General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Hosts Come Out For Gun Control" video.

"You can't just give someone a car. " Actually you can as long as you don't register it. Did it a couple years ago in fact. "And of course. Just as I thought. You're for better education, just not a college education for everyone even though your position of reducing gun violence hinges on getting more people access to education." Yep, because when 13 years of government education doesn't work the only solution is more government education. "And as for businesses can't afford it. That's such bullshit. Businesses who are paying more in wages are finding that productivity is going up, customer satisfaction is going up, and sales are going up." Yeah, and if I were to pay more in rent I would get a better apartment. There comes a point where businesses simply can't afford higher wages just like I can't afford more rent. But if all it took was higher wages then why mandate it? Why not tell businesses what you are telling me? "You say you want people out of poverty, but guess what. There is no difference between being unemployed or working 40 hours for 18K a year." Actually there is a huge difference.
4
And once again your source waters down the definition of a mass shooting to where it is meaningless. I can water down even more to make the number much higher. As far as I can see the FBI does not have a definition for a "mass shooting". They do for a "mass killing" which is 3 or more people. Other sources say a mass shooting is when 3 or more people die, as defined by the FBI. But it isn't "for or more people being injured or killed by a gun" as you put it. So your standard does not meet the FBI standard. Your own source does not even mention the FBI. Thus your "facts" are not reliable. "You literally said reduce or eliminate the minimum wage which is already a poverty wage today." Increasing the min. wage has never been shown to reduce poverty. It has been shown to increase unemployment, especially for black teens. "So I'll ask you again, what gun control policy do you support. " We have laws on the books already like background checks. We need don't need more gun laws when guns are not even a problem. Most of these mass shooters were legal gun owners to begin with.
3
I have read that list and have been referred to it multiple times on this thread. I have addressed how unreliable that list is. To start it literally lies on the qualifications of a mass shooting. It says it uses FBI standards when 1. it doesn't cite or give a link 2. the FBI does not give a standard for a "mass shooting" The MotherJones article you are criticizing does give links. Next, it lumps shootings like gang related shootings in the same category as someone deranged individual shooting up a school. So something that is more common is placed in the same group as something that is rare. That is similar to saying a school shooting happened because there was a shooting on school grounds at 3 in the morning. "They are not gang related, don´t worry your racism that it would be trivial or stupid can therefore be buried." Typical regressive liberal. I come with an actual rebuttal and your response is to cry "RACISM". Gang violence is an issue, especially in areas of high poverty which I also addressed in how that should be fixed. But I guess it is easier to attack guns and call others racist than to actually work. Also, what "lies" did the MotherJones article say? You are using a logical fallacy there. I gave an actual example how your article lied. Now how is the MotherJones article lying?
3
We will just attack ET with our walkie talkies
2
Because they are fun to shoot.
2
One, there isn't a mass shooting everyday. If you want to have a serious conversation to solve a problem you have to get basic facts straight first. Next, a semi automatic is necessary for in home protection. Banning semi autos will ban the vast majority of guns which you can't do.
2
"There were 372 mass shootings alone in 2015." No there aren't. " Protect yourself from what? Is some gang going to attack your house and you have to shoot dozens of gangsters?" You never know. I lock my doors every night at home as well, also when I leave. I guess I shouldn't do that either according to you. " You support death and destruction caused by your extreme views. " What extreme view? I own four guns. I grew up in a very gun friendly environment. I only know of one person in my hometown that has been shot. It was a Mexican working at a Chinese restaurant, so someone that wasn't even from my home county. Guns are not a major problem in the US.
2
I am not saying the solution is easy. To you it is, just attack guns. To me gun laws are a smoke screen to mask a more serious problem which people don't seem to want to approach.
2
So I am an extremist because I want to solve the general problem of crime without stripping away people's rights? Meanwhile you are calling the ban of semi autos and making up stats because you feel guns are the problem. Ok.
2
Again, there are not over 300 mass shootings a year. You need to get basic facts straight before you can have an opinion. Convicted felons have done actions, and have been through the process of the legal system to lose their rights. Big difference. The majority of our gun crimes are gang and drug related. If you remove pockets of high crime in the US such as LA, Chicago, East St. Louis, Detroit etc. then the US have very low crime and gun related crime. That is why I push for policy to reduce poverty, improve jobs and improve education in those areas. You just push for getting rid of guns when outside of those areas of high crime guns, and crime in general is not a problem.
2
Private selling of guns is a part of property. Also, how are you going to control that? One of my guns I bought was from a friend of mine. The gun is unregistered and can't be traced. In fact none of my guns can't be traced with 2 not even having serial numbers. So how to you propose we do background checks on private sells? "Increased wages has been shown to increase worker productivity and morale, thus increasing customer satisfaction. On top of this, there is more money for the poor and the middle class to spend and they spend a much higher percentage of their income than a rich person who hordes the vast majority of his/her money." Clearly you don't understand economics. Businesses know that if you increase wages you will attract better workers. But a couple things 1. businesses can't afford it 2. you have to earn it as an employee If you just automatically get a raise because the government says so than you what you do is create the mindset of entitlement. You do not increase productivity and morale. More money means nothing if there isn't any more wealth being created. All that does is raise prices. The rich don't horde their money either. "You can deny the facts about mass shootings all you want. I'm done repeating myself about it." So you are done when you find out that you lied in that your stats don't even match FBI standards. Alright. "Since you seem to care so much about education to reduce gun violence, I'm sure you support free college education for all, right? After all, more education equals less gun violence so by that logic we must make colleges tuition free." All 50 states have a K-12 program to offer all of the kids as is. I am about reforming it. Considering how K-12 is failing some of these kids it is safe to say that more "free" education is not needed.
