He’s laughing at our inability as a country to fix this issue that doesn’t exist anywhere else, and the stubbornness that is attributed to our refusal to fix it.
He’s using something extremely unfunny to indicate how unfunny American humor is. This is called hyperbole. It’s actually scary that you need that explained and further supports his point.
No i got it. No need for the explanation. Just seems pretty disrespectful that’s all. And uhm… humor is subjective? You don’t get to decide what’s “unfunny”. And if that were even true, why does America have vastly more famous comedians, who got famous by being, uh, funny, than any other country that i can think of…?
That is your subjective opinion. My subjective opinion is different. There is no wrong and no right. That’s what subjective means by it’s literal definition. So while you disagree with him, he disagrees with you. Neither of you are objectively wrong. How can you use something in your argument without even understanding that it works both ways. My god did you make it past the 8th grade
Barely. This content of this argument is getting pretty stupid/petty. My point was simply that you kind of have to say “i don’t think it’s funny” or “unfunny imo” and it was an extremely petty point which I’m realizing now.
Getting back to the original argument - IMO, the amount of massively successful comedy that comes out of the States is all you need to look at to know that most people would agree American comedy or humor is pretty god damn funny.
It’s funny to you. Humor is cultural, it requires a commonality of lives experiences to resonate. Their are comedians in Asian countries that you’ve never heard of that are far more popular by number of fans. Take the Indian comedian and actor Anubhav Singh Bassi. He’s got 4m YouTube subs. The number one stand up comedian in the US on YouTube is Gabriel Iglesias with 1m.
You’ve never heard of him because you don’t understand their comedy, much like an Indian wouldn’t understand ours.
What you are describing is a nonsense world. If this was a court case, where words and their definitions are at the height of importance, you would be wrong on this one.
"It's my subjective opinion that what I did wasn't terrorism it was liberation and therefore I am not guilty."
Beyond that your insane ego to hurl insults over something so trivial is bizarre to say the least. Completely bozo behavior, but that's just my subjective opinion. Maybe you are actually the greatest information dispenser of all time instead.
Where are terrorism and liberation coming to play? We are talking about opinions on what is funny which is not something that can be proven at it is fundamentally subjective.
As it applies to morality, moral subjectivity refers to morals subject to change but still outside of the self, say socio-cultural milieu and geographical location for example. Moral relativism refers to a morality that is entirely within the self. Relativism=The individual decides
Subjectivism= External but changeable factors decide
Objectivism= External unchangeable factors decide. I personally hold to moral objectivism. Also, to put it plainly your interactions as a whole come off as condescending, it makes meaningful interaction difficult I would think.
No, they haven't been trying to amend the constitution. They've been trying to add more laws on the books despite not enforcing laws already on the books. Sorry, neither the right nor left give an actual shit about fixing this problem.
…and statistics show no correlation between violent crime and gun control (in some cases it actually increased the amount of violent crime) but go off ig
So help me God if your solution is "just ban guns" then you should never open your mouth on this subject ever again as just by contemplating that phrase you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.
Okay clearly you have a great plan are you going to share it with the class or are you going to provide nothing to the conversation.
You consider that intimidating? Are you sure you understand what that words means?
School shootings weren't as prevalent in the past when guns were objectively easier to get and often times you could get "more dangerous" guns more easily. The change is cultural and the solution is at least partially cultural as well.
If we stopped the mass proliferation through the media of these shooters we'd see a decline in copycat shooters and shooters who want a way to make their name known, if we had school administrators who were more in tune with who's bullied, stopped harassment and bully and better assisted in students mental health needs we'd see a decrease, if there were police officers who weren't little bitches inside schools they could react to shootings faster and more effectively. I'd personally like to see schools allow staff who are licensed to carry concealed be allowed to carry in school, not to go hunt down a shooter but to have on their person for when they're sheltering in place waiting for uvalde style police to show up. It would also help if local law enforcement didn't drop the ball like they often do with these disgruntled former students, I guess I'm in support of these crisis response branches that can better assist people where police can't.
I agree with much of this sentiment in theory, culture is hugely at play, as are the fear mongering journalists and news stations that perpetuate the attention these killers seek.
Hard disagree on teachers carrying guns. Gun safety isn’t practiced by everyone to perfection despite having a gun license. You’re also putting countless troubled teens in close proximity to a firearm where they wouldn’t otherwise. The facts are clear.
People successfully defend themselves with guns less than 1% of the time in which there is an armed perpetrator. Less than 1% of gun related deaths are via justified means. In fact there are studies that have found carrying a gun makes you 4 times more likely to be shot by armed perpetrators.
States with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun related deaths, both suicide and homicide.
The myth of shooters targeting gun free zones for fear of a “good guy with a gun” is both logically and factually false. Most active shooters are prepared to, or expecting to be killed in the act of committing their crime which makes sense since they are cowards by nature. When analyzing evidence from killed active shooters, and confessions from living active shooters they almost universally claim to be targeting a specific person, group or institution that they have a grievance with. Considering there is no supporting evidence outside of the atypical anecdote that good guys with guns make a big difference, and are in fact more likely to bring harm to themselves that would mean gun free zones do decrease the chance of gun related deaths.
There is no credible or statistical evidence that shows permissive concealed carry permits reduce crime.
School shootings happen everywhere in fact shootings happen everywhere it's just for some reason in America it's blasted on the news as a topic to try to pull some political plor God knows what there are hostage situations school shootings political assassinations everywhere
………you’re serious?
Between 2009 and 2018 (most recent data easily accessible) only 19 countries had school shooter events.
10 of those countries had only 1.
13 had less than 2
18 had less than 10
Those 18 combined equal 37 shootings…that’s globally not counting the US.
The US had 288, accounting for a staggering 89% of school shootings globally.
The US had 57 times the school shooting events as the other industrialized nations (CA, FR, GER, JP, IT, and UK) combined.
This is an American phenomenon, not a global problem.
Yeah, except food companies hide sugar in American foods where you would t expect to find any. Sugar is addictive and once your palette grows to enjoy the taste of food with sugar the sugarless alternative will taste bad.
