I would rather live in a country were most people........

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Turin, Apr 29, 2024.

?

I would rather live in a country were most people........

  1. are roughly the same color as I am

    6 vote(s)
    25.0%
  2. are generally the same religion that I am ( to many denominations )

    5 vote(s)
    20.8%
  3. Have most of the same political beliefs as I do

    5 vote(s)
    20.8%
  4. View sexuality the same way I do.

    2 vote(s)
    8.3%
  5. There are people of many skin colors.

    12 vote(s)
    50.0%
  6. Where many religions are practiced.

    13 vote(s)
    54.2%
  7. Where there are a wide variety of political viewpoints

    17 vote(s)
    70.8%
  8. I wide range of viewpoints on sexuality are accepted

    16 vote(s)
    66.7%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    31,189
    Likes Received:
    28,690
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I fear that you had to reach a long way to find this response. One hopes you didn't pull a hammy or something....
     
    19Crib likes this.
  2. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,574
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can the obvious be a stretch?
     
  3. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,574
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How is that working out so far?
     
  4. gorfias

    gorfias Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    5,622
    Likes Received:
    6,277
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I voted the opposite. In the USA, it is important for a large majority to share mostly the same political views. Increasingly, you have people who think the US citizenry have too much freedom. Freedom to critique your government, gun rights, free speech. Any sizable number of Americans don't believe in fundamental rights can lead to catastrophe.
     
    Turtledude likes this.
  5. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,094
    Likes Received:
    21,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anecdotally- quite well. In my little part of the world we have a very high rate of private gun ownership and a very low rate of violent crime. The single shooting incident in my town in the ~15 years that I've lived here was a mentally disturbed illegal immigrant residing in the nearest big city that road-raged on some folks on the freeway and followed them here to shoot them. Instead he died in a shootout with the cops. We also had a knifing some years back, it was between family members, involved alcohol and psych meds and everyone survived. We had a suicide, guy hung himself in his livingroom. Other than that, we have the occasional tussle at the bar. Our property theft has been on the rise, people stealing things that get left out overnight, but its only things that can be carried off quickly. No break-ins that I'm aware of. It seems that criminals know there's a lot of guns here and prefer to avoid committing crimes where they're more likely to get shot. Which makes sense, if you accept that criminals tend to have the same instinct for self preservation that the rest of us have.

    But to objectively answer that question on a nationwide scale, we'd need to know objectively how much violence doesnt happen due to criminals fearing being shot by their potential victims. Unfortunately very little research has been done on this. We have lots of research into how much violence occurs, but we have very little research on how much violence would've occurred or why it didn't occur. There's plenty of more anecdotal evidence, like shootings in Florida dropping notably (by 34% in Miami) when Florida started allowing people to conceal firearms without a CCW permit, DOJ studies that show a majority of criminals actively avoid victimizing people they know or suspect are armed, phone surveys that estimate 'Defensive Gun Use' is far higher than the rate of violent crime (this study had problems, it would be nice if we did a new one to eliminate the problems of the original ...but no one has). Contrast these with the objective results of gun control, something we do have lots of information on. Like here in WA we spend $10M/year tracking firearm transfers (Mandatory Background Checks) and since we started doing that, our murder-by-shooting rate has doubled instead of reduced and our transfer of illegal guns rate hasn't demonstrably changed at all. Seems that $10M/year could be much better spent on something else.

    I think a better question is- how is gun control working out so far?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2024
  6. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,574
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't you find it strange that the countries with the least gun violence have the least guns?
     
  7. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,094
    Likes Received:
    21,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No. First off that simply isn't true. The Falkland Islands and Serbia rank 2nd and 5th in highest civilian gun ownership per capita, and both have fabulously low rates of violence of any sort, ranked "Very Safe" to visit. Canada is 7th highest, and considered one of the safest countries in the world.

    Some of the countries with the lowest rates of gun onwership per capita are also safe, like Japan and Taiwan, but also in the lower rates of gun ownership are many countries you would not want to visit due to their high rates of violence, Like Central African Republic, Nigeria, Ecuador and Haiti.

    I don't find it valuable to distinguish gun violence from other violence. If a nation had zero shootings but people were routinely attacked with machetes instead, would you move or vacation there?

    You can't judge the effectiveness of laws in one country by comparing it to other countries that have those laws but have drastically different cultures. Culture matters. In Japan, for example, people follow the law because their culture respects order and conformity. In the US, people have far less respect for order and detest conformity, and follow the law mostly to avoid the consequences of breaking it.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2024
    Turtledude likes this.
  8. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,574
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for that load of rationalizations. The Falklands? A country of 3,000, where everybody is somebody's cousin doesn't report gun crime statistics and has half as many guns per capita as the US. Serbia, with 1/3 as many guns per capita as the US, had two recent mass shootings (we lost count here) and they have enacted strict gun control. All unregistered guns to be turned in or a prison sentence, that is about half the guns (in the US 0.25% are registered). Serbian Gun owners will face strict background checks, psychological evaluations and regular drug tests. There is more restrictions here.