2
Ok, but like your "mass shooting" statistics the term "universal background check" is very vague. What are you looking for? If you are looking for a criminal record then that already happens. The problem with these polls is that they are vague and usually done by phone lines which is unreliable. " Yes, if you don't support a universal background check, you are insane." We already have background checks. There really isn't a point. "You still have to obtain a title and transfer ownership of the car even if it's not registered" No you don't as long as you don't register it. You don't know much about cars either.
2
A gun show loophole is mainly a myth. There are very rare cases of someone buying a gun there without a background check, but most sells there involve one. "Are you denying that a convicted felon can go to a private seller and buy a gun without a background check? " And how are you going to know if there was a background check done or not in private sales? I can sell my gun to someone and no one, besides the buyer and myself would have known the transaction happened. The guns are not registered for it is like they had the gun their entire life. You may want to make every single sale have a background check, but how are you going to enforce it? Especially with criminals? I bought my pistol privately. This pistol is not registered and I am the third owner of that gun. But for all intents and purposes I could be the only owner of that gun because there are no records of anyone ever owning that gun. Unless you establish a gun registry, which I am against, your idea of universal background check is not possible. It would be ideal but not possible. That is why your car comparison is pointless. The car is registered, the gun isn't. I didn't break state law. The car was never registered after it was sold. It became scrap metal.
2
" You set up an online form to fill out and submit and then a background check is run before the sale is allowed to be completed" But how are you going to know? Are you going to force guns to be registered? There are no records of who owns the gun. Even if it were to become law I can still sell all of my guns to who ever I want because there are no records of my owning them. How would the government know I sold it to them or if the person I sold the to owned them the entire time? That is the flaw in your line of thinking. So please explain how you will enforce it if there are no records on who owns the guns? On the car, the car I sold was going to become scrap metal. It was sold to a family member and I knew what the fate of the car was. I guess if the government wants to split hairs we can come up with a title for a car that no longer exists. But the reality is that the car was sold, not title was exchanged, and the car is now scrap metal. No different then cars that just sit there in the field collecting rust. As long as the car is not registered or used in any sort of crime then there are no problems.
2
" This argument that because criminals don't follow the law you shouldn't have laws is so absurd and I only hear this with guns. " We don't even have to make that argument because law abiding citizens are going to go through the paper work either way. The issue becomes how do you track the sales of all guns? My dad gave me one of my guns. How does the government know that he ever owned it? There isn't a paper trail at all on that gun. There isn't a "pink slip" on that gun. For all the government knows I owned that gun the entire time. Same thing with the shotgun I own. There are not any papers on that gun of previous owners. The sale was done in a parking lot. The cops could have shown up but would not have known who was the owner of that gun. Now how do you track all of that?
2
"ut if your sold gun was used in a crime and was traced back to you" How do you trace the gun back to the original owner?
2
" A universal background check is not asking a lot. At least support this." I get the point of a universal background check. I am just saying how do you enforce it if guns are not registered? In gun sales dealers perform background checks because they are selling to strangers for the most part. But in private sales it is usually done between two people who know each other. My dad knows I am not a criminal. My friends knew that when they sold me their guns. The risk is pretty much null at that point. The question becomes how do you enforce it if there are not paper trails on gun ownership?
2
To let you know I am not opposed to background checks. I would have gotten all of my guns either way. The questions becomes 1. How do you trace guns if there are no paper trails on them? I am against a gun registry. 2. How would a background check stop any of these mass shootings?
2
"If we had a universal background check system, there would be a record of sale and if there wasn't, " So you support a gun registry now? That is the question being asked to you.
2
"Then register the fucking guns." Which I am against. The idea of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny. The last thing I want is the government knowing what guns I own. You see, it isn't as easy as "universal background checks". One, a background check would not have prevented any of these mass shootings. Next, for it to fully work you need gun registry which I am against.
2
That's it. When you have no other rebuttal just stand on the graves of victims and call others who disagree with you a murderer. Real mature of you. I asked legit questions and all you do is stand on the graves of victims and call me a murderer.
