On the contrary, that's what you've "suggested" multiple times in this thread... The only reason there's no "right" to health care in our constitution is because of when it was written. It's also the only reason there is a right to bear arms. There's no rights to anything in this world. We decide what rights we want people to have. And in America we do so through democracy. I believe people have a right to health care, and its a right that's much more important in America in 2018 than the right to bear arms. Unfortunately, people like you won't make any changes because you look at a 250+ year old document as unalterable.
Only idiots would continue to espouse this after 20 years of school shootings. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you.
The reason there's no "right" to health care is that health care is not a right. By all means, try to pass a constitutional amendment adding it as a right, see how far it gets you. You can't just pretend something is a right when it's not the case. You can feel free to believe whatever you want, but when your beliefs run counter to reality, we call that delusion. It's funny you say 20 years because that includes years during the assault weapon ban that you are arguing is the solution to school shootings....oh, you didn't think that out very well did you?
Nothing is a right. It's a made up word. Even understanding its just a word, what is/isn't a right changes by location and year, depending on your skin color and race, etc, etc. I never argued an assault weapon bad was the solution to school shootings. I said we need much stricter gun laws. We need to go way beyond an assault weapon ban. And we need to do a crapton of other stuff. School security. Better FBI. Better focus on mental health. Etc. Etc. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. I now asking it more times won't help....
Each household should be limited to one non-automatic long rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol that can only hold six bullets. Why does anyone need anything more than that? It covers hunting and target practice. Yea...pipe dream. But, that's how it should be imo. I'm sorry if that removes any gun owners ability to shoot like a madman at a gun range or wherever. Rat tat tat tat tat tat tat...look at me...I'm shooting like crazy and I'm having fun. Whoopity doo!
That's factually inaccurate and shows you lack a fundamental understanding of the issue. Ah yes, it's not that prohibition is at fault for it failing every time it's been tried in this country, it's that the prohibition didn't go far enough. I love how you hear very similar excuses for why communism has failed every time it's been tried. I guess that's just the go to excuse for left wingers. As to showing you the failures of gun control as a solution to gun related violence, just look at the official study done when it comes to the 1994 assault weapons ban.... Sorry guy, banning guns doesn't work in this country because it's not the gun that is the problem, it's the culture of violence that leads to school shootings.
It's actually factually correct. That's why "rights" have been voted on and written down. If there were actually truly inherent human rights... we wouldn't have to write them down, we'd know them all, and we never would have had racism, slavery, lack of women rights, etc. You believe human rights have been the same for every person throughout history?? Are you that dense? I've provided you the scientific analysis of the effectiveness of the assault rifle ban and the scientific analysis (which you call propaganda lol) noting the links between gun ownership, gun and homicide deaths and gun laws. Yes the reason the assault rifle ban didn't stop school shootings was because there were still hundreds of millions of extremely efficient killing machines out there. The VT shooting took place after the assault rifle ban ended and wasn't with assault rifles. It was handguns. And supremely deadly with 32 victim deaths. So again, Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you. Please provide fact based scientific studies that prove very strict gun control laws wouldn't work to prevent future school shootings. Thank you.
I feel like I'm talking with a child. Yes, rights are "voted on and written down" but that doesn't mean they aren't real. It is a factually accurate statement that health care is not a right given that if it were, it would be in the constitution. Anything not in the constitution is not a right, it is a privilege.There's a reason why they make it MUCH more difficult to add to or take away from the constitution, it's kind of a big deal. No, you haven't, or you wouldn't be making the same claims. The analysis of the effectiveness of the assault rifle ban was that it was ineffective in that while sure people stopped using assault rifles, but they didn't stop killing people with guns and they didn't become less lethal when attacking people with guns. You also provided propaganda that you got from a special interest group that omitted data points that proved that narrative wrong, I then provided you with those data points that proved the narrative inaccurate. So the reason prohibition failed was that they didn't prohibit enough? If only they tried REAL communism it would have worked amirite? Also, if you admit that an assault rifle ban did nothing to stop school shootings because you can be every bit as lethal with handguns.....what exactly are you arguing for? Completely eliminating the 2nd amendment? I just want to be clear as to exactly what you are suggesting is the appropriate level of prohibition to enact cultural change.
Surf, why even that much? Why is hunting important? I have family that hunts. I've hunted - a couple times, didn't get any "thrill" or enjoyment out of it whatsoever, and since I can find plenty of food and clothing, even knowing the "ethicallness" of where that product came from, I saw no reason to continue hunting. Why are we beholden to the hunting industry? So let's move on to personal protection. There's non-lethal forms of personal protection. There would be a TON more options there as well, if it became more profitable, as it clearly would, if guns were banned. I'm open to intelligent arguments here. I just would like to hear an intelligent argument about why the right to bear arms is a useful/needed right in today's America??
