Nine year old black girl is bullied with racist taunts from classmates, hangs herself.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,526
136
How are you going to take away 60,000,000 assault rifles without killing people to get them, risking the lives of cops who are tasked with taking them, and turning people violent by putting them in jail for being caught with them? How many murders will these newly violent people commit when they get out of violence training camp (prison)? And what is the exact benefit you expect? There is a maximum fairy-land upper limit of 150 lives saved per year (the annual TOTAL amount of people murdered by assault rifles). Assuming you can literally get ALL the assault rifles and also assuming alternative weapons will never be used instead of assault rifles. Both assumptions are unrealistic and illogical, and shouldn't form the basis of any legal policy. Beware the unintended consequences lest they be worse than the problem you are attempting to solve.

You’re saying these people are so unstable that if someone tries to take one of their many types of guns away they will resort to murder? No offense, but that sounds like exactly the sort of people who shouldn’t own guns because that’s absolutely insane. No one should be that attached to a piece of property.

However, we could take a more realistic approach of dealing with the underlying issues (war on drugs and mental health), using logic and reason, while abstaining from using emotional and condescending words like "ammosexuals" in attempt to move hearts and minds.

We both know that after you address both of those to the best of our ability we are still going to have a huge gun violence problem. (As if we are solving mental health problems anyway) What restrictions on gun ownership are you willing to endorse?
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,128
2,167
136
I'll reread it.

Edit: is this what people are confused by?

“She was being bullied [by] the entire school year, with words such as ‘kill yourself,’" the 9-year-old’s aunt, Eddwina Harris, told the Tuscaloosa News. She was also told, “you think you’re white because you ride with that white boy,” Harris said, and called “ugly” and other unprintable epithets.

If so, I don't necessarily see that coming solely from other black kids.


I can't find an article that specifies the racial make up of the bullies. The school is about 50/50 as far as race. If white kids bullied her because she hung out with another white kid then that would be racism. If the bully group was partly or all black then I would not consider it anti-white racism. It would be more like - you think you're better than us because you hang around with a white kid.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
Nobody is suggesting confiscation of guns but rather limiting what can be sold OTC.

Lots of people IN THIS THREAD are saying that. Even if all you want to accomplish is limiting what can be sold, then why? What is the estimate of lives saved per year? When it doesn't even register in the stats to the 1/10th of a percent, will that be it or will you be back for more? You'll be back for more and you know it. I think you know the numbers and I think you are pretending not to.

And, uhh, you pulled that 60M number right out of your ass, huh?

Yes, apparently I got that from right inside my ass because it wasn't an accurate number taken from an accurate source. Thanks. It looks like maybe 5-10 million AR-15s and maybe more of other assault rifle types? Hard to tell based on the source. Can you re-read my point using the number 5 million instead of 60 million? Does that change the logic?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,526
136
This sounds awesome. I want to believe it. Yet if that were true, I would expect liberals to not use arguments such as "conservatives will never support ending the war on drugs so let's not try" while at the same time saying "conservatives want their guns and will never support gun control but let's do it LOL". Especially when ending the war on drugs is a far superior method to reduce gun violence, violence in general, tax money spent, and people's lives ruined. Search your feelings on this.

I have never heard a liberal make the argument of ‘conservatives will never end the war on drugs so let’s not try’. Ever. I am simply saying conservatives are almost entirely uninterested in enacting policies that will reduce gun violence so let’s not pretend otherwise.

We should enact policies based solely on their merits, not who it makes mad. This is why we should end the war on drugs and this is why we need greater gun control. The question is not which should we do, we should do both.

No, it reduces the violence levels because it eliminates the lucrative black market dominated by the most violent individuals and groups, who have massive incentive to be violent.

I think you misunderstood my post. My point was we will still have plenty of gun violence absent the war on drugs. It’s not enough.

You. Can't. It is impossible. In magical fairy land you can get rid of 300,000,000 guns in a country that believes it is allowed BY GOD to own these guns. Good luck. Good luck doing it without killing anyone, getting cops killed, or imprisoning people who never harmed anybody (which likely will now make them actually violent because that's what prison does).

Plenty of other countries have done so, and I don’t think the idea that it may be difficult makes it not worth doing, it would be a steady process over many years.

Simply declaring something impossible is what people often do when they just don’t WANT to do something. (See health care, universal)

You. Can't. How would you even accomplish this without badly fucking shit up? Has any nation ever accomplished this in history? Any comparable nation that had lots of private ownership of guns?

