8,124 Gun Murders, 320 Million Americans. Gun referendum or STFU over this non issue.

[Thunderflash500]

It's not about safety and never was. Liberals are well known for not knowing the actual stats. They just hear a shitty argument and then think about it without doing the research. And of course they don't know logic because it's not taught in schools anymore so they fall for any moderate level of sophistry (like the daily show ect).

Between suicides and gangs (drug war), it's not even a problem. Europe is having more of a problem with mass killings lately anyway.

Liberals are pawns. The elite recognized they can't pull another Hitler or Stalin in the west. An authoritarian state that openly forces people into slavery. So now they engineer a system where people beg to enslave themselves. They use liberals because liberals are idiots and will demand to take away speech, they will demand to take away the right to self defense, they will demand slavery.

Liberals don't believe in freedom for people who have a different way of life. And because they lack that foundation of freedom for all, they are easy to manipulate into slavery. In their eyes it's a good thing.

 

[Metusalemi]

It's not about safety and never was. Liberals are well known for not knowing the actual stats. They just hear a shitty argument and then think about it without doing the research.

Between suicides and gangs (drug war), it's not even a problem. Europe is having more of a problem with mass killings lately anyway.

Liberals are pawns. The elite recognized they can't pull another Hitler or Stalin in the west. An authoritarian state that openly forces people into slavery. So now they engineer a system where people beg to enslave themselves. They use liberals because liberals are idiots and will demand to take away speech, they will demand to take away the right to self defense, they will demand slavery.

Liberals don't believe in freedom for people who have a different way of life. And because they lack that foundation of freedom for all, they are easy to manipulate into slavery. In their eyes it's a good thing.

Exaggerate by generalizing, but the base message is clear and it is just beautiful.

 

[Greoric]

As I said, you're the one talking about securing your rights with guns, not I. I just mentioned that as refuting your statement. How hard can that be to understand?

And I reject your statement again. The World Health Organization ranks the US 37 in the world when it comes to health care systems. Worst of all developed nations, despite being so rich. You also seem very uneducated on how health care systems work if you think that no private health care can exist while proper government health care exists.

Correct, and your counter is nonsense because healthcare is not a right. The fact that the US doesn't have a centrally planned healthcare system doesn't have anything to do with the affect privately owned firearms have against government overreach.

But not only is your definition of a right morally bankrupt, you're also using the worst method of distribution (government; a compulsory funded monopoly) to attempt to secure it.

 

[HYBRID_CFC]

Actually if you want to go deeper into numbers, out of those 8,300 non suicide gun homicides, 2/3 of them were gang related. So out of 320 million people, you're talking about 3,000 non criminal thug related gun homicides...yea such a problem...no way this isn't just agenda driven....right.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

Anti-gun pieces of shit always lose the debates. This is nothing new.

 

[Squarechoke]

Correct, and your counter is nonsense because healthcare is not a right. The fact that the US doesn't have a centrally planned healthcare system doesn't have anything to do with the affect privately owned firearms have against government overreach.

But not only is your definition of a right morally bankrupt, you're also using the worst method of distribution (government; a compulsory funded monopoly) to attempt to secure it.

Yes it is, according to the interpretation of the universal declaration of human rights that the US has signed. That's why the nation has received criticism for it, but there's of course no punishment for going back on your word on that.

And again you have no idea what you're talking about. The nations with government healthcare also have private healthcare options, so your rambling about monopoly is useless. And since all the other developed nations with government healthcare rank higher than the US your criticism falls flat.

 

[Greoric]

Yes it is, according to the interpretation of the universal declaration of human rights that the US has signed. That's why the nation has received criticism for it, but there's of course no punishment for going back on your word on that.

And again you have no idea what you're talking about. The nations with government healthcare also have private healthcare options, so your rambling about monopoly is useless.

That's rich. You're citing something a government signed as proof of a right. You can't just legislate or arbitrarily declare a right. They're inalienable whether anyone is around to say or do otherwise. That's why they're called rights.

