The amount of generalization and black and white simplifications to come up with such a thing is impressive though.
They are literally arguing if “people” only means US citizens.
Other countries take a similar approach to rights.
The USA was founded on the premise that human rights applied to all. When any governing entity no longer respects those rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
The current government of the USA, at the urging of a self-selected elite among its supporting citizens, believes those inalienable human rights only apply to a select few. These are the conditions outlined in the Declaration of Independence as reason to overthrow the current regime.
There is well-documented historical precedence. Tread lightly.
I agree with you, but when those words were written, slavery was still one of the cornerstones of the American economy and women didn't have the right to vote.
Should the protections afforded by the constitution apply to all people? Of course. But legally, the US has a longstanding tradition of denying certain rights to certain people.
> Some people would give the Declaration greater weight, as a reflection of values that inspired the Constitution, and thus of values that we should read into the Constitution even if they are not expressly there in the Constitution's text. But I am skeptical. The two documents are very different. The Declaration is fundamentally a rhetorical document, meant to persuade the world -- and more immediately and significantly, to persuade wavering Americans -- that the revolutionaries' cause was just. The Constitution is fundamentally a legal document, meant to spell out a form of government to which Americans would be bound, and by which that government would be bound. Perhaps the Constitution implemented the rhetorical ideals of the Declaration, but perhaps it didn't (and perhaps it was the worse for that). The way to see if the Constitution implemented the ideals of the Declaration is to look at the Constitution's text, not to assume that it did.
https://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/201... (Note: Blog by UC San Diego prof.)
Interesting that you read it that way. I read it as when YOUR governing entity no longer respects YOUR rights, it's time to turf the bums out and start again.
Yeah, everyone has the rights, but not everybody has the same government. The People are not random people, they are citizens.
I see no room in the wording of the founding statement of the USA to read into it that it's OK for an administration to treat some people like shit as long as it's only certain groups. I only get the sentiment that if the administration treats anyone wrong (for a strictly definition of wrong), it's time for them to go.
As soon as it becomes OK to discriminate between those with inalienable rights and those without based on privileges like "citizenship" then it becomes easy to redefine or revoke such privileges at will. There is plenty of historic precedence for just that. The only legitimate reading of 'all' is all, not some or a few or all citizens.
Do you think slavery should be legal?
The parent, on the other hand, was responding to someone in an attempt to prove them wrong. By not saying anything that engaged with what the grandparent said, they failed at that.
So I know what I am, but what are you?
Just saying, where do you live?
(I'm not American, and I wish they did better, but it's not that bad)
Most of that is from the Bush administration. The parent's declaration would have been slightly paranoid in that regime, but with this one, it is arguably a bit mild. The statement should now be that no country should be dealing with the USA.
The parent's sentiment might have been somewhat outrageous
Loaded guns exist, but they are not common. Most of them are in the hands of well trained people who are harmless unless (in the unlikely event) that deadly force is the only way they can get out of the situations.
The US has its problems, but you have been listening to propaganda by anti US forces (you might want to figure out who they are and what their agenda is!) if you think either of the above issues are worth a worry.
"The Small Arms Survey stated that U.S. civilians alone account for 393 million (about 46 percent) of the worldwide total of civilian held firearms" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_ownership
"Most of them are in the hands of well trained people who are harmless" I am not sure what you base this on, you don't need any training at all to buy a gun, just ~24 - 48 hour waiting period and if you have a concealed carry permit, you can generally walk out with the gun after paying. Depending on the state, training to carry a concealed weapon can take from 2 - 8 hours. Some states don't even require training if you want to open carry your weapon.
In 2010 there were ~20,000 suicides involving a gun. In 2016, there were 11,004 gun homicides. The US leads the world in mass shootings, especially in schools. Accidental gun injuries are most common in homes where guns are kept for self-defense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
Getting shot by the police is a leading cause of death in young male people of color.
"you might want to figure out who they are and what their agenda is"
Indeed.
"However the people who actually do that tend to be enthusiasts who are well trained" - based on what? You can buy a gun even if you have never fired one before.
Thirty percent of U.S. adults say they personally own a gun, while a larger percentage, 43%, report living in a gun household. - "https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own...
