[amphibian]

Have you ever listened to a person speak and realized that there was subtext to what they said? Inside jokes, things that could be taken one way by an outsider, but actually meant something different?

Dog whistling is that, but in regards to racist concepts. When people talk about "inner cities", they're talking about black people. "States' rights" is really about preventing immigration, increased segregation, less gun laws, and suppressing votes from minority groups.

It's language coding and it can be easy to overlook if you're not paying attention carefully.

"Make America Great Again" is superb dog whistling.

[Macros]

Ah, a rhetoric trick, used both knowingly by politicians and the like and unknowingly by narrow minded idiots and or biggots. I get the concept, I had always wondered what exactly was meant when reading 'dog whistling'

[Mezla PigDog]

 Macros, on 19 August 2016 - 02:08 PM, said:

Ah, a rhetoric trick, used both knowingly by politicians and the like and unknowingly by narrow minded idiots and or biggots. I get the concept, I had always wondered what exactly was meant when reading 'dog whistling'

I don't think it's a US thing. The Brexit campaign was accused of dog whistle tactics in the British media. Well in the Guardian anyway. The whole "a bazillion Turkish people will be able to move here when they join the EU" subtext for "MORE MUSLIMS".

[Macros]

oh, ok, its a term I have never encountered outside of the discussion forum here.


- Macros, not very wordly

[Maark Abbott]

 amphibian, on 20 June 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

My best friend has been complaining to me about the process of getting a handgun license here in NY for a couple months now.

The complaints are not about how long it takes or how many references it takes etc, although it's definitely onerous. The complaints are about how throughout the entire process, nobody actually takes the students to a firing range and physically trains them in the use of firearms and safety. It's a "talk" course with lots of paperwork.

Half of the people going through the actual classes (presentations etc by an NRA guy) have never fired a gun before. These are the people that would be carrying and firing back in Nicodimas's hypothetical. I do not want that scenario in the slightest. Nope, nope, nope.

I tell you hWhat, even in the UK, the safety training is literally the most basic thing you have to undertake to use a weapon. My best mate is a license holder, the range he goes to know me (ish) because I've been there with him before but each time I go, he mandatorily has to give me the safety talk even though I know firearm safety well by now, and he has to keep a record of what we've been using to boot. It's sort of worrying that America doesn't have that on courses that lead to licenses.

[Nicodimas]

For those that haven't been...I was watching to see where this headed:

http://market-ticker...www?post=231488

[Macros]

Yeah I stopped reading wheb I got to 'knives are dangerous, but I cut my pork chops with one last night'

[Nicodimas]

@ Macros: knives are tools is what he is getting at. You use them to cut things into small portions on the day to day.

They can be dangerous, but overall are mainly a tool.

[worry]

That's exactly what makes the forced parallel to guns ridiculous. A gun's function is shooting another person unto death. They aren't dangerous to people when misused, they are dangerous to people when used for their one purpose.

[Nicodimas]

@ worry: What do guns and nuclear bombs have in common?

They are both the best self deterrent tools in existence! ( well currently as far as we have advanced) They have both prevented more death than caused. Their secondary existence is a weapon. The primary use has been to deter and counter human nature and drives it's predatory instincts down. Both of these keep us civilized.

Think about this way for a moment these advancements and most advancements are made to lift us away and give us a mastery over nature. We can all agree nature in all forms is brutal? Well we have our own personal nature we must overcome. Our nature had to be overcome and we have a very long persistent struggle over this mastery. The only reason we get to have this conversation is because of the price that good people fought for it. Consider carefully.

[amphibian]

Calling a gun or a nuclear bomb the best deterrence tools in history is a particular kind of myopia.

Sure, humans have predatory instincts. However, a gun or a nuke is less of a deterrence than you'd think to a lot of people.

My view isn't that guns or nukes are useless. It's that all the steps before utilizing them are frequently not used or appreciated.

I fight for a hobby. I know how strenuous, costly, and miserable it is to fight another person - even if I win quickly and easily. I don't want to fight strangers in the street and avoidance plus conflict de-escalating tactics have been way more valuable than a gun I can't carry into the places and situations where I'd be most vulnerable.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 09 September 2016 - 04:41 AM

[worry]

By no means do I agree with any of that, particularly that human beings have a "predatory nature" or that nature in all its forms is brutal. Sounds like the propaganda of death profiteers that helps fuel the wish fulfillment of self defense fantasists who are jonesing for that chance to fire at someone. I do believe humanity should do its best to rise above the so-called law of the jungle, but blowing holes in people is diametrically opposed to that imo.