2
I am willing to compromise. You are the one that isn't. Here is why. 1. You won't accept basic facts 2. You want a gun registry which is one step closer to gun confiscation 3. when asked hard questions, such as what will be the next policy after the next shooting, you call me a murderer I have no problem with background checks. I am just pointing out major flaws in your line of thinking and you don't like it
2
" I asked you what gun control policies you would support and you said none. " We have all the gun laws we need. In order for universal background checks to work you will need a gun registry which I don't want. Also, expanding the background checks we have already won't stop the mass shootings or gun murders we have going on right now. " I then tired to convince you to at least accept a universal background check that in no way prevents you from getting a gun or takes guns away from law abiding citizens" Nor will it stop the current murders that are happening or mass shootings. That is because most gun sales involve a background check. For you to get what you want you need a gun registry which I am against. "Yes, you don't care about the shootings. Yes, you are insulting the victims. " No, it is that I can control my emotions and not go against thought and logic. "And yes, you have blood on your hands because it's your policies that are leading to people dying from guns." And what policies would that be? "No one is saying you'll eliminate every shooting, but can we at least reduce them?" Gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years, seems like are are reducing them. "That means no action at all and that's apparently what you are for and will no budge at all." What you are proposing now would not have stopped any of these shootings or gun murders. That is the point. You are pushing for a law that will literally do nothing but create a gun registry which I am opposed to.
2
" I dropped every other proposal and just kept the one that is not controversial at all" It is controversial because I just gave you some burning questions on it. It doesn't matter if 90% want it. If you were to ask that same question but then added the part of the gun registry then I guarantee you that number would drop. But that is a moot point because I am showing clear holes in what you support and you are not even acknowledging them. You are just simply saying "well it won't stop all shootings". That is not my argument. My argument is 1. How would it have stopped these shooting we have had 2. How will it stop the current gun murders we have (which has been dropping by the way) 3. After another mass shooting, then what? What will you push for next? 4. Will you be against a gun registry? I asked those burning questions and you simply called me a murderer. You are over emotional that you have no logic at all. "You're probably against smart guns too that only the owner could fire. " Technology has been known to fail and override easily. The gun is a mechanical object.
2
"Learn how to compromise." I am compromising. The issue with you is that 1. you don't question anything 2. you don't set any standards I pointed out obvious holes in your whole "universal background checks" and all you did was cry. On standards, that ties into after another mass shooting what is the next step? You said you are willing to compromise and just have universal background checks, fine. But you also said that you support other laws as well. After another mass shooting is your argument going to be "just compromise and ban semi autos" or "just compromise and have a gun registry" or "just compromise and support magazine limits". Where does it stop for you? We have standards that are listed in the constitution and we have those standards for a reason. The standards prevent the whole "just compromise" argument you are making. There is no compromising, the 2nd amendment is there. When we start this whole "just compromise" thing that is when we lose our rights. I proposed ways to lower crime without attacking our rights. You are saying "just compromise" with zero standards. You have major flaws in your argument.
2
" It's literally 100% of what you want or nothing at all. " Wanting nothing at all will be pushing to remove current laws we have. We have gun laws. We have background checks. You are now pushing for more and saying "just compromise". Ok, I compromise and will accept universal background checks on the grounds that after the next mass shooting you will stand up and say "we need to push other policies that are not gun related to lower crime." The fact is that you won't. The fact is that after the next mass shooting you will cry "just compromise and pass more gun laws".
2
"You literally said no to every single one of my proposals." I never said no to any of your proposals, I simply questioned them. In order to compromise you have to 1. understand basic facts 2. understand the flaws and risks of what you are proposing 3. set standards My standard is the 2nd amendment. Background checks do not violate it. What does is a gun registry because it allows the government to track what guns are where in case they want to confiscate them. What is your standard? How do you set a universal background check without setting up a gun registry? And do you understand that a background check would not have stopped any of these mass shootings?
2
"The point is, we need to do something to reduce gun violence. " Gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. We also have gun laws already on the book. I really don't see the need to do something when it comes to guns. I see a need to do something when it comes to problems we have with areas in this country that are stricken with poverty and high crime. But if reducing gun violence is your goal then there is nothing that needs to be done considering how gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. "You want people to take you seriously? Then yes, you have to compromise. " I am willing to compromise as long as you are. " You want to say, well I'm against an assault weapons ban because I feel that infringes on our rights, but I'm willing to concede on a universal background check for example, you'd at least come off as reasonable." Not really because why is that reasonable? Based off of what? You have to set standards. " Instead, you sat there arguing with me over a universal background check after I conceded every other position to you," No, I am asking burning questions that you keep refusing to answer. "And simple police work is how you enforce a universal background check or are police not allowed to interview people now when a crime happens?" You make it sound so simple when it isn't. I will ask the questions again and hopefully you will answer them 1. How would have a universal background check stopped any of these mass shootings and current gun murders? 2. After you get a universal background checks, which is adding to the already current laws we have, what will be your reaction to the next mass shooting? 3. Would universal background checks lead to a gun registry? Remember, a lot of guns don't have a paper trail in terms of ownership with them. And this brings up another question 4. What is your definition of a "sale"? Laws need standards and definitions. What do you define as a "sale"? Is giving the gun away as a gift a "sale"? Or someone receiving it as an inheritance? Is that a "sale"? What is your definition of a "sale"? Those are the burning questions you have to answer. Your problem is that you are jumping up and down yelling "COMPROMISE WITH BACKGROUND CHECKS" but failing to consider the consequences.
