-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Lol how funny. I wish i could go back in time to do a medical career.
mass shootings probably stopped because of gun control in australia
Posts
Total:
99
-->
@Outplayz
You specifically gave a number of people dying and sad i must not care... so you can't just tuck tail and say you didn't imply that of me. And, i am not a mind reader... i am judging you off what you say and i didn't know you are a full gun ban type until you just said it here. You should be straight forward about that in the beginning since you are a fringe type of belief people don't assume first.
What I said:
Because 2% of innocent people being killed is 2% too many. 15,549 people were killed by guns last year. 2% of that is 310.... If 310 Terrorists killed people a year then I doubt you would have the same stance (ironically you would probable call for more guns though)
Nowhere did I say that you didn't care....be truthful and address what I say instead of whatever else your inner voice is telling you (I've had to tell you this twice alrdy)
It's original intent was to have an armed citizenry to fight injustice foreign or domestic. But i guess i digress if you don't want to talk about it. I never heard you say you want a full gun ban. Thank for telling me i am smart enough to start deducing it.
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country......”
James Madison (Father of the Constitution)
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2018 for our freedom from the federal government.
So your mistaken again
Free thinker or not... you fall under a specific group. It is just words to define what type of policy you are giving. The left's thinking is to ban guns, so you have a leftist view on guns. Who cares... i call myself centrist bc that is what best defines free thinking... it's still a position people will understand when i say it. When you say "free thinker" no one knows where you stand until you start talking... if you like being a little deceptive as your style of getting information... whatever, that's cool with me.
Free Thinker is "deceptive"? Lol....that's how sheep talk. Like I said, I am conservative in some ways and Liberal in others, honestly. If not being able to be put in a box makes me "deceptive" then I'm cool with that Bro.
I would think that if someone wanted to know how I thought then they would ask me, you'd rather be labelled, to each their own I guess
Where is your proof that it turns into the wild west if there are no GFZ? Vermont would be a slap in the face to your logic above. What we know is that in 1996 the GFZ act was passed. What we also know is things like school shootings rocketed. Could it be a correlation? I think it is, although not a cause, but a correlation. When you have a sign that no one can enforce.. it is useless. At the very least, have armed guards protect every place that is a GFZ... at least.
I'm cool with that (the underlined)
You know what the irony to all this is... i think it is people like you that are causing the deaths of so many people. Get rid of guns, you are killing people bc more would die, get raped, robbed, if they can't protect themselves. More kids dead in schools bc there is no one to protect them, or they can't protect themselves. Every policy you are proposing will lead to more death than the alternative. Bc guns are a deterrent to criminals. Without them... it would likely look a lot like our neighbors in central and south america.
Your just using NRA chicken little tactics now.... There are no gun free societies in America for you to have a foundation of saying that people who dont want guns make America more dangerous.....especially when there are societies outside of America with no gun culture that are much more stable and safer.
In 2014 (the more recent year I could find) Only 1.1 percent of victims or intended victims of a violent crime used a firearm in self-defense.
Only 0.2 percent of victims or intended victims of a property crime used a firearm in self-defense.
For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.
So as you see, your logic fails on every conceivable level bro.....
-->
@ravensjt
The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2018 for our freedom from the federal government.
And why not? What if one day we need to fight the government? The whole government argument isn't one of my favorites, but at the very least, i'd rather die fighting then bending over and just taking it... bc the government will likely win in such a war.
Free Thinker is "deceptive"?
I never said free thinker is deceptive although thinking about it now it sorta is bc how do you define it? You can easily flip flop on issues saying you are left or right or anything really. Even centrist i would say is deceptive. It's just how it is when you don't have a clear defined position that people could point to. If someone says they are right, you know the issues they probably believe. It would be harder if someone's like i'm a free thinker... you could believe in anything. It's deceptive in nature. I don't mean in a bad way... you just have to define your beliefs. You can't say i'm a free thinker and expect people to know what you believe.
