Sandy Hook Elementary School Victims Relief Fund

You misread. The former was my native region, not my current region, to which I migrated for career reasons.

My current region has lower gun prevalence, greater income inequality(*), more poverty-related racial and ethnic conflicts, and higher violence rates. Though violence here is still below the national average, as Northern Tier states tend to be.

(*) My native region had and still has its share of poverty, but the gap between rich and poor is considerably narrower than here.

You misread. I hadn't previously objected to what countries you INclude when making international violence comparisons, only to those you insisted I must EXclude.

One shares our second longest border (over 3000 km), has over 150,000,000 annual border crossings, and is our largest economic trading partner. The other region shares no border with us, and has but a tiny fraction of the human exchange and economic flow. Those make it much more removed.

 

This thread needs to be closed....

 

It is easy enough to move the whole thread to the usual location of this topic.

 

I see 2 articles like this every day of the week

16-year-old girl fatally shot by father who allegedly mistook her for intruder at their Columbus Ohio home | abc7chicago.com

 

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

However, on many metrics - income levels, income inequality, racial tensions, and others, the former Soviet Union would sit somewhere between the US and your various Southern neighbours. It really doesn't make sense to include Honduras or Nicaragua as a comparable country but not Russia or Uzbekistan.

But in my original argument I wasn't trying to suggest that it was, so this was just another example of distraction. I was saying that this shooting was no more widely reported than the Japanese arson attacks - in fact, less so - demonstrating again the dishonesty of the USA Today Op-Ed.

 

Yeah, but he was protecting her.

It is just that you and I can't understand this because we are too stupid and too cowardly.

 

Well, that was all helpful. Perhaps @dubit is right.

It looks like you have resolved every issue perfectly, so we might as well shut down the thread.

The writer implies.

The reader infers.

 

why do you want to shut down a thread that has useful discussion ?

i numbered the questions earlier to make logical responses easier to track. all you have to do is reply with coherent answers instead of vague generalities... actually you don't even _have_ to do that but if you choose to, its easier to follow what you're getting at.

ok, you implied something, what were you implying about melanin ?

 

Typical.
Perhaps Fred's pancake Haus needs to change the sign on their front door from to reflect these "modern" times.

"Anything unrelated to the Prius. Come chat. First Amendment is your friend in here."
Seems so......"Pre-2020"

 

1. I only said "perhaps" dubit was right.
2. Neither dubit nor I were talking about shutting down a thread that has useful discussion. We were talking about this thread.
3. Dubit's suggestion was because this thread is political (because, weirdly, the question of whether guns are used to kill people, like the questions of whether climate change is a thing and whether we should try to control the spread of diseases, are political issues in large parts of the English-speaking world), and it therefore belongs in FHoPolitics, not Pancakes.
4. It's not achieving anything. Since you first posted on this thread on December 6, around another 1,600 Americans - people in the country you said in that first post that you loved (but evidently not enough to want to keep its inhabitants alive) - have been killed by guns through homicides or accidents. That rate of deaths isn't going to fall because of our discussion. In fact, assuming you continue to have things your way - which you will - it's just going to keep rising.

What most people do - because it makes A LOT more sense - is to use multiquotes. But each to their own.

Ah, yes, of course. Because coherent answers are really what's merited in response to things like:

....and....

...and most of all.....

I mean, FFS. You want an answer to that? What sort of answer? A wave? A moonwalk?

------

Honestly, what is the point of this?

Whatever I post, you don't read and/or you don't understand. You repeatedly demand answers to questions that have already been answered, and you refuse to accept anything that is explained to you. You just ask the same ridiculous questions again and again. Or you post:

And on what we shall call "the melanin implication", you are - I hope, because otherwise you're hopelessly ill-informed - being deliberately obtuse. If you genuinely don't know - and I don't believe that to be the case - there is absolutely no point in my starting to explain centuries of structural racism to you. And I could spend hours on it, and the best I could possibly hope to get out of you is:

------

If one good thing has come out of this, it's that you might have learned the difference between "imply" and "infer", although goodness knows whether that knowledge will stick.

Let's call that minor improvement in vocabulary a win for everyone and be done with this.

 

I here and now assert that USA will not in foreseeable future move towards other (similar) countries in terms of gun having. Including gun having by some who will misuse guns. Not gon na happen. Tied too strongly to ancillary political issues, and gun-makers' profits well linked to Legislative Bodies.

Let that go. Stop trying to make USA gun rational. Instead, embrace this opportunity that this aberration can teach 21st century humans how to better manage the next 2 (or 10) coming killing technologies.

Think those technologies will not come? Oh you, always looking behind.

 

While I have mentioned the continental patterns south of us, I have never tried to include any specific non-OECD nations for international violence comparisons. But you have specifically rejected my call to include the largest OECD nation to our south, then repeatedly used non-OECD Honduras and Nicaragua for distractio. Now you insist on including non-OECD Russia for the media issue. Does that mean you are willing to include Russia as a comparable for violence too, or is this just a nonsensical distraction?

 

It is indeed a nonsensical distraction, which you seem to have started. And it it is typical of the whole f---ing thread.