2
"Any time a gun transfers there needs to be a background check, period. Whether you're gifting it or not should not matter. " Ok, so any gun transfer and not just gun sales. "I am not saying that every single shooting can be stopped. What fucking part of this are you not getting?" I get what you are saying. The issues that nobody talks about more gun laws until there is a mass shooting. While you may not be pushing for more laws others will. After the next mass shooting there will be talks of more laws to the point of gun confiscation unless there is a standard set. That is what you need to realize. " I'm saying we can do things to reduce the absurd level of gun violence in this country." Which has been falling for the past 20 years. This was even after we got rid of a law, the AWB. You want to reduce gun violence when it already is happening. So that begs the question why create laws that could potentially take away our second amendment right when the very goal of that law is already being met without it? "What specific gun control policies are you willing to concede?" Considering that 1. we have laws on the books already including background checks, and more were added in states after recent shootings 2. gun murder have been dropping for the past 20 years 3. most gun crime is isolated in pockets of crime in the US in places such as Detroit, Baltimore, East St. Louis and so on 4. Most gun crime is gang or drug related The issue to me is not guns. The issue is that we need to attack poverty and poor education in inner city schools. Find ways to reduce gang activity. You are so stuck on the object, the gun in this case, instead of trying to help the person. If someone commits a murder with a knife you don't ban that person from possessing a knife, you put them in jail and try (or at least supposed to) rehabilitate them. Universal background checks just makes it more of a hassle for the legal gun owners. Considering all I listed above I see no need for any new gun laws. I see a need to reduce crime in areas of high crime. This is now that point where we need to help the people instead of attacking guns. "Do you support any weapon bans at all? Right now, fully automatic weapons are banned" Actually they aren't. They are just highly restricted. I know a guy who owns three fully autos. "Should you be allowed to purchase a tank?" You can actually legally own a tank as well. " Does the 2nd Amendment have any limits at all in your mind? " Nope, just depends on the definition of an arm. A nuclear missile is not an arm. What launches the missile is, but not the missile. "We regulate freedom of speech in that we do not allow you to directly incite violence." That's not true. What that is called is making a call to action. "Can we limit ammunition at all, or should we allow someone to buy thousands upon thousands of rounds and high capacity magazines? " ' There are limitations on some ammo and on high capacity magazines because they are not arms. But that brings up a good point. A "compromise" was banning 100 round drums (despite them being inefficient). I mean, who needs 100 round drums? The problem is that now we have politicians that are pushing to ban magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. In NY it is now 10 rounds passed after the movie theater shooting. That goes back to the compromise to you may be universal background checks, but after the next major shooting people will push for more laws. " Can we at least prevent people on the terror watch list from buying a gun? " Until they have due process the answer is no. "How about we encourage personal responsibility and mandate gun liability insurance? " Because mandating purchasing of something to own it is making it harder to own. " We require licensing for cars, why not guns?" As long as you don't drive the car on public roads you don't have to license it. Also, owning a car is a privilege, owning a gun is a right. "Show me you are reasonable." What's reasonable? Banning 100 round drums was reasonable at one point. Now it is limiting it to 10 round magazines. Reasonable is not defined and has not standards. "Show me you give a damn about the victims." I care about the victims. I also care about our rights. "What will be my reaction? The same reaction I always have. Get angrier and angrier as we continue to do nothing to even address the issue of gun violence." But my question was referring to if we did pass background checks. Or are you saying that you will then push for more gun laws? " We can't even expand background checks because people like you scream confiscation. " I bring up a very legit concern and very legit points. "Dylann Roof failed a background check but because the FBI failed to finish the background check in three days, the store was legally allowed to sell him the gun, a gun Roof shouldn't have been able to buy." What I see there is that a background check didn't do it's job. Seems like you are pushing for something that doesn't even work based off of your example. "No, it wouldn't create a registry." What makes you so sure? I have a feeling you will push for one come the next shooting. "Background check records are routinely destroyed after a 24 hour period upon completion." They are now. What is going to make they stop doing that though?
2
"Yup. Nothing. Exactly what I said you would support." I told you policies I would support and why. You are attacking the gun instead of actually trying to help society. How about you attack the 4th amendment. If we could randomly search people's homes the movie theater shooting would not have happened. If we would allow the government to spy on us 24/7 the nightclub shooting could have been prevented. Why do you support murder? Why don't you want the government to monitor us? Why are you not willing to compromise? That is what you sound like.
