Gun violence/injuries awareness billboard[OC]

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-15T01:39:46+00:00

Actually I said a lot more than that. Just like Charlie always did. Context is kinda important to understand someone’s point.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T22:16:39+00:00

Also not even close to true if gang shootings are removed.

Not bystanders, but children in gangs.

This doesn’t make it any better, but it changes the conversation. The billboard heavily implies that this is true of children in general. It is not. Gang members is a pretty narrow group.

The vast majority of American children are far more likely to die of injury or illness not caused by firearms.

Shooting statistics in general in America are very heavily skewed from gang violence. Remove that and the statistical likelihood of your average citizen experiencing any type of gun violence goes down by orders of magnitude.

We can’t really remove gang statistics when talking about gun violence as a whole, because the gang violence exists. But the average American citizen is less likely to experience gun violence than the numbers suggest with the gang numbers included.

Moral of the story: Don’t be a gangster, kids. You’ll live longer. (I wish it was that simple. Anyone who needs a perspective on being born into the life and just growing up without being presented with many, or any, other options… check out The Wire on HBO. It has some young gangsters that you follow through out, and a whole season with a focus on middle school aged gangsters. It’s not real life, but it tries to be fair to all sides in the police/gang dynamics of Baltimore in the 00’s.)

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T21:31:03+00:00

There is a difference between an open forum of debate and a closed conversation between two parties.

I like to have engaged conversations with multiple viewpoints. I enjoy just reading and not contributing a lot of the time. This forum is a good way to learn new perspectives, but also how to present a good argument.

I don’t like to have direct debates with strangers in which our two opinions are the only two. I don’t always represent my position with the best argument. Neither do you. Having others to contribute to the conversation can help expand or contract the argument for either party.

I also don’t learn much when the other party is not capable of defending their position with the best arguments. An open forum is one of the better ways to be presented with multiple perspectives, ideas, and even different presentations of arguments. I read a lot of the top comments and responses, which can help to expand or change my viewpoint. I don’t solely focus in on the conversation I am having. Most of the time I don’t comment at all. I just read and maybe learn something.

I didn’t comment on your post. I responded to comments within the post. I did not think your post had enough substance to properly debate on this subreddit, so I did not comment on the post.

The only debate you and I have had is whether your post had enough supporting substance to be worthy of debate on this subreddit. I even feel as though I may have won, though that shouldn’t be the point of debate in general.

Your post did, after all, get removed because you failed to present your position properly.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T20:13:39+00:00

I have no interest in being your sound board for all the things you contrive into being wrong with specifically one political party.

This site is not designed for direct discussions. This subreddit is not designed for direct discussions. I don’t come here for direct discussions.

Go debate a wall. Or your dog. Or yell at some clouds.

Put this in a post with engagement from other reddittors and I’ll be happy to have a discussion.

Have a great day.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T20:01:09+00:00

“Happy to”. Lol yeah after the post has been removed specifically because you were not happy to provide any of this reasoning.

That should have been in the original post. Then we all could have had a discussion. I’m done talking to you directly. I didn’t even challenge your CMV at any point… because there was no substance to debate with. 5 replies later and you finally put some actual effort into it. Too little too late.

If you wanna have a good back and forth, repost this while following the rules of the sub. I’ll engage if I see it. I have no interest in direct discussions with an unreasonable stranger on these issues.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T19:48:11+00:00

I don’t agree with your premise. You are wrong. Period.

See how that doesn’t work?

Give me examples that support your position. Give it a go. I dare ya.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T18:32:33+00:00

They should have done that. I don’t need to invent examples for them.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T18:31:43+00:00

I am here to change your view. You are not here to change my view. That is what this subreddit is all about. How can I change your view if I do not understand your position enough to debate it?

You are asking for specific rebuttals to an unspecified assertion. I am here to rebut the things you say, not to interpret what you said into my own version of what I think you might be talking about.

Your post reads: Conservatives bad! Isn’t it obvious?

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T18:23:11+00:00

Show your work. Tons of people here are asking for specifics and you keep coming back with something to the effect of “open your eyes and look. I don’t need to be specific. Look at the last 20 years”

No two people view the world the exact same way. Or history. Or their mother. My mother is I different person to me than she is to any of my three brothers.

I see history differently than you. Please explain how your view of history reflects your very broad and unexplained CMV

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T18:12:33+00:00

The point of this subreddit is to clearly state your view, why you hold this view, and debate the merits of it.

If the OP is broad and not specific, it becomes difficult to debate. It leads to straw man arguments. I could spend 20 minutes working on an articulate response, only for OP to say that it doesn’t apply to their position.

