General US Politics

[Life]

Where's the difference?

Well shit, being politically correct is more important than stopping the rape and grooming of hundreds of young girls.

[Lord Raven]

Except that 6 years ago we didn't have relatively constant islamic terrorist attacks on the West

source? Trump's only assessment of this is to block immigration of Muslims into the US, ignoring the fact that the most recent incident in the US I can think of was by a Muslim that was born and raised in the US.

and we didn't have PC culture pervading everywhere to the point that it reached in these last few years.

I don't see how this is particularly true

Clinton is a career politician, while Trump has been mostly a businessman, who other than dropping out of primaries for a third party candidacy in the 2000s hasn't done much else in actual politcs. While Trump didn't entirely self-fund during the primaries, he largely relied on loans he took onto himself. Clinton has received donations from multiple large companies, including media-involved ones. There's only two alternatives between what drives Trump, and that is either actual willingness to help his country or an ego trip/marketing plan that inflated beyond possible speculation due to the rhetorical incapability of the other GOP candidates. Either way, the only person driving the Trump train is Trump himself, and that makes him far more honest than Clinton is.

I don't see how being a career businessman makes him more honest than a career politician. It's quite clear that his entire campaign is arguably ego trip and marketing plan, the fact that we have to speculate between the two makes it really up in the air about how honest it is.

[Life]

source? Trump's only assessment of this is to block immigration of Muslims into the US, ignoring the fact that the most recent incident in the US I can think of was by a Muslim that was born and raised in the US.

Wait, we're still attributing San Bernadino to gun violence?

Ok.

[Lord Raven]

Florida shooting bro, both gun violence and also part Islamic terrorism.

[Moblin Major General]

Florida shooting bro, both gun violence and also part Islamic terrorism.

Except that Orlando actually rallied the LGBT community to buy the weapons so many of them hate. Gun control doesn't protect people and never will.

[Thane]

Most politicians are fake. This isn't really anything new.

Honestly however fake Hillary is Donald Trump is 100000x worse. You know the dude was a moderate like 6 years ago right? Just because some dude has nailed the tough guy act and acts like an alpha male in every speech and interview doesn't make him genuine lol

I never said anything about "being", I was talking about what they're seen and considered as. The fact remains that, in fact of Trump's numerous outbursts, is seen as honest and genuine while Hillary is not. I was just pointing out that this won't help Hillary appear less mechanical.

Gun control doesn't protect people and never will.

But pumping guns into the the hands of an untrained populace will?

[Lord Raven]

Except that Orlando actually rallied the LGBT community to buy the weapons so many of them hate.

Holy shit, that's not even relevant to the point I was making and counteracting. I don't even know why Life brought up anything to do with mass shootings when I was clearly contradicting a point about Islamic terrorism. This is absurd.

EDIT: One of the San Bernardino shooters was born in the US so once again Donald Trump's immigration "policy" does not stop anyone who was already born and raised in the US from committing these attacks. The two most recent incidents were not a result of immigrants. Nothing about any part of my post had ANYTHING to do with gun control.

Gun control doesn't protect people and never will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

I'm phoning this response in because of your extreme statement.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

Holy shit, that's not even relevant to the point I was making and counteracting. I don't even know why Life brought up anything to do with mass shootings when I was clearly contradicting a point about Islamic terrorism. This is absurd.

EDIT: One of the San Bernardino shooters was born in the US so once again Donald Trump's immigration "policy" does not stop anyone who was already born and raised in the US from committing these attacks. The two most recent incidents were not a result of immigrants. Nothing about any part of my post had ANYTHING to do with gun control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

I'm phoning this response in because of your extreme statement.

I brought up San Bernadino because it has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with Muslim immigrants who decided to kill Americans just because.

I didn't mention mass shootings, you did. Keep the point on topic.

[Lord Raven]

I did not. Are you joking? Read what I said and the post I was responding to.

Except that 6 years ago we didn't have relatively constant islamic terrorist attacks on the West

source? Trump's only assessment of this is to block immigration of Muslims into the US, ignoring the fact that the most recent incident in the US I can think of was by a Muslim that was born and raised in the US.