    The US leads the world in mass shootings and leads the developed world in gun violence. It has 5% the world's population and 46% of the world's civilian held firearms. You want more guns in the hands of citizens. Statistically that will increase the number of guns in the hands of the unstable, suicidal, lawless, those with anger issues, that don't know the law, with poor judgement and the just plain stupid. Logically more people are gonna get hurt.
    You seem to put a lot of faith in the judgement of US citizens to use deadly force and yet you say they lack respect for order and only follow the law to avoid the consequences of breaking the law.
    Can you shoot a horse thief?
     
    Last edited: May 5, 2024
  9. Glücksritter

    Glücksritter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    1,991
    Likes Received:
    334
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I cannot vote that easy.

    I consider the spread of Islam as the most dangerous development in the world and a pest for all societies who have to wear the burden of having an Islamic population as a serious disadvantage, because Islam will in every society have the tendency to try to take over and control, which will lead down into a shithole status of the nation. I dont consider Islam as a religion, but rather as a death cult with political-ideological ambitions. There is also no option to live in peace under Islam, I know e.g. men's rights activists who think that if we once convert really devoted to the religion or not it could be a good society because feminism is stopped than, family values, blablabla, thats imo impossible, because Islam will always lead to bloodshed. Inner-Islam bloodshed will even be much worse then inter-religous bloodshed.




    "are roughly the same color as I am"

    For me in my situation, that could actually work to put Islam down to a minumum, so I would consider it as an option, but its only the specific perspective from a White European in whose country Islam was not native, but invaded recently. If I was e.g. an Indian, I would give a ****, because Islamists would have the same skin colour as e.g. fellow Hindus, it brings the same bloodshed to India, where the skin colour cannot distinguish in between peaceful Hindus, Shikhs, Christians, Buddhists and Islamists who wanna slaughter them.

    are generally the same religion that I am ( to many denominations )

    Thats an option to prevent Islam from taking over. Technically, as I dont consider Islam as a religion, I dont care about religions. So according to my definition, I dont care about religion, according to the majority of people who romanticize Islam as a religion, thats the most decisive point.

    Have most of the same political beliefs as I do

    Theoretically yes, that would be nice if we all agree on that. Practically thats only acheivable by constant political purges, so in reality, no.


    View sexuality the same way I do

    Does that mean, they must all be of the same sexual preference or that they share my opinion about that? As I am not quite sure, what the implications are of this question, I dont know.


    There are people of many skin colors.

    See above, theoretically I dont care, but as soon as correlations with Islam exist, I dont want that. But its not getting beyond neutral. So e.g. even if all the people of another skin colour a non-Muslims (or of any other violent culture) I dont care, but I dont care doesnt mean I prefer, so I am about to say no there.

    Where there are a wide variety of political viewpoints

    Difficult, see the eariler point on that. Theoretically no, would be nice if we thought all the same and everything is easy peasy. In practice I am about to say yes, because realistically that means the society is more tolerant.

    Where there are a wide variety of political viewpoints

    As above, I am not sure what it implicates and how far the variety should go. Accepting gay or lesbian sexuality, yes, definitely, accepting e.g. child rape of course not. So a society in which we accept child rape, or let it be rape in general, nah. Not good. There are also some bizzarre forms of sexuality which I dont accept although I dont find it as disgusting as rape, I dont wanna go out and see my neighbour sodomizing his dog, even if we assume the dog is fine with that. Oh and by the way, even if my neighbours are hot and I do wanna see it, I think its ok that its not acceptable for the society that I go out and see husband and wife in public in action. As freedom ends where it restricts the freedom of others and I dont know how wide the acceptance should go which is asked for, I dont know what to answer.

     
    Last edited: May 5, 2024
  10. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,094
    Likes Received:
    21,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prolly depends on the state, but generally you can shoot a horse thief if the horse thief is threat to your life.

    That's too bad about Serbia. I predict their crime rate is going to skyrocket over the next decade, unless they resist the confiscation.

    I put as much faith in the judgement of US citizens as I do in the judgement of the US govt and law enforcement. That is to say, I have far more faith in my own judgement than I do any of them. Thats why I am my first and foremost source of my own defense, and that how it needs to stay.

    If restricting everyones rights is the proper response to a small minority abusing those rights, why isnt there a more concerted effort to restrict alcohol? Alcohol abuse and drunk driving are a far bigger source of injury and untimely death than guns, not only in the US but in many other nations.

    And ftr, I dont support restricting either of them.
     
  11. edna kawabata

    edna kawabata Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2018
    Messages:
    4,574
    Likes Received:
    1,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can still shoot a horse thief in Texas, but does every Bozo know their state laws?

    Serbia was shocked at mass shootings and we are numb.

