991–1000 of 1001 posts
I think for every 100 covid deaths, it's probably closer to 1-5 actual covid deaths and the rest just get conflated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shh. Don't say that. The crazies will come out and tell you about if we do that we'll end up a totalitarian wasteland like Sweden or New Zealand or something like that.
It's not crazy to understand that limiting firearm access to law abiding citizens will provide an upper hand to criminals who couldn't care less about breaking laws, with the number of firearms currently in the U.S.
There's also a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Anyone who has always been law-abiding can commit a crime, and if they own a gun, there's a much higher chance that someone is killed as part of that crime. There's a much higher chance they kill someone accidentally, and that someone is often a member of their own family. And a higher chance that they will successfully commit suicide. These are all facts when comparing gun owners to non-owners.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not crazy to understand that limiting firearm access to law abiding citizens will provide an upper hand to criminals who couldn't care less about breaking laws, with the number of firearms currently in the U.S.
This is the kind of thing that gun advocates like to tout as "a priori" knowledge. However, "criminals" respond to incentives just as all people do. You need to make the incentive to not own a gun stronger than the incentive to own a gun. Weak gun laws currently make it very easy to obtain a gun without any permits or background checks. There's also a false dichotomy between law-abiding citizens and criminals. Anyone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you think that way (of the government collecting 300m firearms) might be?
The same way every other country has gone about this. This has been done after wars for example (after WWII), and after many different conflicts in different countries in Africa. It would take a long time and would require tightening laws gradually and at the same time encouraging people to hand in their weapons. This is not particularly difficult logistically, the only difficulty is in the American psyche apparently…
Moreover, the Supreme Court has already ruled that total ban on firearms in common is unconstitutional[2][3]. Hence why DC and Chicago no longer completely ban handguns. I also don't think the in common use standard will hold since the Supreme Court more recently reiterated "the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms"[4]. It is the opinion of some that DC v Heller was watered to get Kennedy on board. Moreover, as California has already argued, you cannot ban something then down the road argue that it's not in common use since the low numbers are artificial.
> To the extent that magazines holding more than 10 rounds may be less common within California, it would likely be the result of the State long criminalizing the buying, selling, importing, and manufacturing of these magazines. Saying that large capacity magazines are uncommon because they have been banned for so long is something of a tautology. It cannot be used as constitutional support for further banning. See Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn’t commonly used. A law’s existence can’t be the source of its own constitutional validity.”).[5]
[1] http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/about-us/highlights/2018/high...
[2] DC v. Heller 2008 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
[3] McDonald v. Chicago 2010 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
[4] Caetano v. Massachusetts 2016 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pd...
[5] Duncan v. Becerra 2019 https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Duncan-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got very skeptical reading the reaction to the antibody studies here. Also, the total hate for Sweden really depressed me. I've always held this place in high regard but I suppose it's still just more of the same.
The prevalence is too low for the antibody tests to be reliable. Every public health expert has reported that but people refuse to listen. Sweden has admitted their strategy is not working.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The account someone posts something from has nothing to do with the validity of their argument.
Sure, I don't disagree with that, but when the name is a "throwaway", it is a new account, and its only posts are half explanations of simplifications or just outright lies on highly divisive topics, I have no issue connecting the dots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all means, suggest a better country to draw a comparison with.
Unfortunately, the US is incomparable (in the neutral sense of the word) when it comes to most socio-economic issues. There literally is no other country that is similar to the US across more than one or two important factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, the US is incomparable (in the neutral sense of the word) when it comes to most socio-economic issues. There literally is no other country that is similar to the US across more than one or two important factors.
USA is very comparable to Brazil in every sense except perhaps GDP. For now.