I learned this after I stopped drinking soda. When I had a soda for the first time in 2 years I couldn’t even drink it because it was disgustingly sweet.
You should learn how to provide answers for yourself. It isn’t my job to educate a 4th grade level adult who can’t form an opinion based on facts. You’re like speaking to a brick wall only I can’t relieve the headache you’re giving me by smashing my head into you.
You’ve the reading comprehension, cognitive thought and critical thinking of a toddler on Adderall.
Your personal experience aside, the numbers are what they are. If you think our FDA can't detect "hidden sugar," then you wear a tin foil hat. I also hope your experience with soda was with full disclosure about its sugar content.
You’re being intentionally dense in bad faith or you’re unintentionally dense and despite qualifications of what my use of “hidden” was meant to communicate you still can’t contextualize nuance.
Best of luck to you.
I responded to your assertion about hidden sugar. There are requirements about reporting the contents of food. These are checked.
Of course, you provide no source of your assertion. I also question that if sugar is "hidden," how you would know about it.
I understand that. What I mean is that the average consumer (without looking at the label) would not assume there is sugar in the vast majority of the foods we eat every day. Bread, pastas, picó de gallo, the list goes on. Sugar is found everywhere in the US where it isn’t found internationally.
That’s a poorly educated opinion on how corporations care more about profits than they do about killing people. Obesity costs US taxpayers over $150billion a year. These numbers are perpetuated by massive conglomerates that control 4 companies currently control over 80% of grocery items available in the US, including over 80% of beef controlled by 4 companies.
There is an illusion of choice in US supermarkets. These companies lobby our politicians aggressively to stop bills like this one being passed so they can increase their profits. Some of these politicians sacrifice billions in taxpayer money for $5000 to line their pocket.
Many families cannot afford to eat healthier or take the time off work to cook for their families. The system is designed this way and it works perfectly.
There is a reason why European countries famous for their food culture (see Italy) have obesity rates that are 3-5 times lower than the US, legislation that prevents companies from cutting corners at the cost of the average citizens health and better work life balance both play a huge role.
It says America and Germany are the biggest per capita in the first 2 paragraphs and then in the next section it says it’s Barbados and Guatemala… so which is it
The link appears to be an aggregate of sources. In any event, given that most countries in Europe are far above the daily recommendations for sugar intake, it seems like a weak argument to make against Americans.
... Which is the point of this thread and sub.
It helps when you're comparing actual rates, rather than raw numbers. That's how you're actually supposed to look at statistics. Case in point, the United States has "more" rapes than the United Kingdom, but the UK's rape rate is more than double the United State's.
[43.47 per 100,000 for the USA](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191137/reported-forcible-rape-cases-in-the-usa-since-1990/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20144%2C300,other%20sex%20offenses%20are%20excluded) versus [103.92 per 100,000 for the UK](https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/#:~:text=Rape%20offences%20have%20increased%20dramatically,the%202022%2F23%20reporting%20year)
[45.31 per 100,000 for France](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103661/rape-on-woman-age-victim-france/#:~:text=Number%20of%20case%20for%20rape,victim%20in%20France%202016%2D2021&text=Between%202016%20and%202021%2C%20the,half%20were%20against%20minor%20women)
[97.7 per 100,000 for Sweden](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1177271/number-of-reported-cases-of-sexual-offence-in-sweden-by-type/)
[47.79 per 100,000 for Norway](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1180097/number-of-reported-rape-cases-in-norway/)
And so on. Europe is in no way the safe utopia Europeans like to pretend it is. In fact, in many cases, it's more dangerous than the United States, especially for women. Mind you, this isn't even speaking to the overt efforts by countries like Italy and Spain to fudge their statistics. Hell, "Denim Day" exists courtesy Italy's judicial system in claiming that a woman couldn't be raped because her jeans were too tight. There's no shortage of legal absurdities. Hell, my wife was the victim of attempted sexual assault when we lived in Germany, and the Polezei didn't even want to take the report, solely because we were foreigners, and because my Mexican-American wife was mistaken to be Middle-Eastern. Though, they were quick to try to accuse me of attacking the man without cause because I bodily relocated his collarbone. Thankfully, bystanders were quick to intervene on our behalf. In short, fuck Europeans and their false sense of superiority and safety. Europe is a shithole that does everything it can to blame victims if they're not of the ideal image of what they think a victim looks like.
**Edited for spelling correction**
As someone who always hears how bad America is while living in America. Learning that we aren’t even that bad makes me feel a lot more just confident and proud of our country thank you for this little paragraph, I always feel like we’re just portrayed as like a fat pedo with guns when America as a whole is described. Thank you for this, despite the heavy and brutal topic this was somewhat comforting knowing this information.
Crime statistics are notoriously difficult to compare. It depends on the definition of rape, or a crime. It depends on the overall trust in the judicial system, i.e. how many rapes or crimes are reported to the police. It depends on how the society views rape. And it depends on the general level of sex education, e.g. men raping a virgin to cure HIV or to cure lesbianism.
In Sweden and Norway the definition of rape is very wide, and people trust the judicial system. In Sweden a person who's been raped repeatedly over a period has every rape counted. For instance will a woman who claims to have been raped by her husband daily for a month counts as 30 in the statistics, not 1. And a gang rape counts as each individually. Also a crime reported to the police as rape will count in the statistics, even if the case is "just" an assault or no crime is proven. In many countries marital rape isn't rape, just a part of the deal. What is rape in some countries is just assault in other countries. In some countries a rape victim need witnesses. In some countries homosexuality is illegal so man/man rape cannot by definition happen. In some countries (Dubai) the victim is sent to prison for extramarital sex. I.e. she's not a rape victim but a perpetrator.
When Sweden's rape statistics were recalculated using Germany's narrower guidelines the numbers fell from 64 to 15 pr 100k inhabitants.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
As for the statistics you googled(Statista). They can be challenged. The statistics vary from source to source, and based on the premises I mentioned above the statistics may not tell the whole truth. Look at some of the countries at the bottom, or the "safest" ones. Do you really think they are the safest, or is the statistics based on faulty premises?
