9 ms·

It’s part of the USDA Directives system which is the online repository of all USDA Departmental Regulations, Notices, Manuals, Guidebooks, etc. A lot of US dep

It’s part of the USDA Directives system which is the online repository of all USDA Departmental Regulations, Notices, Manuals, Guidebooks, etc. A lot of US departments, publish books like this. I’m a non-American, but i still often read books published by your government :D , they are certainly very cool. I wish our government had something like this. An interesting sidenote i wanted to mention the US Military also publishes books on various combat skills and guides on making defensive weapons for your public citizen to defend their communities incase of an invasion or government collapse[1]. I’ve come to realise that a good portion of your government sure as hell cares deeply about protecting your citizen’s right to defend themselves whether by carrying arms, or publishing books on guerilla tactics, and home making arms to protect oneself in the event of a crisis I get the right to carry arms is controversial in your country, It’s not allowed for common citizens here either unless they can prove a risk of life to themselves, but I always come across moments in history, where governments choose to genocide their own people [2] and it makes me think that maybe, what the american constitution creators thought of, which is now characterized as extreme civil liberty wasn’t a bad idea after all. People sometimes forget how unstable our freedoms truly are, and how often governments across history and in each country have betrayed their own people. - [1](https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S.+Military&s=relevancerank&text=Pentagon+U.S.+Military&ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1 https://www.amazon.com/s?i=stripbooks&rh=p_27%3APentagon+U.S...) - [2](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide)

wolverine876 3y ago
Freedoms are also betrayed by other citizens, including those with guns. I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot.
- abfan1127 3y ago
  The Cambodians weren't concerned either.
  - pdabbadabba 3y ago
    This seems plausible, but is this just a throwaway statement or is it supported by historical evidence? It's actually a pretty interesting question, that has never occurred to me until now, how well people have historically been able to judge the safety and stability of their own political situations. Perhaps there's some literature out there on this?
    - Loughla 3y ago
      I don't have references, but I don't think people are all that good at it. Why else do strongman dictators keep getting into power? Before the whole WW2 and holocaust thing, Germans really laughed off Hitler. They believed they were too artsy, too cosmopolitan, and just too advanced for a dictator. So my guts tell me we're not great at judging real threats politically.
    - abfan1127 3y ago
      I have no explicit evidence. I suspect its a combination of "head in the sand" and "I have no voice". In practical terms, you have no control over your country's future. Your vote is insignificant relative to the populace. So your next move is manage yourself and your families affairs and hope for the best. Frankly, the US's debt will crush it in the near future. How near is the question. There isn't much I can do about it. So, I put my head down and hope the fallout doesn't impact my family as much as others.
- teitoklien 3y ago
  Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people. The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. There are a 110 ways to kill people, if someone wants to kill you on the streets, not having guns aren’t what’s holding them back. It’s far easier to buy fetanyl in your streets, and just inject someone with a high dosage and leave. > I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I wouldn’t cast the concern aside that freely if I were you, I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility. As an example, I’d like to show the time when the government of California, was actively sterilising perfectly healthy american citizens for “eugenics” purposes [1][2] (a precursor to what could constitute genocide if those policies were nationalised) This is however just one example, you could argue they are linked to racism and a race superiority complex from those times, but reasons and causes can change across different times, the communities targeted may also change, the outcome (the potential risk of a government turning its back on its own people) is always present. The great governance (in comparison to nations across the world) that america benefitted from in the last century, was earned and paid for in blood, ideas and sweat by you’re previous generations of citizens, constitution designers, policymakers, independent organisations, and right groups (on both aisles). I would say the concerns of a gov fallout is always ever present and the duty of every citizen in any democracy across the world to keep an eye out for, and put in all sorts of protections against such fallout whenever possible. - [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg) - [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ)
  - bozhark 3y ago
    Police are not required to protect anyone
    - abfan1127 3y ago
      in fact, are not well equipped to protect anyone either. Police are minutes away once dispatched. Even upon arrival, they aren't required to put themselves in harm's way to save you, just hope to mitigate further damage to others around you.
- slowhand09 3y ago
  "I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot." - for real? That is extremely illogical, given the facts. I realize this data is about deaths rather than shootings. But its still applicable. This is a little dated, 4-5 years maybe. There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
anonu 3y ago
The right to bear arms in the USA is often most appreciated by citizens of foreign lands where life is lived on the precipice between democracy and tyranny. Gun deaths and mass shootings are horrible but the solution is not to abolish the 2nd amendment.
- eppp 3y ago
  Then what IS the solution?
  - Wojtkie 3y ago
    Accessible healthcare, social services for the impovershed, accessible education, really anything that lifts people out of the despair or anger that drives them to committing crime.
    - eppp 3y ago
      So instead of just not letting literally crazy people have high mag firearms, you just want us to fix all of society's problems and hope such a utopian society cures all ills.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  On the other hand, the issue is of grave concern vis-a-vis being on the precipice between democracy & tyranny... Maybe it's not the solution said people think it is.
- kgwxd 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - phkahler 3y ago
    The republican / Democrat divide in the US is best understood by using a 2D map. It not left or right. I wish I could remember what I put on the axis. Anarchy was at the origin with libertarians a bit above it. Democrats want to move up and Republicans want to move right. The extreme upper right corner was a totalitarian dictatorship. The axis were something like spending on one and control on the other, but that doesn't feel quite right.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

wolverine876 3y ago

Freedoms are also betrayed by other citizens, including those with guns. I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot.