2
"There most certainly were. You were provided with facts and later completely disregarded it with rambling, but I'll get to that." It is a water down definition of a "mass shooting" that places the gang shooting at 2 AM in an area of high crime with a shooting by a deranged man at a college campus. The latter of the two is a tragic event that is a rarity. The former is a problem of gang activity. The person also said that it uses FBI's statistics when it doesn't. It is no different then when people say X amount die per year with guns but fail to mention that almost 2/3 of them are suicides. "You must be paranoid. If you believe you need a semiautomatic rifle for self defense, and that a gang could pull up at any moment and shoot up your house, I genuinely can't take you seriously. Of course you should always lock your doors. The fact that you found locking your doors at night to be a fair comparison to needing a semiautomatic rifle for unlikely self defense scenarios is mind-blowingly stupid." I am not paranoid. You should always plan for the worse. There is not increase danger in having a loaded gun in my drawer by my bed. Thus I have one just in case. According to you, and the other people commenting here I have a high chance of getting shot since apparently there is a mass shooting everyday. The fact is that I live in an area of low crime and zero gang related activity. My chances are small, but it still exists thus I have protection if I need it. " is mind-blowingly stupid" Says the person who just claimed I have the intelligence of a 3rd grader. "You're rambling. None of this is relevant to what +Raizhen010 had said. If you had bothered to read the article he posted, you would have known that he was basing it off of 4 or more injured or killed. There should be no need for confusion here in all honesty." I am not rambling because he lied and said it was based off of FBI's standards. It wasn't. I did call him out on it because I actually read the article and he chose to ignore it. Also, as I said, it lumps a shooting that occurs in an area of high crime with a shooting in a relatively safe area done by some deranged man. It is not comparable. There isn't any confusion on my part at all. "Everything +Raizhen010 proposed regarding guns is 100% reasonable. There is no reason any of that shouldn't be in place, and if there wasn't so much corruption, it likely would have happened already. Money in politics prevents much substantial change from happening. The only thing he proposed which could remotely be considered "stripping away people's rights" is an assault weapons ban (and a mandatory buy back program, but that was one of two options proposed)." You are having the same problem. What you feel is "reasonable" is not enough to some. When you say "reasonable" you are throwing out a word that has no standard. People felt it was "reasonable" to have a ban on 100 round drums because who needs a magazine that holds that many bullets? But now it is "reasonable" to limit it to 10 rounds according to the politicians in NY. That's the point, you have to set standards. That is what I was pushing for with the questions I have been asking. What are the standards? If he gets his universal background check and another mass shooting happens, he has to realize that there will be people pushing for even more gun laws, and I feel by his over emotional rant that he will be one of the ones pushing for it. "Money in politics prevents much substantial change from happening" No, maintaining our rights is what keeping things from changing. We have a standard in the 2nd amendment. Also, the issue of gun laws does not come up until after a mass shooting. The reason why is because gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years. Most gun violence is gang or drug related in areas where poverty is high. At that point guns are not the issue. The issue of guns is brought up after a mass shooting because emotions are high and thus logic and reasoning is down. Politicians are able to run with people's emotions to get legislation passed. Any other time people would be able to think and realize guns are not a problem. "Question: Who are you to say what defines a mass shooting better than someone else? How can you claim a definition to be watered down, when there is no base definition to begin with? You can't say "You need to get basic facts straight before you can have an opinion." when the only "facts" are different basings of something that has no standard yet. We've already established that the statistics are based on "4 or more killed or injured", so there should be no confusion; you're being willfully ignorant at this point." Who is the other person to define what a "mass shooting" is? They claimed that it is based off of the standard from the FBI. It isn't. That is a complete lie they said, but you didn't see that I called them out on it. It does say to us the FBI's definition but fails to provide a link or a source to the FBI's website. At that point the article lies as well. You, and the other person is watering down a standard to fit an agenda. It is no different then lumping suicides in gun related deaths to push for gun laws when you say you motive is to reduce gun violence. Suicides are self inflicted and thus should not be included. It is also no different then when people say there have been all these school shootings but get the inflated stats by including a gang shooting on school grounds at 3 in the morning. Yes, it was a shooting on school property. It wasn't during school hours though or related to the school beyond that. It all comes down to standards. From you I see no standards either. You are willing to accept some statistic that flat out lies on how it sets it standards when the FBI does not have a definition on what a "mass shooting" is. If it did then the source should have cited it but didn't. You say I have the intelligence of a third grader but by how easily you were fooled by that mass shooting list I would say you have one of a kindergartner. You clearly don't know how to question sources or any new laws of what is going on.
2
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year I will add that you said I live in paranoia when you are the ones feeling that we have a high level of mass shootings a year. It seems to me that you feel that you have a high chance of getting shot which is why you feel that a gun law is "reasonable". I don't feel that way. To change up your quote a bit, to feel that gang related shootings is a fair comparison to some random mass shooting and that you need more gun laws to feel safe "is mind-blowingly stupid."
2
Nope, all we have to do is give ET a virus like in War of the Worlds or Independence Day.
1
You can legally own a grenade. I will always remember a kid bringing one to show and tell in 3rd grade. It was with permission of course.
1
A lot of mass shootings were done with handguns.
1
I know the grenade can't be live, but you can own one and it isn't hard to make it live. Just like you can take a semi automatic and easily turn inot a fully auto. Also, you can kill just as many with a handgun when you 1. are in a gun free zone 2. have multiple magazines The simple fact is that guns are not a major problem in the US. And you just can't restrict what guns to own because when you do and another mass shooting happens, like what happened in Columbine under the AWB, then what? What new, magical law to stop these shootings will you pass next?
