Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Boise fan

The Gun Debate....let's do this!

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

Gandhi must really mess with 2nd Amendment fans.  He managed to force a world power to leave without firing a shot! 

Churchill was never going to give India her independence, but his successor, Attlee was more compelled to. Britain likely could have kept India as a Commonwealth colony had it chosen to.

And I might suggest you google the Indian Mutiny of 1857, or the First or Second Anglo-Mysore Wars. India had been trying to gain independence by armed resistance long before Gandhi was ever born. :shrug:

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, edluvar said:

People who think having guns will protect them from the government is priceless.   On one side tanks, fighter jets, and Nukes.  On the other side Billy Bob and his freedom fighters 😂

Yeh but we have enough firepower create shit like Waco, Ruby Ridge or take over some BLM shack in the desert.  So there.

       

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Churchill was never going to give India her independence, but his successor, Attlee was more compelled to. Britain likely could have kept India as a Commonwealth colony had it chosen to.

And I might suggest you google the Indian Mutiny of 1857, or the First or Second Anglo-Mysore Wars. India had been trying to gain independence by armed resistance long before Gandhi was ever born. :shrug:

Wouldn't really consider the Sepoy Mutiny or Anglo-Mysore Wars as wars for Indian independence, but rather wars between the British empire and individual smaller kingdoms that would later become part of what is now India. 

Gandhi, FDR and WW2 all had huge effects on independence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, USUrobert said:

Wouldn't really consider the Sepoy Mutiny or Anglo-Mysore Wars as wars for Indian independence, but rather wars between the British empire and individual smaller kingdoms that would later become part of what is now India. 

Gandhi, FDR and WW2 all had huge effects on independence. 

They were most certainly armed and organized efforts to cast off the chains of British rule. 

That's like saying the Battles of Lexington and Concord weren't so much a part of the American war for independence as they were individual militia skirmishes to safeguard against the confiscation of firearms. If you back out the focal length, you'll see them as part of a greater conflict, even if they were incongruent in nature - while Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan had no connection to, say Jansi ki Rani or other figureheads of the Mutiny, both were indeed armed struggles of independence against the British Empire. 

Speaking of Jansi ki Rani, you are incorrect in your characterization of the Mutiny, as Jansi ki Rani diligently worked to form alliances with other kingdoms just as the colonies came together to unify against British rule (she was simply less successful). The Mutiny was in fact directly responsible for the crown assuming administrative control of the subcontinent from the EIC, which many historians would argue was the first and most important step toward Indian independence.

Lastly, it's worth noting the only reason there was a unified India was because of the British. Since the time of Ashoka, the subcontinent had been largely a patchwork of feudal kingdoms... Mughal rule never existed beyond the Deccan and even then was tenuous at best from the mid-1600s onward, with Rajput alliances in the northwest, the Maratha rebellion in the Deccan, and the fractured nature of the kingdoms in the South. 

 

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, edluvar said:

People who think having guns will protect them from the government is priceless.   On one side tanks, fighter jets, and Nukes.  On the other side Billy Bob and his freedom fighters 😂

 

This just in from page 6...

On 2/23/2019 at 10:48 AM, TheSanDiegan said:

Goat herders eating goatberders in the Afghan desert for the last two decades might disagree with you.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, edluvar said:

People who think having guns will protect them from the government is priceless.   On one side tanks, fighter jets, and Nukes.  On the other side Billy Bob and his freedom fighters 😂

Mujahi.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mugtang said:

It bothers me because I believe including them is intentionally deceptive.  When you see 35,000 gun deaths most people think of murders but when you dive into the facts you realize that 2/3rds of them are suicides.  And if we’re going to include suicides as gun deaths we should then have a serious discussion about the state of mental health in this country and how that is a significant factor that effects the numbers of gun deaths.   But we don’t do that. It’s just sexier to say “well we need less access to guns”. That doesn’t address the underlying societal issues we have.  

Ive said before and I’ll say again, guns aren’t the problem.  40 years ago you could buy a M-16, a true assault rifle, at a sporting goods store and mass shootings didn’t happen at the scale they seem to now.  So what’s changed?  

Also, gun violences has been decreasing for 20 years so :shrug:

if the study is "gun deaths", then it would includes suicides, and if the figures provided by other countries use suicide by gun statistics too, then how is it deceptive?

Gun violence includes suicide.  It's violence involving a gun.  Homicide by gun and other elements have their own charts as well.

I don't think it's deceptive.  It would be more deceptive to exclude gun deaths because a segment of the population doesn't like how the figures look..  

I understand the rationale, but that seems more of a defense tact by conservatives/second amendment fans because they would prefer small numbers as a feel good measure.

It's easy enough to have a study that just deals with types of gun violence.