For every time a person used a gun to kill in a justifiable homicide, 34 innocent lives were ended in criminal gun homicides.
I use NRA tactics you use leftist propaganda. At least with me, i already believed what the NRA says in certain issues before seeing it there and this is one of them. They use the 2.5 million self defensive gun uses. The most liberal put it down at least around 100,000. I think they are both wrong bc i believe it is over 3 million. How can i get that number? Bc i don't define it as "Used a gun to KILL"...
Obviously the number of people using a gun to "kill" another person is low... i would agree that doesn't happen often but it does happen and those people were saved. I define it as "defensive" or "deterrence" gun use. How many people do you think were saved from a criminal bc said criminal saw a gun on someone's waist? How many people do you think were saved bc they pulled a gun on a criminal? How many homes do you think were saved from robbers bc the person thought "they might have a gun."? How many women were saved from a criminal either brandishing or showing off a gun on their waist? I put that number above or right at 3 million a year.
Our violent crime will shot through the roof without the second amendment, besides other dangerous situations it will leave us in. If you think otherwise you are deluded.
-->
@Outplayz
I never said free thinker is deceptive although thinking about it now it sorta is bc how do you define it? You can easily flip flop on issues saying you are left or right or anything really. Even centrist i would say is deceptive. It's just how it is when you don't have a clear defined position that people could point to. If someone says they are right, you know the issues they probably believe. It would be harder if someone's like i'm a free thinker... you could believe in anything. It's deceptive in nature. I don't mean in a bad way... you just have to define your beliefs. You can't say i'm a free thinker and expect people to know what you believe
yea you did, What you call "flip flopping" on an issue, I call weighing the pros/cons and making a rational (to me ) choice.
No idea why you want to let a stance define you
It's odd that you think that my being able to believe in anything is an anchor. If people want to know what I believe.... dont look at the "liberal" or "conservative" or "centralist" label..... just ask me...... that doesnt make sense to you?
I use NRA tactics you use leftist propaganda. At least with me, i already believed what the NRA says in certain issues before seeing it there and this is one of them. They use the 2.5 million self defensive gun uses. The most liberal put it down at least around 100,000. I think they are both wrong bc i believe it is over 3 million. How can i get that number? Bc i don't define it as "Used a gun to KILL"...
There you go with labels again
Obviously the number of people using a gun to "kill" another person is low... i would agree that doesn't happen often but it does happen and those people were saved. I define it as "defensive" or "deterrence" gun use. How many people do you think were saved from a criminal bc said criminal saw a gun on someone's waist? How many people do you think were saved bc they pulled a gun on a criminal? How many homes do you think were saved from robbers bc the person thought "they might have a gun."? How many women were saved from a criminal either brandishing or showing off a gun on their waist? I put that number above or right at 3 million a year
First highlighted: Impossible to know, but I'd wager very few
2nd Highlighted: same answer if not less
You bringing up unprovable hypotheticals does nothing to this debate Bro
Our violent crime will shot through the roof without the second amendment, besides other dangerous situations it will leave us in. If you think otherwise you are deluded.
Ad hom fallacy aside, You have no proof of what your claiming and the claim that less guns will equate to more deaths is a fallacy.
That's not proven on any level and is gun maker propaganda
-->
@ravensjt
You have no proof of what your claiming and the claim that less guns will equate to more deaths is a fallacy.
Ultimately all weapons of mass-destruction designed to kill even a few humans need to be banned. How humanity gets to that place is unknown.
We now have ability for people to create plactic or other non-metal guns with 3D printers.
Humans operating out of fear are is not the optimal mental/intellectual rationally and rational sane way to move forward into the future.
All for one and one for all is not just a cute saying by the musketeers. It is a reality that humanity will have to come to know or cease to exist on Earth.
Humans can hunt by many other means if they must revert to hunting to survive. Ex if humans have to return to 16, 000 year paleolithic way of life.