[worry]

Is that because humans naturally launch nukes at each other? Or are there specific conditions particular to North Korea as a sociopolitical entity that make it more likely?

[Nicodimas]

 amphibian, on 09 September 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

Calling a gun or a nuclear bomb the best deterrence tools in history is a particular kind of myopia.

Sure, humans have predatory instincts. However, a gun or a nuke is less of a deterrence than you'd think to a lot of people.

My view isn't that guns or nukes are useless. It's that all the steps before utilizing them are frequently not used or appreciated.

I fight for a hobby. I know how strenuous, costly, and miserable it is to fight another person - even if I win quickly and easily. I don't want to fight strangers in the street and avoidance plus conflict de-escalating tactics have been way more valuable than a gun I can't carry into the places and situations where I'd be most vulnerable.

I agree with everything you said here.. In terms of de-escalation. This is an intelligent and considerate response. For some reason, I think a certain part of you trains for that random part of your mind that exists to defend against a totally irrational and random situation. We all hope this never occurs.

( my least favorite part about a fight is my teeth alway cut my cheek on the left side.. And I can't just not mess around with it .. Until it heals.)

[Silencer]

 Nicodimas, on 09 September 2016 - 04:28 AM, said:

@ worry: What do guns and nuclear bombs have in common?

They are both the best self deterrent tools in existence! ( well currently as far as we have advanced) They have both prevented more death than caused. Their secondary existence is a weapon. The primary use has been to deter and counter human nature and drives it's predatory instincts down. Both of these keep us civilized.

Think about this way for a moment these advancements and most advancements are made to lift us away and give us a mastery over nature. We can all agree nature in all forms is brutal? Well we have our own personal nature we must overcome. Our nature had to be overcome and we have a very long persistent struggle over this mastery. The only reason we get to have this conversation is because of the price that good people fought for it. Consider carefully.

I see you've reverted to your previous levels of paranoia and craziness, Nico!

Guns have not prevented more deaths than they have caused. Not by a long mile. The casualties in WWI alone vastly exceeded any war previously fought, never mind the clusterfuck of death that was WWII - and that's *before* the A-bombs were dropped. Nuclear weapons are unique in that their sheer destructive force results in mutually assured destruction between two superpowers, and therefore did likely avert very bloody conflicts - though it is perhaps worth pointing out that said conflicts would have been conducted with guns, adding to the kill-count of guns, if MAD did not reign supreme. But guns have never, EVER, held that status. In fact, America, the most gun-centric of all 'Western' nations, has the most gun massacres by an egregiously wide margin.


The reason the comparison to knives is terrible, is as follows:
1. Knives are primarily a utility tool, and are not (and never have been) primarily a tool for killing - not even for hunting, where they mainly are used for skinning, gutting, and cleaning prey killed with much more effective means (often created with the use of knives).
2. Knives are at best a 1-on-1 weapon. Unlike even swords, which if swung correctly in a very limited number of situations can take out more than one person at a time, a knife is essentially only viable to seriously wound or kill one person at a time. They simply do not have the reach or mass to attack multiple people at once.
3. Knives are almost exclusively capable of melee combat - while knives can be thrown to some effect, first of all it removes the weapon from your person, and second of all, it is difficult and again limited to a single target, to throw a knife effectively. This means you have to be within near-arms-reach to use a knife as a weapon.

Guns, on the other hand, are the antithesis of knives as weapons. Especially automatic rifles:
1. They are almost exclusively designed for killing - be that hunting, or war, with a few exceptions for target shooting. They serve no utility purpose whatsoever.
2. Guns are *designed* to be a 1vMany weapon. Ever since we advanced past single-shot muskets guns have been built to engage as many people as possible, as efficiently as possible. Modern guns are unquestionably excellent at this, and can realistically kill more people than there is ammunition in the magazine, should the victims be appropriately positioned, but in a worst-case scenario can still be used effectively on a half dozen targets at once.
3. Guns are ranged out the ass. Even a subcompact pistol can be effective beyond 30m/90ft. That is an obscene range at which to be able to kill upwards of three people in as little as three seconds. All without losing your weapon or subjecting yourself to essentially any risk whatsoever.