First you complain that a mass-murder in Japanese-speaking Japan doesn't get as much US media coverage as a bigger live-streamed racism-driven mass-murder in English-speaking New Zealand and that this must be because the NZ one was with guns and the media hates guns and won't acknowledge non-gun murders. Then you say I can't mention the similar lack of US media coverage of a gun-using mass murder in Russian-speaking Russia because it's somehow not comparable. And you don't even acknowledge the one in Pakistan that I mentioned.

This thread is mostly stupid because of another poster. But factors like this really do not make it any less stupid.

Look, you and privilege like guns. You want them. You are willing to tolerate the high levels of death that widespread gun ownership causes, and you are not willing to acknowledge that you are willing to tolerate those high levels of death.

I prefer my friends and countrymen to not get shot.

These are our positions. They are not going to change, no matter how much nit-picking and distraction and whataboutery you choose to engage in. Americans are going to continue getting shot in ever-increasing numbers, and we will see nothing other than "thoughts and prayers" every time. Nothing will ever be done because people who love guns, and love misinterpreting a single badly-written 230-year-old sentence to justify and codify that love, will make sure that the murders can continue.

You are logical and sensible on every other issue and I respect you enormously. But you love guns, and we all get illogical about things you love. I still think Scotland are going to win the World Cup; you think guns aren't a factor in all those US excess deaths. Neither of us will be convinced to change those beliefs through logic or evidence. You think comparison with Honduras shows that everything is fine with US gun ownership and it doesn't cause death; I think our 0-0 victory over England on June 19 is proof that we are the best football team the world has ever known.

There is nothing to be gained by any of us - other than perhaps some improvements in English for privilege - in continuing this nonsense.

 

You misread, again.

While sometimes you have acknowledged that other factors are present, many other times you have asserted that guns are the only factor in the U.S.'s higher murder rate. I have been challenging your 'only factor' assertions, as they contradict many findings of even leading pro-gun-control violence researchers and experts. That does not put me in the 'aren't a factor' camp.

It is very clear from that tone that you are using a different meaning that we do. There is no racism in having no duty to retreat from a criminal intrusion inside one's abode.

Please tell us what meaning you are using. I hope you haven't confused it with 'Stand Your Ground,' which is used outside the home in various states.

 

Hush!!!
Let them keep trying…..

PLEASE!!!

@ technologies….
You cannot stop science or engineering.
Just in my short military career defensive sideARMS have evolved from the boat anchor heavy, 8-shot, single-action-only, almost all steel .45ACP - through the Beretta era (all metal but 15+1 and SA//DA and safer to carry and more reliable) to the Tupperware guns of today.

@ “Duty to Retreat”
Google - “follow home robbery” and get back with the class on that.
California always fancies themselves as trend setters…

 

2 thank you for your opinion
3 ok
4a agreed
4b I don't have a link to this statistic, but it may be true, ok
4c agreed
4d want to discuss why it's rising ? I'm game.

5 multi quotes are messy on mobile browsers, but if it worked better, I could dig it

6a well, if you don't want to explain what you meant, it's going to be hard to tell what you were getting at.

6b hope about instead of attempting a history lesson, just say what you meant ? I'm not being sarcastic here, not at all.

6c maybe so, but probably not

7 you're welcome to post more, or less. Suggesting everyone else just stop posting is, well, I think it's indicative of your view on guns.... You don't like em, so you want everyone else to not like em. Why not just not like something and carry on, instead of suggesting everyone has to do what you like ?
Ya know?

 

1) good, glad you understand this!

2) are you speaking FOR me, or to me ? I think you may be confused about which one you are doing here.

3) see 2

4) well, don't shoot them. It's pretty simple really. please don't shoot mine, either.

5) honestly man, just make some decent points and have the discussion. When I asked you how you would handle different scenarios what you typed was read a though your were offended or personally abused by the replies. If you can't handle yourself with a decrepit old guy like myself, that's barely interested in guns, how are you ever going to make a dent in a real hard missed collector type, or possibly a gun lobbyist ?

I'm a soft target with very little invested in the outcome, but you're willing to burn the bridge down (this thread) when you can't win a really easy discussion, here in a Prius forum ?

6) maybe you meant us citizens?

7) do you have a solution ? So far all I've seen is "give them up". This is not a rhetorical question.

8) it's ours, not only can you not havea piece it, but you cannot change it.

9) well, if you're ready to give up, that's cool. I thought you were going to bring some solutions to the argument.

 

That's terrible. Man that's really really bad. I guess they are not filing charges because of the grief the father already feels for his failure. He's going to be guilty for the rest of his life, and feel it also. What a horrible sentence.

 

That's terrible. Man that's really really bad. I guess they are not filing charges because of the grief the father already feels for his failure. He's going to be guilty for the rest of his life, and feel it also. What a horrible sentence.

 

Well, obviously he THOUGHT he was protecting her and his wife, and their home.

Unfortunately he didn't turn on a light, or put in his glasses, or whatever prevented him from seeing it was his daughter and not a burglar breaking in.

Using a semi auto, single shot, or fully automatic weapon would yield the same results.... So current gun restrictions about capacity, burst/auto, caliber etc would not have saved the child her life.

What regulations do you have in mind that would prevent this last tragedy ?