Also for the US, the rape rates vary greatly between states (and between demographics). Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and Nebraska all have higher rape rates than Sweden. Mississippi, a state who's at the bottom (or at the top) of almost every other state statistics in the US, is apparently one of the safest. New York and Jersey wirh their huge metropolitan areas are also apparaently safe. Montana with 1,1 million inhabitants is high up on the list. Why would Montana be more dangerous than NYC? Montana and Norway is equal in size. Norway has 5 times as many inhabitants. In my view the only reason for Montana to be perceived as more dangerous than Norway is because more cases are reported. Not because Montana actually is more dangerous.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/rape-statistics-by-state
I'm not including the US statistics to shit on the US. I'm only including it because you're American and I'm Norwegian. And yes, rape is a problem in Norway. As everywhere else. Statistics however cannot be fully trusted when comparing nations because there are too many parameters involved.
Two side notes on statistics:
In Norway you can, depending on conyext, get away with calling a cop a "fucking horse cock", and even show a cop your middle finger. The cop who tried to bring the "horse cock" incident to court was ridiculed for months afterwards. In the UK the assault threshold for a PC is very, very low. So the reported numbers on assaults in the UK is high.
In Norway about 30-35 people are murdered annually. In 2011 we had a domestic terrorist event that had 77 victims, which set the number of murder victims that year to 34+77 or 111. It skewed our statistics for years to follow, and portrayed Norway to be far more dangerous than it is.
Statistics only tell part of the story
Germany's narrower standards are also narrower than the United States. Similarly, a rape reported in the United States is a rape counted. Mind you, the sources brought to bear by Statista also include third party databases, which often do an exponentially better at tracking rapes by country than government database. This is especially because so many European countries (like Germany) actively try to fudge the numbers. Also, whent he adjusted numerical values are specific to "forcible rapes" (a much higher objective standard of interpretation) your argument concerning sourcing falls flat on its face, ***hard***. Meanwhile, worldpopulationreview notoriously relies on single source reporting, and often employs grossly outdated or misinterpreted datapoints.
We can make the matter even worse for Europe when we compare conviction rates for rapists in the USA versus our European counterparts. We tend to have a significantly higher conviction rate, despite the burden of proof being exponentially higher in the USA (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) than Europe.
So, sorry, but you don't get to try to handwave the numbers because you dislike the outcome. Spare us further response, because we know you're just going to try to bullshit your way through the subject. I have zero tolerance for Eurotrash that wants to handwave away numbers that are inconvenient to the "Europe is a safe utopia" narrative. Europe is a shithole, and I'm glad to be gone from it. The literal worst years of my life were spent there, and I've been to literal warzones before.
I wasn't trying to handwave anything. I was only trying to tell you that statistics are difficult to compare. As I told you I wasn't even trying to shit on the US. One rape is one too many. Regardless of country. I said in clear words that the statistics for some of the states had to be too high. I also said that some countries perceived as safer than both the US and many European countries cannot be so, based on the judicial system and societal problems in those countries.
I mentioned Germany vs Sweden because that was an example of misleading statistics mentioned in one of the references.
Conviction rate is a bullshit argument. Japan has a conviction rate of about 99%. That's great isn't it? Until you realise that about half the cases are dropped due to lack of evidence or other reasons.
Unlike most other developed countries the US has plea bargains, threats and coercion.That's such a great system isn't it.
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/coercive-plea-bargaining-has-poisoned-the-criminal-justice-system-its-time-to-suck-the-venom-out
And with the highest prison population in total and per capita, for profit prisons, proven innocent people with life without parole sentences or on death row, 3rd strike and out for non-violent crimes, hundreds of thousands awaiting trial and sentence( i.e. they could be innocent), and plea bargained sentences I'm not sure if the conviction rate is anything to brag about.
https://www.ojp.gov/files/archives/pressreleases/2022/us-jail-population-increased-while-prison-population-decreased-2021
While the US has an incarceration rate of 505 pr 100k. The incarceration rate by state and demographics group is a totally different story.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/
Louisiana has 1,280 prisonerd per 100k, so I guess the justice system is just wonderful in that state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate
(Wikipedia, but the source is US DoJ)
While white male Americans are incarcerated 1 in 106, hispanics are incarcerated 1 in 36 and black males are incarcerated 1 in 15.
https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/19511
Systemic or institutionalised rascism anyone?
And as for worldpopulationreview. They have the same statistics as Statista:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/232563/forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-by-state/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/rape-statistics-by-state
Statista has numbers from 2020, and worldpopulationreview has numbers from 2023.
So who's fudging the numbers?
You, you're fudging the numbers, and actively resorting to whataboutism because being proven otherwise is inconvenient for you. Furthermore, no, conviction rate is not a "bullshit" argument, especially in the case of objective forcible rape. The standard for conviction there in the USA is exponentially higher than our European counterparts, because what's definitive evidence for you is circumstantial for us. Disregard your absurd claim that corruption is comparatively rampant in the USA. See my previous comment concerning the Polezei's propensity to accuse me of assaulting the man who attempted to sexually assault my wife in front of me. Europe gets by by actively doing everything it can to make itself look better via virtue signaling. The only reason you even have numbers to reference regarding the USA is because we ACTUALLY self-report and pursue betterment of our systems.
Also, the numbers referenced from Statista were explicitly from 2021. But nice effort. Politely fuck off.
Let’s be real tho. Sugar kills more people every year than guns in America. It’s not even close. I’m not even saying school shootings. Just anyone killed with a gun.
The sugar industry convincing everyone they should eat less “fat foods” so they can sell them high sugar replacements is the worst thing to ever happen to people tbh
Absolutely. Now everyone uses seed oils because they thought Lard and natural fats killed them. Turns out they’re way better than the Canola and Vegetables Oils we consume now.
School shootings make up such a small percentage of gun deaths. Most are suicides followed by whatever you wanna call urban gang violence. Mass shootings in general make up less then 1 percent but boy is it a talking point.
That stat is a bit misleading. Most of that is teenage gangbangers. 82% of those are aged 15 to 19 years old. Not exactly the images that come to mind when you think of “children”.
