What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Orlando Tim]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Fortify the hospitals too!! Build walls around hospitals and arm the doctors with guns! Nurses should practice with machine guns! 

The first response was at least honest this take is pathetic. I want to help solve the problem, you simply want to score political points

[BillStime]

2 hours ago, T master said:

Why don't you just move to china you will be safe there and you can have all the freedom that the gov't thinks you need just like you are trying to make it here ...

Why don’t you move to China?

 

Because your cult is actually passing laws that dictate how Americans can live.

 

CRT

Anti-LGTBQ laws

Voter suppression laws

Abortion laws

 

Heaven forbid we pass sensible gun legislation that might make it more difficult to get an AR-15.

 

Idiots

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

 

Sad deal. My youngest daughter was born at St. Francis in Tulsa (part of the hospital complex). This looks to be a targeted attack on a doctor. Black shooter took his own life. 

[BillStime]

 

44 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Sad deal. My youngest daughter was born at St. Francis in Tulsa (part of the hospital complex). This looks to be a targeted attack on a doctor. Black shooter took his own life. 

So many excuses

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

The first response was at least honest this take is pathetic. I want to help solve the problem, you simply want to score political points

On this board you will solve the problem? 

 

BTW, do you want to fortify hospitals or no? 

[BillStime]

1 hour ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Sad deal. My youngest daughter was born at St. Francis in Tulsa (part of the hospital complex). This looks to be a targeted attack on a doctor. Black shooter took his own life. 

This should be this little kids backpack - not his casket.

 

I hope you’re proud.

 

 

Karma is gonna love you

 

 

[Buffarukus]

5 hours ago, Delete_Account said:

 

The issue is that I don’t necessarily think buildings full of little children become incrementally safer with military-grade weapons located inside them. And I don’t necessarily think the children are incrementally safer in the heat of battle when educators not trained for combat are wielding these weapons.

 

That is not to say that I am completely against the idea of having armed defenders in schools, but this idea would have to be combined with other substantial gun control measures. FWIW, I’m a progressive lefty who considers herself a center-righty on the Second Amendment issue. I’ve tended to defer to gun owners on the types of guns they insist they need for self-defense, but I’m quickly losing patience with right-wing obstinance when it comes to regulating who is allowed to buy these guns.

 

I think the fundamental problem we have here (along with gerrymandering rules) is the lack of campaign finance reform legislation. Those with the most money can best bribe the politicians and control the propaganda. ~70-90% of Americans want meaningful gun control laws, but major campaign donors from the NRA own the GOP and intimidate the Democratic Party into inaction. So far, the only politicians I’m aware of at the national level who reject corporate and large individual donations are AOC, Omar, Pressley, Tlaib, Bowman, Cori Bush, and Bernie. Hmmm…

 

well it obviously comes with having the person or person's plural tasked with arming themselves for protection.

 

1) training or previous knowledge of how to properly use the weopon

 

2) willingness to be that person with again training on how to go about being in a situation.

 

it would not be somthing that should be looked at now the children are safe. it would be if this happens then at least there is someone that could potentially mitigate as a last resort. that can never be a bad. obviously tossing a gun at someone unprepared or unwilling and say its your job..good luck. of coarse that's a horrable idea.

 

since you see yourself as a progressive im more interested in your response to what most of my post was on.

 

progressives have

 

demonized police. as a officer today good luck finding anyone who does not second guess himself as any decision made will be condemned with the power of hindsight to possably destroy them and put them in jail themselves. perfect example. the cop who shot that girl that was seconds away from stabbing the other girl..fire him! put him in jail! cop doesnt react and that girl is stabbed in the neck. how could he do nothing! he just watched! fire him! put him in jail! HE SHOULD HAVE SHOT HER!! 

 

not very good when split seconds are the difference in lives lost.

 

demanded the demilitarization of police so saying they must go into a active dangerous situation without proper gear regardless of situation.

 

applauded lax DAs that disregard laws already on the books that possibly could take repeated violent offenders off the streets  or turn felonies to misdermeanors that help criminals pass background checks. this has lead to 100s and more murders this year. how many murders happen from repeated violent offenders..alot! how many from completely illegal carry? keep slapping that wrist. 

