That sounds like one for every thirty thousand people. We should be more afraid of obesity and cars.

That number probably also includes deaths in warring gangs.

And in those cases where an aggressor threatens an innocent person's life (with a knife, gun, or otherwise), and the aggressor is shot - that fatality is added to that tally... without consideration for the lives that were saved.

I'm more worried about city folks getting their first gun after their first mugging.

Country folks grow up with guns, they know how to handle them, know how to treat them with respect and caution.

Sure, there is a tiny but visible handful of young male idiots who ride around drunk in their pickups shooting... #notallrednecks

1) Its exactly because my risk is relative to that of the general public that I make my claim.

2) It is fantastically stupid to assume that the *actual* odds of my getting shot increase with each weapon sold. The odds of my *actually* drowning do not increase every time a pool is installed, nor do the odds of my getting hit by a car change in any meaningful way every time a car is sold. Once again you've illustrated a lack of solid reasoning while pushing your anti-gun agenda.

3) As I said - and as your own poster charts indicate - the number of guns on the street does not have much effect on my personal risk.

EACH of the following causes of death pose a GREATER risk than guns do: car accidents, falls, poisoning or drug overdose, vehicle accidents, stroke, cancer and heart disease.

In some cases, the ratio of risk is well over an order of magnitude.

So, like I said: Increasing the number of guns on the street has really no meaningful bearing on my personal risk. Its insane to think otherwise. Its like when 9/11 happened and a lot of people were personally *afraid* of terrorists - its not at all logical.

You seem to be quite devoted to your position on guns. Good luck with that.

She is amazing.

This is amazing. I hope this works out.

I'm saying this in absolutely earnestness, not being snarky nor trying to derail: This could be the next step towards dramatically increasing our lifespans, by growing clones of ourselves and transplanting our heads onto the clone's body. Of course, that clone would be designed so as to never produce a brain - but it would still raise ethical questions about what it is that makes a human alive.

What would you do if you had the option at age 70 or so to start a brainless clone growing, and have your head transplanted onto it 20 years later?

I mean, your brain is still going to die, eventually even with a younger body. But it seems like this could delay your death for many decades.

Math is one of the few areas of study (outside of the proper sciences like physics, chemistry, etc) in which

a) There are definitely, absolutely right (and wrong) answers
b) Ability to think logically and correctly is necessary

In most other subjects, you can get by (even up to the level of PhD!) with a combination of (a) ability to memorize facts (b) ability to 'get along' with people, esp. profs and mentors and (c) ability to speak and write, even if your writing is highly illogical; and especially if your writing is 'persuasive'


Since SJWs hate facts and logic, they would be absolutely delighted to see math be removed.

That looks like a BART station in the SF area. Is that the Fruitvale bart station shooting from 4-5 years ago?

If you look at the actual causes of death and injury in the US, it seems that changing the number of guns on the street isn't likely to have much effect on *my* personal risk.

That's an amazing video.

Yes, she and many, many other BLM activists. Its a common meme among the BLM movement.



Yes, because she is part of a cult built on lies. I've met many such people personally. One of them told me that she specifically started become afraid of all white people when the trayvon martin verdict was issued. (Nevermind that the shooter is hispanic). Her cult leaders told her that the trayvon verdict proved that white people can murder POC with abandon, and never face consequences; and so they bizarrely act like they are now in immediately physical danger.

This is 2016. She honestly believed this nonsense. And *this* is why she started become afraid of all white people (her own words). The *majority* of people I know who support BLM (which is a lot of people) either share or are sympathetic to this view.



Yes, if you look at the statistics, POC really have no reason to fear for their physical safety among white people in 2016.

I didn't mean to say that the actions of black supremacists like the BLM are as bad as the actions of white supremacists, I'm saying the ideology and rhetoric is as bad. Changes in behavior usually follow changes in ideology.



For me, this one person's actions do not condemn the whole movement.