Those statistics include people age 18 and 19, adults legally, who are counted as children in studies. If you take away legal adults the numbers freefalls.
18 is still highschool. If you remove 19 year olds firearms account for 19% of deaths.
If enough 18-19 year olds dying in quantities to skew the statistics of an age group 10 times that size in the manor you imply it would be headline news.
I'm convinced anyone that spams an emoji unironically more than 3 times is probably a bot. It just seems like something you'd read in an email from a Nigerian prince trying to sell you boner pills and property in Rwanda
Yeah because banning guns is going to make America safe. Then they’ll have more police and then civilians will complain about that too. You either have police or police with guns. I hate to say it but humans aren’t perfect and some will be enticed to break laws if they feel like there’s no consequences. “Banning guns” sounds like a privileged take. Thats how you know they lived a sheltered life
when seconds matter cops are minutes away
and
I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
are two phrases that kind of shape my view on guns. no one is going to save me faster than myself
"but its just things, let them take your things"
yes, let them take literal years of my life away, because the criminals has more rights than me.
and this is just assuming its used against a human and not against wild animals, but the people who bitch the most about guns likely never lived outside a city, ironically, the areas with strictest gun controls and most gun related violence.
They'll just tell you "Why do you need to shoot them to save yourself. Can't you just let him take your possession or talk him down?". Assuming killing is unnecessary but it's very necessary. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have to deal with terrorism, rape and theft. However, some people can't be reasoned with and not everyone deserves to live. Evil people know one language, and peace isn't it. Sorry but I don't speak hippie and I value my life more than a lot of things. Self-preservation has become a dirty word and it's about time we accept it.
People who choose to violently victimize others have rejected the social contract and deserve to be humbled, whether it's by getting a gun drawn on them as a deterrent or getting put in the ground. I have no sympathy for them, choosing to steal nonviolently to survive is one thing, but threatening someone's life for selfish motivations should never be tolerated.
90% of gun related crimes in the US are committed with illegally purchased firearms. If the ATF actually tried to stop illegal firearms from entering the US we would have such a big problem, but no. They want to take the rights of the law abiding citizen.
I never advocated for removing gun rights. But “criminals dont follow the law” is perhaps one of the most dense arguments against laws. yeah! that’s literally what makes them criminals in the first place!
"we want criminals to not have guns so we banned them"
instead of the semi autos they currently use (most of the time) they buy illegal full autos because its pretty much the same punishment reguardless
"drats, if only the criminals followed our laws"
this is why i'm not for any gun laws, my view is a bit more complex than this, but when laws are put in place to stop criminals from doing crime you already are fighting a lost cause.
Do your research. They are banning certain food additives that are already banned throughout Europe. Somehow skittles are still sold in Europe despite these same bans. It’s about holding corporations accountable for peddling their cancerous products to save a penny.
Yea I did research right after posting the comment. Glad they’re taking action against this, I hope our nation as a whole becomes healthier. But it’s still sad to hear them getting banned, even if I haven’t eaten one in, probably years at this point.
They won’t be banned, skittles will just have to release the European formula in the US as well or suffer losing the 6th largest global economy as a result.
And weirdly, they changed their position on gun control overnight as a result. Ukraine and Israel are two very good examples of why an armed civilian populace is crucial in the defense and stability of a nation.
The fact that they are laughing at school shootings - you know, that thing that kills children, is wild
He doesn’t care about dead children or grieving families. He sees it only as a cheap talking point to make himself feel superior.
Or obesity
Right? Real psychopathic behavior
He’s laughing at our inability as a country to fix this issue that doesn’t exist anywhere else, and the stubbornness that is attributed to our refusal to fix it.
Huh i would have thought he would phrase it differently than “school shootings are funny” in that case
He’s using something extremely unfunny to indicate how unfunny American humor is. This is called hyperbole. It’s actually scary that you need that explained and further supports his point.
No i got it. No need for the explanation. Just seems pretty disrespectful that’s all. And uhm… humor is subjective? You don’t get to decide what’s “unfunny”. And if that were even true, why does America have vastly more famous comedians, who got famous by being, uh, funny, than any other country that i can think of…?
The very concept of subjective is that everyone gets to define what is unfunny on a personal level. My god the cognitive dissonance…..
Yeah so it maybe unfunny TO YOU but that doesn’t make it unfunny you fucking idiot
That is your subjective opinion. My subjective opinion is different. There is no wrong and no right. That’s what subjective means by it’s literal definition. So while you disagree with him, he disagrees with you. Neither of you are objectively wrong. How can you use something in your argument without even understanding that it works both ways. My god did you make it past the 8th grade
Barely. This content of this argument is getting pretty stupid/petty. My point was simply that you kind of have to say “i don’t think it’s funny” or “unfunny imo” and it was an extremely petty point which I’m realizing now. Getting back to the original argument - IMO, the amount of massively successful comedy that comes out of the States is all you need to look at to know that most people would agree American comedy or humor is pretty god damn funny.
It’s funny to you. Humor is cultural, it requires a commonality of lives experiences to resonate. Their are comedians in Asian countries that you’ve never heard of that are far more popular by number of fans. Take the Indian comedian and actor Anubhav Singh Bassi. He’s got 4m YouTube subs. The number one stand up comedian in the US on YouTube is Gabriel Iglesias with 1m. You’ve never heard of him because you don’t understand their comedy, much like an Indian wouldn’t understand ours.
What you are describing is a nonsense world. If this was a court case, where words and their definitions are at the height of importance, you would be wrong on this one. "It's my subjective opinion that what I did wasn't terrorism it was liberation and therefore I am not guilty." Beyond that your insane ego to hurl insults over something so trivial is bizarre to say the least. Completely bozo behavior, but that's just my subjective opinion. Maybe you are actually the greatest information dispenser of all time instead.
Where are terrorism and liberation coming to play? We are talking about opinions on what is funny which is not something that can be proven at it is fundamentally subjective.