 

progressives even have villianized boarder patrol. the one guy who ended the killers rampage in texas. has biden held that man up as the hero he is yet? because he made up that racist narrative about the whip that never existed pretty quickly?

 

but its republicans and gun laws that are the main culprit?  the same power grabs you see for them are the same ones that have legislators condoning the above. not alot of talking about that. why is that? ive put a few sensible gun control laws in this thread but why does inner city violence from criminals that illegally carry rarely come up in the conversation. i think because that killing is normalized so people see the blip on the news and then heres bill with the weather. pretty frustrating to see the outrage turned on and off and finger pointed in one direction only constantly. not to mention the flat out lies and gov overreach that progressives have applauded the last 2 years. not fostering good rationale for those who specifically want gun laws untouched for that reason alone. gun sales are WAY up because a collapsing economy and ignoring criminals is a combo that kind of make people uneasy not to mention, desperate.

 

i acknowledge gun laws need to be looked at and changes made but we all play a part in this. progressives, as usual, dont seem to want to look at the role they have played and the reprocussions of it. is there going to be demand to stop the gun violence in places that have the strictest laws or have dem thrown thier hands up and pointing at law abiding citizens been that effective that all gun violence is their fault alone, nothing to see here. 

 

it shows how unserious we are as a country. more so egotistical. always the other sides fault. when DA throw the book at illegal gun carry or progressives don't bring up "rights" when it comes to something like stop and frisk while telling others they should give up theirs it would be more impactful.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Gene Frenkle]

3 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

 

well it obviously comes with having the person or person's plural tasked with arming themselves for protection.

 

1) training or previous knowledge of how to properly use the weopon

 

2) willingness to be that person with again training on how to go about being in a situation.

 

it would not be somthing that should be looked at now the children are safe. it would be if this happens then at least there is someone that could potentially mitigate as a last resort. that can never be a bad. obviously tossing a gun at someone unprepared or unwilling and say its your job..good luck. of coarse that's a horrable idea.

 

since you see yourself as a progressive im more interested in your response to what most of my post was on.

 

progressives have

 

demonized police. as a officer today good luck finding anyone who does not second guess himself as any decision made will be condemned with the power of hindsight to possably destroy them and put them in jail themselves. perfect example. the cop who shot that girl that was seconds away from stabbing the other girl..fire him! put him in jail! cop doesnt react and that girl is stabbed in the neck. how could he do nothing! he just watched! fire him! put him in jail! HE SHOULD HAVE SHOT HER!! 

 

not very good when split seconds are the difference in lives lost.

 

demanded the demilitarization of police so saying they must go into a active dangerous situation without proper gear regardless of situation.

 

applauded lax DAs that disregard laws already on the books that possibly could take repeated violent offenders off the streets  or turn felonies to misdermeanors that help criminals pass background checks. this has lead to 100s and more murders this year. how many murders happen from repeated violent offenders..alot! how many from completely illegal carry? keep slapping that wrist. 

 

progressives even have villianized boarder patrol. the one guy who ended the killers rampage in texas. has biden held that man up as the hero he is yet? because he made up that racist narrative about the whip that never existed pretty quickly?

 

but its republicans and gun laws that are the main culprit?  the same power grabs you see for them are the same ones that have legislators condoning the above. not alot of talking about that. why is that? ive put a few sensible gun control laws in this thread but why does inner city violence from criminals that illegally carry rarely come up in the conversation. i think because that killing is normalized so people see the blip on the news and then heres bill with the weather. pretty frustrating to see the outrage turned on and off and finger pointed in one direction only constantly. not to mention the flat out lies and gov overreach that progressives have applauded the last 2 years. not fostering good rationale for those who specifically want gun laws untouched for that reason alone. gun sales are WAY up because a collapsing economy and ignoring criminals is a combo that kind of make people uneasy not to mention, desperate.

 

i acknowledge gun laws need to be looked at and changes made but we all play a part in this. progressives, as usual, dont seem to want to look at the role they have played and the reprocussions of it. is there going to be demand to stop the gun violence in places that have the strictest laws or have dem thrown thier hands up and pointing at law abiding citizens been that effective that all gun violence is their fault alone, nothing to see here. 