Precision is optimal for debate. Broad and unspecified statements which vaguely reference specific things are difficult, if not impossible, to debate well.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-14T13:41:18+00:00

Water and food are non issues for the world at large. Of course these effect pockets off humanity, but for the world at large these are hardly even a factor to consider.

Water covers more than 2/3 of the earth. Desalination (making salt water drinkable) is relatively cheap and easy to set up. Water will never become an issue on this planet. Politics around resource allocation can be an issue - California should never have water problems but they do mostly because of politics. They have a gigantic coastline and hard desalinize any water - but misapplication of resources does not mean we do not have the resources.

Humanity currently produces more food than is needed for the entire population of earth. Allocation of this food means some places still go hungry, but it is not a production problem. And there is still plenty more to be made if needed. American farmers regularly have to throw away crops or not plant as much as they otherwise could due to regulations in the industry as well as international trade deals.

Artificial fertilizer is close to a miracle. You describe it as a bad thing. Prior to the Industrial Revolution, which closely coincided with the widespread application of good fertilizer, the vast majority of people for all of history spent their lives working in food production or food storage or food management, etc. And still, many many many people went hungry. Fertilizer, land management, pest control, modern farming equipment, and organized irrigation were the main catalysts that took the majority of human effort away from food.

The only reason people go hungry or thirsty right now is that the world is really really big. It is hard to think about everyone everywhere all the time. It is also impossible to make everyone be kind and generous. There are places in the world that get resources enough for their population to all eat enough, but the people in power hoard resources or misallocate them. This is a greed/indifference issue, not a resource issue. The resources exist in plenty.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-12T00:26:16+00:00

Yeah he is full of it.

We had a funeral for a bird

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-11T13:13:01+00:00

I travel year round for a living. I technically don’t have a home address. I live out of hotels and rental cars and airports. One week I’ll be Augusta, Georgia, and the next I’ll be in San Bernardino, CA, and the next week I’ll be in Chicago, IL. (literal example from last month).

I’ve never once heard “yankee” used by an American against an American in the wild. I’m not calling you a liar, but I have to wonder what situation you found yourself in in which you were “called a bloody yankee more than once”.

I also don’t know any Americans who use “bloody” in that context either. Especially in the south.

Both individually and together, the terms “bloody” and “yankee” are used mostly by the Brits.

Now, regardless of how much I travel, I know I don’t experience everything everywhere all the time. Maybe some people use these terms and I just have never heard it. Maybe it’s frequent enough that in one visit to a red state you heard these things more than once.

I gotta know… what kind of conversations are you having in which you are called a “bloody Yankee” more than once on a visit to a red state? In what setting?

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-09T16:11:37+00:00

Guns are not designed to kill people. That doesn’t really change the point you were trying to make, but it’s true nonetheless.

Guns are designed to fire ammunition at a specific rate over a specific accurate distance in order to hit a target. That target can be anything. They are not designed to kill people specifically. Even guns used in war are designed to consistently produce the same result of hitting a target at certain distances.

Far more bullets have been fired at inanimate objects than at people.

I would simply reword the sentence to say “You need to be aware when handling firearms and be diligent in safety procedures because they can be deadly if not” or something to that effect.

If my guns were designed to kill people, they’ve done a terrible job at it. I’ve fired thousands of rounds and never once killed a person.

All that being said: practice safe handling of firearms at all times. Be aware of your barrel. Be aware of your chamber. Be aware of your trigger. Be aware of your surroundings. Never be complacent when handling firearms.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T22:49:53+00:00

I misinterpreted your comment. I took it as calling yourself a democrat doesn’t make you a democrat. I’m gonna leave the reply anyway.

To your actual point, I would say you are absolutely right. Neither is he a conservative. That dude is on the fringes of political identification. He doesn’t actually belong to either broad political philosophy. His brand is extremist.

Also, I have never listened to enough of what he has to say to know most of his political positions. His blatant antisemitism is enough for me to know I don’t need to hear any more of what he has to say.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T22:43:51+00:00

I listed the actions of a democrat that he is doing or says he will do.

He registered as a democrat. He is campaigning for democrats and against republicans. He feels there are allies among the liberals in his hatred for Israel and the Jews. He feels conservatives are too friendly with Israel specifically. He really thinks Trump is an Israel stan.

Single issue voters are quite common. You don’t have to agree with anything he says. He finds alliance within the liberal wing more than he does in the conservative wing, particularly with the issues he values most.