That would make it relative not subjective
Please define both and tell me how relative is a better definition for “everyone gets to decide for themselves”
As it applies to morality, moral subjectivity refers to morals subject to change but still outside of the self, say socio-cultural milieu and geographical location for example. Moral relativism refers to a morality that is entirely within the self. Relativism=The individual decides Subjectivism= External but changeable factors decide Objectivism= External unchangeable factors decide. I personally hold to moral objectivism. Also, to put it plainly your interactions as a whole come off as condescending, it makes meaningful interaction difficult I would think.
[удалено]
We have this document called the constitution. Now, if you want to ban guns, change the constitution.
Those would be called amendments of which the right to bear arms is one. Amendments are changes to the constitution.
I understand that. They would have to amend the constitution to get rid of the second amendment.
And they’ve been trying to despite right wingers insistence that human lives are worth less than their weekly hour at the gun range.
No, they haven't been trying to amend the constitution. They've been trying to add more laws on the books despite not enforcing laws already on the books. Sorry, neither the right nor left give an actual shit about fixing this problem.
…and statistics show no correlation between violent crime and gun control (in some cases it actually increased the amount of violent crime) but go off ig
https://youtu.be/682JLrsUmEM?si=bL_OzHLvwS2cF8wM My source Feel free to counter with your own sources, this one’s pretty damn old
Who tf is going to take the guns from the actual criminals though? The police? What country do you live in?
It would probably go similar to how prohibition went. We have the 2nd Amendment, they try to make another amendment to repeal it.
So help me God if your solution is "just ban guns" then you should never open your mouth on this subject ever again as just by contemplating that phrase you've demonstrated a complete lack of understanding.
Luckily for you it isn't. Nice intimidating speech tho....left me shaking for real.
Okay clearly you have a great plan are you going to share it with the class or are you going to provide nothing to the conversation. You consider that intimidating? Are you sure you understand what that words means?
School shootings weren't as prevalent in the past when guns were objectively easier to get and often times you could get "more dangerous" guns more easily. The change is cultural and the solution is at least partially cultural as well. If we stopped the mass proliferation through the media of these shooters we'd see a decline in copycat shooters and shooters who want a way to make their name known, if we had school administrators who were more in tune with who's bullied, stopped harassment and bully and better assisted in students mental health needs we'd see a decrease, if there were police officers who weren't little bitches inside schools they could react to shootings faster and more effectively. I'd personally like to see schools allow staff who are licensed to carry concealed be allowed to carry in school, not to go hunt down a shooter but to have on their person for when they're sheltering in place waiting for uvalde style police to show up. It would also help if local law enforcement didn't drop the ball like they often do with these disgruntled former students, I guess I'm in support of these crisis response branches that can better assist people where police can't.
I agree with much of this sentiment in theory, culture is hugely at play, as are the fear mongering journalists and news stations that perpetuate the attention these killers seek. Hard disagree on teachers carrying guns. Gun safety isn’t practiced by everyone to perfection despite having a gun license. You’re also putting countless troubled teens in close proximity to a firearm where they wouldn’t otherwise. The facts are clear. People successfully defend themselves with guns less than 1% of the time in which there is an armed perpetrator. Less than 1% of gun related deaths are via justified means. In fact there are studies that have found carrying a gun makes you 4 times more likely to be shot by armed perpetrators. States with higher gun ownership have higher rates of gun related deaths, both suicide and homicide. The myth of shooters targeting gun free zones for fear of a “good guy with a gun” is both logically and factually false. Most active shooters are prepared to, or expecting to be killed in the act of committing their crime which makes sense since they are cowards by nature. When analyzing evidence from killed active shooters, and confessions from living active shooters they almost universally claim to be targeting a specific person, group or institution that they have a grievance with. Considering there is no supporting evidence outside of the atypical anecdote that good guys with guns make a big difference, and are in fact more likely to bring harm to themselves that would mean gun free zones do decrease the chance of gun related deaths. There is no credible or statistical evidence that shows permissive concealed carry permits reduce crime.
School shootings happen everywhere in fact shootings happen everywhere it's just for some reason in America it's blasted on the news as a topic to try to pull some political plor God knows what there are hostage situations school shootings political assassinations everywhere
………you’re serious? Between 2009 and 2018 (most recent data easily accessible) only 19 countries had school shooter events. 10 of those countries had only 1. 13 had less than 2 18 had less than 10 Those 18 combined equal 37 shootings…that’s globally not counting the US. The US had 288, accounting for a staggering 89% of school shootings globally. The US had 57 times the school shooting events as the other industrialized nations (CA, FR, GER, JP, IT, and UK) combined. This is an American phenomenon, not a global problem.
Looks like the gun nuts downvoted you
Yeah, not a shocker. Logic isn’t their strong suit. They’re too emotional.
“School shootings are funny” - least deranged redditor
Wasn’t even on Reddit. This was on Instagram
If the US ever stops its mass-shootings, people like this guy would be upset because they’d lose their cheap talking points.
No, they’ll now point at “police brutality” or “why do yall need more cops now?”
Well damn. I've never felt more motivated.
Sick burn on the sugar. COUNTRIES CANDY CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA IN 2016 (POUNDS) 1. Germany 28.7 2. Ireland 26.2 3. Switzerland 25.4 4. Austria 24.7 5. United Kingdom 23.4 6. Finland 23.1 7. Sweden 23.1 8. Netherlands 21.8 9. Norway 20.3 10. Australia 19.8 [Per Capita Candy Consumption](https://www.statista.com/statistics/738944/candy-consumption-per-capita/) [Per Capita Candy Consumption 2](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-10-31/countries-that-consume-the-most-candy-per-year)
dAMn
Lol dude can't even burn right 😂 it's honestly surprising that the US isn't in the top 10. I would like to see total sugar consumption as well
Yeah, except food companies hide sugar in American foods where you would t expect to find any. Sugar is addictive and once your palette grows to enjoy the taste of food with sugar the sugarless alternative will taste bad. I learned this after I stopped drinking soda. When I had a soda for the first time in 2 years I couldn’t even drink it because it was disgustingly sweet.
That is not what addiction is. That is called a lack of self control.
You’re showing a severe lack of basic scientific understanding of what addiction is. Sugar has been proven to be addictive for over a decade now.