1
When you water down the definition of what a mass shooting is than you can have thousands. That stat there says 4 or more victims. Now what is your definition of a victim? If one guy gets shot then that is one victim. But what about the family? Aren't they victims? I would say yes thus now that is, by your water down definition, a mass shooting. If you make it more strict and follow the FBI's standard, and then remove gang related shootings, the number becomes 4. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/no-there-were-not-355-mass-shootings-this-year You can't just group everything in the same category. " If a gang attacked you, you're fucked." But shouldn't I at least have a fighting chance? "36,000 American die each year as the result of a gun " Which most of them are suicides and gang related. "Why are you okay with this kind of gun violence?" I am not ok with violence period. We should try to solve the issue of violence. With suicides that is a completely different issue that is not gun related.
1
"No you can't. If you didn't register a car you were actively driving, you broke state law. " As long as you don't drive it on public roads then it is completely legal. "You simply cannot give someone a car without signing over the title. " Yes you can, just don't register it. "There is absolutely no reason why we can't do the same with guns" Owning a gun is a right, driving a car is a privilege. "Nearly 90% of the country is in favor of universal background checks" Oh look, another made up stat. "It's the most basic common sense thing we can do." Ah, the "common sense" argument showing you have no clue what you are talking about. "Being against even that makes you an extremist who should not be taken seriously." Who ever said I was against background checks?
1
"No. The second amendment was designed for creating militias before we had a standing army. Learn historical context." Funny how you say "learn historical context" when during the time the 2nd amendment was written the people were fighting against a tyrannical government. "More people die in the United States from gun violence than any other first world country in the world" You are being very deceptive in saying that. Most deaths are from suicides. Others are gang and drug related. I told you how I would lower that but improving education and opportunity for those in poor areas. Suicides are self inflicted and are not a gun issue at all. " when we propose something as simple as a universal fucking background check, you gun nut lunatics scream gun confiscation." You just said you want a gun registry. As is most gun sales have a background check. Most of these mass shootings involved background checks or illegally obtaining a gun. The issue becomes that after these laws are passed and another mass shooting happens, then what? More laws or do you finally admit that maybe we should be doing something else? Or maybe guns are not an issue. What is it. "The goal is to reduce the number of murders and have a means of punishing murders." The number of murders with guns have been dropping in the past 20 years. Notice how these laws only get pushed after a mass shooting when emotions are high (and thus reasoning is down)? That is because at any other time guns are not an issue.
1
You won't go farther because you enjoy ignorance. That is why you cited an article that literally lies on the FBI standard of what a mass shooting is. I also do have a life. Try earning a PhD......but in order to do that you have to actually understand facts.
1
I don't like ignorance. I see a high level of ignorance here. You can't even get basic facts straight. Saying we have all these mass shootings and pointing to a website that lies in the standards they use is ignorance. You are giving the predictable response. You have not actual rebuttal than just name call. How about you tell me why your source lied in how they claim to us FBI standard in mass shooting when 1. they don't give a link or a citation 2. the FBI doesn't even have a definition The difference between me, a man of intelligence, and Kyle, a man of ignorance is that I can actually back up my criticism. Kyle and you just mock and name call.
1
At the same time it is fun to see how dumb people are. It makes me realize that I will always have a job.
1
"Calling this your job just gives me a sad cringe" This isn't my job. "We can back it up as well" Then do it. Tell me why did that source you cite lie? Most of the time I ask very simple questions. There is my simple question to you.
1
"As said, you are not worth it. I don´t think you are worth the time to make long sentences and put in citations and links." I have just belittled you down to you just calling me names. "You yourself said you´d always have a job thanks to this." I will always have a job because employers want skilled, intelligent people. "You must be really lonely to have to reply all the time that fast with citation and all but forgetting what you yourself wrote. Are you just waiting for my answer? I kinda pity you." Actually I am not lonely considering how active I am in work and the community. These comments don't take long to write, especially considering how I am debating people that quickly resort to name calling and give sources that are very easy to criticize.
1
I get it. I show how unreliable your source it in that it flat out lies so the only ammo you have left is to name call.
1
"The only thing you showed so far is that because of proposal of normal gun laws as are in any normal country, you are paranoid and expect absolute gun ban in the future. " We have gun laws on the books. I asked the other person a very simple question. If you get universal background checks passed and another mass shooting happen, are you going to push for more gun laws? Instead they avoided the question. Maybe you can answer it. The problem is that people do push for more laws when 1. we have laws already 2. the "gun problem" is exaggerated considering how gun murders have been dropping for the past 20 years 3. most gun crime lies in inner cities and areas of high poverty Off of that I don't see why we have to attack the 2nd amendment when we can take other measures to lower crime. Also, attacking the 2nd amendment is arbitrary. Why attack just gun crime? Why not all crime? That is what I push for? If you are so set on removing rights why not attack the 4th amendment? Why not allow the federal government to spy on us and randomly search our homes? That would have stopped the movie theater shooting and most likely this more recent shooting. Do you support that? Maybe you can answer that simple question as well. So far you avoided the other one-to remind you it was Why did the source you cite lie about the FBI standards? Three simple questions. To present them in an organize matter 1. After passing gun laws and another mass shooting happens will you push for more? 2. Why attack the 2nd amendment, why not the 4th and try to lower all crime? 3. Why did the source you cite lie about the FBI standards?