Is your argument that 43% of US households consist of well trained enthusiasts and the this is a small number?
It's not hard. If you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out (if the safety is off and if there is one in the chamber). So, simply don't pull the trigger until you are ready to fire a bullet. Most (if not all) people that buy guns, you included, understand this basic concept.
It's not like guns require massive amounts of experience to achieve proficiency. It's a simple tool, not a piano.
Car owners kill far more people than gun owners do not give much respect to how deadly their weapon is.
Car killing people -> mostly accidents.
Gun killing people -> mostly intentional.
Unintentionally? I highly doubt that. I would guess the majority of the tens of thousands of deaths were the result of the gun owner intentionally pulling the trigger, not because they were bumbling around transporting it incorrectly, storing ammo incorrectly, etc.
According to this[1], only 500 people died in 2016 due to gun accidents. The rest were intentional.
[1] https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/police-off...
And this:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/19...
Don Diego de la Vega [indicating sword]: Do you know how to use that thing?
Alejandro Murrieta: Yes! The pointy end goes into the other man.
All you need is to know some guy.
> To have a loaded gun on your person you need to be well trained in most states.
All you really need is to grab a loaded gun and conceal it about your person. No paperwork required.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
The United States is Ranked 94th in the world by intentional homicide rate.
"The odds of dying in a car vs getting shot are relevant." Why? I did not mention cars at all in my post so not sure how you bringing up cars renders my response illogical. Is your argument that individuals killed by gun violence would still be dead if there were no guns? Does this include victims of mass shootings in schools, churches etc.? By your rational, we should allow all countries to own nuclear weapons as the odds of dying in a car crash vs a nuclear explosion are far higher.
In 2017, over 15,000 people were killed by firearms (excluding suicide) and traffic deaths killed ~38,000. A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.
I appreciate the recommendation to get out more, but one of the nice things about modern technology is we always have access to facts wherever we are, and those facts indicate your points are very flawed.
First, when you bring up the page, the list wasn't sorted by rate, so being 94th on it is meaningless. It turns out that if you sort it by rate, the US is 89th, so not much difference, but... the unsorted list didn't prove your point.
Next, so what if the US was Xth on the list? Is that good? Bad? Indifferent? Your claim seems to be that that's high, but you don't actually provide any reason to reach that conclusion based on place on the list.
Why are cars relevant? Because most of us accept the risk of driving in a car, without worrying about the danger level. It's low enough that we just casually accept it. If guns kill half as many, that's too many (it's also too many from cars!), but it's not a danger that keeps many of us awake at night.
> A car's primary function is not to kill, whereas a gun has almost no other purpose.
That argument may not be saying what you think. First, the dead don't care either way. But second, if cars kill more by accident than guns do on purpose, does that make cars better, or worse?
Your argument is invalid.
Most bullets are destined to be fired directly into objects, most guns fired will never be used to take or defend a life.
Honduras, Eswatini, Jamaica, Guatemala, El Salvador, Venezuela, Brazil, Colombia, Panama, Philippines, South Africa, Costa Rica, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay
I think if you think these things are anti-US propaganda, I think you might want to examine the bias you have when you observe your own country.
The death penalty may be rare but it's something that shouldn't exist, especially in a well-developed country and even moreso in a country that frequently proclaims itself the embodiment of freedom, democracy and liberty.
Having grown up in a country that is very restrictive on gun ownership, I feel largely the same about civilian firearms.
As it happens, I mostly share your values. But it's not cool to just turn off conversation based on values because someone doesn't share yours, and because they don't provide a scientific basis.
You're likely right that you could never get agreement on (certain) values with Youden. The conversation still might be worthwhile, though.
Guns fucking everywhere is a problem. Lots of Americans think so. Yes, we absolutely execute people -- and our criminal justice system is a completely sham, especially if you're not white and rich.
Oh, and God save you from our health care economics.
If I weren't American, I'd absolutely never come here. In fact, I am American, and I'm actively researching ways to establish residency elsewhere.
Please elaborate. I have a house in an open carry state, and I rarely seen anyone actually carrying. Even as a gun owner by far the most likely place I'm going to see a gun is on the hip of a law enforcement officer.
