Oh hey, you finally found the right debate topic, good for you.
The Democrat Party and people who vote for them support NO RESTRICTION ABORTIONS of viable babies up to birth for any reason!
I support life of mother abortions, but those who vote for Democrats SUPPORT ALL ABORTIONS!
Wow, love me a straight up and inaccurate blanket statement, you clearly have not talked to many democrats about what they believe. Every single democrat I know (and I know a lot) does not believe the "no restrictions" abortion. The ones that are pro choice have varying beliefs about when it is alright and when not. I, for one, am still developing details of my opinion due to the fact that I don't feel I have earned enough about it in order to confidently state my specific opinion.
However, I currently believe in generally pro-choice. I think it should definitely be allowed if it was rape, and for life of mother, but I also believe if they are not financially or mentally, or in whatever way, prepared to raise a child then they shouldn't have to especially if it was an accident. Forcing teens to keep their baby just because they "weren't careful enough" leads to a lot more problems. They'll likely end up homeless, or get into a bad relationship just to have help to keep from homelessness, or have a malnourished child because they couldn't afford to take care of it, or they'll abuse the kid, and for any of those the kid will either suffer or be put into the already overflowing foster care system (and they'll have a hard time with that too), or if they don't raise the kid then they'll just put the kid up for adoption which has its own issues.
Bottom line, If they won't be ready for parenthood, why the fuck would you want to force them to raise a kid for at least 18 years that isn't ready and doesn't want to be a parent? The only way it's possible to be a great parent is if you love your kid and want to be their parent. The world is already full of people whose parents don't want them, no point of bringing in more.
I never said everything in the Bible is untrue, or that it isn't based on truth or anything like that. I'm just saying it's not a reliable source for fact. No matter what anyone says, the details of religion are not provable. Like nobody can prove what prophets saw, whether they saw God or not. I personally do believe in God, and most people do. My only point was to not act like one could ever convince someone to believe using their scriptural evidence, because it only counts as evidence to the people with the same beliefs.
Whew gagging at the smell of testosterone fogging up the debate There's no way to argue logic with religion. You argue logic with logic and religion with religion. Religion is subjective, even if you think you're right, because guess what? Every religion thinks they're right and there's no way of proving any of them without using religious sources, so you can mention it and say it's what you believe, but you can't expect everyone else to agree with you because it just doesn't make sense. The only concrete fact about the bible, for example, is that it was created a very long time ago by many men who edited and cut out whatever they wanted from the material and chose what ultimately was part of it. And on top of this, it was translated into a ridiculous amount of languages hundreds of years before it even got written in English, AND there are tons of English versions as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
"The autographs, the Greek manuscripts written by the original authors, have not survived. Scholars surmise the original Greek text from the manuscripts that do survive." Like, the original text isn't even with anyone to show how accurate translations are.
Bottom line, don't try to fight religion with evidence-based logic or vice versa?
I find it genuinely impressive that you managed to write 4 "arguments" that only included 4 sentences that at all actually talked about guns.
If you want to know my opinion on other subjects like abortion and drunk driving as you so fallaciously brought up in this debate, I'll meet you in the relevant topic. Otherwise, there's no purpose in trying to debate a topic that you refuse to actually talk about.
Translation: I can't have logical discussions with morons (I can't fight stupid), so I'll be here when you wanna actually talk about the subject at hand. Which is whether guns should be legal, btw, in case you forgot.
It is, and I'm pro choice. But it seems most people in this country are trying very hard to stop that from being true. I'm in the oh-so-wonderful land of the free, the U S of A. Where we think guns are a great idea and that sperm just have to hit a uterus to be full humans and it should be counted as murder if you get rid of it from that point forward.
My dude, you are dumb as a brick. That's not even socialism if you actually tried to study what they practice versus what socialism means. They are pretending it's socialism but it is a dictatorship, just as Germany was when Hitler pretended he would have communism and make the country better.
Here- https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Yeah wow, ok. So yes important contribution, it's actually 125 less deaths than the over 38,000 deaths. Thanks for the update.