1
"you just denied the fact that there were 372 mass shootings in America in 2015 without refuting it with any fact" I did. The source that keeps getting pushed on me waters down the definition of a mass shooting. It places a mass shooting done by some derange guy at a school in the same category as a gang related shooting (when around 80% of gun murders are gang related). That is similar to how people say a school shooting happening when a student brings a gun to school during school hours is the same as a shooting happening on school grounds at 3 in the morning. Also that source says it uses the FBI standard when 1. it fails to cite the FBI in any way 2. the FBI does not have a definition for a mass shooting So that source literally lied. I did refute it with facts.
1
" I wouldn´t just implement background checks, I would retire high capacity magazines, all calibers/bullets which can shoot through police wests which are not par to hunting guns, purchase of wests stronger than police wests and explosives." Ok, now three questions 1. if those laws pass and another mass shooting happens, then what? Will you push for more laws? 2. You do know that the 2nd amendment was to prevent tyranny? 3. You do know that most shootings involve handguns? "No I wouldn´t allow spying without a court order and just on a whim..Privacy and control of dangerous means are different things," Not really. Under privacy you can build bombs and stock up on ammo like Holmes did before he shot up the movie theater. You have keep someone in your property for 18 years like what happened to Jaycee Dugard. The right to privacy can lead to lots of crime. As a lawyer told me, you can have sex with little boys as long as you don't get caught in this country because of our right to privacy. "I don´t give a fuck what they count in as ´´FBI standard´´, " So you don't care about standards? I guess we can just make up things along the way. Also, it isn't just standards. It is the fact that the source you present lied. How can you trust it? " also it was a different source than was previously mentioned" Nope, same one. "You posted a motherjones article which is less believable than joke-site and then complain about something which doesn´t even matter" Motherjones at least gave links to what they cited (including the FBI) and names. ", when you get straight facts plastered in your face." A site that literally lies is not one I will go to for facts. "But fuck, you must be really lonely to write such an essay again, fuck, get a girl or some friends, srsly. I know why you´d rather have the 4th amendment breached. maybe, but just maybe someone would finally show some interest in you, even if just tiny bit..." I have plenty of friends. Just ate lunch with a couple today. Talked to another today about help on studying for my PhD qualification exam. As I said, I don't much thought in this because the people I debate here are not that intelligence. It is similar to me being LeBron James and you being an 8th grade fat kid and we are playing 1 on 1 basketball. I wouldn't have to try hard to beat you. As in this case here, I point out how the source you gave me lied. Your reaction is "I don't give a fuck as long as it supports my propaganda".
1
"Lol you are just a dumbass child who thinks because he is studying for a PhD he somewhere gathered some intelligence which you can´t even use the right wording for. Fucking illiterate. " I am studying for my PhD. I have two papers published and am working on a third. You don't have to believe me which is fine. It has taught me to question things and think critically. And also find mistakes like when a site lies. I guess you lack those skills but that doesn't shock me with the colorful language you use. "I have a PhD for 23 years you dumbass child but I didn´t mention it before, since I thought, by your train of thought, I´m talking to a 12 year old. " Doubtful with the language you use or the fact that you can't answer very simple questions I pose to you. Also, you trust a cite that literally lied. "The site I posted has nothing said about any FBI standards that´s just fucking fabrication of your dumbass mind, get it ?. Check the fucking source before you say it´s the same you fucking ignorant cocky shit. " http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/methodology That is the methodology, in fact it has zero standards. I guess we can just make up any standard we want. http://www.shootingtracker.com/ That is the site that says the FBI standard in which gunviolencearchive does not do anything to call them out or disagree with them. So either they are saying they use the made up FBI standard or don't even have a standard at all. The GVA is some random site that links to a lot of other gun control advocate sites and has a lot of missing statistics related to guns. It is pure propaganda. If you really had a PhD for 23 years you wouldn't fall for it. But considering you don't have much of a formal education I can see why you did. "I won´t answer to someone who is clearly lying and cannot answer a question himself. I was for those laws since forever and another mass shooting after that won´t change it. That´s the first question, the other 2 is just cocky shittalk on assumptions I wouldn´t know the most simple things." I have answered all your questions. So if those laws are passed you won't push for more gun laws? Ok. Will you finally admit that we need to push for policies to lower crime? Your refusal to answer the other two questions displays your ignorance. As I said I have no problem answering questions. I just you can just avoid them and remain myopic. "´´Not really´´ Well that´s just your fucking ignorant opinion without facts. I have facts they were, are, doing that. You denying it with a ´´not really´´ like a dumbass child doesn´t make facts disappear. " I have yet to see facts from you. " Just because people HAVE to share the same table as you but are probably disgusted by your stupidity, doesn´t mean they are friends. Glad you didn´t reply to the girlfriend comment , which proves you have none, virgin dumbass. " Nope, I have plenty of friends. I don't want a GF. I like the freedom to do whatever and whoever I want. And what does being a virgin have to do with anything? If that is your standard in life then fine. I have had sex many times, it isn't that big of a deal to me. Having a great job that I enjoy and intelligence is. "I won´t even get more into the privacy ´debate´ since you are just too stupid for that and it would take too much time to write sentences you wouldn´t even understand judging by the lack of intellect you displayed so far. " No, it is that you have no problem attacking the 2nd amendment but love to hold on dearly to the 4th. I guess you are hiding something. I have nothing to hide. I guess you do. How many little boys are you holding captive in your run down apartment? "I debated people before you were born, cocky kiddolino. Cocky, dumbass people like you are the reason universities get dragged down to a low. " I bet those people you debated have a lot more intelligence than you. "Where is the fact that the source lied? Show it, don´t make it up as you go to another insurmountable stupid question." I showed you. At the very least it made up some arbitrary standard. I mean, why stop at 4, why not 1? Why not include the victim's family? I mean the number of mass shootings must be out the roof at that point.