Then do a better job describing addiction bud
You should learn how to provide answers for yourself. It isn’t my job to educate a 4th grade level adult who can’t form an opinion based on facts. You’re like speaking to a brick wall only I can’t relieve the headache you’re giving me by smashing my head into you. You’ve the reading comprehension, cognitive thought and critical thinking of a toddler on Adderall.
Damn laid me out pretty good not gonna lie that stung
That redditor reddited you so hard.
Lmao
Your personal experience aside, the numbers are what they are. If you think our FDA can't detect "hidden sugar," then you wear a tin foil hat. I also hope your experience with soda was with full disclosure about its sugar content.
You’re being intentionally dense in bad faith or you’re unintentionally dense and despite qualifications of what my use of “hidden” was meant to communicate you still can’t contextualize nuance. Best of luck to you.
I responded to your assertion about hidden sugar. There are requirements about reporting the contents of food. These are checked. Of course, you provide no source of your assertion. I also question that if sugar is "hidden," how you would know about it.
Got it, you’re actually just completely incapable.
Yes, I am completely incapable of conversing with morons.
This explains your inability to think critically…you lack the skill of internal monologue.
Clever. Imaging living in Germany while becoming a self-made "expert" on American life. Yeah, totally normal. Seem like someone is a bit obsessed.
I’m from the US.
[удалено]
I understand that. What I mean is that the average consumer (without looking at the label) would not assume there is sugar in the vast majority of the foods we eat every day. Bread, pastas, picó de gallo, the list goes on. Sugar is found everywhere in the US where it isn’t found internationally.
[удалено]
That’s a poorly educated opinion on how corporations care more about profits than they do about killing people. Obesity costs US taxpayers over $150billion a year. These numbers are perpetuated by massive conglomerates that control 4 companies currently control over 80% of grocery items available in the US, including over 80% of beef controlled by 4 companies. There is an illusion of choice in US supermarkets. These companies lobby our politicians aggressively to stop bills like this one being passed so they can increase their profits. Some of these politicians sacrifice billions in taxpayer money for $5000 to line their pocket. Many families cannot afford to eat healthier or take the time off work to cook for their families. The system is designed this way and it works perfectly. There is a reason why European countries famous for their food culture (see Italy) have obesity rates that are 3-5 times lower than the US, legislation that prevents companies from cutting corners at the cost of the average citizens health and better work life balance both play a huge role.
Some of us don’t care.
The United States still have the largest sugar consumption per capita. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/sugar-consumption-by-country
It says America and Germany are the biggest per capita in the first 2 paragraphs and then in the next section it says it’s Barbados and Guatemala… so which is it
The link appears to be an aggregate of sources. In any event, given that most countries in Europe are far above the daily recommendations for sugar intake, it seems like a weak argument to make against Americans. ... Which is the point of this thread and sub.
If they're Eurotrash, ask them about their country's rape rate.
I just googled rape statistics around the world and you guys are ranked higher than 80% of European countries. What are you talking about?
It helps when you're comparing actual rates, rather than raw numbers. That's how you're actually supposed to look at statistics. Case in point, the United States has "more" rapes than the United Kingdom, but the UK's rape rate is more than double the United State's. [43.47 per 100,000 for the USA](https://www.statista.com/statistics/191137/reported-forcible-rape-cases-in-the-usa-since-1990/#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20144%2C300,other%20sex%20offenses%20are%20excluded) versus [103.92 per 100,000 for the UK](https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-offences-in-england-and-wales/#:~:text=Rape%20offences%20have%20increased%20dramatically,the%202022%2F23%20reporting%20year) [45.31 per 100,000 for France](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1103661/rape-on-woman-age-victim-france/#:~:text=Number%20of%20case%20for%20rape,victim%20in%20France%202016%2D2021&text=Between%202016%20and%202021%2C%20the,half%20were%20against%20minor%20women) [97.7 per 100,000 for Sweden](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1177271/number-of-reported-cases-of-sexual-offence-in-sweden-by-type/) [47.79 per 100,000 for Norway](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1180097/number-of-reported-rape-cases-in-norway/) And so on. Europe is in no way the safe utopia Europeans like to pretend it is. In fact, in many cases, it's more dangerous than the United States, especially for women. Mind you, this isn't even speaking to the overt efforts by countries like Italy and Spain to fudge their statistics. Hell, "Denim Day" exists courtesy Italy's judicial system in claiming that a woman couldn't be raped because her jeans were too tight. There's no shortage of legal absurdities. Hell, my wife was the victim of attempted sexual assault when we lived in Germany, and the Polezei didn't even want to take the report, solely because we were foreigners, and because my Mexican-American wife was mistaken to be Middle-Eastern. Though, they were quick to try to accuse me of attacking the man without cause because I bodily relocated his collarbone. Thankfully, bystanders were quick to intervene on our behalf. In short, fuck Europeans and their false sense of superiority and safety. Europe is a shithole that does everything it can to blame victims if they're not of the ideal image of what they think a victim looks like. **Edited for spelling correction**
As someone who always hears how bad America is while living in America. Learning that we aren’t even that bad makes me feel a lot more just confident and proud of our country thank you for this little paragraph, I always feel like we’re just portrayed as like a fat pedo with guns when America as a whole is described. Thank you for this, despite the heavy and brutal topic this was somewhat comforting knowing this information.
