26 Dead including children at San Antonio Church massacre

[Camicon]

I don't know how to break this to you, but firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise.

That wasn't what you asked.

No, it isn't. I'm still not entirely sure why you brought "terms of modern democracy" into a simple question about freedom.

[United Muscovite Nations]

With a foe like you? I'd have no problem pulling that off.

Alright then, let's get started.

In terms of modern notions of democracy? That would probably be somewhat accurate.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

No, I wasn't, I was arguing that there were no modern democracies before the invention of firearms.

[Albrenia]

No, I wasn't, I was arguing that there were no modern democracies before the invention of firearms.

None come to mind, no.

[Camicon]

Alright then, let's get started.

UMN - and you - are arguing that the right to own a firearm is necessary in order to be "free", in terms of modern notions of democracy.

My counterpoint: firearms are not an integral part of democracy, modern or otherwise. You will not find a single definition of "democracy" within the field of political science that includes the ownership of firearms.

And... yeah, we're done here. UMN's argument is shit.

No, I wasn't, I was arguing that there were no modern democracies before the invention of firearms.

Modern democracies are no more an integral part of freedom than firearms are an integral part of modern democracies. Stop conflating the two.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, I wasn't, I was arguing that there were no modern democracies before the invention of firearms.

Modern democracies are no more an integral part of freedom than firearms are an integral part of modern democracies. Stop conflating the two.

I'm not, your question was whether people were free prior to the creation of firearms. The answer is that there were no modern democracies prior to the invention of firearms around 1364.

[Xelsis]

United States firearm deaths per capita: 10.54 as of 2014
Norway firearm deaths per capita: 1.22 as of 2014

I already compared Norway to Indiana, specifically, which has experiences slightly more firearm deaths per capita than the United States as a whole.

Mass shootings are the claim. If you want to retract that claim, I'll gladly address the day-to-day murders, as I've already stated. Those are higher in the United States, I'll freely admit.

That's not how you find per capita rates.

News to me.

I would like data on all mass shootings and firearm deaths in Norway and Finland, preferably in per capita rates, for the years 2015-2017. And similar data for the US, if you have a genie granting wishes.

I'm not citing 2015-2017. This has never been limited to a cherry-picked three-year span.

I haven't made any claims as to whether or not the US experiences more mass shootings per capita than Norway. You did, specifically that Norway's is higher than the US. I challenged your assertion by asking for evidence, to back up statements like: "Norway's rate is nearly nine times higher per capita", which I have yet to see you provide.

Said statement is from the study you criticized for its exclusion of gang violence. I've invited you to provide a different source showing a higher U.S. mass shooting rate via including gang violence if you believed that to be the case.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, I wasn't, I was arguing that there were no modern democracies before the invention of firearms.

Modern democracies are no more an integral part of freedom than firearms are an integral part of modern democracies. Stop conflating the two.

Modern democracies are an integral part of freedom, so you're admitting firearms are an integral part of modern democracies.

[Camicon]

Modern democracies are no more an integral part of freedom than firearms are an integral part of modern democracies. Stop conflating the two.

I'm not, your question was whether people were free prior to the creation of firearms. The answer is that there were no modern democracies prior to the invention of firearms around 1364.

Which conflates modern democracies with freedom.

Not really sure why I have to explain this to you, but, people could be free before modern democracies were around.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I'm not, your question was whether people were free prior to the creation of firearms. The answer is that there were no modern democracies prior to the invention of firearms around 1364.

Which conflates modern democracies with freedom.

Not really sure why I have to explain this to you, but, people could be free before modern democracies were around.

Serfs weren't free, fam.

[Albrenia]

Which conflates modern democracies with freedom.

Not really sure why I have to explain this to you, but, people could be free before modern democracies were around.

Serfs weren't free, fam.

Were primitive humans free? It could be argued such, even though not dying was probably all they could focus on.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Serfs weren't free, fam.

Were primitive humans free? It could be argued such, even though not dying was probably all they could focus on.

They were more oppressed in terms of violence and warfare.

[Imperializt Russia]

Not on the Roundheads' side. The new Model Army was a grand state venture to establish an official, politically-separated standing army for the first time in Britain. It recruited large numbers of conscripts, but conscripts aren't civilians.

Also, as I myself learned, the NMA tried to ensure all foot units had two musketmen to each pikeman, which surprises me.
And rather aptly demonstrates that these were not civilian weapons brought from home by conscript troops.

And "military dictatorship" is not a "meaningful step in the road to democracy". Again, there are many arguments one can make against Britain being a democracy as we would recognise today for another three centuries afterwards.