Thus, the difference in probable outcomes:
In a theatre, full of people, one man with a knife is extremely unlikely to kill many people. First of all; fleeing is easy for the majority of potential victims. Secondly, the man *has* to engage in melee combat with his potential victims, giving them an (albeit painful and dangerous) opportunity to take him down through hand-to-hand combat, with a not unreasonable chance of success, especially if multiple people band together. And finally, knife wounds can be defended against with use of arms, resulting in non-fatal wounds, and leaving the victim the ability to flee.
In the same scenario where the man has an automatic rifle? In approximately three seconds, there can be thirty bullets in the air, resulting in up to thirty casualties. The man can do this from the relatively safety of the entrance, with several meters of open ground between himself and the potential victims. Anyone attempting to fight back must cross this ground without being hit. Anyone who is only wounded can find it difficult to flee due to the impact, and research has shown that even theoretically non-fatal bullet wounds may kill their victims due to an effect known as hydro-static shock, causing brain hemorrhaging. Additionally, an average person can carry in excess of three hundred rounds on their person with ease. Bullets are unlikely to be stopped by any limb that manages to place itself between the victim and their body, if such is even possible due to the velocity of the bullet.

In short: I would back myself to survive a knife attack in a crowded place 99% of the time, unless I was incapacitated or one of the first couple of victims. I can't even rate my chances in a gun attack as it is essentially luck whether the gunman points at me or not (much as I know several ways to increase my chances of survival, in practice it is a crapshoot).

Further, the theory that arming the people in this situation would result in ending the confrontation early is a complete fabrication - much like the response to Orlando. This relies on the people who are armed being:
1. Competent with their weapon. Under combat circumstances, this is increasingly unlikely due to stress and adrenaline, as well as being the target of return fire.
2. Able to respond at all. Shock, fear, and other inhibiting conditions reduce the likelihood that even a competent shot will think to draw their weapon and return fire, let alone actually do so.
3. Not misidentified as an active shooter. In a dark environment with gunfire and dead people, identifying who is the perpetrator and who is the "responsible civilian" is difficult, if not outright impossible. With only a split-second to decide who to shoot, before being shot yourself, what are the odds a (potentially panicked) civilian shoots the wrong person?

This also increases the number of bullets flying in the air - increasing the risk of people fleeing getting hit, or obstructing the "responsible civilian" from hitting the active shooter.

Maybe, just *maybe*, in some sort of dystopia where there are still crazy people with guns running around shooting up crowded places, but all the people without guns respond by getting down, not panicking or trying to run, and all the "good guys with guns" are somehow coordinated in their response, this idea of arming people being the solution to the problem might work. But that's not reality. That's not how Joe Noguns of today reacts to real gunfire, especially not in an enclosed space or directed towards themselves. And frankly, the list of people I know who I'd trust to be competent in identifying their targets and reacting calmly and efficiently in a crisis is fucking short - and half of the people on that list probably also know that adding more guns into the mix isn't a great idea. And no, forcing guns and training on people doesn't solve this problem. At all. It just adds more guns and more people who haven't been in combat.

Frankly, if a room of twenty people cannot accurately identify whether an armed robber is wearing a green jumper or a blue shirt, or holding a 9mm or a shotgun, I really don't trust them to make calm, efficient reactions to being actually shot at - and I'm not pulling that out of my ass, that's every damned armed holdup training I've been to.
(Incidentally, it was a gray hoodie, and a Glock 19, and yes, I was the one guy in that class to correctly identify the gun.)




So yeah. Knives and guns are not at all equivalent, and I'd much rather that America (or any country, really) had a knife attack problem than a gun massacre problem. Because less dead people. Much as knife wounds are vicious and unpleasant. And guns have definitely not saved more lives than they've taken. Don't care how you try and spin that one, it ain't true, just because if guns didn't exist two World Wars would not have been half as deadly as they were, and arguing that guns stopped people with guns from killing people using those guns doesn't fly, because so would not having guns in the first place!

[EmperorMagus]

 High Geek of Crawfish, on 09 September 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

It's cause they be nutz churning out vids of America burning daily with cgi. I think Kim would do it in a heartbeat if they could get a sub in range of any part of coast and worry about fallout after the fact.

I really feel the need to set you straight here man.

Countries like Iran and N Korea are known to "hate the US". But the truth is, neither the Iranian government nor the N Korean government give one single flying fuck about the US past the fear of CIA coups. All the international posturing they do is because it's incredibly useful for their media machines. Khamenei or Kim whoever says something, the media in the west spin it. Then their government media edits the western spin to show their people "how much they fear our strong government (read: gubment) ! If our Supreme Leader wasn't here to protect us the US soldiers would be raping our women like they do in Japan and Germany!

