Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Comicguy1

Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,155
In Reply To
zvelf

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 9,415
Subj: Re:Aaaaaaand
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 at 09:16:30 am EST (Viewed 174 times)
Reply Subj: Re: You're Going Backwards Now.
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 at 11:58:18 pm EST (Viewed 178 times)

Previous Post


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The study found 154 shootings in hospitals over 11 years. That's not frequent, but an average of 14 times a year isn't meager either.
    Considering how many hospitals there are, that's pretty much nonexistent.


And yet that is still more than the 6 gun deaths in all of Japan in 2014. Think about that. Japan has one third the population of the U.S. and had 6 gun deaths in a whole year.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Sure, people are restricted from driving when they are drunk. Not all drunk people crash into or kill other people and they certainly for the most part don't intend to, but the law does indeed keep such people from cars while they are in that state of inebriation.
    That's not what I meant. You were talking about how guns should be restricted because people can steal them, I said that people don't argue or try to restrict people from driving cars because cars get hot wired.


But they do get restricted from cars if they are drunk.


    Quote:
    Also, guns are restricted as well. You can't sell a gun to a convicted felon, an Illegal alien, someone who was dishonorably discharged, minors, people who you know are going to use it for a criminal act, etc.


And guns should get restricted far more, for example, from people who have zero training with guns. People can only operate cars if they pass a driving test. Guns kill more people than cars now. People should only operate guns if they pass a gun safety course.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      The truth is, people commit suicide more often if the means are readily available to them and the vast majority of people don't go out of their way to commit suicide. Hence, if a gun is unavailable to them, they are far less likely to seek out an alternative means of suicide
    Yes, if a gun is available people can act on impulse more. Still, suicide is a personal choice and is not a crime.


Irrelevant.


    Quote:
    And again, pills are usually the more common method (Among women, anyway.)


Because women don't tend to own guns as often as men, thankfully.


    Quote:
    guns are just more lethal and definitive.


Thanks for making my point for me.


    Quote:
    And again, suicide is not so black and white. The elderly are at a greater risk for suicide. I highly doubt that many people would frown upon an elderly person who commits suicide because they don't want to suffer from a degenerative disease or Dementia or the like.


So now you're arguing that guns are good because they help people commit suicide. Your values are really warped. You seem oblivious to the fact the euthanasia is a huge debate in itself. In any case, I'm for euthanasia but even an affirmative case for euthanasia would call for a far more humane, less painful method. My best friend in seventh grade tried to commit suicide using his father's gun. I found him twitching on the ground. He became a vegetable and only died when his father pulled the plug months later.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      Trump overturned an Obama rule to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
    This one reaches into civil rights violations and infringement. Being mentally ill is not a crime, and most people with mental illness are not more violent than the average person. Also, if we go by The DSM (Which I actually own.), caffeine disorder is listed as a diagnosis. Do you see where I'm going with this?


I see you're making up reasons that show you are unaware of Obama's rule. The gun ban for the mentally ill only applied to the severest cases of mental illness. That you thought it applied to people on caffeine is just idiotic. You really think that people who are incoherent in their everyday lives should be able to have access to guns?


    Quote:

      Quote:
      So if you agree that at some level of potency, guns should be banned from civilian use, it's really only a discussion of what level that should be, not that guns shouldn't be banned because you just agreed that some should.
    MILITARY weapons are banned from civilian use. That's been in play for a long time, that really hasn't been much of a factor. Assault weapons can be used to classify various guns, and there's no clear definition of an assault weapon. AR's are often used for hunting, so a ban on that wouldn't be very effective. The problem is keeping guns out of the WRONG hands, because most gun crime is being committed by CRIMINALS!


All you just offered is a tautology. You seem oblivious to the fact that the more guns out there, the easier it is for criminals to obtain them.


    Quote:
    You're also arguing for less gun ownership and saying how bad guns are, which is different than restrictions on guns. Also, bans in general don't seem to work. It didn't work for alcohol or drugs (In fat, it's made the drug situation a lot WORSE and led to our prisons being overcrowded.).