 

it shows how unserious we are as a country. more so egotistical. always the other sides fault. when DA throw the book at illegal gun carry or progressives don't bring up "rights" when it comes to something like stop and frisk while telling others they should give up theirs it would be more impactful.

 

 

 

It's amazing how many hoops you people are willing to jump through just to rationalize keeping all of your dangerous toys, especially when the stats are staring you in the face.

[Tiberius]

8 hours ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

Sad deal. My youngest daughter was born at St. Francis in Tulsa (part of the hospital complex). This looks to be a targeted attack on a doctor. Black shooter took his own life. 

Angry man and easy access to guns. No wonder we have so many mass shootings 

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Angry man and easy access to guns. No wonder we have so many mass shootings 

Since we’ve always had access to guns, the operative question then would be why are so many men so angry? 

[Tiberius]

14 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Since we’ve always had access to guns, the operative question then would be why are so many men so angry? 

Profound! What are your thoughts on this very serious, and thought provoking point? 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Profound! What are your thoughts on this very serious, and thought provoking point? 

Ugh. Not trying to be profound Tibs. I cited your post. Why do YOU think people are angry enough to kill people for seemingly no sane reason? What’s caused the change? Social media? Lack of mental care? Video games? Pick one or provide another. 

[Tiberius]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Ugh. Not trying to be profound Tibs. I cited your post. Why do YOU think people are angry enough to kill people for seemingly no sane reason? What’s caused the change? Social media? Lack of mental care? Video games? Pick one or provide another. 

You said men, now you change it to people. 
 

You tell us, you asked why men are angry, as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons. 
 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You said men, now you change it to people. 
 

You tell us, you asked why men are angry, as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons. 
 

 

So you propose that happy, well adjusted young men are prone to shooting sprees because they have access to "murder weapons"?   That's quite a theory.  

[ArdmoreRyno]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Angry man and easy access to guns. No wonder we have so many mass shootings 

 

Wouldn't matter if it's a gun or a hammer. If someone is determined to kill someone, they usually find a way to do it. 

 

 26 murdered in Japan, burned to death in March

 

Four stabbed in London in April

 

3 stabbed and killed in France

 

 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So you propose that happy, well adjusted young men are prone to shooting sprees because they have access to "murder weapons"?   That's quite a theory.  

So you put words in people's mouths? Lame 

6 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Wouldn't matter if it's a gun or a hammer. If someone is determined to kill someone, they usually find a way to do it. 

 

 26 murdered in Japan, burned to death in March

 

Four stabbed in London in April

 

3 stabbed and killed in France

 

 

LOl, a HAMMER!!!! 

[ArdmoreRyno]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you put words in people's mouths? Lame 

LOl, a HAMMER!!!! 

 

March... 

 

https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/16/man-charged-killing-pair-hammer-holding-woman-captive-days-gresham-home

[ChiGoose]

11 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Wouldn't matter if it's a gun or a hammer. If someone is determined to kill someone, they usually find a way to do it. 

 

 26 murdered in Japan, burned to death in March

 

Four stabbed in London in April

 

3 stabbed and killed in France

 

 

 

There are anecdotes and there is data. How many people are killed by hammers every year? How lethal are hammers? As in, if someone decides to kill someone with a hammer, how likely are they to succeed?

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

March... 

 

https://news.wttw.com/2022/03/16/man-charged-killing-pair-hammer-holding-woman-captive-days-gresham-home

Or a chair! 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

[ArdmoreRyno]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

There are anecdotes and there is data. How many people are killed by hammers every year? How lethal are hammers? As in, if someone decides to kill someone with a hammer, how likely are they to succeed?

 

Around 400 per year in the United States. Nearly the same number of people killed by all rifles (450) which include bolt action, AR platforms, AK platforms, etc. 

 

To answer your last question... about 400. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Around 400 per year in the United States. Nearly the same number of people killed by all rifles (450) which include bolt action, AR platforms, AK platforms, etc. 

 

To answer your last question... about 400. 

 

So about 1% of the people who die by guns in the US each year?

