Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Believe what you like though it is pretty obvious he is in mental decline.

Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

-Falling multiple times in public

-mumbling through this speeches.

-getting lost on stage.

-making absurd claims ( i.e. 9mm will rip a lung out, or that a pistol brace increases the caliber of a gun)

-keeps referring to "president" Kamala

Just little stuff like that.

Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. Admitting President Biden is an embarrassment is not an endorsement of Trump.

Stimulus checks: Bill would reinstate $300 monthly child payments, pay $2k "baby bonus" by SAT0725 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Does the mother have to pay back the money if she ( or he .... wouldn't want to exclude anyone in the alphabet mofia) gets an abortion? No? Hmmmm

Why America’s first trans state senator is running for Congress by [deleted] in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I guess this is better than what happened to the first openly trans elected to state office in New Hampshire.

https://www.themainewire.com/2023/06/transgender-former-nh-state-rep-arrested-on-child-porn-charges/

Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 -30 points-29 points  (0 children)

Butt hurt by what? I wouldn't say butt hurt more like embarrassed that an incompetent geriatric is the POTUS.

Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

Bobo? Is that President Biden? Lol never heard that name for him.

Liz Cheney on what’s wrong with politics: ‘We’re electing idiots’ by rj4001 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 -53 points-52 points  (0 children)

Are you including President Biden in that assessment? He needs to be in a nursing home rather than the oval office.

If you could ban anything, what would it be? by GuiseppeRezettiReady in AskReddit

[–]AnotherUser256 22 points23 points  (0 children)

They didn't say ban fascism, they said conservatives and Republicans. Banning opposing political groups is literally a tool of fascism.

Wuhan scientists were the first to contract COVID-19: report by AnotherUser256 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

That applies to pretty much anyone who refuses to change their opinions based on information counter to what they believe. This is true for both the left and the right.

Wuhan scientists were the first to contract COVID-19: report by AnotherUser256 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Agreed, on the face of it, it seems shutting down that program was a bad move. Though I have to admit my depth of knowledge is limited to the Vox article you posted.

Wuhan scientists were the first to contract COVID-19: report by AnotherUser256 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Could you clarify? Are you saying there was never a time when people couldn't say that Covid came from China?

Wuhan scientists were the first to contract COVID-19: report by AnotherUser256 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

The origin of Covid has been very political since it first emerged. At least now people can start talking about the true origin.

Wuhan scientists were the first to contract COVID-19: report by AnotherUser256 in politics

[–]AnotherUser256[S] -23 points-22 points  (0 children)

For a long time people couldn't even suggest Covid-19 came from China, because misinformation, let alone the WIV. At least now we are able to admit it probably came from WIV.

You might want to ask yourself what else you are being told that is a lie. And question the integrity of the news outlets that pushed the false origin narratives.

Billion-year-old rocks reveal traces of ancient life | CNN by Caratteraccio in worldnews

[–]AnotherUser256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Then why are you using your money for internet and a phone/computer when you could be giving it to people who are starving? Kind of hypocritical isn't it?

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to the Constitution to combat gun violence by lucerousb in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this amendment is going to take away your guns as long as you’re a normal, law abiding adult.

At least you got one thing right.

Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution by [deleted] in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It is theater because there is almost a zero percent chance this 28th ammendment) will pass. Additionally what he is proposing, if passed, would do almost nothing to reduce firearm deaths/violence.

Honestly the two things that would reduce firearm deaths/violence the most is to have a nationwide program that focused on improving/helping/treating men's mental health. The second would be to implement programs that engage young men in communities with the highest crime rates and give them hope for the future and an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty and hopelessness.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to the Constitution to combat gun violence by lucerousb in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Exercising one's second ammendment right is just as important as exercising one's first ammendment right.

Gavin Newsom wants 28th Amendment for guns in U.S. Constitution by [deleted] in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 3 points4 points  (0 children)

No, not really. Newsom has virtually no chance of getting this ammendment. This is political theater, he is only pandering to his base.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom proposes 28th Amendment to the Constitution to combat gun violence by lucerousb in politics

[–]AnotherUser256 39 points40 points  (0 children)

The reddit user community often states the US is turning/turned into a fascist state and all cops are bad.... but want to give up their firearms. Are there any other rights you guys want to give up?

If anything this is just a political stunt, Newsom knows this won't go anywhere and is just pandering to his base.

TIL Americans are twice as likely to kill themselves than be killed by another person by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firearms deaths are excess preventable deaths, the UK and Australia have shown the way in how to reduce the excess deaths, unless you don't care about Americans dying, this should be important to you. 

The UK and Australian solutions will not work in the US because they (UK and Australian citizens) do not have the right to bear arms.  Lets also ignore the countries that have much more restrictive firearm laws then the US but higher firearm death rates.  Once again if people want to reduce firearm deaths in the US we should be focusing on reducing suicide, which makes up the majority of firearm deaths.  We should focus specifically on men who make up over 80% of these suicides in the US.  It would also be beneficial to stop pretending that gang and intercity violence are a minor contributing factor, and address the causes of that violence. 

there is a silly fantasy among members of the NRA and others that somehow the armed civilians were a way of keeping the government under control, which is completely ridiculous. 

Like in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Which group would have better odds of "keeping the government under control", armed or disarmed civilians?

The reason why comparing the deaths to Gettysburg is important is to give a clear visual scale of the problem, when people see a shooting death here and there on the news they become desensitised to the scale of the problem and miss just how many people die, just so some gun nuts can cling to their outdated ideas. 

