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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
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.