Thoughts on gun control?

Author: drlebronski

Posts

Total: 98
#61
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
AR 15s protect you from gangs
Gang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.

This struck me as funny and the first thing that popped into my head was...the fight scene in 'The Outsiders.' No guns. Still a gang. Chains. Knives. Pipes. Fists. Still all "weapons" used for violence. 

Guns are merely a tool, the same as any other "tool" that can be (and has been) used for violent intent against another person. So no, take away guns they will just find another usefully effective "tool" to enact their 'gang' violence. 


#62
NerdWhoDebates
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
0
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
NerdWhoDebates
0
0
0
-->
@TWS1405
AR 15s protect you from gangs
Gang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.

This struck me as funny and the first thing that popped into my head was...the fight scene in 'The Outsiders.' No guns. Still a gang. Chains. Knives. Pipes. Fists. Still all "weapons" used for violence. 

Guns are merely a tool, the same as any other "tool" that can be (and has been) used for violent intent against another person. So no, take away guns they will just find another usefully effective "tool" to enact their 'gang' violence. 
My bad that was badly phrased. I specifically was referring to gun violence involving gangs, sorry.

Guns are merely a tool but guns can kill people far more effectively than things like knives. Unless someone is very proficient at knife throwing and has a large supply of knives, they aren't gonna be able to kill more than one person every ten seconds (unless they're just standing there and tightly packed together). On the other hand, assault rifles (and guns in general to a lesser extent) can kill one person every other second, more if the people are tightly packed together. Why do we ban bombs? They are "merely" tools, but they are far more effective at killing than a knife. The same goes for guns.
#63
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
Guns are merely a tool but guns can kill people far more effectively than things like knives. Unless someone is very proficient at knife throwing and has a large supply of knives, they aren't gonna be able to kill more than one person every ten seconds (unless they're just standing there and tightly packed together). On the other hand, assault rifles (and guns in general to a lesser extent) can kill one person every other second, more if the people are tightly packed together. Why do we ban bombs? They are "merely" tools, but they are far more effective at killing than a knife. The same goes for guns.
"...the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article."



FBI UCR Data shows more people die every single year by "hands, fists and feet" than they do by "rifle" of ANY kind. 

Comparing a "bomb" to a "gun" is a false equivalency fallacy. 


#64
NerdWhoDebates
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
0
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
NerdWhoDebates
0
0
0
-->
@TWS1405
"...the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article."



FBI UCR Data shows more people die every single year by "hands, fists and feet" than they do by "rifle" of ANY kind. 
guns are harder to get access to than knives and fists. It's not about how many people die from guns in total, it's about how much more effective guns are at killing a person than knives. Sure, a knife can kill a person at close range, but a gun can kill a person from a hundred feet away, and then quickly aim at the next person, without having to chase them down.

Comparing a "bomb" to a "gun" is a false equivalency fallacy.
I'm not saying bombs and guns are the same thing. What I AM saying is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives. I'm providing an example - in this case bombs - in which a weapon isn't legal because it is more effective at killing people than knives. If we ban guns, people will find other ways to kill people, but not as effectively as they would with guns.
#65
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
IF there is a way for a government to enact a mandatory buyback of assault rifles and be confident they got most of the assault rifles of their country, I would support an assault rifles ban.
That’s too authoritarian.  The only reason a government wants to take your guns is because they want to do something to you you would shoot them for.  The taliban wanted to enact tyranny in their country, so they took people’s guns.  Guns make us free.  The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants.

Gang violence would be less prominent if guns were banned.
Gangs don’t follow the law.  Criminals will always have guns.  The only people gun laws effect are law abiding citizens (who need protection from criminals and the government).

Are you saying you believe undocumented immigrants should fight back against ICE tyranny with guns?
Yes.  The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants.  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  When the government fear the people, there is liberty.


For instance, it has been found that gun violence is more prominent in less economically privileged counties: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2786452. POCs are also twice as likely to die from gun violence, and 14 times more likely to be wounded: https://www.bradyunited.org/issue/gun-violence-is-a-racial-justice-issue
Homicide is rare when the civilian does it and common when the governor does it.  I trust we the people to defend themselves from danger over a government known for tyranny and war.



