Question For Those That Voted For Trump

[Cardboard]

From a die hard right-winger to a die hard left-winger. ;D

[RichardGibbons]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

[20ppy]

No it doesn't. But is that why we are hell bent doing what we are doing today?

 

I'm not saying that US should pursue confrontation policy with China because of Tibet.

Just wanted to QFT.

Peace.

And I do not support the authoritative Chinese government and its actions, I fight them too. Peace makes sense.

[ScottHall]

The one thing we can all agree on is that it is very important for each of us to spend our days talking about politics on an online message board with people we've mostly never met. It is our philanthropic duty to America to try to convert illogical liberals into Americans who can be proud of their country and the White House again.

 

So many people feel so guilty about losing the first black first family, they are forgetting their duty to America's new first family. They're just not willing to give Trump a chance, which is a horrifying thing. This society of ours only works if we all agree not to look under the hood... and I hate to say it, but the liberals are looking and trying to convince others to look, too. If they succeed, it could mean the end of America and the world economy as we know it. Once people realize that the world economy is built on a house of cards, it's all over.

 

It is in everyone's best interest to support the President and continue to believe in our economic and social systems or else they will no longer exist. When will you learn that this attempt to discredit the President is a trojan horse by the terrorists and once America no longer believes in him, that is when the attack begins.

 

That's why it is so important that we continue to engage with each other every day about our political beliefs, because the American way of life truly is on the line. I know I personally count the time I spend on here posting about politics as a big needle mover for me personally, and also for the robustness of America's capitalist system.

[Gregmal]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

 

This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

[ScottHall]

Excuse me. The idea that a bunch of adult men and women cannot moderate their own conversations is ridiculous; it is exactly this kind of nanny state bullshit that got America into this predicament in the first place with the Social Security and Medicare entitlements. It's why we're on the verge of America's first national bankruptcy and it's important to understand that so we never get into this situation again.

 

Now you want Parsad to take the same tactics that have ruined the greatest country on earth and apply them to his message board. If you think the message board has declined from what it used to be now, just wait until we all have to watch our tongues or risk public spankings from the administrator.

 

Give me a break. This kind of intervention does not work and it's important that we are all open and honest about it so that we can Make America Great Again.

 

Scott is one of my favorite posters here. His videos are so hilarious that I had a hard time breathing since I am laughing so hard. On the other hand, some of his investment thesis are rock solid.Unlike other posters, I just can't put him in a slot. Scott, you should consider poker.

 

Thank you Valcont. It is nice to hear that someone appreciates my efforts to restore sanity in America.

[ccplz]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

 

This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

 

What are you implying?

 

Gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Maybe, just maybe, that's why people in cities tend to support gun control. Cities also tend to lean more liberal than rural areas.

 

Are you like a dumbass?

 

[Gregmal]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

 

This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

 

Are you like a dumbass?

 

Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities.

 

Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens.

 

*I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump...

[vox]

Objectives. We examined the relationship between levels of household firearm ownership, as measured directly and by a proxy—the percentage of suicides committed with a firearm—and age-adjusted firearm homicide rates at the state level.

 

Methods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.

 

Results. Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

 

Conclusions. We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

[Alekbaylee]

Put barb wires and a minefield, I don't care. Just cut it off!

 

And yes times are different. Yesterday it might have been thousands truly looking for a better life. Today it could be one or two infiltrating trying to destroy part of the country.

 

Cardboard

 

Cardboard: With all due respect, do you suffer from PTSD or what?

[Cardboard]

With all due respect...... Perfectly healthy!

 

But guys like you? I would do weird experiments on them to find out what is wrong.  :o

 

Cardboard

[Parsad]

Buffett on immigration...but what does he know...not like he's given this much thought!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-what-i-tell-people-who-are-anti-immigration-224409573.html

[onyx1]

Buffett on immigration...but what does he know...not like he's given this much thought!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-what-i-tell-people-who-are-anti-immigration-224409573.html

 

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman."

 

I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration.

[Packer16]

I think Trump sees these straw men for what they are.  Those who use these are either deceptive or think people are stupid.  IMO most folks are smarter than that & they are ignored & the tellers credability in that area deminished. 

 

Packer

[Guest longinvestor]

http://www.afr.com/opinion/editorials/the-damaging-fallout-from-tpp-20170124-gtxk9u

 

The next generation will face the consequence of Isolationism; Go ahead, foster the creation of more tiger economies in Asia, Latin America and the Middle East and who knows where else. And let them all trade between themselves.  It is stunning how far off course one idiot can take us in just one week! Let's see if the voice of reason is loud enough.