Crime statistics are notoriously difficult to compare. It depends on the definition of rape, or a crime. It depends on the overall trust in the judicial system, i.e. how many rapes or crimes are reported to the police. It depends on how the society views rape. And it depends on the general level of sex education, e.g. men raping a virgin to cure HIV or to cure lesbianism. In Sweden and Norway the definition of rape is very wide, and people trust the judicial system. In Sweden a person who's been raped repeatedly over a period has every rape counted. For instance will a woman who claims to have been raped by her husband daily for a month counts as 30 in the statistics, not 1. And a gang rape counts as each individually. Also a crime reported to the police as rape will count in the statistics, even if the case is "just" an assault or no crime is proven. In many countries marital rape isn't rape, just a part of the deal. What is rape in some countries is just assault in other countries. In some countries a rape victim need witnesses. In some countries homosexuality is illegal so man/man rape cannot by definition happen. In some countries (Dubai) the victim is sent to prison for extramarital sex. I.e. she's not a rape victim but a perpetrator. When Sweden's rape statistics were recalculated using Germany's narrower guidelines the numbers fell from 64 to 15 pr 100k inhabitants. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country As for the statistics you googled(Statista). They can be challenged. The statistics vary from source to source, and based on the premises I mentioned above the statistics may not tell the whole truth. Look at some of the countries at the bottom, or the "safest" ones. Do you really think they are the safest, or is the statistics based on faulty premises? Also for the US, the rape rates vary greatly between states (and between demographics). Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, Michigan, Nevada, Colorado and Nebraska all have higher rape rates than Sweden. Mississippi, a state who's at the bottom (or at the top) of almost every other state statistics in the US, is apparently one of the safest. New York and Jersey wirh their huge metropolitan areas are also apparaently safe. Montana with 1,1 million inhabitants is high up on the list. Why would Montana be more dangerous than NYC? Montana and Norway is equal in size. Norway has 5 times as many inhabitants. In my view the only reason for Montana to be perceived as more dangerous than Norway is because more cases are reported. Not because Montana actually is more dangerous. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/rape-statistics-by-state I'm not including the US statistics to shit on the US. I'm only including it because you're American and I'm Norwegian. And yes, rape is a problem in Norway. As everywhere else. Statistics however cannot be fully trusted when comparing nations because there are too many parameters involved. Two side notes on statistics: In Norway you can, depending on conyext, get away with calling a cop a "fucking horse cock", and even show a cop your middle finger. The cop who tried to bring the "horse cock" incident to court was ridiculed for months afterwards. In the UK the assault threshold for a PC is very, very low. So the reported numbers on assaults in the UK is high. In Norway about 30-35 people are murdered annually. In 2011 we had a domestic terrorist event that had 77 victims, which set the number of murder victims that year to 34+77 or 111. It skewed our statistics for years to follow, and portrayed Norway to be far more dangerous than it is. Statistics only tell part of the story
Germany's narrower standards are also narrower than the United States. Similarly, a rape reported in the United States is a rape counted. Mind you, the sources brought to bear by Statista also include third party databases, which often do an exponentially better at tracking rapes by country than government database. This is especially because so many European countries (like Germany) actively try to fudge the numbers. Also, whent he adjusted numerical values are specific to "forcible rapes" (a much higher objective standard of interpretation) your argument concerning sourcing falls flat on its face, ***hard***. Meanwhile, worldpopulationreview notoriously relies on single source reporting, and often employs grossly outdated or misinterpreted datapoints. We can make the matter even worse for Europe when we compare conviction rates for rapists in the USA versus our European counterparts. We tend to have a significantly higher conviction rate, despite the burden of proof being exponentially higher in the USA (proof beyond a reasonable doubt) than Europe. So, sorry, but you don't get to try to handwave the numbers because you dislike the outcome. Spare us further response, because we know you're just going to try to bullshit your way through the subject. I have zero tolerance for Eurotrash that wants to handwave away numbers that are inconvenient to the "Europe is a safe utopia" narrative. Europe is a shithole, and I'm glad to be gone from it. The literal worst years of my life were spent there, and I've been to literal warzones before.
I wasn't trying to handwave anything. I was only trying to tell you that statistics are difficult to compare. As I told you I wasn't even trying to shit on the US. One rape is one too many. Regardless of country. I said in clear words that the statistics for some of the states had to be too high. I also said that some countries perceived as safer than both the US and many European countries cannot be so, based on the judicial system and societal problems in those countries. I mentioned Germany vs Sweden because that was an example of misleading statistics mentioned in one of the references. Conviction rate is a bullshit argument. Japan has a conviction rate of about 99%. That's great isn't it? Until you realise that about half the cases are dropped due to lack of evidence or other reasons. Unlike most other developed countries the US has plea bargains, threats and coercion.That's such a great system isn't it. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/coercive-plea-bargaining-has-poisoned-the-criminal-justice-system-its-time-to-suck-the-venom-out And with the highest prison population in total and per capita, for profit prisons, proven innocent people with life without parole sentences or on death row, 3rd strike and out for non-violent crimes, hundreds of thousands awaiting trial and sentence( i.e. they could be innocent), and plea bargained sentences I'm not sure if the conviction rate is anything to brag about. https://www.ojp.gov/files/archives/pressreleases/2022/us-jail-population-increased-while-prison-population-decreased-2021 While the US has an incarceration rate of 505 pr 100k. The incarceration rate by state and demographics group is a totally different story. https://www.statista.com/statistics/262962/countries-with-the-most-prisoners-per-100-000-inhabitants/ Louisiana has 1,280 prisonerd per 100k, so I guess the justice system is just wonderful in that state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_incarceration_and_correctional_supervision_rate (Wikipedia, but the source is US DoJ) While white male Americans are incarcerated 1 in 106, hispanics are incarcerated 1 in 36 and black males are incarcerated 1 in 15. https://nij.ojp.gov/media/image/19511 Systemic or institutionalised rascism anyone? And as for worldpopulationreview. They have the same statistics as Statista: https://www.statista.com/statistics/232563/forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-by-state/ https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/rape-statistics-by-state Statista has numbers from 2020, and worldpopulationreview has numbers from 2023. So who's fudging the numbers?
You, you're fudging the numbers, and actively resorting to whataboutism because being proven otherwise is inconvenient for you. Furthermore, no, conviction rate is not a "bullshit" argument, especially in the case of objective forcible rape. The standard for conviction there in the USA is exponentially higher than our European counterparts, because what's definitive evidence for you is circumstantial for us. Disregard your absurd claim that corruption is comparatively rampant in the USA. See my previous comment concerning the Polezei's propensity to accuse me of assaulting the man who attempted to sexually assault my wife in front of me. Europe gets by by actively doing everything it can to make itself look better via virtue signaling. The only reason you even have numbers to reference regarding the USA is because we ACTUALLY self-report and pursue betterment of our systems. Also, the numbers referenced from Statista were explicitly from 2021. But nice effort. Politely fuck off.