Iran captures US soldiers not because they want to anger the US government or challenge the US authority (let's be serious, everybody know that the two are not in the same weight class in any shape or from), they just want the propaganda machine to have something to spin about "our nation is the greatest EVAR". The N Korean nuclear tests are mostly to achieve the propaganda objective. The secondary objective of them may be to deter a CIA coup or a US led regime change like it happened in Libya, Iraq, or a hundred other countries before that. None of the people in charge there are stupid enough to actually enter into a war with the US as agressors. For Fuck's sake the US army can probably roll over the entire Europe in a day, what fucking chance does N Korea have?

Obviously the above is my opinion. I'm not an insider and I don't actually know these things. But from a logical point of view, it makes absolute sense ...

Edit: I just realized this is not the thread for this, if a mod wants to remove this just give me a heads up so I can copy paste it over to the US politics thread.

This post has been edited by EmperorMagus: 09 September 2016 - 06:45 AM

[Nicodimas]

 EmperorMagus, on 09 September 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

 High Geek of Crawfish, on 09 September 2016 - 05:50 AM, said:

It's cause they be nutz churning out vids of America burning daily with cgi. I think Kim would do it in a heartbeat if they could get a sub in range of any part of coast and worry about fallout after the fact.

For Fuck's sake the US army can probably roll over the entire Europe in a day, what fucking chance does N Korea have?

This is more true than you realize. Decades ahead is a simple way to put it. At this point it wouldn't even be all out war..it can occur at a very strategic level. However...a Empire always has a very real weakness...if not multiple. (You can PM as this slides very quickly into politics, but trying to refer this to the argument at hand.)

However, his point he made is relevant, its just like the school shooter. That random nut on a micro level, also exists on the macro level. It's that minuscule part of our population we need to understand/empathize and conquer our inner natures.

As we advance in technology can we trust certain elements with this technology. Its a big conversation as we are all only strong as the weakest link. If we can't trust a gun, can we be trusted with the internet?

Society advanced due to our current technologies..this includes guns. America embraces guns as it's the most advanced country on Earth.

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 09 September 2016 - 06:56 AM

[Nicodimas]

@ Silencer. I didn't really understand what you are getting at? You posted quite a bit of information, but it didn't really have any material's to back up the statements.

Quote

. Knives are almost exclusively capable of melee combat - while knives can be thrown to some effect, first of all it removes the weapon from your person, and second of all, it is difficult and again limited to a single target, to throw a knife effectively. This means you have to be within near-arms-reach to use a knife as a weapon.

I lost you here. Knives are exceptionally lethal within 21 feet. Why would you throw your knife? Should I throw my gun?

Wait...do you know fbi statistics of deaths by thrown knives?

This post has been edited by Nicodimas: 09 September 2016 - 07:12 AM

[Silencer]

 Nicodimas, on 09 September 2016 - 07:07 AM, said:

@ Silencer. I didn't really understand what you are getting at? You posted quite a bit of information, but it didn't really have any material's to back up the statements.

Quote

. Knives are almost exclusively capable of melee combat - while knives can be thrown to some effect, first of all it removes the weapon from your person, and second of all, it is difficult and again limited to a single target, to throw a knife effectively. This means you have to be within near-arms-reach to use a knife as a weapon.

I lost you here. Knives are exceptionally lethal within 21 feet. Why would you throw your knife? Should I throw my gun?

Wait...do you know fbi statistics of deaths by thrown knives?

Yes: essentially 0. Because throwing your knife is stupid. Thus why they are almost exclusively used as melee weapons.


And as for what I was getting at, it's literally summarised for you at the bottom of my posts; anyone who claims that knives are in any way comparable to guns as weapons is a moron. They aren't anywhere near as useful or dangerous, kill far less people (if you really *need* a source provided, given you've never provided a single valid source for any of your claims or theories, have at it: http://www.infopleas...a/A0004888.html), and are generally much easier to deal with when people do *try* to use them to cause harm.

Also, if you really think that guns have prevented more deaths than they have caused, by all means bring me reasons why you think that - the rest of my post is basically just me calling that proclamation bullshit because, well, https://en.wikipedia...s_by_death_toll.

So, basically, TL:DR, guns are bad, and America's primary problem is having so many guns, ergo having more guns is a shit idea. Also, America may be the most technologically advanced nation on earth (though half of that is due to technologies developed and manufactured by other countries), but if your measurement of advancement is society? Sorry, but no, America is not the most advanced on earth in that regard. Because, you know, all the wars they keep starting, the backwards and corrupt political system, etc, etc.

[amphibian]

I don't think the USA is the most technologically advanced country on the whole. It's probably South Korea or Japan. The USA has the best weapons/military vehicles for sure, but everything nose dives after that. The power grid is creaky, old, and unstable, our mass transit sucks, our home electronics and medical tech aren't the best in the world and so many other things.