[ArdmoreRyno]

13 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Or a chair! 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

You asked dude. 

 

Guns will be the most widely used murder weapon. Usually that way in every country in the world. But my point, people want to kill they usually find a way. More fists kill people than AR-15's each year. A lot more. 

Just now, ChiGoose said:

 

So about 1% of the people who die by guns in the US each year?

 

That wasn't the point of why I posted. Just FYI. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

5 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

You asked dude. 

 

Guns will be the most widely used murder weapon. Usually that way in every country in the world. But my point, people want to kill they usually find a way. More fists kill people than AR-15's each year. A lot more. 

 

That wasn't the point of why I posted. Just FYI. 

 

 

Nope, its guns https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

[ArdmoreRyno]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Nope, its guns https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

 

I didn't argue against that. 

 

I'm explaining: More hands, fists, feet have killed than AR-15's. Nearly the same number of hammers/clubs have killed as all rifles. 

 

Right or wrong?

[ChiGoose]

10 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

I didn't argue against that. 

 

I'm explaining: More hands, fists, feet have killed than AR-15's. Nearly the same number of hammers/clubs have killed as all rifles. 

 

Right or wrong?

 

I find it interesting that your comparing specifically to AR-15s and rifles instead of guns in general. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

Personally, I think ~45,000 people dying from guns in the US every year to be bad and would like us to do something about it. Since other countries don't have the same rate of firearm deaths, it should be possible to reduce the deaths here.

[All_Pro_Bills]

34 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So you put words in people's mouths? Lame

So what are you saying?  This is what you said and I quote "as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons".  What I'm hearing from that is nothing in particular about the disposition of the killer or their mental state, or life experiences are of any importance.  Did I get it wrong?  And if so can you explain your intent? 

 

My problem with that theory is that almost everyone has "easy access to murder weapons".  You and I and probably everyone else on this board has easy access to weapons.  But I expect nobody here is disposed to act in that manner.  So while access to weapons is certainly one factor, the root cause is something other than access to weapons.  And it sits between the ears of these maladjusted young men.   

[BillStime]

If only there was something we could do about this…

 

 

 

[ArdmoreRyno]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I find it interesting that your comparing specifically to AR-15s and rifles instead of guns in general. I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

 

Personally, I think ~45,000 people dying from guns in the US every year to be bad and would like us to do something about it. Since other countries don't have the same rate of firearm deaths, it should be possible to reduce the deaths here.

 

Because the media and left want to go after the AR platform. That's why. I've sad MANY times, handguns run the kingdom in the United States. If that's home protection or death. It's not even close to AR's. 

 

BTW: a huge percent of those deaths are suicides 

 

[Tiberius]

11 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So what are you saying?  This is what you said and I quote "as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons".  What I'm hearing from that is nothing in particular about the disposition of the killer or their mental state, or life experiences are of any importance.  Did I get it wrong?  And if so can you explain your intent? 

 

My problem with that theory is that almost everyone has "easy access to murder weapons".  You and I and probably everyone else on this board has easy access to weapons.  But I expect nobody here is disposed to act in that manner.  So while access to weapons is certainly one factor, the root cause is something other than access to weapons.  And it sits between the ears of these maladjusted young men.   

Guns are the most lethal 

10 minutes ago, BillStime said:

If only there was something we could do about this…

 

 

 

Angry man with easy access to murder weapon 

[ChiGoose]

12 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Because the media and left want to go after the AR platform. That's why. I've sad MANY times, handguns run the kingdom in the United States. If that's home protection or death. It's not even close to AR's. 

 

BTW: a huge percent of those deaths are suicides 

 

 

The NRA used to actually propose gun control legislation because as the experts on guns, they knew what laws would be effective for preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands while maintaining the ability for upstanding citizens to safely own firearms.

 

Now that the NRA exists solely as the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, we no longer have a large organization of firearm experts lobbying for safe gun laws. Which means that if we ever get to a boiling point and the country actually decides to do *something* about the insane number of gun deaths, those laws will likely be written by people who lack the expertise to make them as effective as they can be. I'm not convinced banning the AR-15 will do a whole lot since there are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles out there, but if we get to a point where Congress actually passes something, I'd bet an AR-15 ban would be part of that.

