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

[Greoric]

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.

More babble out of you. Put up or shut up with a definition.

 

[oldshadow]

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.

Maybe that's how it's viewed by your people but we were founded on different principles.

Heath care, food water and such are not rights when others are required to provide them at labor.

 

[Squarechoke]

More babble out of you. Put up or shut up with a definition.

I gave you enough to understand my definition (well, assuming normal reasoning capabilities). You said absolutely nothing when I asked you, just trying to deflect.

 

[Squarechoke]

Maybe that's how it's viewed by your people but we were founded on different principles.

Heath care, food water and such are not rights when others are required to provide them at labor.

You shouldn't have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then since those two things don't go hand in hand. I feel that the issue of labor is pretty irrelevant since all the things that are required for living standards according to the human rights are already available. People need to work to earn money, and no one has to be forced to work in order to provide the living standards of the human rights for a population.

 

[oldshadow]

You shouldn't have signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights then since those two things don't go hand in hand. I feel that the issue of labor is pretty irrelevant since all the things that are required for living standards according to the human rights are already available. They would have meant more in societies that don't function in all aspects yet.

They can sign anything they want and the U.S. constitution over rides.

 

[Squarechoke]

They can sign anything they want and the U.S. constitution over rides.

Which would be dishonest, so again they shouldn't do that from my perspective. Keep your word and make it mean something (although to be fair the US isn't the only country not living up to that declaration). And this also doesn't contradict that the human rights are rights (the issue of the ongoing discussion). Just because they aren't used everywhere doesn't mean that they don't exist. It's just like how the law that abolished capital punishment is a law, even though not all countries have it.

 

[Greoric]

I gave you enough to understand my definition (well, assuming normal reasoning capabilities). You said absolutely nothing when I asked you, just trying to deflect.

So that's called a cop out. You're telling me I should read the definition of a right. Why dont you humor me and throw it out there instead of skulking around in vagueness?

 

[lifelessheap]

Using emotion to trump logic. Obviously nobody likes the idea of 20 children being gunned down, it's a terribly tragic event. But statistically, it's still less likely to happen than you crashing your car or falling off your front porch. Are we supposed to regulate and limit people's rights to fire arms because on average, less than 2% of the population dies from it every year? Might as well ban fire ants and screw drivers/knives while we are at it.

Could be much worse in a nation of 320 million. 12,000 gun murders at 320,000,000 is 0.00375%

And most of the deaths are in shit ghettos where gang bangers are shooting each other. lmao, normal people are not in danger from guns.

Hell, if we take out Chicago alone the US stats look much better.

 

[scoopj]

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.

Who?

 

[Clear Winner]

Also having suicides and gang violence in those stats is kinda questionable. Suicidals and gangs would kill themselves anyways.

Side note: What is the probability to be killed in a terrorist attack and how big issue terrorism is?

It's a lot easier to kill yourself with a gun than an overdose, slitting wrists or other forms of suicide. It's also a lot easier for a gang member to kill someone with a gun than most other weapons they might use,, usually a knife.

 

[Metusalemi]

It's a lot easier to kill yourself with a gun than an overdose, slitting wrists or other forms of suicide. It's also a lot easier for a gang member to kill someone with a gun than most other weapons they might use,, usually a knife.

Certainly.

 

[Yunes]

Mental health should be encouraged and let's start with you and all the other gun nuts out there

Name calling, now you're winning.

 

[jlagman]

And this is why the pro 2nd will always fight to keep our rights.

The anti 2nd will use any means necessary to disarm everyone but the cops.

So unless the anti 2nd stop their fight to take our rights we can not stop.

"Everyone but the cops" isn't even the goal anymore, look at all the BS which springs from BLM.

 

[My Spot]

They can sign anything they want and the U.S. constitution over rides.

Down goes squarechoke! Down goes squarechoke!

 

[djacobox372]

I'm mostly liberal, but I agree. The numbers don't align with the outrage.

I've ran the odds and I always laugh at other liberals who think that the idea of a societal collapse in which one would need a gun to protect themselves and their family is somehow "desperate reasoning."

However unlikely such a scenario may be it's still many times more likely than gun violence affecting my family.

The Country is armed to the teeth, and one 911 stops working and the cops go home to protect their own family, how are you going to protect yourself?

 

[InvestigatorIL]

This is an issue where I'm really split down the middle. I think the biggest issue here is that the media blows the gun issue way out of proportion. I also think we do have a gun problem in this country but it isn't necessarily the deaths, it's how easy they are obtained and how a large % of gun owners even refuse to talk about it or have a reasonable conversation about it.

If someone wants to go in and kill a bunch of schoolkids they are likely going to do it no matter what, It's just a heck of a lot easier with a gun and you can kill 20 people opposed to 3. I do agree completely with the stats posted earlier in this thread about terrorism. THAT is the biggest fake issue in this country right now. The right wants you to think everyone is under attack when in reality it's really a non issue here in the US.

 

[InvestigatorIL]

It actually is a pretty big issue. We do need our guns for protection, to hunt and to kill wild animals that come on to your property that threaten you, your pets or your kids.

I do a fine job of fending off wild animals that come onto my property without getting my gun out but for some reason I feel you were not referring to wild animals when you made this post.

 

[Dolomite]

I also think we do have a gun problem in this country... it's how easy they are obtained and how a large % of gun owners even refuse to talk about it or have a reasonable conversation about it.

OK.

Let's have a reasonable conversation about the perception of how easy it is to obtain a gun in this country - and what problems may arise from people trying to affect change in the direction of it being harder.

I'll skip over the part of this where I would usually point out the real issue here: your undisguised feelings towards "a large % of gun owners". That your core issue isn't it?

Seriously - not even a whiff of concern over violent crime - "just get these images of all those white, male gun owners out of my head!"

Stop it. Just fucking stop it, OK? Try and stick to the issue at hand.

 

[InvestigatorIL]

OK.

Let's have a reasonable conversation about the perception of how easy it is to obtain a gun in this country - and what problems may arise from people trying to affect change in the direction of it being harder.

I'll skip over the part of this where I would usually point out the real issue here: your undisguised feelings towards "a large % of gun owners". That your core issue isn't it?

Seriously - not even a whiff of concern over violent crime - "just get these images of all those white, male gun owners out of my head!"

Stop it. Just fucking stop it, OK? Try and stick to the issue at hand.

Sorry but you are incorrect on this. I have no issue with law abiding citizens owning guns as those are not the ones committing the crimes. Anyone can see that. My issue is why is it so easy for a mentally unstable individual to get his hands on a firearm and then commit mass murder? Why is it so easy for the 12 year old black kid in Chicago to get a firearm and then commit gang killings? Why can't we use technology to improve the safety of firearms? If it saves an innocent life and only is a minor inconvenience to the responsible gun owner than why argue against it? Why does the NRA lobby against every reasonable measure to improve gun safety? Those are my questions.

 

[5H3RD0G]

For every citizen that dies unnaturally in your borders quantifies how weak the defense is. I guess Earth is not a defensive planet.