Imagine how I feel talking to you. You're like a blank wall. They're just written down laws. They're not inherent human values. That's why different countries have different rights. It's just what random people think. Like in your case, you'd have been a racist slave owner a couple hundred years ago in America, because it was written down that you could be. That would have been you're right. Wouldn't have made it right. Do you have reading problems? Or are you just an idiot? I provided that analysis. Which is what you're quoting above. Which is what I noted. Which is that the gun control laws weren't strict enough. You haven't provided a single data point. You haven't linked to single study. Or even a special interest group in your favor. You just spew words that you make up. I provided analysis of the facts. Some of that analysis was from sources that might lead one way or another. But it was backed up by actual, scientific studies. If CNN puts out a study that says gravity is a thing, and here is how we explain it scientifically, it doesn't make it propaganda. Stop bringing up other things. That's a common tactic of people that can't have logical arguments. Gun control is not communism. But congratulations... you got me to write the word communism!!! Now we're talking about communism. Next you'll respond to this about communism some more, then I'll respond some more and then we'll be having a conversation about the history of communism. Isn't that exciting!! Nice strawman... not. You LITERALLY wrote above, which I quoted and which analysis I provided in the first place, the reason the assault rifle ban didn't work. Here you go: The analysis of the effectiveness of the assault rifle ban was that it was ineffective in that while sure people stopped using assault rifles, but they didn't stop killing people with guns and they didn't become less lethal when attacking people with guns. So yes, CLEARLY the reason it failed was because it was a VERY soft gun restriction law. Just like YOU said. I personally don't see the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Feel free to explain its purpose. I'd be fine eliminating it. Of course I recognize that won't happen. So I propose VERY VERY strict gun laws. Nothing that can shoot automatically, regardless of nomenclature. Bump stock. Assault rifles, whatever you want to call it. Buyback program to buyback guns and ammo. Limit # of guns that can be owned. Limit # of guns that can be stored in a residence. Background check periods that take many many months and licensing to pass. Extreme penalties for people in violation of the law. But I recognize the above won't happen either. But I don't understand the people who fight for second amendment rights. Especially since most people don't even know what it says.
Gotcha, it wasn't TRUE communism, so it's failure doesn't count. I never get tired of hearing that excuse. That's factually inaccurate and even you should know better than that. The propaganda you presented purposefully eliminated data points such as how a country like El Salvador could have 45.6 firearm related deaths per 100,000 residents despite only 5.8 guns per 100 residents while a country like Norway could have 31.3 guns per 100 residents and only 1.75 firearm related deaths per 100,000 residents (almost all of which are suicides) If you look at the totality of results you see that culture is the largest factor, not how many guns exist.....but you'd rather post propaganda that eliminates data points in order to further a false narrative. It's not "bringing up other things" it's pointing out that you are using a similar method to other people who wish to push things that have been proven ineffective by merely claiming that previous failures were not "true" whatever you want to push for. It's a version of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I just wanted to have you explicitly state that the reason it failed was because it wasn't a "TRUE Scotsman" Fair enough, now that you have explained exactly the extent of your authoritarian proposition we can build on this especially since you admit that none of the authoritarian actions that you support have any chance of actually happening. Now that you've admitted that your fantasy of outright eliminating the 2nd amendment either de jure or de facto won't happen, why don't we steer the conversation in a productive direction? Why not talk about things that could actually happen that would do something to address the problem?
Strawman One, you're still just saying things. Provide data to back up what you say. Two, it wasn't propaganda. Strawman. Again. Stop it. Three, of course El Salvador wasn't used in a comparison to America. El Salvador is a third world country. I'd rather make smart, logical decisions. If you want to believe that there isn't a correlation because of stats from countries like El Salvador, you might as well stick your head in the sand. That's useless. Over-arching culture is clearly a huge, very important factor. I never said otherwise. It's a strawman, plain and simple. There are thousands and thousands of situations that aren't remotely comparable where something might have been tried multiple times previously, then tried again and worked, or not worked. They're strawman relative to this argument. If you're trying to just say anything that's been tried once or twice and hasn't worked can't be tried again in any other way, even with changes, and work... then again, you might as well put your head in the sand. That's literally implying the scientific process in and of itself is useless. Stop with the strawmen. Again, a purposefully inflammatory word that is useless. People like you use words like this in an attempt to avoid intelligent conversation. Of course it won't happen. Our politicians are bought. Then you have folks like you who don't care to have intellectual conversations but would rather stick to what was written down on a piece of paper 250 years ago... just because... Because ultimately the problem will remain so long as we have so many guns in America, as its been empirically proven via scientific analysis and statistical studies. We should do LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of things. The only way we'll ever get to a point where we might make more radical changes is by being intelligent about our discussion of it over and over again. I already responded to you, agreeing that we should have MUCH MUCH MUCH more and more effective on campus security. That's buried in this thread because we agree. @Bobbythegreat do you know what the second amendment says, without googling? Can you explain its purpose and usefulness in today's America?
