"Gun violence have been increasing". This is also after the number of guns on the market has increased drastically.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... -edges-up/

In a country with around 500,000,000 guns, there are approximately 30 gun homicides a day. That includes justified homicides used in self defence. So lets compare that to smoking deaths every day which is 1,315, and you're telling me it's a problem?



Lets compare other countries, murder rate to guns per 100 people:

Murder rate | guns per 100 people

USA: 5.22 | 112.6

Venezuela: 47.21 | 10.7

Switzerland: 0.72 | 45.7

Sweden: 0.89 | 31.6

United Kingdom: 1.57 | 6.6

Brazil: 21.97 | 8

China: 1.21 | 4.9



See the correlation? Because I don't. If anything it's inverse. Do you see how silly the claim is that introducing gun laws that will take guns out of the hands of responsible citizens and keep it in the hands of criminals will actually help anything? So stop jumping on the bandwagon and trying to reduce people's liberties every time you see a highly publicized public shooting. Go on liveleak and you can see 1000x more of that stuff in countries that have strict gun control.

Also worth noting that as shown in the first link, black people commit the vast majority of gun homicides, usually against other black people. That's why comparing the USA to white homogenous European countries does nothing to prove that lack of gun control in the causation of gun homicide.

guys, my comment was satirizing B1rd's unrealistic faith in the positive forces of the free market.

Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.

You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?

we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?

stupid

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Tiny response since I just got back from work- I mentioned the word "utopia" since railey just made the suggestion that under a totally free market, things naturally spiral towards that state, which is true if only the most positive outcomes happen.

My reference to Nestlé and Amazon were two specific ones that I think you misunderstood. Nestlé buys up water sources wherever it can, which deprives areas of clean water piped to them. You should be able to find examples of this fairly easily. Another point I wasn't mentioning was their use of child labour in developing countries though, which without regulation is something that is pretty much encouraged in a totally free market, since it maximises profits when the company has a monopoly on the area (they can pay inhumanely low wages in third-world countries since there's no competition for wages). As for Amazon, they're known for making rather unfair deals with publishers due to their monopoly on the market, but I don't know enough of the specifics to go deeper into that.

Public transport in rural areas, like trains and buses, can indeed be a net loss- but they're necessary for society, so those services are still offered despite being unprofitable. I imagine taxpayers are okay with paying for this, since they can empathise with people who aren't as well off and don't want them to get fucked over more just for being poor, y'know?

I don't know a lot about Nestle and Amazon, it'd take a lot of knowledge of the context to make accurate assessments of the situations and theorise about the possible free-market solutions and mechanism, right now I'm more just pointing out the superiority of a more liberal economy compared to a socialist one.

Though I actually just watched a video of talk of the Nestle CEO, he didn't say anything unreasonable at all, unlike what the hysterical Left-wing news sources seem to make out when I search the topic. He just said that water is a resource that should be privatised and have a have a market value like any foodstuff, and that way people wouldn't waste in among other things. He also made some other good points, the only thing I disagree with is about GMOs. Of course all the comments are like THIS IS THE FACE OF PURE EVIL CAPITALIZM. Lol, this generation.





So, what exactly is stopping private transport from running to rural areas? Let's assume kids from a rural community are taking a bus to a town 100 miles away, assuming the cost per mile is around $1, a rough estimate from here, and the bus is running close to capacity at around 40 kids the average fare then would be around $3 per commute. There's not really any situation that truly necessity these expensive and inefficient public services, unless you do what some people do which is to start coming up with even more absurd and unlikely "what if" scenarios".

The public sector actually creates a lot more problems than people realise. this video does a good job of showing how much public employees of even basic and unskilled labour jobs like trash collectors are overpayed, and how the extremely generous retirement benefits can bankrupt whole states. However I don't think that the biggest cost is the monetary cost, but like I was saying, the cost to these unfortunate kids who have to go through the public schooling system which suffer from lack of competition and a system which favours the schools and teachers rather than students. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG8w9PcA-ig

I've been to both public and private schools, and I genuinely think my life would have turned out much better if I had stayed at the private school. It was much greater than the public ones.

Now, this child labour thing is a common topic but there isn't much understanding of it. The Left looks at sweatshops and child labour and they think the solution is simply regulation, that these evil corporations are exploiting the poor workers and if only there were regulation everything would be fixed, and that the strongarm of the state is the solution to everything. Obviously this oversimplified way of thinking doesn't actually fix the problem, which is the poverty in that area, along with corrupt governments and things along those lines.