Australia is apparently ahead of the 8-ball in these regards. Go team Australia!
Make Australia greater than it has been. Decrease mass-shootings of humans. YAY!
-->
@ravensjt
It's odd that you think that my being able to believe in anything is an anchor. If people want to know what I believe.... dont look at the "liberal" or "conservative" or "centralist" label..... just ask me...... that doesnt make sense to you?
I don't care for labels myself. But having a blanket label of being a free thinker / centrist is just like any other label. As you have noticed, i'm not trying to focus on it anymore bc i don't care what you are. There are certain labels that are easily defined that most people will point to in conversation. It's not that i am saying you are that label... just what things sound like so i can be better informed of your stance. So really who cares... all i am saying is being a label no one knows how to define is deceptive in nature... there is nothing wrong / right about that... it just is. Actually, i personally would like a more deceptive label ... i just guessed you might to.
There you go with labels again
Bc again you use propaganda numbers to try and sway... why wouldn't you bring up "well this only has to do with deaths" ... you are being deceptive.
First highlighted: Impossible to know, but I'd wager very few2nd Highlighted: same answer if not lessYou bringing up unprovable hypotheticals does nothing to this debate Bro
Now you are saying the most important role of weapons is impossible to know and through it out? If millions of people are saved due to these uses... would you change your stance? Plus.. the 2.5 million defensive uses study the cdc did is mainly these kinds of defensive uses so there is a study. I am just saying for anyone that lied on those calls... i replace them with people that had a deterrence effect from their weapon. Hard to prove but not something a little logic can't answer. If i wanted to mug someone and saw a gun on their hip... would i still mug them? The answer is most assuredly no. I'd pick the person without a gun. Therefore, it isn't "impossible" to know. You can even study criminals and ask them this question and i bet the answer would be the same. And... women that were saved? I can think of 2 of the bat i saw on the news. But again, a little logic would say a criminal would rather not take a chance. A little thinking answers does it happen, and i am sure it does... your problem would be with the frequency in which it happens i would guess. From that, we can move on to the cdc study. If they estimated 2.5 million defensive uses... well, like i said, including the scenarios i mentioned ... it is probably 3 million or above defensive/deterrence uses if without them its at 2.5.
Ad hom fallacy aside, You have no proof of what your claiming and the claim that less guns will equate to more deaths is a fallacy.That's not proven on any level and is gun maker propaganda
It isn't proven in El Salvador?, Brazil? Mexico? etc. Why are Brazilian citizens wanting guns? But you know what... i am not going to say it is a clear correlation bc it isn't. There is no proof more or less guns is a correlation for either more violence or less. Race actually is a better indicator for violent crime than guns are. All i know is an unarmed populace is at the mercy of crime. You think i should just trust you that things will get better without guns? You think every American should trust your confidence nothing will happen? It's silly, bc you actually have no proof less guns equals less violence any more than i can bring up Vermont.
-->
@Outplayz
I don't care for labels myself. But having a blanket label of being a free thinker / centrist is just like any other label. As you have noticed, i'm not trying to focus on it anymore bc i don't care what you are. There are certain labels that are easily defined that most people will point to in conversation. It's not that i am saying you are that label... just what things sound like so i can be better informed of your stance. So really who cares... all i am saying is being a label no one knows how to define is deceptive in nature... there is nothing wrong / right about that... it just is. Actually, i personally would like a more deceptive label ... i just guessed you might to.
I understand
Bc again you use propaganda numbers to try and sway... why wouldn't you bring up "well this only has to do with deaths" ... you are being deceptive.
Using statistics is using "propaganda" and "deception"? You are debating out of emotion and I only debate statistically. Please give counter verifiable statistics to mine.
Now you are saying the most important role of weapons is impossible to know and through it out? If millions of people are saved due to these uses... would you change your stance?
I never said the most important role of weapons was unknowable, What I DID say was unknowable was your question of :
How many people do you think were saved from a criminal bc said criminal saw a gun on someone's waist?