#66
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
I think whether guns should be legal or not is a tricky question. I think it depends a lot on the culture. Switzerland is an example of a nation where guns are OK to be legal. America? Not so much. Guns act as an amplifier for violence. These same people who commit these mass murders with guns may still try to do them anyway, but at least with a knife, not as many people can be harmed as opposed to with a gun.
-
The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.
-
From a utilitarian perspective the lives lost through gun violence, suicide and mass shootings outweighs the pros of guns being legal. The only arguable pro is a false sense of security that you can defend yourself, this too is also nullified by the fact others have guns, so do the police. There would be far less problems with the police if they didnt have guns, sadly they have too because citizens do.
#67
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
What is it defining as a "mass shooting death"?
Banning AR 15s and background checks don’t reduce the homicide rate significantly (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/11yflOMimI67xOmbzx3E_f6x0MlweEgjkwUpmJ8Ww8Ug/htmlview#gid=0)

The alternative that allows citizens to still bear arms in this instance, is to give weapons to those wanting to defend themselves in the event of a war.
There can at any time be a war between American civilians and foreign countries or even our own government.  America is freest when the government is most scared of enacting tyranny.  Canada has hard vaccine mandates that cause lots of people to be unemployed.  Europe has incredibly high income and VATs that make most people there lower middle class.  A government that cares about liberty would privatize lots of things to make an unequal blessing in their country, rather than an equally shared misery.  America’s commitment to small government and liberty is why more people (especially from countries that lack liberty) want to move to America than any other country.  It’s why more people move to red states than blue states.
#68
NerdWhoDebates
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 4
0
0
0
NerdWhoDebates's avatar
NerdWhoDebates
0
0
0
-->
@TheUnderdog
@Ehyeh
TheUnderdog, Would you like to do an actual debate on this?

That’s too authoritarian.  The only reason a government wants to take your guns is because they want to do something to you you would shoot them for.  The taliban wanted to enact tyranny in their country, so they took people’s guns.  Guns make us free.  The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants.
Norway took people's guns for safety...was Norway wanting to do something they would be shot for?

Gangs don’t follow the law.  Criminals will always have guns.  The only people gun laws effect are law abiding citizens (who need protection from criminals and the government).
This logic is flawed. I've said it so many times to so many people: things are not legal for the simple reason that people will still get their hands on them. Need I provide examples?

Yes.  The tree of liberty from time to time must be watered with the blood of tyrants.  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.  When the government fear the people, there is liberty.
I disagree but I'm not going to argue with you on this point

Homicide is rare when the civilian does it and common when the governor does it.
Are you referring to police killing innocent people, such as George Floyd?

I trust we the people to defend themselves from danger over a government known for tyranny and war.
If by we the people, you mean the unprivileged who are more likely to die "get" to defend themselves from danger, sure.

I'm curious, do you agree with the people who stormed the capital on January 6th?

The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.
Exactly. Revolutionaries will always be able to get guns. Whether supplied by foreign powers or taking them forcefully like in the French Revolution, when the Bastille was stormed.

Banning AR 15s and background checks don’t reduce the homicide rate significantly (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/1/d/11yflOMimI67xOmbzx3E_f6x0MlweEgjkwUpmJ8Ww8Ug/htmlview#gid=0)
1. This is completely irrelevant to what you responded to.
2. This is measuring homicide rate, not gun violence statistics. Additionally, this only shows the next 5 years when significant legislation like that often takes longer to really take effect.

There can at any time be a war between American civilians and foreign countries or even our own government.  America is freest when the government is most scared of enacting tyranny.  Canada has hard vaccine mandates that cause lots of people to be unemployed.  Europe has incredibly high income and VATs that make most people there lower middle class.  A government that cares about liberty would privatize lots of things to make an unequal blessing in their country, rather than an equally shared misery.  America’s commitment to small government and liberty is why more people (especially from countries that lack liberty) want to move to America than any other country.  It’s why more people move to red states than blue states.
As Ehyeh said:
The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.

#69
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
@NerdWhoDebates
I personally don't mind debating gun rights. I do think Americans should keep their gun rights, but simply because it's impossible to take them away at this point. The culture is a mess. In an ideal world, Americans should not have guns, in my personal opinion.