[DTEJD1997]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

 

This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

 

Are you like a dumbass?

 

Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities.

 

Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens.

 

*I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump...

 

Just to further add to the gun ownership thread!!!

 

What would the response be to people who want to own guns to protect themselves/property?

 

Maybe members of this board don't know or appreciate...but there are areas of America where law enforcement can't/won't protect the citizens.

 

I know this for a fact as I live in one of those areas...What would you do about Detroit?

 

I would posit that citizens have the right to protect themselves if the police can't or won't.

[Gregmal]

There is just so much wrong with your post I'll try to sum it up briefly.  The stats you post are homicide not murder (this includes self defence, police shootings, etc).  Also it is only firearm homicide.  Does it matter how someone is murdered?  Showing stats for murder (no justifiable homicide, no police shootings, and by all methods) would be a more honest comparison.   

 

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns.  It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently.

 

Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has.  Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive.

 

(Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver.  Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.)

 

Also take out the top 5 gun-controlled hell holes and the vast majority of the US is pretty damn safe. New Hampshire is safer than Canada, not only in murder, but in violent crime overall.  NH, BTW is likely to get rid of its concealed carry license soon, the bill just passed the state senate and is headed for the house now. 

 

I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all.

 

Are you listening to yourself?  Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable!

 

And lastly the US has alway been a more violent society, when there were no gun laws to speak of in either country the US had a much higher violent crime rate than the UK.  Actually the UKs violent crime rate has increased dramatically since the gun bans, not murder, but violent crime.  You are unlikely to be a victim of murder in the US even with its increased rates of murder, especially if you live outside Chicago, but you are more likely to be a victim of violence in London than NYC. 

 

So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns?  Hmm. 

 

It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants.  :)

 

With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.)

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg

 

So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size.  Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases.

 

Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban?  Homicides down.  Violent crimes went way up, and then down.  Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997.  So this doesn't support your argument either.  At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes.  That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence.

 

You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns."

 

(Seriously.  I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work.  I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.)

 

All of that aside, you can not ban guns in the United States without starting a civil war, so it isn't on the table and never will be.

 

That's a valid point.  It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort.

 

This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

 

Are you like a dumbass?

 

Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities.

 

Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens.

 

*I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump...

 

Just to further add to the gun ownership thread!!!

 

What would the response be to people who want to own guns to protect themselves/property?

 

Maybe members of this board don't know or appreciate...but there are areas of America where law enforcement can't/won't protect the citizens.

 

I know this for a fact as I live in one of those areas...What would you do about Detroit?

 

I would posit that citizens have the right to protect themselves if the police can't or won't.

 

Yes but obviously cities tend to be liberal and gun violence happens more in cities but alas, there is no correlation!

 

On a serious note, cities with very harsh gun laws(the same ones whom happen to be super violent, and super liberal) which prohibit law abiding citizens also tend to have ineffective law enforcement as you mentioned. Taking away guns doesn't stop the criminals, whom will have guns whether they are legal or not. But yea, keep punishing those who follow the rules. Tax those who work for a living to give to those who don't. Raise insurance premiums on younger people who are healthy to subsidize older people who aren't. Keep all the borders open to whomever wants to rumble on in, while on the other hand people who go through the proper channels wait 10-15 yeas for citizenship...

 

The best is that there is not even really an attempt to justify these things from the people whom support them. Instead just some blanket buzz word gets thrown back at you; like "racist" or "alt-right", etc.

[rkbabang]

The war on drugs has more to do with gun violence than anything else, but cities with the strictest gun control also have the most murder. Chicago has more murders than NYC and LA combined with less population than either one individually.

[Parsad]

Buffett on immigration...but what does he know...not like he's given this much thought!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-what-i-tell-people-who-are-anti-immigration-224409573.html

 

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman."

 

I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration.

 

Well, the new executive order on travel restrictions also includes green card holders for now.  So those that have already gone through the legal immigration vetting process are now being held at gates and borders.  Cheers!

[RichardGibbons]

On a serious note, cities with very harsh gun laws(the same ones whom happen to be super violent, and super liberal) which prohibit law abiding citizens also tend to have ineffective law enforcement as you mentioned. Taking away guns doesn't stop the criminals, whom will have guns whether they are legal or not.

 

This sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't. I repeat--Vancouver, where guns are illegal, hasn't had a single cop shooting for 30 years.  This area includes the east side, called by the BBC the "Drug Central" of North America.