But on the human freedom index the US is ranked 17 alongside Sweden.
The US has problems, systemic and cultural problems that should be fixed. But your risk of getting shot in a mass shooting is low.
On the other hand, Aaron Sorkin explains[1] in 3 minutes how the USA is far from the best place to live and what made us great when we were better in those different ratings.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw (NSFW audio)
But absurdly HIGHER than say, in Sweden. And most gun violence isn't mass shootings.
Plus, there's the ever-present specter of medical bankruptcy.
I didn't say the US doesn't have issues, just that looking at the whole picture -- and comparing with other countries, it's not that horrible.
In Sweden economic opportunities are slightly fewer. Not that it really matters, if you live in modern Western country you're doing pretty well.
Which is a bigger problem - guns everywhere or cars everywhere?
You are right that the death penalty is rare. Rare as in very few developed countries allow it.
Regarding guns, please stop to ask why our friends and neighbors need to carry a killing device to feel themselves.
The US has its problems, but it has corrected many of them over time. (vide: slavery) This occurred when citizenry was not content to leave things where they are and dismiss criticism.
Imagine this kind of treatment for you if you travel for leisure or business. Would you ever, and I mean ever, want to have anything to do with such a place? People vote with their feet/money.
Anti-US forces really don't have to try hard with propaganda. Heck, they don't have to do anything. US is doing all this by itself, and thanks to internet those cases are not buried as easily as in the past.
As an American, this attitude drives me nuts. "We don't kill that many people, and heck most of them are even guilty!"
Regarding "loaded guns exist, but they are not common." Again, this is the same attitude of "Even though we have a mass shooting every week, all in all it's not that much." Even if my chances of getting murdered in public are lower than, say, a car accident, the fact that we now teach preschoolers active shooter drills says something sad about our country.
While the US does have pretty high gun related homicide rates, it is largely because proportionally more of our homicides involve guns. Our overall homicide rate is a fair bit higher than most european countries but nowhere near the top world-wide (about #90.)
However, much of this is concentrated into particular locations as the US does have many of the top 50 cities in the world by homicide rate (behind only mexico, brazil and venezuela).
Overall, US gun ownership does not present a significant practical risk unless you go to certain places. Concerns about gun policy (and the death penalty) by potential visitors to the US are thus ideologically, not practically based.
I personally think that our lack of collective support for our struggling cities/regions says much more about us as a country than our active shooter drills (of which I am also not a fan).
While not exactly wrong I would definitely argue that "a fair bit higher" is a gross mischaracterization. The US has an intentional homicide rate of 5.3 per 100,000, which is many times higher than UK (1.2), France (1.3), Germany (1.0), Spain (0.7), Italy (0.67) or any of the Nordic countries.
> Concerns about gun policy (and the death penalty) by potential visitors to the US are thus ideologically, not practically based.
Depends how you frame it. Yes, your chances of getting killed in a random shooting are lower than a lot of other more mundane things. At the same time, your chances of getting killed in a random shooting in the US are many, many times higher than getting killed in a random shooting in one of the European countries previously mentioned.
"A fair bit" isn't particularly precise but it does means "quite alot" or "a large amount" so think it is a gross mischaracterization to call it a gross mischaracterization. If we are being pedantic, "Several times" is more accurate than "many times" since many generally means a bit more than 4 or 5.
> Depends how you frame it
I don't think so. Practically speaking, all that matters is comparing absolute risks of different causes of death in a specific situatio. For a foreign tourist the risk of gun related homicide in the US is significantly smaller than the other risks of death (such as cars). The relative amount of that risk compared to other countries isn't practically relevant. The risk of drowning in a locked dry room is many times the risk of drowning in a bathtub with an inch of water, that doesn't mean that the risk of drowning in that bathtub is practically relevant (unless you are a baby or extremely drunk/drugged).
They bike to work, smoke a cig, and then worry about a Muslim terrorist blowing them up.
Unfortunately people aren't reasonable and our prosperity is partly based on resources and partly based on sucking in a lot of smart people from elsewhere to further enrich the nation we built with said resources and this shitty marketing could easily damage the second ultimately more important source of our prosperity.