Banning AR 15s and background checks don’t reduce the homicide rate significantly
Even if we grant such a claim, it still doesn't deny the statistical proof that when AR-15's are used, they break records for the number of people killed. Almost all the worst mass shootings in American history were with AR-15's. It's only a matter of time before others who want to wreck maximum havoc recognise this.

There can at any time be a war between American civilians and foreign countries or even our own government.  America is freest when the government is most scared of enacting tyranny.  Canada has hard vaccine mandates that cause lots of people to be unemployed.  Europe has incredibly high income and VATs that make most people there lower middle class.  A government that cares about liberty would privatize lots of things to make an unequal blessing in their country, rather than an equally shared misery.  America’s commitment to small government and liberty is why more people (especially from countries that lack liberty) want to move to America than any other country.  It’s why more people move to red states than blue states.
I'm sure if you read my comment you already know why this is nonsense. People want to move to America simply because the economy is good. This has little to do with your government, but more so geography. The UK would have an economy as large as the US's if it were the same size, as with most European nations. America has some of the worst income distribution within the developed world, if you're poor in America its worse than being poor in Germany, Scandinavia or the UK simply due to all the robust social services and welfare systems in these nations (something you probably vehemently detest). I would be homeless if i couldn't of claimed welfare, had i been in America, i likely would of ended up homeless.
#70
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
-->@TWS1405
"...the recent FBI data revealed five times as many deaths are caused by knives than guns according to a recent Breitbart News article."



FBI UCR Data shows more people die every single year by "hands, fists and feet" than they do by "rifle" of ANY kind. 
guns are harder to get access to than knives and fists. It's not about how many people die from guns in total, it's about how much more effective guns are at killing a person than knives. Sure, a knife can kill a person at close range, but a gun can kill a person from a hundred feet away, and then quickly aim at the next person, without having to chase them down.
For those intent on harming others, obtaining a gun is as easy as getting a knife. And what you just said about fists is stupid. They already possess a fist. So, fists are easier to kill another with than a gun. Which is precisely why more people die every year by hands, fists or feet than by rifles of any kind. 

You give entirely too much credit to criminals with a gun. Most, like 90% couldn't hit the broadside of a barn (especially from 100 feet away, much less a tiny target like a human at that distance), which is why they use converted semi-auto weapons to auto or get illegal automatic weapons so they can just spray bullets everywhere. 


Comparing a "bomb" to a "gun" is a false equivalency fallacy.
I'm not saying bombs and guns are the same thing. What I AM saying is that guns are more effective at killing people than knives. I'm providing an example - in this case bombs - in which a weapon isn't legal because it is more effective at killing people than knives. If we ban guns, people will find other ways to kill people, but not as effectively as they would with guns.
I never said you said they were the same thing, but you were still comparing them. To compare is to equivocate. 


#71
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
I have no idea where you got the "stats" that more people die in America from fist fights than shootings. Please cite a source. How many people kill themselves with their own fists? And how many people kill themselves with guns that wouldn't have died without access to firearms?
-
It's such a shame that hundreds of thousands of Americans kill themselves with guns every year. It's such a shame you're always scared around cops because they holster guns. It's a damn shame that your children have to do drills on how to evacuate in case of a deranged shooter coming to their schools. America has a massive cultural problem when it comes to guns, which only exist in America. If a child cannot handle something responsibility you take it away. Swiss people don't go around killing people with their guns, so there's no reason for there to be discussions on how to supress said guns, unlike America. If a child cannot use a real knife properly to cut their beef, you give them a plastic one.
-

#72
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ehyeh
Added08.05.22 01:20AM
-->@TWS1405
I have no idea where you got the "stats" that more people die in America from fist fights than shootings. Please cite a source. How many people kill themselves with their own fists? And how many people kill themselves with guns that wouldn't have died without access to firearms?
Nowhere did I state that more people die from "fist fights than shootings." Strawman argument. 

In my comment I provided a link that included sources for the data affirming what I said. Here is another one. 
The primary source is the FBI UCR on homicides, not suicides. Red herring fallacy on that one. 