abfan1127 3y ago
The Cambodians weren't concerned either.
- pdabbadabba 3y ago
  This seems plausible, but is this just a throwaway statement or is it supported by historical evidence? It's actually a pretty interesting question, that has never occurred to me until now, how well people have historically been able to judge the safety and stability of their own political situations. Perhaps there's some literature out there on this?
  - Loughla 3y ago
    I don't have references, but I don't think people are all that good at it. Why else do strongman dictators keep getting into power? Before the whole WW2 and holocaust thing, Germans really laughed off Hitler. They believed they were too artsy, too cosmopolitan, and just too advanced for a dictator. So my guts tell me we're not great at judging real threats politically.
  - abfan1127 3y ago
    I have no explicit evidence. I suspect its a combination of "head in the sand" and "I have no voice". In practical terms, you have no control over your country's future. Your vote is insignificant relative to the populace. So your next move is manage yourself and your families affairs and hope for the best. Frankly, the US's debt will crush it in the near future. How near is the question. There isn't much I can do about it. So, I put my head down and hope the fallout doesn't impact my family as much as others.
teitoklien 3y ago
Police are supposed to protect you from those problems, a society that takes care of its people wont have to worry about people causing a revolution or going around shooting people. The point of rules like this is usually to make the government very afraid of it’s own people and to make sure they (the government) serve them (the people) well. There are a 110 ways to kill people, if someone wants to kill you on the streets, not having guns aren’t what’s holding them back. It’s far easier to buy fetanyl in your streets, and just inject someone with a high dosage and leave. > I'm not too concerned with a Cambodian genocide happening in the US. I wouldn’t cast the concern aside that freely if I were you, I don’t think its productive to look down on Cambodians as less civilised or believe in a sort of American exceptionalism, where things like the Cambodian genocide is not a possibility. As an example, I’d like to show the time when the government of California, was actively sterilising perfectly healthy american citizens for “eugenics” purposes [1][2] (a precursor to what could constitute genocide if those policies were nationalised) This is however just one example, you could argue they are linked to racism and a race superiority complex from those times, but reasons and causes can change across different times, the communities targeted may also change, the outcome (the potential risk of a government turning its back on its own people) is always present. The great governance (in comparison to nations across the world) that america benefitted from in the last century, was earned and paid for in blood, ideas and sweat by you’re previous generations of citizens, constitution designers, policymakers, independent organisations, and right groups (on both aisles). I would say the concerns of a gov fallout is always ever present and the duty of every citizen in any democracy across the world to keep an eye out for, and put in all sorts of protections against such fallout whenever possible. - [1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXn3IzQTDOg) - [2](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zCpRVP1DgQ)
- bozhark 3y ago
  Police are not required to protect anyone
  - abfan1127 3y ago
    in fact, are not well equipped to protect anyone either. Police are minutes away once dispatched. Even upon arrival, they aren't required to put themselves in harm's way to save you, just hope to mitigate further damage to others around you.
slowhand09 3y ago
"I am infinitely more concerned that I'll be shot." - for real? That is extremely illogical, given the facts. I realize this data is about deaths rather than shootings. But its still applicable. This is a little dated, 4-5 years maybe. There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. The U.S. population is 324,059,091 as of June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.0000925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death: • 65% of those deaths are by suicide, which would never be prevented by gun laws. • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified. • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – better known as gun violence. • 3% are accidental discharge deaths. So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation. • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years) So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause. This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1. Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

anonu 3y ago

The right to bear arms in the USA is often most appreciated by citizens of foreign lands where life is lived on the precipice between democracy and tyranny. Gun deaths and mass shootings are horrible but the solution is not to abolish the 2nd amendment.

eppp 3y ago
Then what IS the solution?
- Wojtkie 3y ago
  Accessible healthcare, social services for the impovershed, accessible education, really anything that lifts people out of the despair or anger that drives them to committing crime.
  - eppp 3y ago
    So instead of just not letting literally crazy people have high mag firearms, you just want us to fix all of society's problems and hope such a utopian society cures all ills.
cbsmith 3y ago
On the other hand, the issue is of grave concern vis-a-vis being on the precipice between democracy & tyranny... Maybe it's not the solution said people think it is.
kgwxd 3y ago
[flagged]
- phkahler 3y ago
  The republican / Democrat divide in the US is best understood by using a 2D map. It not left or right. I wish I could remember what I put on the axis. Anarchy was at the origin with libertarians a bit above it. Democrats want to move up and Republicans want to move right. The extreme upper right corner was a totalitarian dictatorship. The axis were something like spending on one and control on the other, but that doesn't feel quite right.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]