Where did I bring up gun violence? I was referring to the Florida shootings as a part islamic terrorist incident, and even if I were talking about San Bernardino the point I made is actually still relevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings, nothing about my point ever did, and you were the one who attributed it to mass shootings later when I was clearly responding to a point about Islamic terrorism. You're telling me to keep the point on topic when I absolutely 100% did, and somehow you said gun violence. I said "part mass shooting part islamic terrorism" later, but it was pretty clear that the mass shooting part wasn't even relevant in the context of my argument.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

The main suspect of San Bernadino was a US citizen. His wife was born in Pakistan but got a K-1 visa.

[Life]

I did not. Are you joking? Read what I said and the post I was responding to.

Where did I bring up gun violence? I was referring to the Florida shootings as a part islamic terrorist incident, and even if I were talking about San Bernardino the point I made is actually still relevant. This has absolutely nothing to do with mass shootings, nothing about my point ever did, and you were the one who attributed it to mass shootings later when I was clearly responding to a point about Islamic terrorism. You're telling me to keep the point on topic when I absolutely 100% did, and somehow you said gun violence. I said "part mass shooting part islamic terrorism" later, but it was pretty clear that the mass shooting part wasn't even relevant in the context of my argument.

Holy shit.

Sarcasm, bro.

Talk about hijacking someone's point. I brought up an example of Islamic terrorism that recently happened in the US and made a joke about how Obama attributes it solely to gun violence. You went off on an unrelated tangent.

Tryhard is the only one who responded properly. And he still conceeded that the wife was an immigrant.

As an aside, we can talk about how Australia's gun control policies have not resulted in any significant change in gun violence or how gun violence has actually increased in countries like England but that is another conversation entirely.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

You shouldn't really get frustrated when people interpret your posts seriously in this thread when you don't make it obvious in any way that it was sarcasm. Even reading it as a joke it wasn't even funny. And even my bringing up the Florida shootings as gun violence (which it undeniably was, by definition, since the two are not mutually exclusive) but then pointing out that it wasn't even fuckin relevant makes me avoiding the point? Your accusations really had absolutely no basis in reality. But you know what?

As it stood, and I highly doubt I'm the only one who sees it this way, you brought the shit up, I responded by attributing to partially to mass-shootings, and yet I still brought it back because Tryhard said the head of the shootings was a US citizen. I responded properly and said the same thing that Tryhard did, so don't even try to say I didn't respond properly. Again, these past two incidents have been fronted by people born and raised in the US, so again what the fuck will Donald Trump's immigration policy do to curb western terrorism when the two biggest over the past year weren't caused (at the very least solely) by immigrants?

As an aside, we can talk about how Australia's gun control policies have not resulted in any significant change in gun violence or how gun violence has actually increased in countries like England but that is another conversation entirely.

How about a source?

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2530362

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116485/hosb0212snr.pdf

"not significant" -_-

Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

You shouldn't really get frustrated when people interpret your posts seriously in this thread when you don't make it obvious in any way that it was sarcasm. Even reading it as a joke it wasn't even funny. And even my bringing up the Florida shootings as gun violence (which it undeniably was, by definition, since the two are not mutually exclusive) but then pointing out that it wasn't even fuckin relevant makes me avoiding the point? Your accusations really had absolutely no basis in reality. But you know what?

As it stood, and I highly doubt I'm the only one who sees it this way, you brought the shit up, I responded by attributing to partially to mass-shootings, and yet I still brought it back because Tryhard said the head of the shootings was a US citizen. I responded properly and said the same thing that Tryhard did, so don't even try to say I didn't respond properly. Again, these past two incidents have been fronted by people born and raised in the US, so again what the fuck will Donald Trump's immigration policy do to curb western terrorism when the two biggest over the past year weren't caused (at the very least solely) by immigrants?

I'm not frustrated. More just amused that you're going to claim that I'm getting upset when it's you. But sure, have it your way.

As for Trump's immigration policy, I don't know if it will curb terrorism but I do know that cases like Lubin, Rotherham and Thessaloniki won't happen in the USA with a temporary ban on immigration from Islamic countries.

As it stands right now, I like Trump's immigration reform. My issue is that I don't know if he'll scale back more which is why I still can't say I support him.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

I'm not frustrated. More just amused that you're going to claim that I'm getting upset when it's you. But sure, have it your way.