Not all of the roundheads were NMA. They had a great deal of skirmishers and auxiliaries. These men largely fought with whatever they had available. And while I'm in no way saying Cromwell was a democratic leader, or that perfect liberal democracy suddenly sprang up afterwards the series of conflicts that make up the English Civil War did propel England towards democracy.

After three. Centuries.

The Black Death "propelled Europe to Democracy".

The invasion of Korea in the 15th century "propelled Japan to Democracy".

[Camicon]

United States firearm deaths per capita: 10.54 as of 2014
Norway firearm deaths per capita: 1.22 as of 2014

I already compared Norway to Indiana, specifically, which has experiences slightly more firearm deaths per capita than the United States as a whole.

Mass shootings are the claim. If you want to retract that claim, I'll gladly address the day-to-day murders, as I've already stated. Those are higher in the United States, I'll freely admit.

I have made no claims to retract. All I've done is point out that the source you're using the back your statements is, at best, incomplete, as acknowledge by the authors themselves.

I would like data on all mass shootings and firearm deaths in Norway and Finland, preferably in per capita rates, for the years 2015-2017. And similar data for the US, if you have a genie granting wishes.

I'm not citing 2015-2017. This has never been limited to a cherry-picked three-year span.

I asked for those years because those are the most recent years I don't have data for, and I have other things to do than go searching.

I haven't made any claims as to whether or not the US experiences more mass shootings per capita than Norway. You did, specifically that Norway's is higher than the US. I challenged your assertion by asking for evidence, to back up statements like: "Norway's rate is nearly nine times higher per capita", which I have yet to see you provide.

Said statement is from the study you criticized for its exclusion of gang violence. I've invited you to provide a different source showing a higher U.S. mass shooting rate via including gang violence if you believed that to be the case.

Demonstrating that the source you are using is flawed does not obligate me to disprove your claim, it obligates you to find a different source.

Modern democracies are no more an integral part of freedom than firearms are an integral part of modern democracies. Stop conflating the two.

Modern democracies are an integral part of freedom, so you're admitting firearms are an integral part of modern democracies.

Are you seriously going to try and argue that freedom was not a thing which existed before modern democracies? Really?

Which conflates modern democracies with freedom.

Not really sure why I have to explain this to you, but, people could be free before modern democracies were around.

Serfs weren't free, fam.

Not everyone was a serf. Not everyone has to be free for freedom to exist.

[Telconi]

Not all of the roundheads were NMA. They had a great deal of skirmishers and auxiliaries. These men largely fought with whatever they had available. And while I'm in no way saying Cromwell was a democratic leader, or that perfect liberal democracy suddenly sprang up afterwards the series of conflicts that make up the English Civil War did propel England towards democracy.

After three. Centuries.

The Black Death "propelled Europe to Democracy".

The invasion of Korea in the 15th century "propelled Japan to Democracy".

The freedom train travels slowly in Britain, and breaks down often, this is an argument because? Point stands that overthrowing a monarch who tried to consolidate power is a good thing, and progress towards democracy.

[Telconi]

Mass shootings are the claim. If you want to retract that claim, I'll gladly address the day-to-day murders, as I've already stated. Those are higher in the United States, I'll freely admit.

I have made no claims to retract. All I've done is point out that the source you're using the back your statements is, at best, incomplete, as acknowledge by the authors themselves.

I'm not citing 2015-2017. This has never been limited to a cherry-picked three-year span.

I asked for those years because those are the most recent years I don't have data for, and I have other things to do than go searching.

Said statement is from the study you criticized for its exclusion of gang violence. I've invited you to provide a different source showing a higher U.S. mass shooting rate via including gang violence if you believed that to be the case.

Demonstrating that the source you are using is flawed does not obligate me to disprove your claim, it obligates you to find a different source.

Modern democracies are an integral part of freedom, so you're admitting firearms are an integral part of modern democracies.

Are you seriously going to try and argue that freedom was not a thing which existed before modern democracies? Really?

Serfs weren't free, fam.

Not everyone was a serf. Not everyone has to be free for freedom to exist.

One feudal land lord and his fifty serfs do not make a free society.

And I would say that modern democracies are he freest societies that have existed.

[Grinning Dragon]

Something to ponder, maybe?
Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says

Psychologist calls on media to withhold shooters’ names

DENVER — People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.

“Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them,” said Jennifer B. Johnston, PhD, of Western New Mexico University. “At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?”

Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.