The reason that child labour exists is due to economic reasons; is our rich Western society it makes much more sense to send children to school so they can grow up and become professionals rather than employing them in unskilled labour jobs which they are very poor at. and which adults can do a lot better. It's a net gain for society. However in these poor third world regions they don't have that luxury and children will work as soon as they can just to survive, whether on a farm or in a factory. Leftists don't realise this any when they stop the sweatshops they are preventing these extremely poor people from choosing the best option they have, and I have heard stories where this has happened and the children have been forced into prostitution or they have died. So instead, these are the people that could benefit from capitalism and industrialization more than anything.

BTW, I didn't understand what you said about free markets spiraling towards the state, and positive outcomes or whatever.

Railey2 wrote:

guys, my comment was satirizing B1rd's unrealistic faith in the positive forces of the free market.

Also lol at your murder rate and guns per 100 people argument:
You're once again seeing this as a one-dimensional problem.

You wouldn't even think for a second that there could be multiple factors, and that removing guns could possibly be benefitial if used in combination with other things, but maybe not on its own?

we're talking about reality here, not some closed off heavily controlled lab-experiment. Do you honestly think that there are no confounding factors that completely nullify this poor attempt of an argument?

stupid

Goddamnit Railey, don't ruin the fun. I enjoy watching our edgy Tasmanian boy discuss stuff that makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever in the real world.

What part of my argument doesn't make sense in the real world.

If I pointed it out, we'd start yet another branch of this discussion that will lead into nowhere, so I'll avoid pointing it out, but trust me, parts of it are wholly speculative and don't stand up to practices in the real world.

Anyways, I like your choice of books, but I have to add that as someone who is studying the field and has read the book, you don't want to read it if you want to find out something meaningful about the economics. I'm referring to "Economics in one lesson" here.
If your point is to read it only to be able to argue with some poor guy who doesn't know the first thing about the field, yeah, get it, but otherwise don't, as it places emphasis on some incredibly complex things that on the surface look simple and logical, but really need deeper analysis to argue about, so the book won't help you learn anything past the very, VERY basics and in that case you might as well just go on Google and read up on it instead. Not only that, but there are some serious fucking exaggerations in that book with which I cannot agree at all, so take it with a pinch of salt.

I'm looking forward to hearing your opinion once you read it.

B1rd wrote:

Now, this child labour thing is a common topic but there isn't much understanding of it. The Left looks at sweatshops and child labour and they think the solution is simply regulation, that these evil corporations are exploiting the poor workers and if only there were regulation everything would be fixed, and that the strongarm of the state is the solution to everything. Obviously this oversimplified way of thinking doesn't actually fix the problem, which is the poverty in that area, along with corrupt governments and things along those lines.

why not try for both?

*gasp*


Your text reads like you believe rights for workers aren't doing anything, anywhere.

I don't know much about it but I've had it recommended by quite a few people. It's the first one I'll read so I'll tell you my opinion.

interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass

Hika wrote:

interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass

I seem to have failed in my mission to avoid being noticed by you.

Senpai always notices you.

Also I'm waiting for my birthday present pls send

I have 3 birthdays to take care of this month, so it's a bad time for Hika to start noticing me.

insomnia sure is fun. haven't slept in 2 days. guess i have time to watch the lord of the rings trilogy in one go, so that's p cool.

hi hika whats ur adress. i have money and feel like spending, i'll send you a small gift because why not.

Send yourself gladi.

Still haven't met you after like fifty years.

yea thats because theres an ocean in the way

bad

dead

bad

play mania

bad

Hika wrote:

interrupts to tell aurani to eat my ass

peep 👀

ummm choof is u good

ye

ei tee tee

B1rd: 1
Britbongs and Europoors: zero

B1rd wrote:

B1rd: 1
Britbongs and Europoors: zero

Xd

Oh look it's choof

bad

Play my putaria dump you chump

yay corn

bad

I normally don't even look at ITT2. Where is this political and edgy debate everybody were killing themselves over for?

somewhere buried. im afraid to pull it up; refer to ot!neus ples.

L mao

L MAO

abraker wrote:

I normally don't even look at ITT2. Where is this political and edgy debate everybody were killing themselves over for?

The last thing this place needs is another half-baked wannabe politics expert. :p

I can post political memes if thats what yous want

You mean from /r/politicalhumour aka another anti trump subreddit with a disguised name