But yeah, sorry. I meant to include the CDC in my list. Except use this link for reference since it actually has the recent stats. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/
You totally ignored my entire argument
I did read it, I didn't want to write a shit ton about it because it is not relevant to this topic. It most definitely is a horrible problem, and I have plenty of opinions and sources for that too, but it has exactly zero to do with guns.
Look in the mirror the next time you start preaching about more gun control while ignoring your vices in life.
I don't even drink alcohol, so don't make it sound like it has anything to do with my personal life or morality.
Did you see what you just did? You totally ignored my entire argument speaking to back ground checks for people before they buy alcohol and kill people with cars. Why would you ignore this IF YOU TRULY CARED ABOUT SAVING LIVES!
Did you read what I posted? THERE ARE MUCH MORE GUN DEATHS THAN ALCOHOL RELATED DRIVING ONES. So if you're going to pretend to care about what kills people, actually pay attention to statistics. And I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic.
Why don't you study up on logical fallacies and question your own morals. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listoffallacies#Informal_fallacies, you should specifically check out "false equivalence," "incomplete comparison," "Onus probandi," and "Thought-terminating cliché").
Hypocritical dumb-ass.
Sorry, my fault for not backing everything up with sources. I forgot that the people arguing for this usually know nothing about the details of history on the topic.
The only reason there is any hint of a crime/race correlation is because there is a crime/poverty correlation and black people are disproportionately poor. You’ll find higher rates of crime among poor inner city white people as well.
Well duh. I was talking about the root issue. Why are they disproportionately poor? Are you one of the people that will try to say it's their culture" Or will you say it's their biology? Their natural place? I would hope you don't think any of those, but if you do I'll tell you right now, you're wrong. They are all so disproportionately poor because of racism, because of the segregation that happened for so long and so aggressively. But yes, I agree that there is higher crime because of the poor areas. It just obviously isn't a natural thing. And as promised, citation to back me up- https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/
This country was founded in racism. That’s because everyone everywhere existed in conditions of blatant racism by today’s standards. What the country was founded on however, were principles that were the foundations on which the entire world began to move past racial distinctions."
Ha, right, and proof of the world being round was enough for everyone to believe it. If that was true, why are black people still very much discriminated against in every path of life? Black people have a generally lower chance of even getting to a decent place in life. https://mffh.org/news/
And nah, I meant on racism.
Which ones? Specifically.
Well, in case you're taking it this way, I need to clarify I am obviously aware that no laws explicitly say "black people can't do this or that." But various laws work together and, using previously created separations, keep the segregation strong. As said in that post I mentioned last, black people are largely poor. Being poor, thanks to the way our schools are currently funded, means you get shittier schools in the area. So, they're poor, going to school in an area with people living the same kind of life as them, and they aren't likely to grow up and be able to afford college to get a better job, they may not even leave the area. This forces them to stay where they are and it's why we haven't had more progression. Because you're right, the constitution in theory should have been for improving society, letting it progress. (Even though, the founding fathers clearly didn't see black people included in that progressions, considering multiple of them were slave owners.) I mean, in a couple hundred years you would think that if everyone or at least the leaders of our government wanted to progress then we wouldn't have such obvious segregation and so much institutionalized racism? But instead, we only "legally" got rid of slavery 100 years later and technically legalized their voting shortly after, but have yet to get rid of literally everything that still stops a lot of them from voting. (https://guides.loc.gov/15th-amendment)
Which specific white person?
First of all, obviously not every single white person has worsened it, just like not every black person is poor and not every white person is rich. By "white people," I mean as a group in society, and most of them have contributed. All the people that aren't specifically racist, but don't and didn't want to help with them getting equal rights, they're all contributing. There are plenty of specific white people that started things that made it better over time (like Lyndon B Johnson), because white people are in power and genuinely wants to help, and that's wonderful. But there are plenty of white people in power (many more) that started something that made it worse. No specific white person can make it worse on their own, nobody can be specifically blamed for this because if it wasn't a group, and especially the majority group, then this institutionalized racism would be still going strong today. But if you really want one person that is definitely getting groups going that is making it worse, I can confidently name Trump for that. The KKK has literally grown in his presidency. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/kkk-trump-membership-rise-grown-record-pace-says-leader-chris-barker-a7905811.html) The whole group of people that pretend to not be racist but have power in denying black people of anything at all (housing, food, transportation, etc) and make it look like their rejection was a completely different reason when there clearly is no other reason that makes sense? Those people are probably the biggest group helping keep most black people in their corner.