Again, stop doing this shit. You're cherry picking a very small part of the overall point - the overall point was that you brought it up, and you're denying that you brought it up because you were being sarcastic. This is dodging any responsibility you are having for your words. Hell, I could just as easily claim that my saying that you're frustrated was sarcastic, but that would be dodging responsibility and the overall point that this isn't the first time you've done this. If you're going to be sarcastic, a) make it funny, b) make it relevant and c) make it fucking obvious. This isn't about nobody being able to take a joke, this is because a) was true and c) was necessary.

As for Trump's immigration policy, I don't know if it will curb terrorism but I do know that cases like Lubin, Rotherham and Thessaloniki won't happen in the USA with a temporary ban on immigration from Islamic countries.

The point was asking why Trump would curb terrorism compared to Hillary. You're going to have to go into detail with those three cases because I'm googling terrorism cases about those and I find nothing relevant. In fact, Rotherham had a mosque that received a bomb threat, unless you're talking about something different. So frankly, I don't know what the hell you're talking about. Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

What about the concerns that this proposed temporary ban completely violates the spirit of the First Ammendment, and that it is undoubtedly unconstitutional?

As for Australia, they haven't had a mass shooting as is defined to my knowledge in 20 years, where they shortly after enacted strict gun laws. Between 1976 and 1996 there was thirteen mass shootings. As for the UK, I don't have the current crime data but it seems like it still has decreased significantly since gun legislation, as this states:

"The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK – the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/

As for if it would work in America, perhaps not. But there's definitely cause for saying that it has worked in other places in the world.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

Guns are a pain in the ass to make and sell commercially internationally, but not in the US, meaning the other countries argument is irrelevant. If gun control proper was enacted, it would bankrupt the US because it depends on the sale of arms, not to mention cause a pointless civil war.

[Life]

What about the concerns that this proposed temporary ban completely violates the spirit of the First Ammendment, and that it is undoubtedly unconstitutional?

As for Australia, they haven't had a mass shooting as is defined to my knowledge in 20 years, where they shortly after enacted strict gun laws. Between 1976 and 1996 there was thirteen mass shootings. As for the UK, I don't have the current crime data but it seems like it still has decreased significantly since gun legislation, as this states:

"The year of the Dunblane massacre, gun homicides peaked at 84 across the UK the most on record. Today, gun killings have dropped to almost a third of that. In England and Wales in 2012/13, the police recorded 30 gun homicides, 12 fewer than the previous year, and the lowest figure since the National Crime Recording Standard was introduced in 2002."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14340378.Twenty_years_on__the_truth_about_Dunblane_and_gun_laws/

As for if it would work in America, perhaps not. But there's definitely cause for saying that it has worked in other places in the world.

Constitution applies only to American citizens. Are immigrants before citizenship considered citizens?

As for Australia...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Assaults trending upwards. No significant drop in the homicide rate (which itself was on the decline anyways). Gun violence itself was on the decline before gun control was instituted and there was no major drop off in gun violence after the mandatory buy back.

I'll grant you England for right now as that I'm at work.

Let's not get into the realm of "mass shootings" because they are far too rare to be considered anything more than an outlier. If that's your measuring stick, then fine but you're not looking at the whole picture.

[Lord Raven]

That's why he said "spirit of the first amendment," not "the first amendment." The idea is that if you believe in the constitution's values, then it doesn't make sense to support religion-based discrimination on immigration.

EDIT: I found this.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23/04_homicide-2010-12.html

Your thing cuts off at 2007, this cuts off at 2012. It shows a much more significant decrease.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

Constitution applies only to American citizens. Are immigrants before citizenship considered citizens?

Let's not get into the realm of "mass shootings" because they are far too rare to be considered anything more than an outlier. If that's your measuring stick, then fine but you're not looking at the whole picture.

It's unfortunately that line of thinking that turned "if it's just non-US citizens, it's fine" to just an acceptance of the NSA violating the fourth ammendment for actual US citizens.

As Raven said, I don't think it makes sense, and Mike Pence in December 2015 seemed to think it doesn't either. And then he became Trump's VP. lol

https://twitter.com/GovPenceIN/status/674249808610066433?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

As for the other statement, sure (though I would argue that the fact that the US has daily mass shootings is more than an outlier, but whatever). I'm not entirely sure of other statistics of the general crime rate in Australia so I will look into some of them but it wasn't really what I was looking to discuss, just thought I'd mention the effect on gun murders themself.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

That's why he said "spirit of the first amendment," not "the first amendment." The idea is that if you believe in the constitution's values, then it doesn't make sense to support religion-based discrimination on immigration.