Instead, it's been homogenized to the point where people have to fight their own perceptions to reclaim their culture and identity. It's a shame, really.
1) https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/... 2) https://faculty.weber.edu/kmackay/statistics_on_slavery.htm
(Although I agree that our 4th amendment has been horrifically raped in modern times.)
The vast majority of gun deaths are consentual (suicide), and of the homicidal remainder, the vast majority are within organized crime. Stay away from gang activity and don't flagrantly disobey police officers, and I guarantee you'll be completely fine.
If you disagree with all this, it's probably just not the country for you. You make a good decision staying out.
If we can keep nuclear weapons out of criminal's hands we can keep anything out of criminal's hands, it's just a matter of doing it correctly.
There are some people who don't vibe with this sort of philosophy. But thank God the USA exists for those of us that do!
~2/3 is a majority, but certainly not a vast majority.
> and don't flagrantly disobey police officers, and I guarantee you'll be completely fine.
Plenty of people are shot by police without flagrantly disobeying police orders. It may reduce your risk, but it does not eliminate it.
> If you disagree with all this, it's probably just not the country for you. You make a good decision staying out.
As a country founded on pluralism, The USA has plenty of room and hospitality to offer those who disagree with you.
It's true that you can limit your gun risk by being white/urban/middle-class/mentally healthy, but these are not advantages available to everyone. There's a lot of victim-blaming in some of these comments, which glosses over the fact that plenty of infants and toddlers die from guns.
Gun deaths in total numbers are roughly the same as car deaths: each are approx 30-40K per year in the USA.
If I say "What are my chances of dying by gun or car if I go on a vacation to the USA?" are you really going to factor in suicide as an option? Generally it is presumed that the person is not considering going to the USA to commit suicide on their vacation.
Thus, most people discount suicides to tailor the gun figure such that a more apples-to-apples comparison can be made.
It's like people claiming to be terrified of going to Japan because the chance of dying by a rope around your neck is insanely high compared to the USA.
Probably because the interesting statistic is not "gun deaths" but rather "fatal gun-related accidents" and "homicides" (with or without a gun involved). Suicides don't just "happen"; there is no "risk of suicide" which could be affected by the presence or absence of any particular tool. If you don't want die from suicide, the solution is as simple as not attempting suicide.
This is wrong though. Reducing access to means and methods is one of the best ways to prevent suicide and we see drops in rates of suicide whenever we see changes to a commonly used method.
Two of the best documented examples are when the UK changed from coal gas to natural gas, and when the UK introduced catalytic converters.
Obviously reducing access to means and methods is not the only thing we should be doing to reduce death by suicide. But it is an important part of the package of measures.
You're making the mistake of thinking that someone makes a choice to die and is then determined to carry out that choice and will use rational thinking to chose the most lethal method. It's often not a choice they make; they're often not determined to die and people usually do not make efforts to avoid being found; choice of method is complex but tends to focus on what's easily available and quickly fatal.
Have a read of The International Handbook of Suicide Prevention, edited by Rory C. O'Connor, Jane Pirkis, because it covers all this in detail. Or you can read the NCISH research. Or you can read Professor Nav Kapur's book Suicide Prevention.
Forcing someone to live when they wish to die is no better than killing someone who wishes to live. You are welcome to try to talk them out of it but have no right to interfere with their choice—whatever it may happen to be.
Suicide prevention is not "forcing someone to live". Suicidal thoughts are usually transient and any delay in suicidal action allows the person to seek help. Like I said in my first post, reducing access to means an methods is only part of the package that we need to be providing.
You keep trying to make this point: you keep trying to say that suicide is a choice that people make. I'll try again: it often is not a choice that people make. Please just go read the research. Here's a tweet about "Rapid Onset Despair": https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/939820235946971138
You especially need to pay attention to intoxication and suicide. Or are you saying that an impulsive decision made when very drunk is no different to a considered decision that is stable over months made when sober?
> no right
Since you mention rights, people have a right to life and suicide prevention respects that right. It respects that right in a way that wide-spread gun-ownership doesn't.
UNCRC Article 6: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/U...
UNDHR Article 3: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
UNCRPD article 10: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-...