If you're stranded on an island, you no longer have your "right to healthcare" because you have no one there like me to provide it for you. Yet you still have the right to own your body, the fruits of your labor, and your right to choose how you'll defend yourself.

 

[Squarechoke]

That's rich. You're citing something a government signed as proof of a right. You can't just legislate or arbitrarily declare a right. They're inalienable whether anyone is around to say or do otherwise. That's why they're called rights.

If you're stranded on an island, you no longer have your "right to healthcare" because you have no one there like me to provide it for you. Yet you still have the right to own your body, the fruits of your labor, and your right to choose how you'll defend yourself.

Rights relate to both legal, social and ethical principles. If you didn't even know that it's no wonder you say so many weird things. Better to look up what words mean before you discuss them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Given how low crime already is, the gap between optimal murder-prevention policy and what we actually have (whatever your views on the subject are) just can't be responsible for that much of a difference. I don't see it as a rational issue to fight about, but people do because of tribalism.

 

[Greoric]

Rights relate to both legal, social and ethical principles. If you didn't even know that it's no wonder you say so many weird things. Better to look up what words mean before you discuss them.

No guy, claimed rights are only legally or socially relevant if they're ethically sound. Declaring health care a right no matter what bullshit a government signed doesn't validate it. If anything that's a counter point to something existing as a right especially if it relies on giving government more power to enforce it. Why? Because it's a service that requires you to steal and thus violate someone's inalienable rights to guarantee.

Also spare me that stiff upper lip. Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't add anything to your argument. It just makes you look like a twat.

 

[Cuauhtemoc]

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

The stats I used...are suicides included?


Well gang violence tends to be against other gang members but sometimes they do kill innocent people.


As for suicidal killing themselves, probably but guns do make it easier.


Also for the terrorist attacks, they are even more rare...That's why I don't believe in this muslim ban bullshit...The CIA/NSA are doing a good job overall.

You know, the muslim ban has little to do with terrorism. It is because muslims are a burden to any country in general. They riot, they vote in blocs, they do commit terrorism but the peaceful muslim that works through democracy to install islamic law is much more dangerous(Muslim Brotherhood, Erdogan) than the jihadist who will never achieve anything(AQ or ISIS).

 

[Zankou]

Given how low crime already is, the gap between optimal murder-prevention policy and what we actually have (whatever your views on the subject are) just can't be responsible for that much of a difference. I don't see it as a rational issue to fight about, but people do because of tribalism.

Technically speaking, we outsourced most of our crime to Mexico, which currently competes with Syria in its kill count.

I don't know why Donald Trump isn't in favor of that type of globalization.

 

[Squarechoke]

No guy, claimed rights are only legally or socially relevant if they're ethically sound. Declaring health care a right no matter what bullshit a government signed doesn't validate it. If anything that's a counter point to something existing as a right especially if it relies on giving government more power to enforce it. Why? Because it's a service that requires you to steal and thus violate someone's inalienable rights to guarantee.

Also spare me that stiff upper lip. Telling me I don't know what I'm talking about doesn't add anything to your argument. It just makes you look like a twat.

Rights aren't laws of nature, they are just constructs of human society and all need to be upheld so there's no difference there. It doesn't matter if it's your right to an attorney or if it's your right to breathe. Both can be taken away. If you're on a deserted island you have no relevant rights since rights are only meaningful in relation to other people.

And when you say things like that the human rights aren't rights you're going to get it pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. You're making up what the word means which contradicts what you get when you look up the concept.

So if you're going to keep making up your own meaning of basic concepts please keep them to yourself so we can stop having a meaningless conversation.

 

[Greoric]

Rights aren't laws of nature, they are just constructs of human society and all need to be upheld so there's no difference there. It doesn't matter if it's your right to an attorney or if it's your right to breathe. Both can be taken away. If you're on a deserted island you have no relevant rights since rights are only meaningful in relation to other people.

And when you say things like that the human rights aren't rights you're going to get it pointed out to you that you don't know what you're talking about. You're making up what the word means which contradicts what you get when you look up the concept.

So if you're going to keep making up your own meaning of basic concepts please keep them to yourself so we can stop having a meaningless conversation.