EDIT: I found this.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/mr/21-40/mr23/04_homicide-2010-12.html

Your thing cuts off at 2007, this cuts off at 2012. It shows a much more significant decrease.

Excellent.

Figure 9 shows no significant decrease in firearm related deaths. Slow decrease yes. But not significant relative to when the buybacks occurred.

As for religious descrimination, I think that it doesn't hold water because I personally object to immigration from Islamic countries where that is the law of the land. Not all Muslims in general. A muslim in Israel should be able to move to the USA without any issues as an example.

It's close but let's be practical when we look at the Islamic world. Call me xenophobic if you want but I live next door to a country that deems it illegal for Muslims to marry Jews (Egypt). There is a clear contrast in culture between Western countries and Islamic countries and with the way that Europe is slowly changing, I don't like it. I do not think that America should go that route.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

Based on the graph I see 25% to 15%... that's not significant? That's a 40% decrease over 20 years lol

Bring up a list of countries you are referring to, and a list of terrorists that immigrated from each country to the US and caused a crime. The argument is not for unrestricted immigration which you are suggesting as the alternative. The argument is for the same immigration policies without any sort of religion factor. The fact is that Trump did not even specify what he meant by "Muslims immigrating to the US," he just flat out said that.

Also, the thing I'm reading about Egypt is that Egyptians can be revoked of citizenship if they marry an Israelite, not someone who is Jewish. In either case, you'll have to explain how this is relevant, considering that's an issue more with national identity than inherently within religion. In any case, for someone who praised the founding fathers and the constitution, it's contradictory that you don't believe in the spirit of it, considering Muslims want to immigrate over to America because they don't like the situation they're in. Not to bomb it.

EDIT: your view on this is extremely contradictory. Terrorism attacks out west due to immigration happen once in a blue moon yet you want highly restricted/potentially banned Islamic immigration, yet you say mass shootings rarely happen but gun control doesn't work. Basically, you're saying we should ban one thing because it's bad despite it rarely happening, but you want to keep another thing afloat because it's bad but rarely happens.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Yojinbo]

I recall that being mostly the traditional right getting salty for it. The alt-right places I frequent laughed it off or just objectively assumed it was a stupid move on Hillary's part. And there is a difference between a verbal insult and people being a risk/getting attacked or worse.

1.) Plenty of left-wing politicians, feminists et cetera receive death threats from radical-right wingers for voicing their opinions on a regular basis. It's not only right-wing politicians that are physically harmed by the policitical opposition for voicing their opinions or threatened to have that happen to them - in fact, I don't actually know when that was ever supposed to happen. The PEGIDA movement in germany, for example, has had demonstrations where they had cards with the names of Angela Merkel and Sigmar Gabriel [both are "leftists" in PEGIDA's eyes even though they don't actually do any left-wing politics whatsoever] attached to "symbolic" gallows. None of that has ever been done to, say, Viktor Orban or David Cameron, who are actual right-wing politicians.

2.) There's enough alt-left sources, at least in the german/austria/swiss area, that are not blind to the issues you've mentioned. I'm sure other countries have those as well. A lot of people here, who consider themselves left-wing, are more inclined to agree with Orban than with Merkel and are generally very critical of the EU in general, whom they consider to be the epicentre of PC in europe. PC culture is not something that comes only from the left wing and exclusively affects the right wing. In the instance of Hillary's statement it's the "traditional" right wing that suddenly calls for the same PC culture it supposedly despises.

3.) Both the alt-left and alt-right circles are a minority that's absolutely not representative. You're calling them the alt-right for a reason.

4.) For the most part it's still what you call the "traditional right" that carries Trump's success so my point still stands. In this case you're the exception to the rule.

5.) My point is not a direct accusation against you. I'll openly admit that I was arguing under the assumption that you took greater issue with what Hillary said in that example and wanted to challenge our way of looking at things. I could be completely wrong here - if it doesn't apply you're free to not feel talked to.

6.) Regardless of where you stand regarding point #5, I'd still like you to acknowledge point #4

Well shit, being politically correct is more important than stopping the rape and grooming of hundreds of young girls.

Well shit, being politically correct is more important than your right to state opinions or facts.