 

The fact that most gun deaths are suicides I think underscores even more that we need effective firearm legislation. Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not end up dying of suicide. They end up moving on and leading a normal life. And most methods of suicide attempts (pills, cutting, etc) are far more likely to fail than succeed. But somebody who attempts suicide with a gun is about 90% certain to die. If they did not have access to that weapon in that brief moment, they more likely than not would not have died. Better laws around simple things like gun storage and red flag laws would likely go a long way here.

 

And I completely agree that we should focus more on handguns. We talk more about rifles because they are used in the kinds of shootings that make the headlines, but the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are by handgun. I would be in favor of handguns being far more regulated / restricted than rifles.

[ArdmoreRyno]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The NRA used to actually propose gun control legislation because as the experts on guns, they knew what laws would be effective for preventing guns from getting in the wrong hands while maintaining the ability for upstanding citizens to safely own firearms.

 

Now that the NRA exists solely as the lobbying arm of gun manufacturers, we no longer have a large organization of firearm experts lobbying for safe gun laws. Which means that if we ever get to a boiling point and the country actually decides to do *something* about the insane number of gun deaths, those laws will likely be written by people who lack the expertise to make them as effective as they can be. I'm not convinced banning the AR-15 will do a whole lot since there are plenty of other semi-automatic rifles out there, but if we get to a point where Congress actually passes something, I'd bet an AR-15 ban would be part of that.

 

The fact that most gun deaths are suicides I think underscores even more that we need effective firearm legislation. Most people who survive a suicide attempt do not end up dying of suicide. They end up moving on and leading a normal life. And most methods of suicide attempts (pills, cutting, etc) are far more likely to fail than succeed. But somebody who attempts suicide with a gun is about 90% certain to die. If they did not have access to that weapon in that brief moment, they more likely than not would not have died. Better laws around simple things like gun storage and red flag laws would likely go a long way here.

 

And I completely agree that we should focus more on handguns. We talk more about rifles because they are used in the kinds of shootings that make the headlines, but the overwhelming majority of gun deaths are by handgun. I would be in favor of handguns being far more regulated / restricted than rifles.

 

We need to focus on the core of the problem and it's not guns. That's the end results of the problem. There are a plethora of other things that lead to the point of a shooting event. 

[ChiGoose]

9 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

We need to focus on the core of the problem and it's not guns. That's the end results of the problem. There are a plethora of other things that lead to the point of a shooting event. 

 

If this was true, we would see the same rate of gun deaths in peer countries, but we don't.

 

So, it's either:

• The availability / accessibility of guns; or
• Americans are inherently inferior to people like Canadians and the British

I really don't think it's the latter...

[ArdmoreRyno]

5 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

If this was true, we would see the same rate of gun deaths in peer countries, but we don't.

 

So, it's either:

• The availability / accessibility of guns; or
• Americans are inherently inferior to people like Canadians and the British

I really don't think it's the latter...

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

 

Do those factors correlate with firearm deaths? Do we have data on that?

 

Just a quick look shows we have only a slightly higher rate of single parent household than the UK (https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/12/12/religion-and-living-arrangements-around-the-world/ ), but the UK does not have a similar rate of firearm deaths.

[716er]

3 minutes ago, ArdmoreRyno said:

 

Our kids and young adults are on more psychotropic medications than any country in the world, by a LARGE margin. We also lead the world with drug abuse (opioids, marijuana, meth, etc.). We have the highest single parent household percentage in the world. 

 

Lots of reasons that we ignore. 

Our kids and young adults are not on more psychotropic medication that any other country in the world. This is factually incorrect. Portugal leads the way there, by a large margin. Roughly 1/4 of their inhabitants are on psychotropics. One’s life expectancy in Portugal is also roughly 3 years more than it is in the US. 
 

There are 4 other countries in front of the US in psychotropics as well - Belgium, Spain, Canada, and Sweden.

 

Hard to trust your “facts” as the first one is blatantly incorrect.

[Big Blitz]

They want you in a mask permanently because they are convinced it's keeping them safe and slowing the spread of a virus as lethal as the flu - for anyone over 90.