Nor did the dozen people's actions at that library where black students screamed at white students, who were trying to study. Nor did the actions of Melissa Click and her supporters. Nor did the actions of the two jack-***** who stormed the stage at De Paul. Nor the did actions of any individual students who formed a human wall and forced reporters out of the public area. Nor the individual actions of trigglypuff. Nor the individual actions of the 20-30 students who blocked the entrance to a Milo speech recently. Nor the individual comments of hundreds of individuals I've seen on twitter and on disqus and such.

But when you take all of this together, and you listen to and read the BLM rhetoric, and have lengthy conversations with the people who believe this crap and ask them *why* they believe it....the larger pattern becomes pretty clear.

Latinas are not a political movement. Latinas do not, as a whole, actively seek to indoctrinate each other into a rigid shared belief system.

The BLM movement does.



Many of us know from experience, in some cases very extensive personal experience, that she does in fact represent the views of the BLM movement. National level leaders understand the need for duplicity and diplomacy, but the local leaders of BLM speak more freely, and they are every bit as crazy and awful as this BLM activist.



Actually, this disturbed shooters worldview was influenced by core islamic beliefs. I get that you *can* think to yourself that you are Islamic and be against the shooting of gay people, and you can think to yourself that you support BLM and be against what this women said. And its crazy to *directly blame* other islamic people for his actions, or *directly blame* other BLM supporters for her words - but in both cases we also must acknowledge the relationship.

If BLM people don't want their movement to be increasingly disdained, they need to get out there and disavow this crap. Sadly, their movement is largely built on this crap and has been since the earliest days of their lying about trayvon martin.

I saw that meme posted upthread about guns, sticks, and children. This says a great deal about the mentality of the anti-gun nuts.

The children are the citizens, and the parents are the state in this analogy.

These anti-gun nuts don't believe in a free society of responsible adults. They have no faith in themselves or their own maturity. They see themselves as children who need to be managed by the state.

Worse, they see everyone else as children who need to be parented by the state.

Grow up.

I'd wager he wasn't holding it correctly.

Why is it that every single time I hear someone say "X shames Y over Z", in which the speaker is *siding* with Y... that person is full of crap?

It's like... every... single...time...

It's as if these people want to live in a world that glorifies victimhood.

Yes, me too. There are some really terrible ideas out there, and the right response in my opinion is to see them for what they are and expose them for what they are -- not to try to censor them or make them forbidden.

If there are ideas in that book which lead people to evil actions, should we try to understand that better, to prevent the same kind of evil from arising again? (*cough* social justice *cough*)

During previous issues with censorship at reddit, many users who value free speech moved over to voat.co

This means there are fewer people left on reddit who are motivated to fight against the suppression of ideas on reddit

From what i've seen, the worst of the right wing sites do the least amount of censorship. They just laugh at the people who disagree with them.

I use reddit a bit, not an expert, but it seems to me that moderation is subreddit specific.

You might have one subreddit, like the feminists subreddits, which are very heavily moderated. Its all about group think and echo chamber, and anyone who disagrees is banned and posts are deleted immediately - *just* for having an unwanted opinion.

Then you might have another subreddit in which the mods running it prefer to let anything and everything go. They will only remove spam and posts which explicitly break the law.


If one of these 'anything goes' types of subreddits gets too crazy, then the upper management might step in.


I could be wrong, but I think people are especially upset about the censorship in /r/news because its... you know... NEWS. Its not "feminist news" or "my look protected echo chamber news", its supposed to be general news - so many feel that the mods shouldn't treat it like their own little private party pushing their own political agendas.

This is what BLM is all about. They are so self absorbed its insane. They are honestly brainwashing each other into being afraid of random white people. They are getting to be as bad as the worst of the white supremacists of generations past.

BLM will lie about a police shooting, and expect people to 'support' them; and then they get upset when not as many people show up to their rally as show up for an *actual* act of violence against a community?

Drama queen!



Drama queen!