Show newer

@snder Both statements are wrong. it isn't gun law nor is it social media. There is more then enough evidence to debunk either of these claims.

police state vs(?) white nationalism 

@cwebber@octodon.social I know the definition of the word, I used it in my question to you. That does not address what I asked in any way.

Was this intending to be a rude non-response?

After the country made vaccines illegal vaccine related death declined. In fact if you compare all countries where vaccines are illegal you will find vaccine related death is almost non existent. But in other countries where vaccines are legal vaccine related death is in the hundreds every year. I think this clearly shows why vaccines kill and should be made illegal.

This is what people who are anti-gun sound like. Do they even realize how absurd and how much lack of understanding they have when it comes to interpreting data and statistics?

police state vs(?) white nationalism 

@cwebber@octodon.social PErhaps you mean white nationalism as applied specifically to America? In which case we are talking about whites who want to make "white" the racial identity of america.

If that is what you mean then I could see why that would be very alarming (and inherently racist) considering the nature of america. Though im not sure the wording really translates well to me as a person living in Europe.

police state vs(?) white nationalism 

@cwebber@octodon.social White nationalism is the idea that white people are a race and have a national identity (anglo-saxon european being the national identity). Assuming we arent talking about racist white nationals (a subset of that) I'm not sure why that would be any worse than black nationalism, the idea that blacks are a racial and national identity (Africa).

So my question is, was it really "racist white nationalism" that was meant by this post or did you really mean white nationalism itself (white people identifying as white people).

I dont mean this as a troll i do mean it as a legitimate question. Perhaps you use a different definition than is the normal or something. Im just curious.

@0xDEADBEEF I'm not upset or anything. Like i said, no worries, carry on, its all good.

@0xDEADBEEF Oh sorry, I thought you were here to engage respectfully. Wasnt aware you were just here to troll and make no actual valid points. Please feel free to carry on, I'll be over in the corner doing actual research.

@0xDEADBEEF Its an analogy. If it serves the purpose of demonstrating a valid point go for it. Thats how analogies work.

@0xDEADBEEF Sure, its just going to be more obscure because no one has made cars illegal or claim that people owning cars is a bad thing. With vaccines people actually do take that stance.

In theory if we actually had a town where cars were illegal you'd of course find almost 0 car related deaths. But on the flip side many MANY more people are probably dying because they cant get to the hospital in time.

The analogy just doesnt work as well because there arent any anti-car people.

@steko@octodon.social But to answer your question the point is: anti-gun people make absurd arguments that are easily debunked by simply applying the same logic to anything else and watching how absurd it is.

It just feels less crazy when you say it about guns because no one is critical of the things they agree with. You hear it enough times and it sounds perfectly normal. Even if you apply it to any other field and it sounds bat shit insane.

@ewok Not sure what every factor for that might be, but it was sourced from government published data. While your of course welcome to disagree with any interpritation of the data the data itself is accurate.

But what would it look like if we considered the data we do with other things (like vaccines)? Well most people would have the common sense not just to look at vaccine related deaths but rather how all deaths, of any kind, are effected. We would look at the death rate overall or specific to disease.

So how do we apply that to guns? Well we would have to compare the overall homicide, or violence rate both before and after a change in gun laws, just as we would look at survivability both before and after the introduction of vaccines.

So lets do that shall we. I will continue this thread with statistics from as many various countries I can find comparing their homicide and violence rates both before and after gun laws are passed. I'll add a new statistic to each reply in this thread.

Show thread

@steko@octodon.social In what way is the reasoning absurd? Be specific.

But what would it look like if we considered the data we do with other things (like vaccines)? Well most people would have the common sense not just to look at vaccine related deaths but rather how all deaths, of any kind, are effected. We would look at the death rate overall or specific to disease.

So how do we apply that to guns? Well we would have to compare the overall homicide, or violence rate both before and after a change in gun laws, just as we would look at survivability both before and after the introduction of vaccines.

So lets do that shall we. I will continue this thread with statistics from as many various countries I can find comparing their homicide and violence rates both before and after gun laws are passed. I'll add a new statistic to each reply in this thread.

Show thread

After the country made vaccines illegal vaccine related death declined. In fact if you compare all countries where vaccines are illegal you will find vaccine related death is almost non existent. But in other countries where vaccines are legal vaccine related death is in the hundreds every year. I think this clearly shows why vaccines kill and should be made illegal.

This is what people who are anti-gun sound like. Do they even realize how absurd and how much lack of understanding they have when it comes to interpreting data and statistics?

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.