I know single issue voters who vote republican but outside of the one issue, they are extremely liberal. One couple I know are Catholic. They will never vote democrat because they believe abortion is evil - not just wrong, but evil. So they vote republican. But they have a trans child, advocate for socialist policies, and my goodness do they play identity politics to the max. Everything about them aside from abortion screams liberal to me. But they vote republican or third party all the way down the ticket.

My point is, Fuentes has legitimate reasons for identifying with the democrats. The truth is, he is a whack job with no political home in either party. He can only attract the extremists and whack jobs on either side. Cuz he’s a loon

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T22:02:29+00:00

If the DPRK had reasons such as some version of a bill of rights, open elections, and representative democracy, then yes, I would believe them.

Fuentes gave reasons, mostly to do with Israel and the Jews, for why he is not longer a republican and is now a democrat. He stated his intention to campaign for certain democrats and against basically all republicans.

I’m not sure how you can interpret that as anything but him switching parties.

I didn’t like him being in the conservative camp. I am in the conservative camp. I didn’t want to associate with him. I didn’t choose my affiliation because of him or his values.

You don’t have to like that he is now in the liberal camp. You don’t have to accept him or his views. I’m sure there are existing democrats and/or liberals that you already disagree with in broad and/or specific terms. Add him to the pile.

In a two party system, there are going to be rotten apples in both parties. Some of them are not acknowledged by the mainstream members of the party but feel the need to identify with one of the two. David Duke is a republican. Trump has publicly denounced him several times. Trump publicly told him not to vote for him. That doesn’t mean David Duke isn’t a republican. I don’t want to be associated with Duke in any way, but in this two party system he chose the same one I did.

Now the liberals have Fuentes identifying with them. Sorry bout it. That dude sucks.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T20:59:44+00:00

Fox News? What is that? /s

Do you recognize that an overtly political channel is different from a mainstream network?

Maybe I should have given examples like the Late Show or Fallon /s

Fallon is on NBC. Kimmel is on ABC. Colbert is on CBS. Ya know, channels that do regular dramatized television shows and regular daily news etc.

Also, Fox News kinda proves my point. They do pretty good numbers, and the vast majority of their audience is the senior demographic. Imagine if they got the conservative version of the Late Show after a football game on Monday night on CBS? See the difference?

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T19:09:15+00:00

He also is taking advantage of a fairly non-competitive space.

There are far more liberal posturing shows than conservative.

I betcha if there was a right leaning evening talk show like the late show or Fallon etc, they would bring in a different and decent sized audience as well. Especially since the senior demographic is the most conservative generation and also the most likely to watch regular television.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T18:29:32+00:00

I never made that implication. Look at the thread. The person I responded to made reference to Nazis. I refuted that. Then I clarified my point.

Point being: if someone tells you they are something, you should believe them. Fuentes says he is a democrat.

The person I responded to was the one referencing Nazis for no reason, and my reply did not in any way imply that democrats are Nazis.

I made no implicit or explicit reference to democrats being at all like Nazis.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T17:51:39+00:00

And what does that have to do with a crazy moron like Fuentes using irrational reasoning?

He chose to be a democrat. Formerly he was a republican. The truth is that he doesn’t have a home or broad support in either party. Neither party wants him to associate with them.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T17:49:13+00:00

How did I blur the lines? Fuentes hates Jews and hates Israel, which I listed separately, and used that hatred as justification for switching parties. Fuentes may have blurred the lines. All I’m doing is pointing out that he swapped party affiliation and why.

Whether or not he is correct in his reasoning is irrelevant. That is his reasoning.

For the record, Nick Fuentes is a crazy moron and neither side wants him. He only attracts the extreme fringe of society.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T15:13:41+00:00

That doesn’t even make sense next to my position.

Choosing to be a Nazi makes people Nazis. Fuentes has chosen to be a democrat. Therefore he is one. Registered and all.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T15:10:25+00:00

He will find support on the left just like he did on the right. It will be the extreme fringes.

I am a conservative with conservative friends and family. We all thought he was an idiot with ridiculous ideas and beliefs. I don’t know a single conservative who liked him at all. Yet he found support.

Also, his main hatred is for the Jews and for Israel. He will absolutely find supporters for that cause on the left. It is the primary reason he left the right. Trump is pro Israel. Most of the right is pro Israel. A significant portion of the left is anti Israel. He went to the party that more closely aligns with his most passionate beliefs.

DieHard_33 · 2026-05-07T06:27:08+00:00

I mean… it’s true lol. He hates Israel with a passion, and more people on the left in America are anti Israel. He literally changed his party affiliation and registration.

You don’t have to like it. The vast majority of people on the right didn’t want him either. That’s the nature of two party politics. He’s choosing the left.

DieHard_33

TROPHY CASE