politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Did you not at all read my comment?
I knew the stats before you mentioned them, I'm pointing out there are clear differences to society right now that make this data far less relevant.
Your actually implies you're arguing against an argument I've made but you aren't at all.
Ah, so you think (without any evidence) that the trend suddenly and drastically reversed itself in the last 10 months and no one bothered to report on it?
You are seemingly purposefully misconstruing my argument and that is annoying.
Clearly the point is a new danger exists, why you keep insisting on the strawman argument against the position that gun stats arent real, something I've never indicated, I do not know.
I can only think its in bad faith because you don't have arguments against the actual opinions I've shared.
Can you point to any statistics for this new danger. Specifically, can you point to any metrics which show that a firearm is more likely to be used defensively than it is to be used on yourself or your spouse? I do believe that was exactly what you meant when you said...
If that is not what you meant, then you need to clarify that statement. I haven't built a strawman, I pointed out that the current trend for suicidal gun use is increasing, and without any evidence showing a dramatic change in the ratio of self-inflicted firearm deaths to all other firearm deaths, then it is clear that your position is incorrect, and you are moving goalposts in order to avoid admitting that your position is incorrect despite the publicly available data.
You've absolutely built a strawman. You obviously understand the new risks we're talking about given the subject of the article and the context, but yet you continue to imply this is about traditional gun statistics and not the ever increasing and looming threat of violence from neighbors who support the regime.
What new risks? You haven't mentioned any new risks, and you certainly haven't put forward any evidence that those risks are changing the ratio of gun suicides to all other gun deaths. You just got feelings and vibes that something is happening without any data to back it up. Meanwhile data trends show that the ratio of gun suicides to all other gun deaths is actually went up last year, which is a complete refutation of your point.
If you can't defend your argument with anything more than "feelings" then there is no point to discuss further, as your only tactic in this conversation is on par with brainless maga trolls.
To put it simply for you... Show metrics supporting your argument that there are new risks which is lowering the ratio of gun suicides to all other gun deaths (which is the exact argument you made), or admit that your position is incorrect.
Ok, at this point I've explained the hell out of my point and can only conclude you are a troll. You've made 0 effort to figure out what I am saying, so clearly the strawman you started with is the hill you want to go to die on.
The fact you call this conversation "on par with brainless maga trolls" is more evidence you just intended to rile me up while completely knowing exactly what threat I am talking about as people are being disappeared off of streets and hate crimes are being covered up. Clearly people should wait for the historians to have a perspective on this as the regime increasingly cancels studies on societal problems.
I don't have the energy for that.
Ah, another empty reply, with no evidence to support your position.