I'm arguing for more restrictions on guns that would lead to less gun ownership. After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia vastly tightened gun restrictions. It hasn't had a mass shooting since. I'm not arguing for a ban so stop using that straw man. There are very clear sensible restrictions that numerous industrialized countries have that work. We know they work because their gun death rate is a magnitude below that of the U.S.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      What's the biggest factor that makes gun deaths on average 20 times higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries
    You do realize that other countries have had many other mass shootings and killings, don't you?


Not as many as the United States and that's the point. Again, what's the biggest factor that makes gun deaths on average 20 times higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries? Answer it this time.


And yet that is still more than the 6 gun deaths in all of Japan in 2014. Think about that. Japan has one third the population of the U.S. and had 6 gun deaths in a whole year.>

I'm not going to pretend to be an expert here or on Japan, but I guess that the argument can be maid that Japan is a richer and more prosperous country.


But they do get restricted from cars if they are drunk.>

People get restricted from guns if they're drunk, too. We're talking about two different things here, anyway. You were talking about how people (And these are trained people like guards or police.) shouldn't have guns because they get stolen and I pointed out that cars get stolen as well.

And guns should get restricted far more, for example, from people who have zero training with guns. People can only operate cars if they pass a driving test. Guns kill more people than cars now. People should only operate guns if they pass a gun safety course.>

I am for training, but that argument is ridiculous, also many people do go to the gun range. You're also just assuming that everyone who buys or gets a gun is going to USE it, many people have never even used their guns (Neither have many cops either, for that matter.). Also, plenty of people either get into or cause accidents
driving, EVEN THOUGH they passed their driving test!

Irrelevant.>

No, in fact it's VERY relevant! Especially if this pertains to most gun deaths or gun violence.


Because women don't tend to own guns as often as men, thankfully.>

Actually, women are just less lethal in their attempts to commit suicide than men are. But they probably do tend to own guns less.


Thanks for making my point for me.>

My pleasure.:P

So now you're arguing that guns are good because they help people commit suicide. >

Okay, please! I would like this discussion to proceed, but you have to stop saying that I'm arguing for stuff that I NEVER said or argued about before.


You seem oblivious to the fact the euthanasia is a huge debate in itself. In any case, I'm for euthanasia but even an affirmative case for euthanasia would call for a far more humane, less painful method>

First of all, no, I am not oblivious. I did my High School paper/thesis on Euthanasia (And I'm an old fart now.). But I was saying that suicide is NOT ALWAYS something that is considered bad in ALL CASES!

My best friend in seventh grade tried to commit suicide using his father's gun. I found him twitching on the ground. He became a vegetable and only died when his father pulled the plug months later.>

I am very sorry to hear that. I went through a time when I was suicidal as well. I can see why you have a hatred towards guns, but I do think that it's clouding your thinking on this topic a bit (But it's understandable.).


I see you're making up reasons that show you are unaware of Obama's rule. The gun ban for the mentally ill only applied to the severest cases of mental illness. That you thought it applied to people on caffeine is just idiotic. You really think that people who are incoherent in their everyday lives should be able to have access to guns?>

Actually, I haven't read Obama's rule, so I was not aware of that. I thought that it applied to any mentally ill person. I was just saying that if we go by the DSM, this would exclude about 90 percent of the population.


All you just offered is a tautology.>

Because you're overlooking a lot of things.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the more guns out there, the easier it is for criminals to obtain them.>

No, I was saying that most gun owners are not the problem and that it's not fair to penalize them.



I'm arguing for more restrictions on guns that would lead to less gun ownership. >

Yes, so you want LESS guns! Thank You for saying and admitting it. If you do, that's fine.


After a mass shooting in 1996, Australia vastly tightened gun restrictions. It hasn't had a mass shooting since. I'm not arguing for a ban so stop using that straw man. There are very clear sensible restrictions that numerous industrialized countries have that work. We know they work because their gun death rate is a magnitude below that of the U.S.>

There are sensible restrictions, of course. Australia is different. Does Australia have a Second Amendment?

Not as many as the United States and that's the point. Again, what's the biggest factor that makes gun deaths on average 20 times higher in the United States than in other industrialized countries? Answer it this time.>

I answered it the first time, but there are many factors. Usually, richer and more advanced countries tend to prosper and have less crime, and poorer countries (Think Mexico.) don't.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/24/donald-trump/mexico-isnt-deadliest-country-world-trump-said/




Posted with Google Chrome 48.0.2564.116 on Windows 10
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software