Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Sandy Hook Was Five Years Ago u0026 Nothing Changed" video.

  1. A four year old died in a hot tub in my state recently. I guess we should ban those.
    4
  2. What law do you want to pass? And how would it have stopped this shooting or any of these shootings?
    3
  3. Gun deaths and supporting gun rights is equal to nuclear war and nuclear fallout according to Kyle. Maybe this is why you can't get anything done?
    2
  4. Australia is the worse example you can give. Well, it is a great example to show what happens when you place emotions over facts and logic. Australia never had an issue with mass shootings. They had that one in 1996. That's it. Prior to that gun murders in Australia were dropping already.
    2
  5. " I was directly responding to a comment based on feelings, " You were because you are making the assumption that if it were one of my kids I would feel differently about the situation. To start, no. Next, I am one person out of millions. My one experience does not dictate the norm. " Emotions don't need to "get in the way of" reasoning and facts," Yes they do. "but the fact is that that is more gun deaths than elsewhere. " If you want to discuss that we can. I will agree with Randy that 200 a year is essentially not measurable in a country of 320+ million people. You also have to consider the various reasons why it happened. What is suicides? Was it accidents? Maybe gang related? A 2 year old being shot accidentally is being placed in the same category as a 16 year old being shot in a gang related crime. Now beyond that again, 200 is very small. In the large scale that is essentially zero. Maybe in other countries that number is zero. Now why? Is it culture? Is it their gun laws? Is it and expanded police force? Is it the population density? With numbers so small you going to have a very hard time find the exact reason why. "Past gun incidents and just everyday experience indicates to me that people often respond more to events that personally impact them" And I would agree which is why our government is designed the way it is, to prevent emotions from getting in the way of logic and reasoning. "I don't know if you typically judge entire statements or texts based on the first line you see," Depends. By the way you start it I do. You are wanting to stir up my emotions to persuade me to think like you, or get me to think irrationally with my emotions. " Your comment is based on emotion and ignores the fact that the first line of a text is not necessarily indicative of the rest" Again, you are starting out in a way to create the environment to influence my thought process more. You are stirring up my emotions. In the court of law and in debates people have opening statements for that reason, to create an environment to manipulate their judgement if needed. You are trying to stir up my emotions from the get go by making me consider if I had a child. That does not work for me.
    2
  6. "ban on high capacity magazines," Won't work. Look at the VA Tech shooting. Also, most deaths were from handguns and limited to less than a few people. "mandatory background checks," We have.
    2
  7. skywise8, how often is contraceptives a medical necessity? I agree it is at times, but how often? Also, if you need it for that it is up to you as an individual to find a way to get it like other forms of healthcare.
    1
  8. " There are many women who cannot afford or access this kind of maternity care due to social stigma along with the cost of matinance. The stigma is null these days. As for cost, that is on them in the end. Resources are limited. Find a way to afford it. As for third world countries, we are looking at the US.
    1
  9. anticorncobb6, I understood the argument. When Kyle gives deceptive stats it becomes a stupid argument on his side.
    1
  10. "So in response, we implemented speed limits as well as rules and regulations to reduce the fatalities and numbers of accidents" We also have rules and regulations on guns. "Last of all, I'll point out the obvious: cars were designed to transport things. Guns were designed to kill." Guns are also designed to release stress, protect the innocent, and for sport. All three of those involve zero killing.
    1
  11. Paper O, good point. My reasoning for the hot tub incident is that people die for many reasons. 1000 deaths is nothing in a country of 320+ million people over 5 years. Add to that how they died plays a role as well. Was it gang related? Was it accidental? Was it suicide? What Kyle is doing here is pure appeal to emotions. He is standing on the graves of children to push propaganda.
    1
  12. No one wants to ban guns. They just want the guns to be held by the government and the government alone.
    1
  13. The m1 Garand is much more dangerous, in my opinion, than an AR15, especially in the right hands.
    1
  14. ". The US has more gun deaths per year than the rest of the world combined." Really? There are war torn countries right now like Somalia.
    1
  15. YensR, comparing us to other countries is difficult as you have a culture difference. As Jay said, we are talking about 0.004% of the population. That is minute. What accounts for that difference? Is it guns or is it simply a cultural issue? Compare it to something very similar, suicides. S. Korea has a high suicide rate. Why? The number one method is pesticides. Is that a pesticides problem or a cultural problem? You are looking at very small numbers and literally trying to pick fly shit out of pepper.
    1
  16. " try selling a soft drink that kills 1 in 10k" If you account for obesity and diabetes then sure, you can make that argument. "You really think we would not get regulation? " They are in a sense as they do not sell them in schools and are taxing them higher in some places. "Oh btw, cars kill about as many people a guns do in the US. You think we would get car regulation? Insurance? Tests? Minimum requirements? " I agree, and we have gun laws as well. At that point you want to make that number to be zero. So why not ban cars?