 

It might surprise you, but there aren't actually manned border stations on the edges of cities where they take away all the dangerous fruits, vegetables, and guns.  If a kid pees in the shallow edge of the pool, you're going to be swimming in piss, even if you're halfway across the pool using the diving board.  I guess it's a bit different in this case in that you actually have millions of kids all over the country peeing in the pool.

 

DTEJD1997, in places where law enforcement is incapable of protecting its citizen, I'd suggest making guns illegal throughout the country to make the job far easier for law enforcement, increasing taxes and throwing the money toward cop and judges, and federally prosecuting corrupt cops and judges.

 

[onyx1]

Buffett on immigration...but what does he know...not like he's given this much thought!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-what-i-tell-people-who-are-anti-immigration-224409573.html

 

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman."

 

I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration.

 

Well, the new executive order on travel restrictions also includes green card holders for now.  So those that have already gone through the legal immigration vetting process are now being held at gates and borders.  Cheers!

 

"...for now." 

 

A temporary measure until vetting system is put in place.

 

Unfair you say?

 

Remember, Obama did the same with Iraq refugees in 2011.  Media outrage at the time = zero.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

[kevin4u2]

I hate to harp on this subject, but if Trump is so detached from reality that he doesn’t understand that instituting a 20% tax on Mexican imports would make Americans, not Mexicans pay for his wall than how dumb is this guy?

 

it would allow trump to say that mexico is paying for it.  which, i think, is all that he cares about.

 

I think you will see some serious inflation either over the next four years, or in the ensuing years as a result of some of the policies that are going to be implemented.  Alot of cash is going to flow into assets over the next few years from reduced taxes, repatriation, etc.  Combine this with tariffs on imported goods, increasing national debt due to a lack of tax revenue and increased infrastructure expenditure, and you could see hyper-inflation at some point.  Cheers!

 

How does it result in inflation? How are Trumps policies different from Japan's. If inflation can be controlled through fiscal policy then why is the global economy stuck in the current funk.  Trumps policies will strengthen the USD but I fail to see how inflation occurs. Thoughts?

[Hawks]

This executive order banning refugees from Islamic nations has just made the U.S. a more dangerous place for its citizens imo. Terrorists will be agitated like never before to do their dirty work. Will be interesting to see how many Americans reduce their travel holidays abroad in light of various Trump executive orders. Maybe Trump should concentrate on why so many legitimate American born citizens commit terrorist attacks against their own.

[DTEJD1997]

On a serious note, cities with very harsh gun laws(the same ones whom happen to be super violent, and super liberal) which prohibit law abiding citizens also tend to have ineffective law enforcement as you mentioned. Taking away guns doesn't stop the criminals, whom will have guns whether they are legal or not.

 

This sounds like it makes sense, but it really doesn't. I repeat--Vancouver, where guns are illegal, hasn't had a single cop shooting for 30 years.  This area includes the east side, called by the BBC the "Drug Central" of North America.

 

DTEJD1997, in places where law enforcement is incapable of protecting its citizen, I'd suggest making guns illegal throughout the country to make the job far easier for law enforcement, increasing taxes and throwing the money toward cop and judges, and federally prosecuting corrupt cops and judges.

 

If the cops can't OR WILL NOT protect the citizens now...what makes you think they will do it when/if guns are illegal?  I wish the police well, and support them in their (legitimate) job, but I will protect myself and family.  In my (family) experience, we have very little faith & trust in the police.  How is making guns illegal going to make them do a better job?  How is giving them more money going to accomplish that?  They get a TON OF MONEY right now, in my city, where their effectiveness is marginal.

 

Order is largely kept during the day, and you can't be flagrant in your law breaking...if you operate at night and are sneaky...it is wide open.  There are major theft rings operating with impunity.  Drug dealers operate almost openly...Don't speed though, you'll get a ticket!

 

In Detroit proper, things are even worse...

 

So no, no more centralized police power...power to the people.

[Dalal.Holdings]

Buffett on immigration...but what does he know...not like he's given this much thought!  Cheers!

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/buffett-what-i-tell-people-who-are-anti-immigration-224409573.html

 

The headline should be: "Buffett attacks his self-created strawman."

 

I've never met a serious person who is against legal immigration.

 

Well, the new executive order on travel restrictions also includes green card holders for now.  So those that have already gone through the legal immigration vetting process are now being held at gates and borders.  Cheers!

 

"...for now." 

 

A temporary measure until vetting system is put in place.

 

Unfair you say?

 

Remember, Obama did the same with Iraq refugees in 2011.  Media outrage at the time = zero.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2015/11/18/the-obama-administration-stopped-processing-iraq-refugee-requests-for-6-months-in-2011/

 

Obama didn't ban green card holders, so your point is irrelevant.