Every single person I have met who refuses to take responsibility for their circumstances is significantly worse off than those who take responsibility.
You keep acting like I am talking about every single person, like I'm making a blanket statement. When I talk about certain races, gender, ethnicity, classes, etc., I, just like most people when talking about society, mean in general/the majority/on average. I don't think it's fair at all to say that every single person is 100% responsible for how their circumstances is at all fair. I am not responsible for the fact that I can't afford to live on my own right now, because that is due to me going to school very full time and working as well. People that are born to homeless people are not responsible for the fact that they grew up homeless. People that were raped at a young age and now have to live with an STD along with all the trauma and societal attacks that go with being sexually assaulted, they are not responsible for their situation. The only one making legitimate blanket statements here is you hun. (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/05/us-inequality-poor-people-bad-choices-wealthy-bias)
Now that I've backed up just about everything I've said, I would love to see you try to disprove me doing the same.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
https://www.npr.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/
Read through these. questions, comments? Itried to pick mostly neutral sources but a couple of them may be biased somewhat, so apologies I guess
You clearly didn't write essays much in school. Ever learn to use any other websites than wikipedia? Maybe official government, university, or professional sites when trying to get reliable important info? Pretty sure you're the troll here hun
America is pretty stupid, yeah. The reason people fight for gun rights is not to keep them safe, it's because they like feeling powerful. And the reason they don't understand why they shouldn't have so much unrestricted gun access is because they don't want to accept the fact that they might be wrong and that other countries have chosen to get rid of guns and have good results as obvious proof.
If, on the other hand, you're not one of Nom's many shell accounts
I'm not a shell account, haven't even seen the user before this debate.
I did read your argument and links, and everything else on this entire debate. I never go into an argument or discussion uninformed or misinformed as far as I can control it. But my comment was questioning whether you actually read his arguments? Because the only response you had AT ALL was commenting on one of the multiple sources he used, VPC. Which, by the way, still is a source that uses actual studies. But even if you don't want to use information from them, that is fine because there plenty of other studies out there that have done the same studies. Either way, my point was that you did not seem to have read anything he actually wrote and linked
Makes literally no sense to say I'm cherry picking. I gave a more recent update on your numbers, and then gave more info that you left out while cherry picking. You had originally asked why anti-gun people are so obsessed with gun control when there are other things, I was simply giving the response that clarified why. The numbers speak for themselves.
Plus, I'm not even someone who thinks no guns should ever be allowed to touch a person's hands, as I'm guessing you assume I am. I think they are unnecessary, just because I know lots of numbers that show how often guns actually end up being helpful in the "defending myself and my house" argument ("In 2007-11, less than 1% of victims in all nonfatal violent crimes reported using a firearm to defend themselves during the incident." https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/
We can easily get those numbers of deaths and incidents down by making it so that guns are only given to people who know how to use them, and no matter what, semi-automatic weapons or really anything more than a pistol and maybe a hunting rifle for those who love to hunt so badly should be allowed. If everyone who had access to a gun was trained in how to use one, as in had to pass a test of some sort, then there would be much less cases of accidents. And if there were only pistols and hunting rifles, then there wouldn't be regular mass shootings like we have now.
The only reason there is any hint of crime/race correlation for people that were born and raised in the US is because there are deep-rooted historical racism issues. This country was founded on racism, still has laws to this day forcing segregation, and constantly has too many people convinced that racism isn't a big problem. So, yes, the problems in the hood are most definitely thanks to white people, ranging from the Colonies to the founding fathers the people today. And the people that think otherwise and refuse to allow their eyes to be opened are included in those maintaining the problem.
Not sure if you just proved idiocy, denial, or pride (or all three honestly) by the simple act of only responding to the one with a link from VPC. The gave another solid few links that you fully ignored the existence of it seems. I'm impressed anyone has bothered arguing with you, because it's well-known you just can't fight stupid.
In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
NHTSA ( https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/
Gun Violence Archive ( https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/)::) , https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
So honey, if you're going to talk numbers, you better look up all the numbers before you open your mouth
