Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
@DMB: I could point out that if the only way you can defend your system is attack another, it’s not a system worth protecting, but I don’t think I’ll bother. For one, though, the jailing you reference is Scotland, the U.K. merely respects the principles of devolution enough to not step in. I’d point out that the exact same thing has happened in states such as Ohio previously, so this reeks of hypocrisy.
The fact that the only way you can attack the British legal system appears to be by attacking it’s handling of a rape epidemic is alarmingly childish. For one, it’s not a legal problem, it’s a policing failure, a result of understaffed and overwhelmed police forces thanks to government cuts. Hardly the same thing as attempting to fix a problem by creating 1500 articles of gun legislation, passing 70 that loosen it, 40 that restrict it, and expecting anything to change.
__________________ "i admire u choose cersei as ur avi sel. at least u know that ur one sick *****, i can respect that" - Inturpid.
Registered: Mar 2014
Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
You're excuse to the jokes thing is that it's just Scottland... but no, attacks on free speech are happening all over your country, in London their spending money to set up a police hub to target online hate speech across the nation. Not to mention, the law he was convicted under was passed by the British Parliament so it isn't a law unique to Scottland and is in fact national.
Secondly you excuse the police response to the grooming gang epidemic by saying the police force is underequipped as a defense of your political system, firstly however there's a problem with that when the UK is allocating money into the policing of speech on the internet. Second, there are examples of this failing. When a police chaplain spoke out questioning whether or not the police were seriously responding to the reports of sex abuse, and he got suspended and there was an investigation into the police chaplain for some reason. Various people in your media and government have been calling for an inquiry into the police and why this has been going on for more than 20 years. One of the leaders of these grooming gangs was reported to the authorities as far back as 1996 and very little was done to him, and he even picked up one of his victims numerous times just outside of a police station, the person who reported him mentioned she had seen him taking a 12 year old girl in his car and that he had offered her brother sex with an underaged girl, yet the police failed to act on this. Another victim mentioned repeatedly being picked up by this dude in full view of police cars driving by. Another article revealed one of the jailed ringleaders of these grooming gangs is set to be released just five years into a 22 year sentence, which doesn't sound like your criminal justice system is treating the situation appropriately. I could go on, but when grooming gangs operate with impunity in this way and reports like this are coming out, it's clear that there is failing going on with the authorities beyond their funding and staffing and that they are clearly failing to do what is in their power, and even to use that as an excuse doesn't absolve the political system from criticism when it is actively allocating more resources to policing speech on the internet which is a very repressive thing to even do to begin with.
I didn't speak out in defense of the US government there because your insinuation seemed to be an assumption on your part, and given that DS0 was the one engaged in you with you and is more familiar with the study in question it seems more effective to leave that to him because he seems more than equipped to best you on this point.
Secondly the problem you brought up with the US and the problems I brought up with the UK are not in the same category. The issue with guns in the US is more two-sided, a debate between security and liberty, that to actually pass gun control or ban certain weapons would actively restrict the liberty and potentially confiscate the property of the nation's citizens, as well as the fact that it's not even clear that the US would get the positive benefit from these policies infringing on liberty and property rights that their proponent's claim they would, which is what you and DS0 are currently debating. On the other hand, there is no excuse for a government repressing the free speech of its citizens since speech doesn't constitute a violation of rights, and law enforcement properly dealing with grooming gangs by enforcing the laws that protect people's rights is much less a trade-off than restricting civil liberty to try to reduce homicides.
I didn't defend the US political system because DS0's taking up that role quite nicely, but even if you prove these policies would have a positive outcome, the fact that they would still sacrifice citizen's liberty to do so means that the failure to enact these policies is still debatable and definitely less egregious than your government repressing free speech and failing to act on girls being raped by older men.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Registered: Jul 2014
Location: Off learning Ground Realities
Well, that was a long post that had absolutely nothing to do with my comments. Lovely read though, I guess.
DMB, you're conflating political systems with current political parties. I wouldn't attempt to defend the conservative's online strategy, nor would I defend cuts to the police force, nor the current free speech debate raging in Scotland and the rest of the UK. The problem is, none of these are flaws with the political system, they are flaws with a particular national government (or mayor, in some cases) that is doing exactly what their manifesto said they would do. I am not happy that these things are happening, but I also do not think our political system is flawed.
I have faith in Parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary systems have a few flaws, yes, governments can be difficult to form and can sometimes be unstable. We've solved the first issue with first past the post elections instead of proportional representation, and the second I'd argue is a good thing. Parliamentary systems are more democratic (look at the Polity scores for the post-communist countries), more representative of changing public opinion, and have greater accountability.
