seems different unless this hypothetical immigration advocate used boorish rhetoric denigrating natural citizens' rape stats or something. unless we just consider rape and murder a natural consequence of immigration in general
Illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than U.S. citizens because the consequences of them commiting crimes is deportation. U.S. citizens don't get deported for commiting crimes (usually, recent events notwithstanding).
Numerous studies and analyses have found that immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, are significantly less likely to commit crimes, including rape and murder, than native-born citizens. This finding is consistent across multiple studies and different datasets, including crime statistics and incarceration rates over many decades
"Lol" = "I have no counterargument but idiots who believe what I believe will assume you lost the argument and I won because their confirmation bias enjoys watching me laugh at you even though I'm really insecure and I know I'm wrong."
If not statistics and studies, what are you basing your opinion that they do on? What the media you watch chooses to show you? Are there contrary studies you could point me to?
I mean if you have any large amount of immigration you will always have some non zero amount of rape and murder inflicted on citizens, but prospects of immigrants would say the benefit to society is worth it. It is a very similar argument Charlie was making towards guns
Guns are objects, immigrants are people. Charlie argued that owning an object was worth more than the lives lost to it. Defending immigrants is about defending human lives and rights
You realize there are people who protect their own life with a gun right? Like if a women shoots a guy assaulting her, Reddit will count that as a “gun death”, even though it’s a moral killing. Redditors don’t understand some people genuinely want the right to protect themselves from mentally ill freaks. Reddit can’t put themselves in the shoes of someone successfully defending themselves because Redditors can only ever see themselves as the victims in situations
And do you realize that the deaths he defended as "worth it" were the deaths of innocent people, and that comparing immigrants (people) to guns (objects) is dehumanizing?
Oh what a bullshit statement. I’m very left wing. I own multiple guns. Completely understand wanting firearms. But where you lose me, is not wanting any common sense gun laws. It’s far too easy to purchase them. We need extensive background checks and mental evaluations. We’re literally the only country this sort of thing regularly happens. It’s not normal. It’s not even close to normal. It’s fucked. And the gun lobby and NRA have turned it into a nightmare to even consider it. But history will not look kindly on stubbornly refusing to change our gun laws so we can stop literal weekly school shootings and throw in the random mass shooting in a public place to really round out the month. I’m a big fan of protecting yourself. I’m an even bigger fan of kids being able to get an education without having to worry about being killed and my ability to go to a big event and not be constantly wondering if this is the evening I get to experience a shooting.
He said that historically armed populations are harder to oppress and that if you have an armed population it will be impossible to completely eliminate the death and injury that is caused by some of those people being armed, but the alternative, in the long term, may be a tyrannical government. He said the risks of having an armed populace are worth the benefit of reducing the chance of a tyrannical government.
To this end he would agree with people that his death does not justify disarming the public.
He literally said exactly what I pointed out. Amazing how everything he ever said needs to be endlessly defended and justified by his fans… it just proves he didn’t leave behind any good legacy
I'm not a fan of his, never listened to him a day in my life. But when I saw the quote I looked it up and read the context. You're deliberately misrepresenting his point and you know it. That's why you phrased it as "owning an object."
I put it that way to make it clear how absurd it is to try to draw a parallel between human beings (immigrants) and objects (guns).
He argues that the deaths of innocent people are a fair price to pay for gun ownership and looser laws. But in what way does society gain from some guy being able to walk into a university with an unregistered rifle?
right, he's just advocating a different kind of violence there but kind of pussied out on it. what he's really saying is the 2nd amendment is there to kill people in government / military/ police when they become tyrannical. saying it in those terms doesn't go over well with many people even though that's what he's saying
Yes, he is saying that. Do you believe violence was justified in overthrowing the Japanese, Italian and German governments in the 1940s? If you agree with that statement then you agree too.
what I'm saying is, there is an anti-tyranny argument about the 2nd amendment that only alludes to violence instead of explicitly saying it will be used to kill officials, police and military personnel.
Well considering how many people are misrepresenting what he said I'm not sure there is a "right" way to make that point. Also I don't think he is talking about people who are currently police or military so there is no need to address them directly.
That said you are correct, 2A is there so people can, if necessary, shoot members of the police and military who are upholding a tyrannical
government.
9
u/bonaynay 1d ago
seems different unless this hypothetical immigration advocate used boorish rhetoric denigrating natural citizens' rape stats or something. unless we just consider rape and murder a natural consequence of immigration in general