[Telconi]

Something to ponder, maybe?
Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says

Psychologist calls on media to withhold shooters’ names

DENVER — People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.

“Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them,” said Jennifer B. Johnston, PhD, of Western New Mexico University. “At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?”

Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.

Repeal the first amendment when?

[Albrenia]

Guns aren't Fight Club. I don't see why talking about them should be banned.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I have made no claims to retract. All I've done is point out that the source you're using the back your statements is, at best, incomplete, as acknowledge by the authors themselves.


I asked for those years because those are the most recent years I don't have data for, and I have other things to do than go searching.

Demonstrating that the source you are using is flawed does not obligate me to disprove your claim, it obligates you to find a different source.


Are you seriously going to try and argue that freedom was not a thing which existed before modern democracies? Really?

Not everyone was a serf. Not everyone has to be free for freedom to exist.

One feudal land lord and his fifty serfs do not make a free society.

And I would say that modern democracies are he freest societies that have existed.

This. It's like saying the Confederacy was a free society. Freedom held by one individual who has total control over the others isn't freedom, it's autocracy.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Are you seriously going to try and argue that freedom was not a thing which existed before modern democracies? Really?

Name one. Do it. I dare you.

[Camicon]

One feudal land lord and his fifty serfs do not make a free society.

I said nothing about a free society.

The question is a simple one: did freedom exist before modern democracies? If the answer is yes, then modern democracies cannot be an integral part of freedom.

The answer is just as simple: yes, it did. Not for everyone at all times, not in all places and not in many of the form we generally recognize today, but yes, it did exist. Ergo, freedom does not need modern democracies to exist.

And that's enough of this threadjack.

[Grinning Dragon]

Something to ponder, maybe?
Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says

Repeal the first amendment when?

I dunno. In a way I kinda agree. Is it really that important for the killer's name to be known? Couldn't the media just refer to him/her as "shitbag" or some such?

[Xelsis]

I have made no claims to retract. All I've done is point out that the source you're using the back your statements is, at best, incomplete, as acknowledge by the authors themselves.

Then I'll phrase it as a question-do you believe that gang mass shootings are somehow enough, several times more than all other mass shootings, to bring the U.S. rate up to Norway's?"

The ratio, as my point is, is so far imbalanced against Norway, that even if the limitations of the mass shootings counted meant that they got only half of them, it would still be over four times higher for Norway.

The point is that the U.S. does not have a vastly higher fatality or frequency rate of mass shootings than other countries such as Norway and Finland, regardless of the exact ratio. This isn't operating as a study, it's making a general statement of relative relations. If we can leave it at that, I am quite happy with moving on.

I asked for those years because those are the most recent years I don't have data for, and I have other things to do than go searching.

I have no sources of any mass shootings in either country in those years, and would be perfectly fine with acknowledging the imperfection and assuming that there were none.

Demonstrating that the source you are using is flawed does not obligate me to disprove your claim, it obligates you to find a different source.

Not at all. Demonstrating that a source is imperfect does not disprove the point unless the imperfections of the source can be shown to disprove it. In this case, that would require gang mass shootings to be eight times the number of other mass shootings. That must be demonstrated to disprove my point. That a source is not perfect does not make it useless, especially with this great a discrepancy in rate.

[Thermodolia]

Something to ponder, maybe?
Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says

Psychologist calls on media to withhold shooters’ names

DENVER — People who commit mass shootings in America tend to share three traits: rampant depression, social isolation and pathological narcissism, according to a paper presented at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention that calls on the media to deny such shooters the fame they seek.

“Mass shootings are on the rise and so is media coverage of them,” said Jennifer B. Johnston, PhD, of Western New Mexico University. “At this point, can we determine which came first? Is the relationship merely unidirectional: More shootings lead to more coverage? Or is it possible that more coverage leads to more shootings?”

Johnston and her coauthor, Andrew Joy, BS, also of Western New Mexico University, reviewed data on mass shootings amassed by media outlets, the FBI and advocacy organizations, as well as scholarly articles, to conclude that “media contagion” is largely responsible for the increase in these often deadly outbursts. They defined mass shootings as either attempts to kill multiple people who are not relatives or those resulting in injuries or fatalities in public places.

I've been saying for years that the media doesn't need to report the names of the shooters or terrorists. Focus on the victims not the perp

[Telconi]

Something to ponder, maybe?
Media Contagion" Is Factor in Mass Shootings, Study Says

I've been saying for years that the media doesn't need to report the names of the shooters or terrorists. Focus on the victims not the perp

But TV ratings are more important than people's lives!