Linz makes strong criticisms of Presidential systems, and this is what I was referencing when discussing DS0. He discusses the competing claims of legitimacy between elected bodies (congress and president, for example), the fact that tension between legislative branches and executives cannot be fixed until a schedules election, the zero-sum game that tends to riddle US politics etc. All of these are incredibly relevant in the gun debate. Obama was elected on a mandate of reinstituting the Assault Weapons Ban of the Clinton administration, for example. Whatever you think of that law, his inability to pass it despite control of both houses of congress and the executive is in my view ridiculous, and a sound criticism of your political system. It's not about your laws, it's about your ability to pass new ones. America is rigid. Whether you think that's a good thing or not is irrelevant, it's all opinion based, and I have given my opinion. A significant cause of the civil war, for example, was the rigidity imposed on the government by the US Constitution. I don't exactly think that's a good thing.
So you see, attacking the current party in control of my country is completely irrelevant. Even if you're not going to defend the US because you think DS0 is managing fine, at least attack the political system not the people in it.
__________________ "i admire u choose cersei as ur avi sel. at least u know that ur one sick *****, i can respect that" - Inturpid.
Harrison did well on the statistical frontline. So a few words of wisdom to the dissenters; a group of callow mystery meat millennials:
Guns are not the problem; people, culture, and policy are the problem.
POLICY
The men in blue overlooked the warning flags cropping up like kudzu about Nikolas Cruz. The FBI had PLENTY of tipoffs to investigate this nut, and they followed up on NONE. The feds called to the scene slummed outside the school scrolling pages of porn on their iPhones as appose to going in and nurturing this killer. Per hundred thousand US residents, the amount of mass shootings was higher in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now; not many back then were marching to squash the 2nd Amendment or for draconian gun restrictions. In today's day and age the authoritarian left rallies not-so-impressesive shows of noodle-armed force against the 2nd amendment. And the reason why is obvious : anti-Gentilic jews hadn't rested control of the mainstream information gateways back then. They do now. And we're all suffering for it.
PEOPLE
As The US slowly turns more brown and less White, she becomes increasingly violent. Those browns and blacks have violent crime rates in the two to eight times range higher than lil ol' whitie. FBI statistics aren't lying. Then we have the problem of broken families (Nikolas deJesus Cruz was the product of a broken family) and fatherlessness. Most of the deadliest mass shooters came from fatherless homes.
CULTURE
We live in a Gyno Centric nation. Boys aren’t being properly socialized into men; instead, they are forced into disavowing their toxic masculinity and embracing their feminine side. This thwarts the natural male development process, producing a breeding ground at the extreme margins for psychotic boys to lash out by taking up arms. If boys aren’t allowed to compete in the natural way for dominance, their suppressed urge can explode with deadly violence. Add Big Pharma to the mix — we drug our boys because their natural boyish rambunctiousness is ill-suited for the modren prison school system run by and for women and girls — and it’s no wonder most mass shooters are later discovered to have been taking a cocktail of SSRIs.
So their you have it. Now I'm not exactly a "gun nut", but I am a supporter of 2A. Because without 2A, you don't have 1A (Britain for example). When you remove the RIGHT for the citizens of a free nation to purchase and keep firearms, you alter the relationship between the government and those it governs. In the event of a civil war (no one can predict it won't happen at this point - did you predict Trump would be the pres five years ago?) I wan't my kinsmen armed to the teeth against despotic and embrowned government. If you wan't vision of unarmed citizenry just look to the UK. A youtuber was recently thrown into prison for teaching his dog to siege heil ; yet muslim rape gangs go unabated for years on end in bucolic towns throughout merry dead England. The USA doesn't need Gun control; it needs punk control.
Solid post, Ziggy. I especially agree on the point regarding the death of marriage. Especially given the fact that fatherless children are 20 times more likely to end up in prison.
__________________ "I killed them, of course. Just as I killed the Guardian. Just as I now kill you."
Last edited by DarthSkywalker0 on Apr 1st, 2018 at 12:17 AM
They are angry because they have been forced to recognize that their hour has arrived; that the time has come to surrender power to Shimrra and the new order."
Per the article, there's supposedly a drastic decline in suffering loss of property when using a gun to fight burglaries, but apparently you're actually least likely to lose your property if you fight with a weapon other than a gun.
Mar 31st, 2018 10:58 AM