If the NRA would move the phuck aside and stop blocking honest gun violence studies.  I guess they are afraid it will hurt their agenda.  That makes them look very deceptive, don't you think? 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, TheSanDiegan said:

They were most certainly armed and organized efforts to cast off the chains of British rule. 

That's like saying the Battles of Lexington and Concord weren't so much a part of the American war for independence as they were individual militia skirmishes to safeguard against the confiscation of firearms. If you back out the focal length, you'll see them as part of a greater conflict, even if they were incongruent in nature - while Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan had no connection to, say Jansi ki Rani or other figureheads of the Mutiny, both were indeed armed struggles of independence against the British Empire. 

Speaking of Jansi ki Rani, you are incorrect in your characterization of the Mutiny, as Jansi ki Rani diligently worked to form alliances with other kingdoms just as the colonies came together to unify against British rule (she was simply less successful). The Mutiny was in fact directly responsible for the crown assuming administrative control of the subcontinent from the EIC, which many historians would argue was the first and most important step toward Indian independence.

Lastly, it's worth noting the only reason there was a unified India was because of the British. Since the time of Ashoka, the subcontinent had been largely a patchwork of feudal kingdoms... Mughal rule never existed beyond the Deccan and even then was tenuous at best from the mid-1600s onward, with Rajput alliances in the northwest, the Maratha rebellion in the Deccan, and the fractured nature of the kingdoms in the South. 

 

Your last paragraph is what I was getting at, it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th Century that Indian Independence/self-rule became an idea, there wasn't an India until the British unified it. These other wars were just attempts by rulers to protect/win back their own kingdoms, viewing them as wars for independence is Indian nationalist revisionist history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheSanDiegan said:

Churchill was never going to give India her independence, but his successor, Attlee was more compelled to. Britain likely could have kept India as a Commonwealth colony had it chosen to.

And I might suggest you google the Indian Mutiny of 1857, or the First or Second Anglo-Mysore Wars. India had been trying to gain independence by armed resistance long before Gandhi was ever born. :shrug:

Sure - and it backfired.  What was it, like 150,000 Indians killed?  Something like that.  Gandhi knew a lot of Indians would die if they picked up weapons.  He knew the previous uprising and their outcomes.  That's why he tried a non-violent method.  And they still payed a price.  Far less than if they picked up weapons, and they did something better - embarrassed the British and their brutal methods.  

It succeeded.  Without firing a shot.  Pretty amazing. 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Boise fan said:

if the study is "gun deaths", then it would includes suicides, and if the figures provided by other countries use suicide by gun statistics too, then how is it deceptive?

Gun violence includes suicide.  It's violence involving a gun.  Homicide by gun and other elements have their own charts as well.

I don't think it's deceptive.  It would be more deceptive to exclude gun deaths because a segment of the population doesn't like how the figures look..  

I understand the rationale, but that seems more of a defense tact by conservatives/second amendment fans because they would prefer small numbers as a feel good measure.

It's easy enough to have a study that just deals with types of gun violence.

If the NRA would move the phuck aside and stop blocking honest gun violence studies.  I guess they are afraid it will hurt their agenda.  That makes them look very deceptive, don't you think? 

I think people are overstating how influential the NRA is but I agree the issue should be studied.  I’d also support banning organizations from being involved politically and spending their money on political activities.  Let’s get the NRA out of politics.  And let’s get planned parenthood, unions, corporations, every town USA, etc etc etc out of politics.  Individuals can donate money to a politician but that’s it.  We should also remove the caps on individual campaign contributions.  If I’m a billionaire and I want to bankroll a candidate directly I should be allowed to do that as speaking with money is a form of freedom of speech.  But those same rights shouldn’t be extended to non-persons. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, edluvar said:

Man, they are hardcore.   Have they been fighting foreign invaders for hundreds of years or watching cable TV and eating BBQ?

The hillbillies are better shots than they are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mugtang said:

I think people are overstating how influential the NRA is but I agree the issue should be studied.  I’d also support banning organizations from being involved politically and spending their money on political activities.  Let’s get the NRA out of politics.  And let’s get planned parenthood, unions, corporations, every town USA, etc etc etc out of politics.  Individuals can donate money to a politician but that’s it.  We should also remove the caps on individual campaign contributions.  If I’m a billionaire and I want to bankroll a candidate directly I should be allowed to do that as speaking with money is a form of freedom of speech.  But those same rights shouldn’t be extended to non-persons. 

I'd agree with that but it's pie-in-the-sky.  You need to limit access and influence at the elected official level first.  Then you could get those organizations out of influence.

But SCOTUS gave corps personhood, didn't they?  That would have to be reversed.  Worst freaking decision ever.  Talk about selling your political out to money interests. 

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TheSanDiegan said:

There is a distinct difference between people who just wish to harm themselves and people who wish to inflict harm on others.

