If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
No action will also reinforce their agenda
There's a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on...
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It's about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn't accomplish that, and in this case I don't blame them.
All I'm saying is there's a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have "reduced suffering in the world?"
Quite a bit of space between 0 and 100
Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn't get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn't mean its a good argument.
No it wouldn't, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.
You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I'm talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There's enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
No they wouldn't. Our military doesn't even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn't even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.
Lately I've been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support
That's basically how it's been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we'll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it'll be downhill from there.
Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn't even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Okay, fair, my bad. You're right.
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
In yesterday's society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today's society it's because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday's Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.
Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they'll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal "Red Flag" law? They don't care as they know it'll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won't be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.
What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of "Gun Crime", however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.
In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew...all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain't the number of guns in circulation.
I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.
It's a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn't there must have been another factor.
I think they jumped back up because of the lockdowns
Unfortunately Violent and Firearm Crime statistics started climbing again in 2015. The pandemic may have played a role but it cannot be the cause.
So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans's civil war happens?
The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they're not strapped. That's so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
And you're evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.
1 in 6 women is raped in their lifetime
Is that stat higher in Canada / Europe or the US?
And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
[citation needed]
My sensibilities are more important than yours.
Yes you've made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
Is that star higher for Europe or the US?
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It's actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
You're arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn't have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches -- literally.
It doesn't matter that it is very much worse than death -- in fact, that's what you're gonna argue next, because you don't care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.
And no sane person thinks like you.
You're sick.
[citation needed]
Resisting against rapists works:
When confronted with a sexual attacker, women are often extremely concerned with avoiding rape completion. While narrative reviews typically suggest that the victim resistance is linked to rape avoidance, much of the existing literature relies on overlapping samples from the National Crime Victimization Survey. The current meta-analysis examines whether victim resistance is related to a greater likelihood of avoiding rape completion. Results from a systematic literature search across 25 databases supplemented by a search of the gray literature resulted in 4,581 hits of which seven studies met eligibility criteria for the review. Findings suggest that women who resist their attacker are significantly more likely than nonresisters to avoid rape completion. This finding held across analyses for physical resistance, verbal resistance, or resistance of any kind. Limitations of the analysis and policy implications are discussed, with particular focus on other research findings that resistance may be linked to greater victim injury.
Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.
Resisting rapists doesn't actually result in greater physical injury:
The impact of victim resistance on rape completion and injury was examined utilizing a large probability sample of sexual assault incidents, derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey (1992-2002), and taking into account whether harm to the victim followed or preceded self-protection (SP) actions. Additional injuries besides rape, particularly serious injuries, following victim resistance are rare. Results indicate that most SP actions, both forceful and nonforceful, reduce the risk of rape completion, and do not significantly affect the risk of additional injury.
Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.
Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:
Women's resistance strategies to rape were examined using police reports and the court testimonies of 274 women who either avoided rape or were raped by subsequently incarcerated sex offenders. The sequence of behaviors in the offender-victim interaction was analyzed to determine whether women who resist rape with physical force are, as some have suggested, exacerbating the potential for physical injury or are simply responding to the severity of the offender's physical attack. The results indicated that 85% of the women in the study who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender's initiated violence. The remaining 15% who resisted with physical force did so in response to the offender's verbal aggression. Moreover, those women who responded with physical aggression to the offender's violent physical attack were more likely to avoid rape than were women who did not resist such force. Also, the potential for physical injury was no greater for these women than for those who used other resistance strategies or who offered no resistance. These analyses suggest that the frequently found correlation between physical resistance and injury of the woman might be the result of the initial level of the offender's violence and should not be used to discourage women from physically resisting rape.
ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003
Guns allow for more effective resistance:
What are the consequences when rape victims resist rapists? Analysis of a nationally representative sample of rape incidents reported in the National Crime Surveys for 1979 to 1985 yields the following findings: (1) Victims who resist are much less likely to have the rape completed against them than nonresisting victims, a pattern generally apparent regardless of the specific form of resistance: (2) The form of resistance that appears most effective in preventing rape completion is resistance with a gun, knife, or other weapon: (3) Most forms of resistance are not significantly associated with higher rates of victim injury. The exceptions are unarmed forceful resistance and threatening or arguing with the rapist: (4) Even these two forms of resistance probably do not generally provoke rapists to injure their victims, as ancillary evidence concerning assaults and robberies indicates that resistance rarely precedes injury. Attack against the victim appears to provoke victim resistance, rather than the reverse: (V Only about three percent of rape incidents involve some additional injury that could be described as serious. Thus it is the rape itself that is nearly always the most serious injury the victim suffers. Consequently, refraining from resistance in order to avoid injury in addition to the rape is a questionable tradeoff.
Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist
You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.
Yes you’ve made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
You've made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you're not anyone that should be taken seriously.
You're evil.
Is that star higher for Europe or the US?
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show.
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.
And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn't make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evilevil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄
Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.
You're more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
I hope you realize that you're falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you're familiar with ProPublica's research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, "See? They're no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are."
Either way they lie and recruit the same. I'd much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.
In a way wouldn't we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I'm not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.
Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.
Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?
That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out "punching nazis" as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.
So, they act like children?
Nobody said they're bright.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
All the downvotes you're getting on this one... YIKES I don't think this is a very good community.
If we acted the same way it would reinforce their agenda. My comment blew up.
Update/Edit: if you think killing people is the answer to solving the world's problems then you are a fucking premtitive shitty human being and are a part of the problem.
No action will also reinforce their agenda
There's a gap a mile wide between doing nothing and stooping to the same level of violence. Come on...
I question this idea that violence should only be viewed through a lens of who is superior to the other. Morality is not about being better. It's about reducing suffering in the world. And your opponents think nonviolence simply doesn't accomplish that, and in this case I don't blame them.
All I'm saying is there's a that universally every nation in the world has constructed laws on this; that just because you disagree with an opposing view vehemently you cannot strike out physically, violently. Inevitably, if you abandon this notion, then it will backfire by those most willing to commit violence — and in that regard, we revert back to survival-of-the-fittest winner-take-all mindsets. When that happens, will we have "reduced suffering in the world?"
Quite a bit of space between 0 and 100
Yeah hence why when the Nazis invaded Europe we never invaded them back, because that would have just reinforced the Nazi agenda.
Not sure if you are aware but the Nazi agenda is still around.
One could make the argument war didn't get rid of them and had just reinforced their way of thinking even moreso for the ones who still supported nazism.
One could also make the argument that the best way to deal with hitler was to send him chocolates and ask him to leave France very nicely. Doesn't mean its a good argument.
No it wouldn't, you are helping their agenda by discouraging the left from taking up arms.
You're not allowed to get strapped up like a larping moron in every western country in the world that isn't the US.
The US would be doing a lot better if they stopped pretending like they were the only country in the world that's ever tried to solve a problem. Owning guns just increases the chance that you or a family member will commit suicide or a murder suicide.
Honestly, the gun culture is way too entrenched among the right wing for something like that to be viable and any attempt at meaningful gun legislation will ignite the civil war I'm talking about.
The right wing is open and emphatic about their willingness to wage war with the government to be able to keep their weapons. And they are serious. There's enough of them that they could give our military a good run for its money.
No they wouldn't. Our military doesn't even need to respond most of the time, just the cops, and when they do these jackasses are so poorly trained and organized, The National Guard doesn't even get to play with their big toys.
Source: lefty (in both ways) Navy Veteran, and there are way more of us than the braying jackasses want to admit
But not enough to stop them without the left shedding their unhelpful way of thinking on the matter and mobilize, and you know that.
Lately I've been thinking that if congress got shot up as often as schools did, we would have sane gun control with bipartisan support
That's basically how it's been, only with a very racist bent. Gun control only really became a thing once Black people started arming themselves.
I agree with you that once people start popping off politicians that we'll see real change on the matter. And then the right wing will be signaled to fight once they see mass disarmament programs begin, and it'll be downhill from there.
Negative. Gun Control in the United States predates the founding of the country and it was both racist and classist from the very outset. As documented in that link Gun Control laws have been around for over 200 years and were instituted against Blacks but also against the Irish, the Chinese, and Native Americans.
Your comment is based on The Mulford Act, a stupid and racist piece of California legislation passed with bi-partisan effort and signed by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to publicly armed Black Panthers. It wasn't even close the first serious gun control law to get passed.
For instance Mulford was modeled on The Sullivan Act enacted by New York State in 1911. It intentionally targeted Italian immigrants, another distinct minority at the time.
This country has ALWAYS enacted Gun Control in response to racial and class elements.
Okay, fair, my bad. You're right.
Also holy shit, why would any reasonable person support stupid shit like gun control in that light?
In yesterday's society it was to protect the wealth and position of the Upper and Middle classes. In today's society it's because it seems like an obvious response to things like Mass Shootings and Gun Crime. The hidden in plain sight truth though is that modern day Gun Control proposals are doing the same thing as yesterday's Gun Control proposals because if you have enough money they will not apply to you.
