feeling knowing that if I tried to come out now, everyone would hate me and the staff wouldn't be on my side.
/rant

[close]

For those of you who read that and thought for any of those things "You're just being sensitive" "There's nothing wrong with that" etc., try to respect the fact that these things make it extremely difficult for gay youth and you lose nothing by trying to be less condescending to a minority.

[Dude]

Oh.

I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.

Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.

[FireArrow]

Oh.

I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.

Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.

But there's a difference between someone thinking you're straight and society assuming and expecting you to be straight. I find it extremely insulting when straight people, whom already are usually assumed to be straight, flip their shits whenever someone suggests they might not be, even in jest or out of curiosity.

In America at least, this "I'm insulted you called me that because I'm not that" is only true of any non-christian religion/lack there of and homosexuality (for some reason if you call someone bi or asexual, they'll just politely correct you and not care). When you take offense to words like that, you're insulting everyone who may belong to that group.

[Dude]

I'm not saying I "flip my shit" when someone asks if I have a girlfriend or not, but I'd rather they keep their noses out of it in case I may or may not be gay.