Ok, you're still not getting it. You're making a claim to a right (healthcare) that you've oddly used as an excuse to justify the disqualification of another (the right to choose a means of self defense).

What's even sillier is that you use a government's declaration as it's justification even when I spelled out for you why that's not ethically defensible. Rights aren't a popularity contest. Otherwise you're a relativist. In which case, honor killings of Muslim girls, slavery for the greater part of human existance, and genocides in the last century are all morally acceptable....because their governments gave the go ahead.

I don't blame you though. It seems like everyone from the Nordic countries on this forum just had their shit pushed in with propaganda growing up. No wonder you guys have such goofy responses.

 

[Squarechoke]

Ok, you're still not getting it. You're making a claim to a right (healthcare) that you've oddly used as an excuse to justify the disqualification of another (the right to choose a means of self defense).

What's even sillier is that you use a government's declaration as it's justification even when I spelled out for you why that's not ethically defensible. Rights aren't a popularity contest. Otherwise you're a relativist. In which case, honor killings of Muslim girls, slavery for the greater part of human existance, and genocides in the last century are all morally acceptable....because their governments gave the go ahead.

I don't blame you though. It seems like everyone from the Nordic countries on this forum just had their shit pushed in with propaganda growing up. No wonder you guys have such goofy responses.

That's the actual thing with rights not being laws of nature but constructs of human society. All nations don't have the same rights and as horrible as things like honor killings are we can't enforce our laws in other countries. There are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the nations that have signed agree are conditions that all humans should have, but we can't, or at least won't, physically force it upon those that didn't sign.

And it's not so much propaganda that has taught me what rights are but that I actually read definitions of words and concepts that I talk about. Perhaps living in a secular country helped me to have a rational relationship with facts. It's also completely illogical to think that something that relates to legal, social and ethical principles can be anything other than something people need to agree on.

 

[Greoric]

That's the actual thing with rights not being laws of nature but constructs of human society. All nations don't have the same rights and as horrible as things like honor killings are we can't enforce our laws in other countries. There are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the nations that have signed agree are conditions that all humans should have, but we can't, or at least won't, physically force it upon those that didn't sign.

And it's not so much propaganda that has taught me what rights are but that I actually read definitions of words and concepts that I talk about. Perhaps living in a secular country helped me to have a rational relationship with facts. It's also completely illogical to think that something that relates to legal, social and ethical principles can be anything other than something people need to agree on.

Nevermind. Your'e an automaton. A group of national governments decide what's rights are because the governments said so. Got it. Forget qualifying why Healthcare is a right despite obliging the action of taking away someone else's rights to guarantee it. We'll just go with because reasons.

 

[Squarechoke]

Nevermind. Your'e an automaton. A group of national governments decide what's rights are because the governments said so. Got it. Forget qualifying why Healthcare is a right despite obliging the action of taking away someone else's rights to guarantee it. We'll just go with because reasons.

You'd save yourself some time by reading up on the concept of rights somewhere. Even Wikipedia would do for you. Otherwise try to define an objective right that isn't dependent on other people agreeing to it. It should be funny.

 

[Greoric]

You'd save yourself some time by reading up on the concept of rights somewhere. Even Wikipedia would do for you. Otherwise try to define an objective right that isn't dependent on other people agreeing to it. It should be funny.

Also odd how you refuse to define your own term.

 

[TheFirstEMP]

And in California the politicians voted and signed into laws that further restrict my second amendment rights, while at the same time ensuring that those laws that they put into place do not apply to them.

They are targeting the law abiding and putting away those who followed the law to own what is their given right as a U.S. citizen. They will never bother targeting the problem that is gang violence.

 

[Squarechoke]

Also odd how you refuse to define your own term.

You already indicated that you understood my point that rights are things that humans have to decide on. Of course there are some that talk about things like the right to life, but that's pretty useless since you can't really tell a predator to not attack you because it's violating your rights, or a deadly disease to go away because you have a right to live. Rights are far better defined as inter-human constructs, and that's the most common definition so saying that it's wrong is wrong itself.