 

They want to take all your guns.  

 

There is a lot they want to do and will do if not for the very presence, existence, and ownership of those guns.

 

Good work clowns, for admitting it, and instead of potentially getting actual changes that might be useful (doubt it) you'll get nothing.  Because you're lunatics.  And your fake concern for safety doesn't mean you get to fake you know what kind of guns people should own.   

 

 

Biden had the audacity to essentially say "well uh...um.....people say you need them as a defense against the government.  Common man.....you can't take on fighter planes...helicopters.."

 

No you dolt.  The hope is the forces in that government will never turn their weapons on their own people.  

 

That if it ever does hit the fan every branch of the military fractures.  

 

Does anyone have any freaking clue what the events surrounding an actual Civil War or insurrection or revolt would look like?  And that armed citizens is vital no matter how many Apache Helicopters we have.  Hopefully a good deal of them will be on the side of the people when it does hit the fan.  

 

And it's beyond inevitable we're headed toward a divorce.  This is unsustainable.  Half the country thinking the other country is a legit threat to their lives....one half actually is and wants to disarm you and force you to take a flu shot.  

 

Unsustainable.

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, Tiberius said:

You said men, now you change it to people. 
 

You tell us, you asked why men are angry, as if there is some excuse besides easy access to murder weapons. 
 

 

YOU said men!!! Don’t be an arse Tibs. So let me ask you again, why do YOU think men are angry? (Your premise, not mine.)

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

They want you in a mask permanently because they are convinced it's keeping them safe and slowing the spread of a virus as lethal as the flu - for anyone over 90.

 

They want to take all your guns.  

 

There is a lot they want to do and will do if not for the very presence, existence, and ownership of those guns.

 

 

I think this "us vs them" talk is not only problematic in that it does not facilitate actual discussion, but it's also dangerous because it drives us to our own sides and leads to demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with us as "them."

 

It also allows for us to take any member of the "them" group and ascribe their belief to everyone in that group even if the group as a whole does not agree. A good example of this is the mask mandate claim here. I have not seen anyone in a position of authority advocating that we require everyone be masked forever. I am sure there are some people somewhere who have expressed that belief, but it is not a mainstream position of the Left. However, by making this claim,  we can simply smear anyone on the other side as being unreasonable and dismiss anything they have to say.

 

It would be like taking the words of an extremist on the Right and saying everyone on the Right is a neo-nazi white supremacist ("They want to disadvantage minorities. They believe being white is superior..." etc). It's not true. There are some that may express that view but that's not the actual policy of the Right. But I could make that claim, point to someone who fits that profile and feel like I've made my point that my group is superior to their group.

 

Not only does it not get us anywhere, but it actually pushes us apart and makes things worse.

 

Let's be better than this.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I think this "us vs them" talk is not only problematic in that it does not facilitate actual discussion, but it's also dangerous because it drives us to our own sides and leads to demonizing anyone who doesn't agree with us as "them."

 

It also allows for us to take any member of the "them" group and ascribe their belief to everyone in that group even if the group as a whole does not agree. A good example of this is the mask mandate claim here. I have not seen anyone in a position of authority advocating that we require everyone be masked forever. I am sure there are some people somewhere who have expressed that belief, but it is not a mainstream position of the Left. However, by making this claim,  we can simply smear anyone on the other side as being unreasonable and dismiss anything they have to say.

 

It would be like taking the words of an extremist on the Right and saying everyone on the Right is a neo-nazi white supremacist ("They want to disadvantage minorities. They believe being white is superior..." etc). It's not true. There are some that may express that view but that's not the actual policy of the Right. But I could make that claim, point to someone who fits that profile and feel like I've made my point that my group is superior to their group.

 

Not only does it not get us anywhere, but it actually pushes us apart and makes things worse.

 

Let's be better than this.

Well I'm pretty sure that I'm "us"....are you "them"? 😉

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

YOU said men!!! Don’t be an arse Tibs. So let me ask you again, why do YOU think men are angry? (Your premise, not mine.)

And you asked why Men were so angry? Then you changed it to people. 

 

You are a realm idiot. You come here to play word games and pass on the latest talk radio garbage