I live in England and the Mental Health Act and Mental Capacity Act specifically give HCPs the right to take away people's choice in some limited situations. I don't know where you live but you almost certainly have similar laws around substituted decision making.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
I will say though that even ignoring gun homicides, our average homicide rate in the USA is rather high compared to other western countries.
Go live in a safe country for a few years then come back and you'll feel what you've become insensitive to
Right, but still... https://xkcd.com/1252/
I checked the ONS statistics[1] for England and Wales (including Scotland and Northern Ireland shouldn't make a huge difference) and it says: "There were 29 homicide victims killed by shooting in the year ending March 2018, three fewer than the previous year. The number of homicides by shooting has fluctuated between 21 and 32 over the last six years."
Are you sure that you aren't comparing apples to oranges, so gun deaths in the US against all homicides in the UK regardless of the method? Another quote from the same paper suggests that might be the case: "There were 726 homicides in the year ending March 2018, 20 more (3% increase) than in the previous year."
[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeand...
Yes. As are some places in the Middle East. And so so many places in the US are great too, of course. It's just that the attitude of those states (and the most extreme parts of the population) towards foreigners make most trips not worth the risk.
https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-24/china-hostage-dipl...
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/yang-hengjun-australian-writer-d...
I assume you won't travel to Sweden, they have the same score as the US :)
Don't get me wrong, I also frustrated the US doesn't so better -- not because the US is that bad, but because it would be so easy for the US to do better.
And for some reason I emphasize with the Americans :) (I live in Denmark, but I'm not scared of traveling to neither Sweden or the US -- but I've never been to a non-democratic country, no plans to either).
The US isn't perfect, but of all the places in the world you could live it's undeniably one of the best. Probably second only to Germany in my favourite places to travel, tbh
Sounds like you don't appreciate the regional and resource stability that the US military brings to your country. You probably just take it for granted that cargo ships can travel freely and trade without worry of being attacked. Global trade wasn't this risk-free before the US navy became "masters of the world".
Maybe we need to dissolve NATO then because clearly the EU does not see defense as a priority and puts little to no effort protecting its interests since the US takes care of it. I vote the US pull out of NATO and stop being "masters of the world" in the middle east, protecting shipping lanes with the navy, etc. EU can protect its own interests with its own defense budget. Good luck.
If you can't actually see how the American state (not population or country) has devolved into something to be concerned about over the last 20 years, perhaps you're not looking hard enough.
Domestic politics and policies are cruel and divisive, international policies have regressed dramatically (i.e. they've pulled out of major international treaties around arms and climate and trade).
In the eyes of the average world citizen, America used to export an aspirational culture, now they export greed, cynicism, and technological dystopia (and I don't mean Facebook, I mean mass surveillance and drone warfare).
They are of course not alone in all this, but they are the biggest and most powerful country on the planet, so they lead by example, and it's becoming a shittier example every year.
So yeah, as an outsider looking into the US, I don't find that comment mindless at all.
I find this timeframe strange. Although the US has had major policy mishaps in the last 20 years (Iraq war, NSA surveillance, etc), imo policy is still better than at any other time in America's history.
What timeframe do you think had "better" policy?
After that began US's relentless creation of the modern, comprehensive surveillance state. It is the largest possible government and will effectively repress our great-grandchildren and theirs.
As an American, I advocate some isolationism to protect other countries. The reason is that other nations are proving grounds for the future mistreatment of US citizens. Protecting other countries now protects future Americans.
Mind you, I'm not saying that he's right. I'm just saying that you didn't actually answer him.
So "stop dealing with the USA" is supposed to mean stop dealing with the US government? I don't think so.
America, the people, is still a source of pride for me but one can hold that view and still see significant flaws with how our government acts on our behalf - or despite it.
The US is about 4% of the world population. The rest of the world about 96%.
(Google for "US population" and "world population", use mathematical process known as division.)
I feel like you insulted me for the actions of my country. Isn't this how racism and hate is spread? I'm now not worth knowing and should be shyed away from because of my country...
Edit: I think the downvotes are a bit uncalled for. The OP said people should avoid the US because of its practices. The OP didn't say ANY country with these practices, China, Middle East, North Korea, Russia. It was a very general statement that has is heavily opinion driven.