IMO there is as much value in parsing the metric as there is in comparing per capita figures to gross numbers. 

In looking for homicide data from the CDC, it would seem 3/4 of all homicides involved the use of a firearm (14,415 of 19,362 homicides in 2016), as opposed to 1/2 of suicides in the same year (22,938 out of 44,965). So does that mean homicides are a more important statistic in the context of this debate because firearms are used in a higher percentage? Or does it mean suicide is a more important issue as it affects more lives?

I don't know, but either way there is intrinsic value in parsing the number so that it helps us better understand the context of the statistic.

And you can take the gun homicides even a step further.  Less than 500 are committed annually by “rifles” including the scary “assault rifles”.  Yet they’re the target of gun control advocates. Something like 90% of all gun homicides are committed with a hand gun. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boise fan said:

I'd agree with that but it's pie-in-the-sky.  You need to limit access and influence at the elected official level first.  Then you could get those organizations out of influence.

But SCOTUS gave corps personhood, didn't they?  That would have to be reversed.  Worst freaking decision ever.  Talk about selling your political out to money interests. 

I disagreed with SCOTUS decision but if we’re going to allow other organizations to buy influence then corporations should be able to as well. The solution is to get rid of all non-person influence in politics.  If a ceo wants to buy a politician, fine but you do it with your own money. 

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mugtang said:

And you can take the gun homicides even a step further.  Less than 500 are committed annually by “rifles” including the scary “assault rifles”.  Yet they’re the target of gun control advocates. Something like 90% of all gun homicides are committed with a hand gun. 

What is an acceptable amount of gun violence in America?  Should we be happy with the status quo as from what conservatives are saying it’s not that bad?   Try to be a world leader?   Revert to the old west where everyone is packing? Perhaps if conservatives took a leading role in addressing the issue they could help shape policy.   I don’t see that out of the GOP though 🤷‍♂️ 

Posted Image
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mugtang said:

I disagreed with SCOTUS decision but if we’re going to allow other organizations to buy influence then corporations should be able to as well. The solution is to get rid of all non-person influence in politics.  If a ceo wants to buy a politician, fine but you do it with your own money. 

I don't want anyone having the ability to buy a politician.  It cheapens the system and gives undue influence to an individual.  The government is for the "people", not Billionare number 29. 

I really believe a major reason there is so many problems in the government these days is because of the influence. Some pols allow special interests to write the damn laws!  And this putting people with vested interests onto government committees dealing with their industry., just allows for unrestricted corruption.  It has to stop with the next administration - Trump's "drain the swamp" sound bite is a bullshit as anything else he has stated.    The swamp is actually worse now.

51t4uwlffaL._SL160_SS150_.jpg324804241_0b7c67b2af_m.jpg

BCS is to Football what Fox News is to Journalism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Boise fan said:

Sure - and it backfired.  What was it, like 150,000 Indians killed?  Something like that.  Gandhi knew a lot of Indians would die if they picked up weapons.  He knew the previous uprising and their outcomes.  That's why he tried a non-violent method.  And they still payed a price.  Far less than if they picked up weapons, and they did something better - embarrassed the British and their brutal methods.  

It succeeded.  Without firing a shot.  Pretty amazing. 

Except it didn't backfire. As I stated in the following post, most historians recognize and agree that the Mutiny was the most important step towards eventual independence, as it directly resulted in the crown assuming control of the subcontinent from the EIC.

Furthermore, as a direct result of independence, somewhere between 200,000 to 2 million Indians died from the poorly-managed partition of India and Pakistan. Kind of hard to say Gandhi did any of those families any favors... :shrug:

I've heard more than once from members of the Indian privileged class that the best thing Gandhi could have done was give the Brits an extra decade to further build out India's infrastructure. Instead, they didn't develop a modernized network of highways until the 21st century, inadvertently contributing to the lack of modernization that has kept so much of India mired in poverty for so long.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, USUrobert said:

Your last paragraph is what I was getting at, it wasn't until the beginning of the 20th Century that Indian Independence/self-rule became an idea, there wasn't an India until the British unified it. These other wars were just attempts by rulers to protect/win back their own kingdoms, viewing them as wars for independence is Indian nationalist revisionist history. 

This is incorrect, as an individual kingdom's efforts to gain independence from India's rule was indeed a struggle for independence.  Furthermore, there most certainly was a sustained effort to reach across divides to formulate regional alliances to defeat the British (e.g., Jansi ki Rani's efforts as mentioned earlier, or Hyder Ali's efforts to form an alliance with the Marathas).

There could not have been an "Indian war for independence" as there was no preexisting idea of a cohesive, unified India - this is a strawman argument. But there were indeed a litany of attempts to gain independence from British rule through organized, armed insurrection.

St-Javelin-Sm.jpgChase.jpg 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...