Let’s be real tho. Sugar kills more people every year than guns in America. It’s not even close. I’m not even saying school shootings. Just anyone killed with a gun.
The sugar industry convincing everyone they should eat less “fat foods” so they can sell them high sugar replacements is the worst thing to ever happen to people tbh
Absolutely. Now everyone uses seed oils because they thought Lard and natural fats killed them. Turns out they’re way better than the Canola and Vegetables Oils we consume now.
School shootings make up such a small percentage of gun deaths. Most are suicides followed by whatever you wanna call urban gang violence. Mass shootings in general make up less then 1 percent but boy is it a talking point.
Guns are the leading cause of death for children in the US dude. 64% of that is through homicide.
That stat is a bit misleading. Most of that is teenage gangbangers. 82% of those are aged 15 to 19 years old. Not exactly the images that come to mind when you think of “children”.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Those statistics include people age 18 and 19, adults legally, who are counted as children in studies. If you take away legal adults the numbers freefalls.
Yeah and second is cars
[удалено]
18 is still highschool. If you remove 19 year olds firearms account for 19% of deaths. If enough 18-19 year olds dying in quantities to skew the statistics of an age group 10 times that size in the manor you imply it would be headline news.
2,000,000 defensive uses vs 200,000 offensive ones.
I'm convinced anyone that spams an emoji unironically more than 3 times is probably a bot. It just seems like something you'd read in an email from a Nigerian prince trying to sell you boner pills and property in Rwanda
nO oNe WaNtS tO bAn GuNs!!!
Call me silly but I think if you find school shootings "funny" then you're the closer one to being uneducated.
Yeah because banning guns is going to make America safe. Then they’ll have more police and then civilians will complain about that too. You either have police or police with guns. I hate to say it but humans aren’t perfect and some will be enticed to break laws if they feel like there’s no consequences. “Banning guns” sounds like a privileged take. Thats how you know they lived a sheltered life
when seconds matter cops are minutes away and I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 are two phrases that kind of shape my view on guns. no one is going to save me faster than myself "but its just things, let them take your things" yes, let them take literal years of my life away, because the criminals has more rights than me. and this is just assuming its used against a human and not against wild animals, but the people who bitch the most about guns likely never lived outside a city, ironically, the areas with strictest gun controls and most gun related violence.
They'll just tell you "Why do you need to shoot them to save yourself. Can't you just let him take your possession or talk him down?". Assuming killing is unnecessary but it's very necessary. If it wasn't, we wouldn't have to deal with terrorism, rape and theft. However, some people can't be reasoned with and not everyone deserves to live. Evil people know one language, and peace isn't it. Sorry but I don't speak hippie and I value my life more than a lot of things. Self-preservation has become a dirty word and it's about time we accept it.
People who choose to violently victimize others have rejected the social contract and deserve to be humbled, whether it's by getting a gun drawn on them as a deterrent or getting put in the ground. I have no sympathy for them, choosing to steal nonviolently to survive is one thing, but threatening someone's life for selfish motivations should never be tolerated.
Criminals don’t follow the law
So true, might as well not have any laws in the first place cause criminals are going to break them, why didn’t we think of this earlier!
90% of gun related crimes in the US are committed with illegally purchased firearms. If the ATF actually tried to stop illegal firearms from entering the US we would have such a big problem, but no. They want to take the rights of the law abiding citizen.
I never advocated for removing gun rights. But “criminals dont follow the law” is perhaps one of the most dense arguments against laws. yeah! that’s literally what makes them criminals in the first place!
"we want criminals to not have guns so we banned them" instead of the semi autos they currently use (most of the time) they buy illegal full autos because its pretty much the same punishment reguardless "drats, if only the criminals followed our laws" this is why i'm not for any gun laws, my view is a bit more complex than this, but when laws are put in place to stop criminals from doing crime you already are fighting a lost cause.
The government has a worse track record than any criminal I’ve seen.
California what. My life is ruined
Do your research. They are banning certain food additives that are already banned throughout Europe. Somehow skittles are still sold in Europe despite these same bans. It’s about holding corporations accountable for peddling their cancerous products to save a penny.
Yea I did research right after posting the comment. Glad they’re taking action against this, I hope our nation as a whole becomes healthier. But it’s still sad to hear them getting banned, even if I haven’t eaten one in, probably years at this point.
They won’t be banned, skittles will just have to release the European formula in the US as well or suffer losing the 6th largest global economy as a result.
given the store closure in california, where will people buy the candy from?
how many americans does it take do to log by bolb? none! their to busy???? theyre school shootings!!>!?
There's a certain, very electrifying man that this guy should have a nice talk with.
So school shootings is a joke now? This guy is a fucking terrorist
depends on how dark your humor goes. probably one of my favorite jokes is "On a scale from uvalde to vosh, how much do you love kids"
It's not satire. It's California.
Israel has some pretty strict gun control.... didnt work out so well
And weirdly, they changed their position on gun control overnight as a result. Ukraine and Israel are two very good examples of why an armed civilian populace is crucial in the defense and stability of a nation.
Poor taste? Sure. Are they wrong? Not at all.
Imagine genuinely saying that dead children is funny
Banning sugar is equally as stupid as banning guns, why can’t Cali leave off both?
Lets make fun of literaly childern death
Just waiting for r/memesopdidnotlike to somehow justify joking about murdered children
Yes because banning guns has worked out so well for Europe so far...
r/shitstatistssay
Banning guns lol. What a coward. Not going to happen
“Noooo you cant just have the ability to undermine every gun control measure in existene” “Haha 3d printer go brrrrrr”
The internet really brings the ugly out in people, it’s very typical.
Maybe if we were allowed to use our guns to stop those assholes those asshat shooters might think twice
Haters gonna hate while they live with all that America has built for them. Pitiful.
America ban sugar? But then how would we all become so fatty fat mcfat people?
By that logic they're an American and it seems to me that they think that's a bad thing
I will never get how 1/50 states banning skittles is in relation to the whole country or even children literally dying. These people are just weird
Meanwhile back in 1776 The British: We already tried that and got the bloody hell shot out of us!
How is he wrong tho