See above. It’s a worthy goal and so at a minimum we should try. We owe it to ourselves.

This is not a true statement and the U.S. is a blatant counterexample. When the U.S. allowed the assault rifle ban to expire (loosened restrictions), gun deaths dropped steeply over the next decade and beyond, while gun ownership skyrocketed. This leads me to believe that there are more powerful and important variables at play.

This is a true statement, backed by empirical research. There are always other factors in play which is why you need to look for natural policy experiments to control for them.

Here’s one example:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504296/

Conclusions. Consistent with prior research, this study demonstrated that Connecticut’s handgun permit-to-purchase law was associated with a subsequent reduction in homicide rates. As would be expected if the law drove the reduction, the policy’s effects were only evident for homicides committed with firearms.

Here’s a second related to suicide:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743515002297

Conclusion

The findings are consistent with prior research linking firearm availability to increased risk of suicide and lower suicide risks associated with PTP handgun laws.

Will you reconsider your position now? This is what I mean about common sense laws. More guns means more dead people by guns.

We gotta look at ending the war on drugs, investing tax money into mental health, and implement licensing strategies for purchasing/owning guns. Prison raping non-violent people because they own a tool is not going to be the answer.

No one has suggested prison raping anyone.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Lots of people IN THIS THREAD are saying that. Even if all you want to accomplish is limiting what can be sold, then why? What is the estimate of lives saved per year? When it doesn't even register in the stats to the 1/10th of a percent, will that be it or will you be back for more? You'll be back for more and you know it. I think you know the numbers and I think you are pretending not to.



Yes, apparently I got that from right inside my ass because it wasn't an accurate number taken from an accurate source. Thanks. It looks like maybe 5-10 million AR-15s and maybe more of other assault rifle types? Hard to tell based on the source. Can you re-read my point using the number 5 million instead of 60 million? Does that change the logic?

Of course we'll be back, probably to ban the sale of high capacity magazines & combat grade hand cannons, as well, particularly ones that aren't safe, like Glocks.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
1,001
126
So what? I'm sure not very many people were killed by machine guns & the rest of it in 1934 but they passed the FFA anyway.


They had people dying needlessly due to gangs. What stopped the violence was ending prohibition, not banning machine guns.

The point being the number of automatic weapons used in crime then was likely disproportionately high. That is not at all the case today with semi automatic guns, "assault rifles". You're looking to harm the many for no tangible gain, then you sit there and wonder why the NRA is so defensive...
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
You’re saying these people are so unstable that if someone tries to take one of their many types of guns away they will resort to murder? No offense, but that sounds like exactly the sort of people who shouldn’t own guns because that’s absolutely insane. No one should be that attached to a piece of property.

People don't like when you unjustly take their stuff away. They will never like it. A certain percentage of them WILL fight back. Whether it is confiscating guns, pets, cutlery, land, electronics, whatever. It is human nature to not want your shit taken away. If you want to take someone's gun away it is your responsibility to present the case why that person should not be allowed to own it and why if they don't give it up, then you feel OK taking them away from their family, putting them in prison, getting them assraped in prison. You tell them why they should lose any chance at ever having a good job ever again and why we are going to send them to a place that will likely make them violent after they get out. How can you be sure your solution won't lead to MORE death and violence than literally doing nothing? If your goal is to reduce violence wouldn't you at least consider "does my solution make more violence"?

None of this should even matter when we have massively better solutions.

We both know that after you address both of those to the best of our ability we are still going to have a huge gun violence problem. (As if we are solving mental health problems anyway) What restrictions on gun ownership are you willing to endorse?

I think gun violence rates will drop to levels far more comparable to other 1st world countries if we end the war on drugs. After that we can bicker over the leftovers. Until that is the main focus I will have a hard time believing that the "banning solves things" crowd either understands the statistics or cares about the outcome.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
Of course we'll be back, probably to ban the sale of high capacity magazines & combat grade hand cannons, as well, particularly ones that aren't safe, like Glocks.

So you're in agreement that your proposal won't do jack fucking shit but is just a deceitful stepping stone to get where you actually want to get. And yes, Glocks are teh dangerous compared to non-Glocks. You know your stuff and should be placed in charge of national policy.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The point being the number of automatic weapons used in crime then was likely disproportionately high.