That's not a strawman, that's accusing you of a logical fallacy, not engaging in one. What I said IS data, it was me citing a few of the data points your propaganda intentionally omitted in order to push a false narrative. Citing data isn't "just saying things" 1. That shouldn't matter if it's the guns that are the problem. 2. The chart you posted also included 3rd world countries like Argentina and Qatar, it was only eliminating the countries that would contradict the narrative they wanted to push. 3. Also it's fairly dishonest to list these countries by "gun related deaths" when you know that a majority (in many cases nearly all) of the deaths are suicides despite that not being the impression the chart is giving. The inescapable conclusion is that culture determines the incidence of gun related violence much better than the number of guns present in a society. The problem is you fail to see that it's not just an important factor, it's essentially the only important factor. It's just an accurate word....and you seem to struggle with the idea that words have meaning. Earlier you were suggesting that the word "rights" had no meaning and was useless, now you are doing the same with "authoritarian" simply because you don't like the fact that it accurately describes you. No kiddo, hate to break it to you, but despite your authoritarian leanings, most people in this country are at heart libertarian leaning and you won't get enough of them to support permanently giving away their civil liberties. Even if they are temporarily emotionally compromised due to a terrorist act. Sure you'll get the authoritarian portions of the populations to be very loud when something like that happens, but in the end there's just not enough of them and sanity generally prevails. Do you even know what it would take to pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the 2nd amendment? I'm genuinely curious to see if you actually know what the process would look like. If you do, you'd know that authoritarians like yourself don't make up a large enough portion of the country to make that at all possible.....unless you guys bought off damn near all of the politicians in the house, senate, and damn near all of the state governors. Face it, there's just no support for radical authoritarian action and there won't ever be. Fair enough, I think that should be the bulk of this thread instead of a footnote. Increasing security is something that could actually happen and would be effective in preventing or minimizing school shootings going forward. I'm not sure what the numbers should look like but a conversation around x number of armed guards or police for every y number of students is the conversation that needs to be happening.....and x is not 1 when y is 3000. Yes, I do. It says that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also explicitly stated that one of the reasons for this right was that a well regulated militia was necessary for the security of a free state. The purpose and usefulness for this right is the same today as it always was. Every person is responsible for their own safety and security, the best way to ensure that is by being armed.
Not surprisingly, no, no you don’t know what it says. It’s one sentence. It doesn’t talk about safety. And of course even if you take it to mean what you’re saying and how it’s culturally used in America today... the Supreme Court has ruled it’s not an unlimited right. I’m not surprised you throw around words like authoritarian. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
Lol. Comparing El Salvador to Argentina’s and Qatar. They are in completely different socioeconomic stratosphere’s. The average annual per capita income in El Salvador is like 4k bucks. Do you want to have a real intellectual debate or not? Do you want to really understand the facts as they are useful and pertain to America as a comparable country or continue to obfuscate?
.....I'm pretty sure I do. This might be over your head, but I wasn't attempting to cite it word for word, I was telling you what it said.....which I did, and I did so accurately. No kidding, there's no such thing as an "unlimited right".....so I'm not sure what you even think you are saying here. So now you are abandoning the argument that gun violence is tied to the number of guns available and suggesting that it has to do with other factors like income or culture? Shocking, that's exactly my point. I'm glad you finally figured it out. Also, to be clear, I wasn't comparing those countries to the US, I was comparing those backwards countries to the backwards countries that your propaganda didn't omit. Well, I mean, that's what I'm doing....you just keep struggling and going down holes where you don't think that words have meaning and that citing data points is "just saying things" You've already admitted that your fantasy of eliminating the 2nd amendment is unobtainable so I would hope that would be the end of it so that conversation can focus on something that matters.
I asked you what the second amendment said. You responded incorrectly. Sorry that’s on you bud. If you can’t quote what it says - seeing how super important it is - how can you possibly have an intelligent conversation about it? It’s one very short sentence. I already noted there are many factors involved in gun deaths. Guns being a huge factor... and the leading factor when you are apples to apples in the other areas. That it’s difficult for you to understand a difficult complex multifaceted issue and instead take a black and white position surprises exactly no one on this board. It’s your MO. You’re always wrong too.