    1
  17. "The background checks are very poor (there is no useable gun registry on the federal level) " You do not want a registry as the is a step away from confiscation. "there is no "driving test"," If you want gun testing I will counter in asking do you want to make gun owners to be more efficient killers? Imagine how may people the Vegas shooter would have killed if he had some training? " there is no compulsory gun insurance " Because that is an added price in owning a gun which is an backdoor way in restricting ownership. Also, your car comparison is bad. You can own and drive a car all you want without any of those things as long as you do it on private property. Now compare that to guns in how you can conceal a gun on private property, but in many states you need a CCW.
    1
  18. "The whole point is that 0.004% is a huge number! " Really? Compared to what? Look at the many other deaths in the US or the world even. 0.004% is minute. You are dealing with a small number. Say you were to get your gun registry you wanted and that number dropped from 0.004% to 0.00356%. What was the reasoning? Was it your new gun law or was it due to the trend of murders as a whole have been dropping to begin with? Or is it that 0.004% is a small, and thus sensitive number? What if after you new gun law the number increased from 0.004% to 0.0052%? What will be your reaction? Mine would be the same, we are dealing with small and thus sensitive numbers here. A difference of 0.0012% is nothing. So my question to you are you willing to remain as consistent as I am? If you were to get one of your gun laws you wanted and we saw gun deaths go up from 0.004% to 0.0052%, would you say that is a big difference and we should revoke the law? "but to call it flyshit is just mindboggling to anybody in a civilised country," Countries with different cultures, economies, populations, etc. With numbers so small you cannot pinpoint the reasoning for the differences. To compare with other small numbers, but numbers that are actually bigger than 0.004%. Two professors showed that if you simply remove car accidents and murders the US becomes number 1 in life expectancy. Why? Because the difference in life expectancies between developed countries is so minute and thus sensitive that any minor changes lead to a large difference. On gun deaths, if you were to remove gang related murders what will the numbers be? "Your gun-homicide rate (as y'all ignore the suicides that could be prevented) is a factor of 10 higher than in Finland, a factor of 20 higher than Spain and a factor of 40 higher than Germany and a factor of 50 higher than the UK. " And? What is the murder rate? US: 4.88 Finland: 1.6, US is only 3 times larger than them Spain: 0.66, the US has around 7 times larger then them UK: 0.92, US is around 5 times larger then them My point? Those cultures have far less crime than the US. That is a culture issue. And again, what would it be like without our outliers of gangs and larger cities? To add, we have 10 times the gun murder rate than Finland, but only 3 times the overall murder rate. So play some numbers here. If we remove all gun murders we will have around 4000 murders https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls Now to be fair I got the murder rate from this source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate So be liberal here we will say 7000 murders. Doing that our murder rate will be around 2.4, still higher than the UK, Spain and Finland. What does that mean? That means there culture have less murders overall. Even if we remove all gun related murders we still have more murders. To me that is not a gun issue but a culture issue. To be really fair I can use the FBI numbers and say 4000. Our murder rate gets dropped down to 1/3 of what it is. So that is a murder rate of around 1.6. We are now tied with Finland but still higher than Spain and the UK. "Yes, you know what S Korea did? They made it much harder to get pesticides and their suicide rate dropped. This is a well-known phenomenon. " Not really. The ban happened in 2011, prior to that suicides by poisoning was dropping already https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4823193/ And the suicide rate was essentially stagnate from 2004 to 2011. From 2000 to 2004 for males it went up around 30% but then remained stagnate for the next 7 years. Not saying it does not play a role, but correlation does not equal causation. "Yes, it is a cultural issue - but do you at least acknowledge that the US has a problem?" We have problems, every nation has problems. Now what is it and what is the solution? I will agree we do have a violence problem to a degree. However, again, remove outliers and do we? Look at outliers like St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, etc that have murder rates 10x more than the national rate. But even if we include the outliers, is the solution attacking guns and taking away people's freedom? Or is the solution somewhere else? When you start factoring in the outliers, and the fact that the overall gun murder rate is tiny percent wise, and the fact that other variables are at play besides guns such as economic status for example, the issue is much more complex. To me attacking the gun is not helping the person which is why I am against it.
    1
  19. " I'm sure if you had a child who was shot, you'd say that one death is too many. " Should we be allowing emotions to get in the way of facts and reasoning? With your opening line you are immediately removing all facts and reasoning from the argument and simply appealing to emotions.
