Post by Least censored on the planet! on Aug 22, 2019 16:05:22 GMT -5
Whembly, I'm just the messenger. Don't shot the messenger.
EDIT: oh... missed this:
Well...yeah...no one is disputing that firearms makes things "easier". That's the whole point.
Still...firearms is a tool. It's the user who's using the tool we should be paying attention to.
Hypothetically, look at it this way: if you make a medicine that cure all cancers, less people would die of cancer!
We have an individual right to firearms.
We do not have the individual right to have access to medicine.
That's only because you don't know the rest of the world. Again, and again, and again, plenty of European cities are wealthier AND surer than in the US. You cannot say “There is a lot of gangs and cartels in the US because the US has more money” when countries with very poor city like Mexico have a huge gang/cartel problem and countries with very rich cities like Switzerland have 0 gangs/cartels problem.
Your conclusion goes directly against most of the data, and that means your conclusion is just wrong!!
Your conclusion goes directly against most of the data, and that means your conclusion is just wrong!!
I've repeated myself numerous times.
Again, with feelings:
PART OF THE REASON!
Okay, so Whembly, do you know this game called Warhammer Fantasy Battle? It's abandoned now, but it was a cool game with small miniatures that you had to paint, and one of the armies was called Tomb Kings. It was Egyptian undead, and they had plenty of skeletons, which initially were very similar to the Vampire Counts skeletons. But they introduced a pretty interesting rule to set Tomb Kings' archers apart. See, the idea was that unlike the usual skeletons, Tomb Kings' skeletons were sort of like automatons stuck in time. They would fight the same battle that they fought while alive, again and again and again. They were stuck in the past. So, instead of having the usual interactions with the current situation that other shooters had, they were completely ignoring it. It didn't matter if they were shooting at a giant dragon just 10m away, or if they were shooting at elves infiltrators hidden in the forest at max range of their bows: they always hit on 5+. They completely ignored the present, they lived in the past.
That's how you are debating right now. You are entirely ignoring what I say, ignoring the context, and focusing on repeating what made sense in whatever past discussion.
You start by saying “The reason is easy, it's money”. It's a completely stupid position, but it's not one you are interested in developing, it's not one you care about, it's just a way to deflect from guns. But I'm not talking about guns, at all! So we end up with entirely nonsensical things.
For instance, you wrote that “Hypothetically, look at it this way: dry up the cartels/gangs/mafia money streams. Their influence and numbers would drop.” That's a true affirmation. Also an entirely asinine one. It's exactly like saying “Hypothetically, look at it this way: if you make a medicine that cure all cancers, less people would die of cancer!”. It's true! We should try to dry up the gangs' money stream, and we should try to find a medicine that cure all cancers! Obviously! Both propositions are absolutely obvious, and none of them are interesting if you don't add anything about the “how”. None of this has anything to do with firearms. Yet your answer is telling me… bullshit about what is a right and what isn't! Do you know what is a right whembly? It's what we decide is a right. And if I get any say, having healthcare is a right and having a gun isn't ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And it's the case where I live.
Similarly, you tell us that weapons aren't the only cause. Cool, let's have a look at what the other causes are! So I ask you, what are those, in your opinion? Your answer is… “other factors”. Obviously, you don't intend to explain what those other causes are. You aren't interested in them at all. All you care about is that they aren't guns. You then spend 3 lines, THREE LINES, explaining me about how guns aren't responsible. I never asked you anything about guns, I asked you about the other causes!
And again, if your argument is that “rich countries are more prone to have violent organized crime”, it goes against intuition and reflection and it goes against the data we got so you can write in huge and bold “part of the reason” all you want, it's not convincing in any way! I mean, explain again to use why rich countries would have more violent organized crime? Because sure as hell, criminals will get money from their criminal activities even in poor countries, much much more money than from working, and that shows in the actual data we get!
I'm assuming that “rich countries are more prone to have violent organized crime” is your actual position, because you refused to develop your position beside “Money” and “Criminals like money”, because you were too busy thinking about guns.
How is that battle between Khemri and Mahrak going, Whembly? I'm sure this time it will be different and your side will have a decisive victory!
Oh, and the thing about you ignoring me was more about how you didn't want to answer on how you were voting for a guy that embolden criminally racist cops and creates a climate of impunity for them to perpetrate racist crimes by not only pardoning those that are convicted in a court of law, but also praising them as examples of good people. How do you reconcile that with “not being racist”, whemb? That's what I'm interested in. How do you live with enabling racist criminals? That nonscussion about how money is the reason for violent crime is cute but really do not matter compared to how you deal with the racism and the crime thingy.
. Never forget WFB!