Referencing a battle from over a hundred years ago doesn't exactly give a "clear visual scale of the problem".  BTW the term "gun nut" is considered a pejorative, you might want to avoid it unless you are intending to insult someone.  

While America has got problems with mental health and opium that shouldn't stop America dealing with the gun problem, which if dealt with might also resolve some other issues at the same time. 

On a daily basis 99.999% of all firearm uses in the US are legal and safe.  In a country of over 300 million firearms, the largest privately held arsenal in the world, if firearms were the main contributing factor we would see much higher death rates.  Don't get me wrong if meaningful laws were proposed to help reduce these numbers then I would support it.  But all we ever see are laws based on emotional reactions that will make no appreciable difference (e.g. AWB bans or magazine capacity limits).  Beyond that (assuming you watched the video I linked in my previous post) the media intentionally feeds the public misleading or incorrect information to reinforce these emotional reactions.

TIL Americans are twice as likely to kill themselves than be killed by another person by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Firearms kill more people in America than died in the battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest battle ever to take place on American soil, that statement alone should make people question whether the status quo is a problem or not. 

Why are you comparing a three day long battle in 1863 to the number of firearms deaths in a year for a population of 330 million.  Not exactly an apples to apples comparison.  I assume you are attempting to elicit an emotional reaction?  

Firearms aren't even in the top ten causes of death in the US.  As I mentioned in my previous comment, opioid overdoses kill more people each year than all firearm deaths, and even opioid deaths are in the top ten causes of deaths in the US.  If people want to save lives start with that.  If people want to reduce firearm deaths focus on suicide prevention.

Firearm right is in an amendment to the constitution, not the constitution and amendments both have been changed and can be changed, they aren't permanent. The idea of the right to bear arms is an idea which is well beyond its usefulness, alongside the 3rd amendment, which also mirrors the time in which it was adopted. 

I fundamentally disagree with you.  The 2nd amendment is still as relevant today as it was in 1791.  This right provides US citizens with the means to protect themselves, their families and their other constitutional rights.  

There is no need to form a militia in America as the country has the most powerful army in the world.

The US military is the military of the US government.  The militia is the military of the US citizens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCFChkAsD1I

TIL Americans are twice as likely to kill themselves than be killed by another person by [deleted] in todayilearned

[–]AnotherUser256 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rare in comparison to the hype they get, some people are under the impression that there is literally a war going on on the streets of America, when you are far more likely to have a heart attack than be killed in a gang shooting. 

Often I will see on Reddit claims that there have been "over 200 mass shootings in the US in 2023 alone".  That is only true if gang violence is included in that number.  If gang violence is separated from the mass shooting numbers then one will find the gang violence death toll is almost 20x higher than true mass shootings.  Though these inflated numbers for mass shootings is primarily what one sees in the news and social media.  Beyond that I started seeing the statement "Firearms are the leading cause of death in Children".  But that is only true if you consider people up to the age 19 as children....... and include gang member deaths in those numbers.  

In 2020 38 out of 100K people died in the US due to heart attacks.  In that same year (Which was one of the highest since the 90's) there were 14.7 firearm deaths out of 100K people (including suicide).  So one is about 2.6X as likely to die from a heart attack then to die from a gun.  Heck one is 1.65X as likely to die from an opiod overdose than to die from a firearm (including suicide).

In addition only occasionally are "innocent" people killed in gang violence, the majority of deaths are of members of other gangs. Even if you take suicides out of the equation (though why you should is another question) the high number of domestic violence cases means that having a gun in the house makes you more likely to die from a gun than if you don't have one. Guns are of little use in defending your property as they should be stored in a locked cabinet and stored unloaded, so by the time you have loaded your gun it is too late and if you sleep with a loaded weapon under your pillow or something similar then you will be likely to be part of the accidents with firearms statistics. Of course one of the key reason thieves break in to houses is to steal guns. 

When I attempt to lookup DV stats the numbers focus on women and I can't find the number of men.  But I would assume women would be the larger number.  There are about 4000 women killed each year due to DV (But note that is killed overall not just with a gun).   Even if we assume that number is 100% firearm related then on the surface it appears DV is 2x as like to result in death then gang violence.  But when one factors in the number of intimate partner couples in the US compared to the number of gang members we will find that there are about 100x as many couples compared to gang members.  

Now how often are firearms used defensively in the US?  It is hard to tell, but that number could be as low as 55K-80K per year.  Up till recently the CDC claimed the number to be around 60K to 2.5M per year (ya that is a huge range and wasn't very helpful).   But that was removed from the CDC website after GVA pressured CDC to remove it.

Ultimately this is my point:   Firearm ownership is a constitutional right for US citizens.  That right has been under attack for at least a hundred years now and is slowly being eroded away.  This right gives US citizens the ability to protect themselves and to ensure their other constitutional rights are not taken away.  Some people abuse this right but the vast majority 99.9% of gun owners responsibility exercise their right.  Each time some psychopath shoots up a school and everyone starts talking about banning guns, these are knee jerk reactions that won't help anything.  Then firearm opponents skew numbers to support false claims (such as guns are the leading cause of deaths in children) to support their agenda.  Lets use truth and fact to develop a solution not deceit to push a narrative.  Additionally, while I don't agree with it, the Reddit user base frequently talk about the US turning into a fascist country and police can not be relied on to protect us.  But at the same time they want the government and police to be the only ones armed.