    1
  20. "Having feelings about an issue doesn't make a person incapable of applying facts to it. " I agree 100%, there are two sides to an issues, factual and emotional. In politics at the very core the right wing is fact based where the left wing is emotional based. And I say at the very core meaning when you dig as deep as you can on the issues on the vast majority of them the right will go with facts and the left will go with emotions. This gun debate is a perfect example. Many here are breaking down the numbers and see that in the big picture we do not have a major problem. Many on the left like you and Kyle are pushing the emotional narrative kids dying. This is not to say one side is better than the other as facts are very important, but we are human. However, when you push the fact based narrative immediately you are going off of your core and are almost refusing to accept the position of the other side. "Most people would feel strongly about pedophilia being wrong and rightly illegal. " And we do so based on facts and emotions. Factually kids do not have the experience and maturity to make decisions related to sex. "My feeling is that 200 deaths is too many. "Too many" is of course subjective, but can become objective when compared to othet rates." Maybe. 200 a year is what percent of the population? On a factual side it is very small considering the numerous variables involved such as gang activity and accidents. 200 is literally 0.00006% of the population. That is small. What do you propose to make that number to be zero? Or even lower it? Let me play a scenario to you. Say you supported a guy law that you thought was going to lower the number of children being killed. After it was passed that 0.00006% lowered to 0.000053%. Would you say that was based on that law? I would personally say that is too small to make any conclusion, as we are dealing with small, and thus sensitive numbers. But now say after we passed that law that number went from 0.00006% to 0.000075%? What will be your reaction then? Would you support revoking the law? My personal reaction will be the same as I am consistent. What will be yours? Now on an emotional side I will agree, children dying is bad. However, we cannot let emotions get in the way of the facts. I am all for considering the emotions and I feel for people in that situation. I will push to lower gun deaths as a whole. But I will do so while considering the facts. The reason why I want to get rid of gun deaths is because yes, someone dying is emotional. But again, we have facts related as well. " You also assume emotion preceeds factual realities or supercedes them." I never said that. There are variables at play. At the small scale emotions can play a major role, even more than facts. Emotions are important as we are human. But again, we have to keep the facts in mind. With gun deaths the facts, to me, show we do not have a major problem when you consider other variables. I feel bad for people dying, and I want to limit it. I have other ideas in how to do it though. Emotionally I do feel bad for people dying, and that drives me to lower murder rates. But factually I realize that guns are not the issue. And going back to if I had a child being shot what will my emotions be? Well, I will feel bad which is why I will take measures to prevent something like that happening to my child. But that is me alone and not the larger picture which is another valuable point. You have to consider the scale of the argument. With scale you point to 200 kids nation wide. That is large. Where with my child that is me individually.
    1
  21. "You complained my comments were too heavily based on "emotion" and not enough on reason, were presented with legitimate facts to the contrary of both your opinion and the dominant right-wing view on guns in the US" I read your previous comment and you only gave one number, the 200 deaths of children and you said that was too much, but you also said that was subjective. I compared the number to overall population and showed how it is a minute amount of people overall. "You're quibbling about facts but presenting random opinions of yours" I am showing you numbers and showing you how minute they are. I even posed you a scenario that you are ignoring. "Show that conservative positions like mass gun ownership are good for society with credible sources." Well when you consider that the number of guns in this country have been increasing while overall crime have been decreasing, that is evidence there. To be fair correlation does not equal causation, but the left idea that "more guns=more crimes" is not supported in that case. Also, did I ever say "mass gun ownership"? Has really anyone on the right made that claim? No. You are strawmanning at that point. "Optional: also review the conservative, pro-gun comments on this video and notice that none provide anything but arguments based on conjecture and anecdotes." Look up Stefan Molyneux's videos on guns. He provides a lot of data. "Planned Parenthood "selling baby parts", "the gay agenda", impending widespread forced adoption of sharia in the US, trickle down economics, etc." Let us look at those cases. To start, I said "most issues". But on each on PP: The right does not like the idea of giving money to PP. There is a constitutional argument to it and a legal argument in how we should not be using government money for abortions. Now before you say that is illegal the fact is when the government gives money to PP yes, it is not giving for abortions directly, but it allows PP to allocate their funds towards abortion. That is the issue which is fact base. On "gay agenda": It comes down to gays never lacked any rights. Name me one right that gays lacked in this nation? You can't name one. On "trickle down economics": that is not even an economic term. That is the best example ever you can give. It is an appeal to emotion term used by politicians or economic illiterates to try to stir up emotions
    1
  22. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hyQDQPEsrs&t=418s
    1
  23. Liam Boon, the gun murder rate in Australia was dropping prior to you gun ban. You had one mass shooting and then did that ban. But the trend was that it was dropping already. The only think Australia shows is what happens when you put emotions and feelings in front of facts and reasoning.
    1
  24. arendahl, I agree. We should be focusing on lowering crime as opposed to attacking guns.
    1
  25. "BUT, people who own cars are required to be licensed and insured." That is not true. You can own a car and drive it without a license and insurance as long as you are on private property. In comparison to guns you can keep it concealed in your home. In most states you need a CCW when in public. So we do have the same standard of ownership.
    1
  26. "yeah dude because your little army is going to stand a chance against government fire power? " Who makes up the military? People who are citizens of the US. They are not going to turn on other citizens that easily. Even if they did with the way our country is designed it is illegal for the military to enforce domestic laws in a state without consent of the governor of that state. That is what happen during Hurricane Katrina, Bush wanted to deploy but Louisiana hesitated so the army could not help in a timely manner. Beyond that if the federal government were to attack citizens it would literally start a civil war between states with some states siding with the federal government and others not. And considering how we have many members of the military from all 50 states the federal military will be torn apart at that time.
    1
  27. Eratosthenes, it isn't getting worse though. That is the point
    1
  28. Aleksander Gullanger, that is purely a culture thing. Remove gun murders and the US still has more murders than those nations. Tgat isn't a gun issue but a violence issue.
    1
  29. Aleksander Gullanger, taking away guns does not cure the person
    1