    The rationalizations continue.....You want public policy based on your self interest, not what is best for the public's self interest. You trust your judgement, yet any halfwit, anger management failure can get a gun and you don't care. Many gun restrictions would not prevent you from being armed, but nah, that's to much trouble.

    There are aproxiately 11,000 accidental deaths per year caused by alcohol, the highest number of accidental deaths is drug overdoses with over 100,000 per year. These are not intentional deaths unlike guns. There were 14,000 gun homicides in '22. Comparing them is a red herring that makes you feel better.
     
  12. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,094
    Likes Received:
    21,367
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Speak for yourself. I'm not numb. I think its an atrocity all the teachers who arent allowed to defend themselves and the students they love because the school admin are ignorant about self defense.

    I've never been attacked nor had to use any of my guns for defense. Violence is nearly nonexistant where I live because violent criminals know they're more likely to be shot by the people here, so criminals go elswhere to engage in violence. This is community interest as much as it is self interest. The safer I am, the safer my community is, and vice versa. Civilian gun ownership is a mutual defense, mutual benefit. Its real communalism as opposed to the collectivism of pooling more and more resources to hire more and more armed law enforcement- which, btw, is the only way to keep the peace when The People are not armed. Do you want more and more cops?

    Theres no gun restrictions that will prevent 'halfwits' from buying guns illegally. Even nations with the most strict gun laws have illegal gun trade. Automatic assault weapons, for example, that are illegal here in the US are actually cheaper in the EU than their 'sporterized' versions that we can buy at the store. Even halfwits can figure out how to find someone that sells illegal goods. Or would you suggest the war on drugs is a success?

    Not at first. Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention can see that gun control is an agenda of disarmament by increment- one regulation, one weapon 'type' ban at a time. Eventually we'd be limited to revolvers or even single shot firearms just to satisfy the law of the 2A, meanwhile criminals would still be running around with automatic firearms and extended magazines, like they still do in every nation on earth that has the sort of gun laws that you want.

    You missed a lot.
    "Excessive alcohol use was responsible for about 178,000 deaths in the United States each year during 2020–2021, or 488 deaths per day."
    "Shortened the lives of those who died by an average of 24 years, for a total of about 4 million years of potential life lost.
    "Two thirds of the deaths (about 117,000 deaths) are due to chronic conditions that develop from long-term alcohol use, including various types of cancer, heart disease, liver disease, and alcohol use disorder."
    "One third of these deaths (about 61,000 deaths) happen from drinking too much on one occasion, such as from motor vehicle crashes, poisonings involving substances in addition to alcohol, and suicides."
    "Excessive drinking is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States, and it is also costly. It cost the nation $249 billion in 2010 (the most recent year of data available)."
    Deaths from Excessive Alcohol Use in the United States | CDC

    Contrast that with a total of "48,000 firearm-related deaths" in the US in 2022, and its clear that alcohol has a FAR higher body count than guns.
    Fast Facts: Firearm Injury and Death | Firearm Injury and Death Prevention | CDC

    So lets try again. Given that alcohol abuse and drunk driving are a far bigger source of injury and untimely death than guns, why isnt there a more concerted effort to restrict alcohol? If restricting everyone's rights is the proper response to a small minority abusing those rights, we should have more alcohol control. Right? If not, WHY NOT?

    And ftr, I dont support further regulations or restrictions on either of them.
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2024 at 11:15 PM
  13. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,872
    Likes Received:
    2,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Thank you for this truly well thought out poll question!

    I went with the last four options.....

    as you can tell by the Asterix.


    ?
    I would rather live in a country were most people........

    1. are roughly the same color as I am
      6 vote(s)
      26.1%

    2. are generally the same religion that I am ( to many denominations )
      5 vote(s)
      21.7%

    3. Have most of the same political beliefs as I do
      5 vote(s)
      21.7%

    4. View sexuality the same way I do.
      2 vote(s)
      8.7%
    5. *
      There are people of many skin colors.
      12 vote(s)
      52.2%
    6. *
      Where many religions are practiced.
      13 vote(s)
      56.5%
    7. *
      Where there are a wide variety of political viewpoints
      16 vote(s)
      69.6%
    8. *
      I wide range of viewpoints on sexuality are accepted
      15 vote(s)
      65.2%
    Multiple votes are allowed.
    Change Your Vote


    I live in Canada...

    and up until this time our nation generally fits this description but.........

    our Prime Minister [for reasons and logic that only he understands fully]....... seems to be making any variation on Pro-Life sentiment to be FROWNED ON by the State??????!!!!!

    Or... at least by The Liberal Party.... in its present form?????!!!!

    My guess at this time would be that he may be doing this to prepare Canadians for the TRUDEAU version of the Biden Digital Currency?????!!!!


    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...y-does-this-scare-you.604753/#post-1073792268




     
    Last edited: May 25, 2024 at 8:41 AM

Share This Page