Pass a new Federal Assault Weapons Ban? No problem for the wealthy, they'll just drop $20,000 on a pre-ban machine gun that can be legally transferred to them. Pass a Federal "Red Flag" law? They don't care as they know it'll never be enforced against them; their connections, money, and lawyers will see to it. Federal UBC? Again, no worries as their connections, money, and lawyers all make sure they won't be impacted. Remove the 2nd Amendment and ban the private ownership of firearms? No worries, the bodyguards surrounding them and their families will still be armed, just like they are everywhere else in the world.
What makes it even more stupid is that no direct causal link between the number of guns in circulation and the amount of "Gun Crime", however you define that, has ever been shown. In fact the data shows something very different than the reality most people believe in.
The household ownership rate has been bouncing around the low to mid 40s since 1972.. The population of the US grew from 240M in 1972 to 322M in 2014 too, so that 40% household ownership rate includes an addition 80 Million people.
The number of NICS (Federal Background Checks) in the United States quadrupled from 10 Million per year to 40 Million per year between 1998 and 2020.
Meanwhile Intentional Homicide fell from it's high of 9.82 in 1991 to 4.4 in 2014, a decrease of 50%. Gun Crime specifically peaked in 1993 and then declined by 49% over the next 20 years.
In short US Citizens bought a SHIT ton of guns starting in the 90s and tens of millions of new owners were added as our population grew...all while both Violent and Gun Crime continued to drop. We have a problem for sure, but it ain't the number of guns in circulation.
I always thought the drop on violent crime was because of the ban on leaded gasoline.
It's a good theory and one that I bought into as well but the statistics should have stayed down if that was the cause. Since they didn't there must have been another factor.
I think they jumped back up because of the lockdowns
Unfortunately Violent and Firearm Crime statistics started climbing again in 2015. The pandemic may have played a role but it cannot be the cause.
Already happened a few times. Gca 68 was after Kennedy and 86 was after reagan.
So? In what world does that necessitate you owning a gun? One where Robert Evans's civil war happens?
The idea that everyone needs to be strapped because a few morons are, is paranoid race to the bottom thinking, not how you make a better future.
The real world where without it, I stand a very high likelihood of being raped or murdered at the slightest aggression of an angry male who will always carry a power advantage over me without them, you psychopath.
Oh yeah, Canadian and European women are just casually murdered and raped all the time cause they're not strapped. That's so totally a thing that happens and we all hear about in the news day after day!
Yes, they are. 1in 6 of all women on average are raped in their lifetime. Girls under 18, those rates are 1 in 4. And many of them could have been prevented if they had a firearm.
And you're evil for claiming otherwise. And for insinuating women should have to accept any risk of being raped at all just to not offend your sensibilities. My sensibilities are more important than yours.
Is that stat higher in Canada / Europe or the US?
[citation needed]
Yes you've made it very clear that you value your own paranoia over the statistical safety of everyone.
It's higher even than that everywhere because the number of reported rapes is lower than what the numbers show. It's actually a lot worse. Everywhere. The numbers I gave you are estimates from RAINN.
But let's say what you want to believe is right -- that rape is extremely rare, too rare to justify gun ownership or self-defense in general.
You're arguing that rape is rare anyway, so rape victims shouldn't have a tool they can use to stop it from happening, and if that means any big, strong male threatens to or actually does rape them, they should just bend over and take it, and go to therapy and move on so you can make yourself feel better. If that means more completed rapes, so be it. If that means aggressors will therefore always be at an advantage and enjoy protection from you when you morally condemn and even physically force victims to stop when they try to resist, all the better. If that means even survivors will likely die from pregnancy complications because of so may countries around the world imposing abortion bans specifically so men can forcibly impregnate them against their will, too bad. Fuck them bitches -- literally.
It doesn't matter that it is very much worse than death -- in fact, that's what you're gonna argue next, because you don't care about other people or human life. You only care about being right.
And no sane person thinks like you.
You're sick.
Resisting against rapists works:
Wong JS, Balemba S. The Effect of Victim Resistance on Rape Completion: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2018 Jul;19(3):352-365. doi: 10.1177/1524838016663934. Epub 2016 Aug 12. PMID: 27519993.
Resisting rapists doesn't actually result in greater physical injury:
Tark, Jongyeon & Kleck, Gary. (2014). Resisting Rape The Effects of Victim Self-Protection on Rape Completion and Injury. Violence against women. 20. 10.1177/1077801214526050.
Stop fucking telling women not to resist rape:
ULLMAN, S. E., & KNIGHT, R. A. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626092007001003
Guns allow for more effective resistance:
Kleck, Gary & Sayles, Susan. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems - SOC PROBL. 37. 149-162. 10.1525/sp.1990.37.2.03a00020.
Now sit down and shut the fuck up you worthless rape apologist
You are an enemy to women and freedom-loving people everywhere. Including us independents.
You've made it very clear that you value being superior to others over their literal lives, so you're not anyone that should be taken seriously.