[Life]

Based on the graph I see 25% to 15%... that's not significant? That's a 40% decrease over 20 years lol

Bring up a list of countries you are referring to, and a list of terrorists that immigrated from each country to the US and caused a crime. The argument is not for unrestricted immigration which you are suggesting as the alternative. The argument is for the same immigration policies without any sort of religion factor. The fact is that Trump did not even specify what he meant by "Muslims immigrating to the US," he just flat out said that.

Also, the thing I'm reading about Egypt is that Egyptians can be revoked of citizenship if they marry an Israelite, not someone who is Jewish. In either case, you'll have to explain how this is relevant, considering that's an issue more with national identity than inherently within religion. In any case, for someone who praised the founding fathers and the constitution, it's contradictory that you don't believe in the spirit of it, considering Muslims want to immigrate over to America because they don't like the situation they're in. Not to bomb it.

EDIT: your view on this is extremely contradictory. Terrorism attacks out west due to immigration happen once in a blue moon yet you want highly restricted/potentially banned Islamic immigration, yet you say mass shootings rarely happen but gun control doesn't work. Basically, you're saying we should ban one thing because it's bad despite it rarely happening, but you want to keep another thing afloat because it's bad but rarely happens.

Gun buyback in 1996 did not significant curb gun violence. It was already on the decline and in a static fashion.

As for my hypocrisy, I'll explain it thusly even though you bring up an excellent point.

There is enough data to show that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. Mass shootings like Sandy Hook take place in gun free zones the vast majority of the time.

I'll take you a step further. States with more restrictive gun control have more gun homicides than those with less. Compare Wyoming to Illinois. There are more guns per population in Wyoming and less gun violence in proportion as opposed to Illinois which has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country.

Since mass shootings are a very small fraction of all gun violence (and actually take place is gun free zones), they are not representative of gun violence on any scale.

As for Islamic attacks, sure we're also talking about a very small minority. But once again, I point to Rotheram and Thessaloniki. These are refugees that come from countries where (for example) honour killings are legal and not rare (1000 per year in Bangladesh as an example). And it just so happens that these are Islamic countries where Sharia is the rule of the land.

This is a culture that I don't want. Forget Islamic attacks; child grooming gangs and honour killings are not compatible with Western culture. Therefore, slowing immigration from countries that do practice these things is absolutely acceptable. I don't want it here in Israel and I don't want it in Western countries.

Is that acceptable?

[Tryhard]

There is enough data to show that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. Mass shootings like Sandy Hook take place in gun free zones the vast majority of the time.

Uh, what? America has the most armed citizens of any western nation and yet they see mass shootings and gun violence every day, more than any other first world nation. How is that possible when there is already a massive quantity of weapons in America? If America needed more guns to be safe, then it would already be the safest country in the world.

And it's not like other armed citizens aren't at shootings, either.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/about-that-good-guy-with-a-gun/2016/07/11/3ed098fe-47a2-11e6-acbc-4d4870a079da_story.html?utm_term=.718db5a39d6b

Since you want to disregard mass shootings, searching by homicides. Most of the ones above it are South American.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

The home front: So many people die annually from gunfire in the US that the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by the country. According to research by Politifact, there were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period, compared with 1.2 million US deaths in every conflict from the War of Independence to Iraq.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34996604

Secondly, the reason that states with (slightly, let's not kid ourselves here) tougher gun laws is because people obtain them easily outside the state and bring them in, and the reason these states have tougher gun laws is because they tend to have more crime. Without some sort of federal-wide legislation, it's pretty useless.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Tryhard

[Time the Crestfallen]

Constitution applies only to American citizens. Are immigrants before citizenship considered citizens?

As for Australia...

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Assaults trending upwards. No significant drop in the homicide rate (which itself was on the decline anyways). Gun violence itself was on the decline before gun control was instituted and there was no major drop off in gun violence after the mandatory buy back.

I'll grant you England for right now as that I'm at work.

Let's not get into the realm of "mass shootings" because they are far too rare to be considered anything more than an outlier. If that's your measuring stick, then fine but you're not looking at the whole picture.

Looking at these.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

http://d3bo5ucoqkgs8h.cloudfront.net/yXObk/1/

There's also the fact that most assaults were committed using knives and other sharp objects in the link you provided.

What I will concede however, is that what worked for us won't necessarily work in the US.