1
Seriously though, with your constant use of profanity I am just picturing you as some teenager in your mom's basement.
1
" Yeah, so you lied before about checking the source since it wasn´t the same, yet it was basically the only point you had for sooo long. Good going again. To repeat your question, if you lied, why should I trust you about anything? " I didn't lie. I looked at both sources and saw the methods and standards. If you want to go off of our source alone then yes, they didn't cite the FBI. They used some arbitrary standard they more or less pulled out of thin air. Based off of that I can't trust that source still. "As said, police force abused to spy on love interest and for discrimination, you ignore that, why?" I agree. And gun control doesn't exist. What you have is centralized gun ownership in the government and the workers. The idea of the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny. "Refusal to answer the other two questions are showing my ignorance? Wtf, they are questions whether I know obvious things, so I will answer them. Yes, I know, it doesn´t matter. Fuckall you are indescribably cocky, your mom should´ve slapped some sense into you but I guess it´s too late.. " Yes, it is showing your ignorance, or that you are just too scared to answer the question in fear of looking foolish and lacking knowledge on the issue. Based on how you answered it now shows that you can only resort to insults instead of an actual intelligent conversation, I love how you condone violence by saying " your mom should´ve slapped some sense into you" meanwhile are pushing for gun control off of the idea that it will lower violence. "I´m done you are a cocky, dumbass liar who denies facts to push for his agenda." What facts did I deny? I didn't deny anything. I questioned an arbitrary standard where one site lied and said ti was based off of the FBI's standard. "Tip for the future: If you are as cocky you are don´t be surprised if people use fruity language or smash your head in." There you go condoning more violence. I see the true nature of you now. I own four guns and never once did I condone violence on anyone on this thread. You want to take away guns and instead what people to slap each other or smash other people's head in. "PS: Learn how to write and use words properly, you have grammatical errors all over" Ironic......let's see "I´m done you are a cocky" Your words.....really? Do you really feel that is grammatically correct? Also " If you are as cocky you are don´t be surprised...." You are missing a verb or "Fuckall you are indescribably..." There should be a space between "Fuck" and "all". Oh, I also found this....BTW this is all in just your most recent comment "you ignore that..." It should be "ignored", past tense. I ignored it in the past. Continuing "Refusal to answer the other two questions are showing my ignorance? " Should be is, not are. We are talking about you, you are the noun, singular. I mean, come on. You are making this way too easy for me. Usually I don't attack people's grammar on a youtube comment because these are comments and not dissertations, but you made this one too easy to resist. "One cannot believe that you published even one paper." When writing publish work it has a lot of editing. "You showed me that your are a paranoid dumbass, nothing more." I don't see how I am paranoid. I do see that you are violent, dangerous, and is a very easy target to debate.
1
I think you are just embarrassed by all the grammar mistakes you made even though you called me out on mine. What is funny is that I pointed out a lot of yours, you didn't even point out mine. As I said, you made this way too easy.
1
"Haha kiddo, english is my 5th language besides Czech, German and Portuguese, Japanese. So no, I´m not embarrassed. " Lame excuse. Face it, you failed in that one. By studying that many languages you should have a deep understanding in grammar. "Also you should be embarrassed about claiming that I posted a website that would lie about ´´FBI Standards´´ for 2 hours and then checking the site after accusing me of posting that. That is embarrassing." I didn't lie. I explained to you how the made up a standard and another website said it was an FBI standard in which the website you posted didn't disagree. Either way it is an arbitrary standard. "There are more, like cite instead of site." What? I say "site" as in website, I say "cite" as in citation. But if your attacking my grammar is all you got then it is clear that on the issue of guns I am more knowledgeable. " But there was one where you use ´intelligence´ instead of correctly ´intellect´ which made it especially funny. " Yeah, I need the sentence in which I said that. I have a strong feeling, based on how you write, that you are not correct on that one either. " I think it was the one before where I first called you illiterate" Do I need to go back and point out your grammar mistakes again? It is clear at this point you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to guns. You cite (as in citation) to a site (as in website) that used some arbitrary standard on what a "mass shooting" is. Beyond that you basically said "guns are bad" and called me names using profanity. This is just entertainment to me at this point since you ran away from the debate.
1
Actually I am done. I have to study for my PhD test. What I find to be funny is you said this "Why would I, to waste time on nothing but dumbass excuses" multiple times in different ways. You are continuing to waste your time with me. You go ahead and have the last word, I need to study for my exam.
1