You couldn't back that up if your life depended on it. The public believed that machine guns were for thugs & wannabees, same as AR's & AK's today. None of those weapons are particularly good for anything other than shooting people, but they're great for that purpose alone.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
So you're in agreement that your proposal won't do jack fucking shit but is just a deceitful stepping stone to get where you actually want to get. And yes, Glocks are teh dangerous compared to non-Glocks. You know your stuff and should be placed in charge of national policy.

Any weapons that lack an external safety other than DA only revolvers are not safe weapons. You know it as well as I do.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,526
136
People don't like when you unjustly take their stuff away. They will never like it. A certain percentage of them WILL fight back. Whether it is confiscating guns, pets, cutlery, land, electronics, whatever. It is human nature to not want your shit taken away. If you want to take someone's gun away it is your responsibility to present the case why that person should not be allowed to own it and why if they don't give it up, then you feel OK taking them away from their family, putting them in prison, getting them assraped in prison. You tell them why they should lose any chance at ever having a good job ever again and why we are going to send them to a place that will likely make them violent after they get out. How can you be sure your solution won't lead to MORE death and violence than literally doing nothing? If your goal is to reduce violence wouldn't you at least consider "does my solution make more violence"?

None of this should even matter when we have massively better solutions.

I think gun violence rates will drop to levels far more comparable to other 1st world countries if we end the war on drugs. After that we can bicker over the leftovers. Until that is the main focus I will have a hard time believing that the "banning solves things" crowd either understands the statistics or cares about the outcome.

Plenty of other first world countries have similar drug prohibitions and much lower murder rates. What you’re saying is unlikely.

Edit: I suspect I understand the statistics and the state of empirical research on gun violence as well if not better than anyone on this board. If you would like to have a discussion on them I am happy to do so.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
Plenty of other first world countries have similar drug prohibitions and much lower murder rates. What you’re saying is unlikely.

We can eliminate more violence and suffering by ending the war on drugs than by any gun ban/control. 2nd most by improving mental health care. Let's focus on making the world a better place before putting people who you don't like in prison for owning a thing.
 

Pipeline 1010

Golden Member
Dec 2, 2005
1,941
767
136
Any weapons that lack an external safety other than DA only revolvers are not safe weapons. You know it as well as I do.

Ah it looks like everyone in this entire thread except for you has completely misunderstood why we have gun murders. It is because our guns don't have external safeties. What percentage of gun deaths do you attribute to the absence of external safeties?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,526
136
We can eliminate more violence and suffering by ending the war on drugs than by any gun ban/control. 2nd most by improving mental health care. Let's focus on making the world a better place before putting people who you don't like in prison for owning a thing.

Let’s undertake all policies we think would be cost effective at reducing murder rates regardless of what order we place them in.

The empirical research is very clear on this, restrict gun ownership and lots more people live. There’s also little evidence of some specific path to ‘improved mental health care’ that’s going to lead to large reductions in gun deaths.

It’s also strange that you keep repeatedly accusing me and others of advocating for these policies because we don’t like people. What have I said that indicates in any way that my position is based in personal animus? I’ve backed it up with the research.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Ah it looks like everyone in this entire thread except for you has completely misunderstood why we have gun murders. It is because our guns don't have external safeties. What percentage of gun deaths do you attribute to the absence of external safeties?

Heh. You said we'd be back for more & I defined part of what "more" means.

Deal with it.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
There’s also little evidence of some specific path to ‘improved mental health care’ that’s going to lead to large reductions in gun deaths.

Ammosexuals don't really want "improved mental health". They like being a little bit crazy & are proud of it.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,825
49,526
136
Ammosexuals don't really want "improved mental health". They like being a little bit crazy & are proud of it.

I don’t think so, it’s just that improved mental health is a very nebulous goal that you can basically have in perpetuity as an excuse not to enact more gun regulation.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I don’t think so, it’s just that improved mental health is a very nebulous goal that you can basically have in perpetuity as an excuse not to enact more gun regulation.

Well, yeh, but you gotta be crazy not to be packing heat in such a dangerous place as suburbia. You might be attacked by antifas or something.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,003
18,350
146
I can't find an article that specifies the racial make up of the bullies. The school is about 50/50 as far as race. If white kids bullied her because she hung out with another white kid then that would be racism. If the bully group was partly or all black then I would not consider it anti-white racism. It would be more like - you think you're better than us because you hang around with a white kid.

Agreed. I just haven't seen anything to support the OP's blatant lies or assertions. He certainly seems sure of himself though.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |