Playlist on Defensive Gun use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xVeHcX3xKo&list=PL30O4UPS4tjRMFKZJSCkancnxO_09HfO4
Playlist on Debunking Gun Control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gl45aKhqj0&list=PL30O4UPS4tjSbVPOCFMxAhHcM2BeQwddT
This is something I found surpring when I first learned it - the number of people killed by guns in the US is lower than those killed in automobile accidents, right?
I am very well aware that the media and politicians cannot be trusted hence opening this discussion because the media portrayal of the situation seems very sensationalised compared to the statistics.
The media paints the US as some lawless wasteland with gunfights in the streets daily. Even the wild west of old was sensationalized bullshit.
I carry a gun daily, most people I know personally do as well.
The only people I know personally who have been shot were shot in a war overseas. They also conveniently leave out that the highest rates of gun crime exist in the most firearms restrictive cities. There's a common saying that when guns are criminalized, only criminals will own guns.
In the case of the UK, it's true. The criminals running your countries own the majority of guns.
What I often hear from other Brits is "omg in the American office they have a rule that says you can't bring guns in!" with the implication being that the idea of being able to own and carry a gun is insane in and of itself.
But I've never heard first hand accounts, or even second or third hand accounts, of those people or the Americans they know getting shot π€
Yes I've read that about the highest levels of gun crime in the US being in states with the strictest gun laws. Not from the MSM of course. But from reading into libertarianism recently.
And absolutely - in the UK, you have a total criminal monopoly on weapons of any kind, whether they're criminals in suits (the state) or criminals on the street.
Here's my question, if purging the firearms from the hands of citizens was so effective at reducing violence, why do the police need guns?
That is a very fucking good question.
I'd love to see a politician try to answer it. No journalist here (on the MSM) has anywhere near the balls to question this issue at all.
My answer is simple... banning guns is just as effective as banning drugs. And I have a lot of drugs.
You can't defeat supply and demand.
Yep! Prohibition never works, it just creates more criminals.
It's never about safety, it's always about the government having a monopoly on everything. Trade, food, medicine, violence, thought, speech, everything.
I've come to the conclusion that the state is very effective at only two things:
1. Increasing its own power at any cost
2. Murder
Nailed it
Actually I forgot one.
Gotta give em full credit here.
They also mastered the art of theft.
It's actually more insidious, the the if leaves you alone when he takes your money. He doesn't demand continual ransom payments under threat of violence while demonizing those who resist to their peers.
And only the state grants itself the ability to steal half of your estate after death.
You can't even die without being taxed. Wen birth tax? Oh wait....they already tax medical, just creatively. Plus the cost of forced government identification and licensure just to function in society.
Yup. I get private healthcare as an employment benefit. Which is great because (and I'd be crucified if I said this out loud here, but it's true) the National Health Service (run by the state) is pretty much just shit.
Not because of the doctors and nurses. Virtually all of the docs and nurses working in private healthcare also work in the NHS or used to.
For the most part they are great.
But the NHS is a bureaucratic nightmare just like anything else state controlled. And for that reason you must wait a month for a GP appointment. Years to see a specialist. No choice of who you see - you're lucky to have any access to care at all.
And yet everyone must pay for it in taxes. Even if they don't use it.
Given the top 10% of earners are responsible for 90% of tax revenue, and top earners are certainly using private healthcare, effectively the vast majority of its funding comes from the very people who don't use it.
The left may argue this is good in a "Robin Hood" type way, except, again, the resulting system is total and utter shit. The average person in the UK is being taxed to shit for a shitty healthcare system. Doctors and nurses are overworked and underpaid.
State monopolies don't fucking work!!!
Never will you hear any politician address this ever. Because there is a cult around "protecting our NHS." Any criticism of it no matter how valid would be political suicide.
I've seen first hand what happens when a mostly private Healthcare system (which admittedly had major flaws, because my entire lifetime it's been run by monopolies) gets taken over by the state.
TLDR: Just like everything the government touches it becomes bloated, more expensive, quality goes to utter shit, and only the poorest benefit marginally while the rest suffer and the state gets richer.
Exactly.
And obviously the US healthcare system has its own set of very real issues, but in the majority of the western world, there is a private health insurance system that also has subsidies for the poor which ensure everyone has equal access.
And the state doesn't need to run anything.
These countries (Switzerland, Germany, pretty much all of Europe) have healthcare systems so superior that the number of people in the UK who go abroad for surgery etc grows annually.
The reason they don't use the private system here is usually cost. Because the NHS exists, private healthcare is a luxury good in the UK. In countries where it's necessary, naturally it's cheaper.
Notably if you go to any private hospital or clinic in the UK you will see a lot of Arabs and signs in Arabic etc. Rich Arabs come to London for private healthcare all the time.
As I said, the quality of the actual doctors and nurses is not the issue. When working privately they have much less stress and much more freedom.
Why freedom? On the NHS, doctors aren't allowed to use their own judgement. They must follow government guidelines to the letter. Often these are corrupt (Big Pharma pay the government regulators to change guidelines in their favour) but they must be followed or that doc is personally liable.
Privately, the guidelines are just guidelines. Docs can treat their patients however they feel is best.
Guess which approach ends in better care?
Final point: the crazy thing is lefties want to shut down private healthcare because it's "unfair." The state has brainwashed em against their own interests. If anything they should campaign to shut down the NHS so everyone has access to the quality of care provided by private healthcare.
As my own dad said to me: if you had to use the NHS you'd be dead.
Yup.
In the US the private insurance system needs to be non-profit. I think that would help the system in myriad ways.
You should look at the system they have in Europe. It's effectively a hybrid. It works across every European country. Which is notable considering they're entirely different economies and cultures.
The issue in the US is corruption by lobbyists and so on. That needs to be fixed before you have any progress.
Yep, the state doesn't need to be involved at all.
Sorry for the wall of text, as you can probably tell I have a lot of personal experience with both systems. I have friends who experienced both systems. And I literally would be dead if I had to rely on the NHS which most of the population do. It makes me angry and sad.
No need to apologize! The shit needs to be said, and the funny thing is whenever this topic comes up between folks here and the UK, there's so much defense of the NHS it's crazy. People feel like they have to justify that their corrupt government is doing the right thing smh
Yuuuuup it is literally a cult. There's no reasoning with them. So it'll never be fixed because no one can ever criticise it.
But I'm not a politician and I don't care about my views being popular so, ahem:
THE NHS IS UTTER FUCKING SHIT FOR BOTH DOCTORS AND PATIENTS AND BUPA IS 1000000X BETTER!
Your point about doctors being automatons who follow diagnostic flow charts is exactly correct. When I entered pre-med eduction the idea I had in my mind was a old school black bag doctor focussing on wellness. The AMA will have none of that. Wellness, do you think the pharmaceutical companies who have their money lobbying hands in everything want wellness? Hell no.
"How dare you actually use your brain? We paid good money to make you prescribe our meds!"
People think this is only a US issue but it happens here too because states are corrupt.
I was literally told by four different GPs that oxy is less addictive than morphine. They were happy to script me 40mg of IR oxy per day but not oral morphine (less than half as strong) because "it kicks in faster so it's more addictive."
The last doc I spoke to must have known it was bullshit because they sighed and pretty much said "yeah look it's the guidelines, I'm not allowed to prescribe anything else."
On what I'm certain is a totally unrelated note, Mundipharma, the international oxy pushing company still fully owned by the Sacklers, is based on the UK.
Simple answer - places with strict gun laws have far lower gun-related crimes.
Except they don't.
nostr:npub1g3827ewz6d23rlgdhkaslc78gyule52ymcqdyt2hsxdwtlw8dt5q7dfpvg wanna step in with data on what states have most gun crime?
I don't even need data, this is public information and to make this statement is willful ignorance.
*The cities of Chicago and Detroit enter the chat*
Not to mention, how the fuck can anyone morally justify the use of force on another individual to limit their capacity to defend themselves? Someone who feels that way and I will never see eye to eye. We can nitpick and cherry pick statistics all day long, and either side can make data appear however they like depending on how it's presented. At the end of the day, no one has the right to enforce their will or desires on me or anyone else.
I don't think you should own a fucking iPhone, you don't see me asking the state to take it from someone forcibly.
> At the end of the day, no one has the right to enforce their will or desires on me or anyone else.
π―π―π―π―π―π―
I've always thought like this and was actually shocked when I realised it was somehow controversial.
Statists have slave mentality I don't even know how else there is to put it.
Agreed! It's mass Stockholm Syndrome. The world is just a hndfull of huge cults at war with each other over the few minor ways they disagree.
Geezβ¦ thereβs so much wrong with that replyβ¦
1) Context - the need for a gun in Manhattan is very different than the need for a gun in the Alaska wilderness. Iβve lived in NYC for over 30 years thereβs literally zero need for the average person to have a gun for defensive purposes here. If you scream for help someone will hear you and the NYPD will be there moments later. But in places like the Alaska wilderness youβre stupid to wander outdoors without a gun.
2) The type of gun - almost no one wants to outlaw regular shot guns or hunting rifles. The issue is guns that can be concealed and high capacity automatic weapons. Lumping them together muddles the discussion.
3) All sorts of aspects of your life are reasonably regulated already. Take cars - there are mandatory safety features. Speed limits. Seatbelt laws. Etc. The idea that we canβt discuss the equivalent for guns is absurd.
You have no Idea what you are talking about. Automatic weapons are already banned for almost everybody.
This guy has his head so far up his own or someone else's ass that's there's zero benefit to me having t is debate. Statist boot lickers gonna state, and he's not worth my time or energy.
Playlist on Defensive Gun use:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xVeHcX3xKo&list=PL30O4UPS4tjRMFKZJSCkancnxO_09HfO4
Playlist on Debunking Gun Control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gl45aKhqj0&list=PL30O4UPS4tjSbVPOCFMxAhHcM2BeQwddT
Some of us see cars as a huge problem as well.
You wanna ban cars?
To a point, yes. But itβs complicatedβ¦ Cars have a place, they have their uses, but too much of modern life requires a car. But cars are harmful in a myriad of ways. It will require restructuring our cities and towns to be more walkable and friendlier to micromobulity options (bikes, etc). And better mass transit is needed.
You may have heard NYC (where) I live will have congestion pricing soon. Thatβs huge and itβs part of the solution.
I agree better mass transport is a good thing.
But as for all these restrictions you want... you're literally just giving the state more power over you, but giving it a pass because you agree with how said power is being used.
If this doesn't concern you, consider that successive governments may not share your ideals but will inherit the same level of power over you.
