USA Politics

No - the inaccuracy is saying that all Americans are gun nuts. Polls coming out today are saying 80% of Americans support tougher gun regulations. This is a big issue, but it's not all-pervasive. Hundreds of gun victims sounds like a huge number, but this is a country of 300 million people.

The US has a rate of 4 gun homicides per 100,000 people, including all the mass shootings (but excluding accidents, suicides, etc. - only homicides). For comparision: fatal car accidents are 10 per 100,000 people. In 2013 alone, about 20,000 Americans died from prescription drug overdoses. Mass shootings make for big news - but in terms of actually being caught in one, bearfan is right. It's like being struck by lightning. It is not an everyday occurence here (in the sense that it's going to occur in any one person's everyday life), and picturing America that way is just wrong.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
I'm genuinely quite confused. Is Obama painting an inaccurate picture...
... when he says this?

Shootingtracker has the figure at 1,052 incidents in 1,066 days; with 1,347 deaths & 3,817 injured since Jan 1st 2013; that's 5000+ "killings and injuries". Where does the 424 you quote come from? I'm genuinely interested, as these numbers are miles apart.
Click to expand...


Relying on shootingtracker to start with is a mistake, it does not collect data from any official sources. I am going with official sources. Note, I am talking (and Obama is as well) referring to "mass shootings" here.

This article ... sums up the problems with how they collect/spin data.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

Few key points (note this was written in October)
---------------

Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents -- far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.

USA Today has been tracking the data and found approximately 18 mass killings by firearms so far in 2015.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
No - the inaccuracy is saying that all Americans are gun nuts.
Click to expand...
If we're all giving the impression that this is what we think, then apologises are due.
SinisterMinisterX said:
Polls coming out today are saying 80% of Americans support tougher gun regulations.
Click to expand...
That's good. Is it going to happen any time soon, do you think?
SinisterMinisterX said:
This is a big issue, but it's not all-pervasive. Hundreds of gun victims sounds like a huge number, but this is a country of 300 million people.
Click to expand...
Indeed.
SinisterMinisterX said:
The US has a rate of 4 gun homicides per 100,000 people, including all the mass shootings (but excluding accidents, suicides, etc. - only homicides). For comparision: fatal car accidents are 10 per 100,000 people. In 2013 alone, about 20,000 Americans died from prescription drug overdoses.
Click to expand...
Don't think the comparisons are good ones. People don't get behind the wheel of a car intent on exercising deadly force. People intentionally or unintentionally take piles of drugs usually to the detriment of their own lives/health, not other people's.
SinisterMinisterX said:
Mass shootings make for big news - but in terms of actually being caught in one, bearfan is right. It's like being struck by lightning. It is not an everyday occurence here (in the sense that it's going to occur in any one person's everyday life), and picturing America that way is just wrong.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although I'm not sure who you think is thinking that.
_________________________________________________
bearfan said:
Relying on shootingtracker to start with is a mistake, it does not collect data from any official sources. I am going with official sources. Note, I am talking (and Obama is as well) referring to "mass shootings" here.

This article ... sums up the problems with how they collect/spin data.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...ny-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

Few key points (note this was written in October)
---------------

Using 2013, the most recent year for which federal data is available, the Congressional Research Service found 25 mass shooting incidents -- far less than the 363 counted by Mass Shooting Tracker.

USA Today has been tracking the data and found approximately 18 mass killings by firearms so far in 2015.
Click to expand...
I'll take your word for it. But these figures are an awful, awful long way away from each other; 25 vs. 363. I'm doubtful, at first glance, of the truthfulness of either, for this reason alone.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
People intentionally or unintentionally take piles of drugs usually to the detriment of their own lives/health, not other people's.
Click to expand...

Which why I looked at prescription drugs, not recreational/illegal. Sure some commit suicide by intentional overdose, but most are not. It's old folks taking more pills than they need, on medical advice.
 
Dr. Eddies Wingman said:
I'm pretty sure Bearfan refered to all the bullet-proof stuff and not your arguments when he wrote "the crap you posted" ...
Click to expand...
The bullet proof stuff isn't crap either. Nor is the comparison with handing out stones. It says something.
SinisterMinisterX said:
You're insulting me, Mosh, CFH, bearfan, Wasted, Knickerbocker and more.
Click to expand...
I am voicing my amazement (and other negative thoughts and emotions). I am sharing meaningful information (in my view at least). As a result, this may come across as confronting with problems in your country.

- you might not like it because I am non-American (can't help it)
- you might think (or paint a picture(!) that) I am misinformed (what I say is wrong in your view: try to explain what's wrong)
- you might disagree with me (you do not share my emotions or thoughts, and can argue why I see things wrong)
- you might agree with me
- more?

How can it hurt when a Dutchman with no influence criticizes something? On an open forum. As long as he does it in a correct way as possible? I do not utter racist language. Sometimes I get cynical, but always hitting the root of the problem. I haven't made things up in order to paint a wrong picture.
 
Last edited:
bearfan said:
Relying on shootingtracker to start with is a mistake, it does not collect data from any official sources. I am going with official sources.
Click to expand...
Shootingtracker explains very well how they track their data and what they define as a mass shooting. Their definition of mass shooting makes sense to me. Have you read it?
http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Main_Page

Have you used the site? Every mass shooting has references.

Let's judge ourselves and see what we make of it.
 
Last edited:
I, too, apologize for making it sound like all Americans love guns. My critique was aimed at the political system that seems unable to implement even minor changes on the subject, not at the individual people on this forum.

If I tried to indicate that the USA has a problem, it was because I am sick and tired of the discussion here, and indeed, of seeing it in the news every week or so. There's lots of statistics out there, and numbers can be twisted to support pretty much anything people want in the end. I leave it to my American friends to decide their truth on the matter.
 
bearfan said:
Dude, I am done with this .. it is fucking pointless. We are not going to agree on this.
Click to expand...
You are not willing to look into it yourself beardan. It's just a list of events with sources. Nothing wrong with it, unless you deny that these events have happened.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
You are not willing to look into it yourself beardan. It's just a list of events with sources. Nothing wrong with it, unless you deny that these events have happened.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you and honestly, if I had to rank the issue in the US that I actually care about, this is way the hell down the list. I disagree with how that site gets their stats, fact checking sites have as well. you like it, because it shows what you want to see. But, again we are going in circles, believe what you want .. but accept others will have a differing opinion and a differing view of the world. I am tired discussing this and am not sure why I bothered to start ... because again, it is way down the list of things I concern myself with on a daily basis ..
 
bearfan said:
way down the list of things I concern myself with on a daily basis ..
Click to expand...
I find myself wondering - for you, and all Americans who read the thread - what are the issues you are most concerned with? Such as, the three or five reasons that you will consider as you cast your vote next year (or possibly in the upcoming primaries).
 
Economy, 1st amendment issues, 4th amendment issues, war on drugs, war on terror, shitty education, debt/spending/taxation at a national level (these are in no particular order)... then add a host of more local issues (state, county, city) as well, also factor in, I do not live politics 24/7 ... I follow football, hockey, baseball, music,have a family, a job,a front door that needs a new lock that I need to put in at some point today, etc .. aka general life
 
I'm most concerned about getting the process moving again. The House matters more than anything else at this point. If they can't get work done, nothing else matters.

Thus for POTUS, I'm interested in who can get stuff done. This is why I oppose Sanders: if he were elected, I don't think he'd be effective. He's been viewed as a "fringe" politician for years. I don't think he can motivate the Congress into action.

I'd actually consider Trump if he wasn't so obviously self-centered. The man does have some legitimate experience making deals happen. But, I generally distrust anyone from the business world with no political experience. You can't run a government (life or death stakes, touching all aspects of life) like a corporation, and I think most corporate-world candidates don't fully get this.

I'm interested in attention to reality. Climate change deniers are out of the question.

Right now, I back Clinton. She's got the most relevant experience - and I think her 8 years as first lady is huge plus. She's the only candidate who has personally witnessed the toll a presidency takes. She is the best prepared for the job. If she wasn't so widely despised for various reasons both legit and bogus, she'd be perfect. But if the Republicans can come up with someone who's reasonably smart and not a lightning rod for controversy, I'm listening.
 
I feel pretty much the same way. I like some of Sanders' ideas but I can't help but think that a big chunk of his supporters have no idea how government works or what the role of POTUS is.

As of now I'm reluctantly going for Clinton. She's She's a bit shady but she has the experience and would probably have a productive presidency.

On the Republican side, I like Kasich and that's about it. Unfortunately it seems like the right is more interested in banging the drum on issues they'll never get their way on instead of going for a more electable, fiscally conservative candidate.








It'll be my first presidential election since turning 18, so I look forward to actually participating.
 
SinisterMinisterX said:
I'd actually consider Trump if he wasn't so obviously self-centered. The man does have some legitimate experience making deals happen. But, I generally distrust anyone from the business world with no political experience. You can't run a government (life or death stakes, touching all aspects of life) like a corporation, and I think most corporate-world candidates don't fully get this.
Click to expand...

We have done this recently in Bohemia - bonus points for the fact the guy actually said in his campaign he wants to run the state like a corporation - and it just not a god idea.
 
Sorry to hear that.

I think it could work, but it would take an extraordinary businessman. Someone with the humility to know he's in a different arena and needs experienced advisers. I haven't seen that man yet.
 
I'll settle for someone who does not think they are running for dictator and understands the limits of the office (and wants to scale back it's power). However, given the massive amount of ambition and ego and takes to win a major part nomination, I do not see that happening anytime soon.

Also, Hillary, to me, is shady as hell. I'd vote for anyone against her with few reservations. Beyond Rand Paul, no one really thrills me much in either field. A little to like about all of them, but major flaws.
 
I don't think "shady as hell" is a problem, unless she's got some nefarious goal. I'm a lifelong Democrat, so I'm with her on most issues. The worst thing about her is the same problem Trump has: I get the sense she's desperate to have that line on her resume. Lots of ego.

But she'll also have an adviser who was in that very same office not long ago. I like Bill, I liked him as president, and he's part of the package to me.
 
bearfan said:
I'll settle for someone who does not think they are running for dictator and understands the limits of the office (and wants to scale back it's power).
Click to expand...
The concept of presidential power is a truly interesting one. I've been watching The Roosevelts - An Intimate History by Ken Burns, and they talk quite extensively about the way both Roosevelts expanded the power of the presidency. I find it very interesting, myself, that the presidents who are best known today are ones who expanded the presidency's powers quite firmly - Washington (by default), Jackson (in some ways), Lincoln, the Roosevelts, and of course, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson, and even Reagan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top