I don't know that nor do you (which makes it a fallacious question)
More importantly, there is no statistic that shows that millions of lives are saved by gun ownership
Plus.. the 2.5 million defensive uses study the cdc did is mainly these kinds of defensive uses so there is a study.
Link please
You think i should just trust you that things will get better without guns? You think every American should trust your confidence nothing will happen? It's silly, bc you actually have no proof less guns equals less violence any more than i can bring up Vermont.
I have no idea that things will get better without guns, I do know that NRA claim has been debunked ( https://www.newsweek.com/nras-more-guns-less-crime-theory-debunked-new-stanford-analysis-630173 )
Sorry Bro, I'm not "cherry-picking" my responses to you, I just have a hectic morning and what I responded to stood out the most to me
-->
@ravensjt
Using statistics is using "propaganda" and "deception"? You are debating out of emotion and I only debate statistically. Please give counter verifiable statistics to mine.
Yes. When you use stats that are presented deceptively... you are being deceptive and peddling propaganda. How is it not? You are using something that has a low number and pretending that defensive uses of weapons is low. However, the stats you are using only account for justified homicide. By its nature, that is obviously low. Like i said, there are many other ways people use a weapon in defense without not resulting in a homicide.
What I DID say was unknowable was your question of :
It isn't unknowable. All you have to do is ask criminals. My friend, when i was a criminal, would carry a 44 mag revolver on his waist and everyone would steer clear of him. He specifically picked that gun bc everyone knows getting hit by a 44 mag will leave a hole through you. No one messed with him. So anecdotally, i know what i am saying. But, you can poll criminals and i bet you most would say the same thing. It's just no one has done so. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to get it though... why do you think cops open carry? They're are scary the same way a citizen is scary with a gun on them.
Link please
(I don't have time to search links or read them thoroughly bc i do this at work. So i skim and hope the site addresses what i want it to). Estimates have been extrapolated to be in the millions... that is all i care about.
I have no idea that things will get better without guns, I do know that NRA claim has been debunked
You are cherry picking... here are articles that go against or refute it:
A credible source going against that glitch of a site you just referenced... (i hope i didn't get a virus from your link)
And first source that popped up in favor of more guns.
That's not proven on any level and is gun maker propaganda
I must have missed the part where the CDC manufactures guns 😂😂😂(referring to the attempted burial of a DGU study done by the CDC)
To claim statistics on defensive gun use are not relevant or otherwise unknowable is ignorant of what happens during shootings. Last I checked, these mass shootings that predominantly happen in gun free zones don't result in most or all people rushing to the person shooting people up, they run away and/or hide.
The claim of guns acting as deterrance to a crime being committed, or one potentially going to be committed, is just looking at the predominant reaction to a gun, that being running or hiding in fear, and going, "wow, people are afraid of guns who ever would have thought that one?"
Kinda like the Sutherland Springs shooting. The mass shooter was fired at by a concealed carry holder, that shooter turned tail and ran.
Furthermore, oh boy, advocating for prosecuting people with crimes for crimes that are committed with a possesion stolen from them? Please, oh paragon of rationality, please explain how a person is culpable for crimes committed with what was stolen from them? Did they intend to have that possesion stolen? Without the intent of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime, how is that at all in line with the necessity of intent to prosecution?
"Free thinking" ah yes, such a free thinker, wanting to turn the clock back to systems of unjust jurisprudence. What other gems of adjudicatory wisdom are you gonna come out with in the future i wonder?
"Show me the man and 'ill show you the crime"?
"Its better that 100 innocents are jailed so long as 1 guilty man does not go free?"
After abandoning the necessity of intent to prosecution, who knows, tune in next time to find out on the next episode of "I have a Perverted Sense of Justice and Morality" with special guest host, Ravensjt.
Its 100 dollars for the entire seat during a live show, but you'll only need the edge.