You're evil.
Yeah, you didn't answer the question. European and Canadian women do not get raped at a higher rate than American women, despite not being strapped up like a commando.
And guess what? They suffer lower rates of spousal killing, and their children do not die from gun violence at any statistically meaningful rate.
Never said rape was rare, just pointed out that making guns easy for every psychopath to gets their hands on doesn't make it less rare. Increasing gun ownership increases the rate of rapists who own guns as well, you, evil evil gun wielding rapist supporter 🙄
Congratulations on living in the only country in the world where dozens of children are regularly gunned to death at school. All your decisions are going great.
You're more likely to be killed by a mosquito than raped, and men are far more likely to be murdered than you. You might want to reevaluate your threat assessment.
@AngryCommieKender @pinkdrunkenelephants
Got any proof for those statements or are they just your opinions?
I remembered the Texas economy lower than it is
https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/gdp-by-state/
I was thinking they were only at 1.6-1.8 trillion
@AngryCommieKender
You wrote about mosquitoes, rape and murder, not GDP.
Those were the data I asked about.
Sorry I got confused about the thread.
https://www.mosquito.org/vector-borne-diseases/
Over 1 million people per year die from mosquitoes world wide.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/fastfact.html
There's the best SA statistics you'll find, but even they admit that the data on the men's side is flawed and incomplete at best.
@AngryCommieKender
Thank you for the apology. It's appreciated.
Statistics for rape conclude that 10% of the world's female population are raped, which equates to about 400,000,000 girls and women. Stats on male rape are fairly non-existent (from a PDF here https://www.equalitynow.org/resource/the-worlds-shame-the-global-rape-epidemic/).
That's 400x the amount of people killed by mosquitoes.
edit to correct numbers
No it isn't. That's 400,000,000 total, not per year.
The total number of humans killed by mosquitos is in the billions. Mosquitoes have killed more of us than anything else including us and war
Oh, and that million+ per year is way down. Before we figured out how to cure malaria it was tens to hundreds of millions of humans per year.
Tell us you don't know anything about the situation without telling us you don't know anything about it
What about Finland? https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/65/rate_of_civilian_firearm_possession
I love how tough and secure you are! So impressive!
The projection is real.
So tough and secure! Most impressive!!
Isn't this the second time you made that lame -ass statement?
I still say it's projection. 🤔 Though I wonder if this isn't some bot account...
No, I'm just saying you're gay and afraid to admit it. And Republican. And also a gay too.
History has shown time and time again that pacifism cannot defeat conservatism. Conservatives see pacifism as an invitation to attack.
They do no rely on our actions to advance their agenda of hate. Conservatives will advance their agenda of hate with or without our input. They can only be stopped by force.
I dunno. I've thought, for quite some time, that we'll lose because the only way to combat the far-right is to stoop to their levels and we, naturally, are to ethical to do so. I'm increasingly on the side of see-a-nazi-punch-a-nazi, although I'm horrified by violence and probably wouldn't have the courage to do so.
If you are unable to fight, then prepare yourself in other ways. Teach your family how to help fighters who are injured, how to evac people who need help and how to escape/survive a conservative attack (such as an active shooter).
Even if you are not a fighter, there is a ton you can do to help those who will fight.
At minimum, teach your children why we don't do business with or engage in personal relationships with conservatives. Together we can maginalize hate by marginalizing haters.
I hope you realize that you're falling right into the far-right playbook. This right here is their goal. Not sure if you're familiar with ProPublica's research but they seek to muddy the waters. The whole punch a nazi thing actually helps their recruitment. They turn around and go, "See? They're no better. They claim to preach these beliefs about a civil society and freedom of speech and not preemptively striking, yet here we are."
Either way they lie and recruit the same. I'd much rather just punch the Nazis and anyone who sides with them.
In a way wouldn't we all. But this is clearly posturing anyway since I'm not seeing much in the way of nazi punching. For instance we saw how many nazis were in DC on January 6th or at Charlottesville, yet not much punching occurred.
Either way there are better ways to undermine their goals.
Yeah because rational humans were at home being their non violent selves having no idea what was about to unfold. How stupid are you?
That just helps prove my point. One side is just not violent to begin with and to expect to beat violence with violence from a group unwilling to stoop to such a level themselves is absurd. Either way there are better ways to solving the problem. Nobody is going out "punching nazis" as much as it may feel cathartic to say. That will literally just land you in prison and feed their cause.
So, they act like children?
Nobody said they're bright.
It seems unlikely that this would have any political effect, let alone a negative one. Perpetual gun violence is an unremarkable feature of life in the United States.
All the downvotes you're getting on this one... YIKES I don't think this is a very good community.