It's such a shame that hundreds of thousands of Americans kill themselves with guns every year.
Same can be said by suffocation (hanging) and poison too. While guns make it easier, there are a multitude of ways people choose to take their own life. Take away access to one, there are plenty other ways that they will find. Stabbing or cutting. Jumping off a building or cliff. Drowning. What does suicide have to do with the basic argument over "gun control" measures?

It's such a shame you're always scared around cops because they holster guns.
Do not lump me in with that "you're always" crowd. 
I was once a federal officer, drug enforcement under the US Army Criminal Investigation Division. 
I am a firm believer and supporter of the 2A.

It's a damn shame that your children have to do drills on how to evacuate in case of a deranged shooter coming to their schools.

When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.

America has a massive cultural problem when it comes to guns, which only exist in America.
No, we do not. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons. You know, all those things that were taught by fathers to their sons, or to young boys and men as a Cub/Boy/Eagle Scout. When you stop teaching these things, what we see today with the gun problems is a result of just that. Not to mention the added issue of mental health which compounds the problem 10 fold. 


If a child cannot handle something responsibility you take it away. Swiss people don't go around killing people with their guns, so there's no reason for there to be discussions on how to supress said guns, unlike America. If a child cannot use a real knife properly to cut their beef, you give them a plastic one.



A plastic knife can be just as deadly as a spoon when used effectively. 
Children today should not be around guns until such age they can demonstrate respect for the weapon and personal responsibility with it as well. 
Parents who buy guns (or help them) for their deranged child are also a part of the problem. 

#73
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
You contradicted yourself about 3 times in this comment.

owhere did I state that more people die from "fist fights than shootings." Strawman argument. 

In my comment I provided a link that included sources for the data affirming what I said. Here is another one. 
The primary source is the FBI UCR on homicides, not suicides. Red herring fallacy on that one. 

Can you send me a primary source and not an article, please?

Same can be said by suffocation (hanging) and poison too. While guns make it easier, there are a multitude of ways people choose to take their own life. Take away access to one, there are plenty other ways that they will find. Stabbing or cutting. Jumping off a building or cliff. Drowning. What does suicide have to do with the basic argument over "gun control" measures?
How many of them wouldn't of done it without guns? so many of them would of not even tried to kill themselves in the first place if not for the efficiency of a gun.

No, we do not. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons. You know, all those things that were taught by fathers to their sons, or to young boys and men as a Cub/Boy/Eagle Scout. When you stop teaching these things, what we see today with the gun problems is a result of just that. Not to mention the added issue of mental health which compounds the problem 10 fold. 
So a cultural problem? why is it that Americans have a lack of personal accountability and discipline with guns while Swiss don't? genetics? evidently its culture.


A plastic knife can be just as deadly as a spoon when used effectively. 
Children today should not be around guns until such age they can demonstrate respect for the weapon and personal responsibility with it as well. 
Parents who buy guns (or help them) for their deranged child are also a part of the problem. 
You're correct. I can kill someone with a car, even a plastic bag. The big symmetry breaker between a gun and these utilities is what we would call, "primary usage" the intent, purpose, and function and goal of a gun is simply to murder. There is objective utility and societal viability for plastic bags and cars outside of murder weapons and enjoyment. Guns? not so much.

When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.
It seems we agree then, that it isn't necessarily the gun which is the issue but the user. Yet Americas gun crazy culture is part of why the gun problem exists.


When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.

90% if Americans are on edge around cops because they holster guns. When you get pulled over, its daunting enough even in Europe but in America its going to be  scarier because of guns.
#74
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ehyeh
->@TWS1405
You contradicted yourself about 3 times in this comment.
No, I did not.


owhere did I state that more people die from "fist fights than shootings." Strawman argument. 

In my comment I provided a link that included sources for the data affirming what I said. Here is another one. 
The primary source is the FBI UCR on homicides, not suicides. Red herring fallacy on that one. 

Can you send me a primary source and not an article, please?
Genetic Fallacy. The primary source is cited within the article. More than once, even.


Same can be said by suffocation (hanging) and poison too. While guns make it easier, there are a multitude of ways people choose to take their own life. Take away access to one, there are plenty other ways that they will find. Stabbing or cutting. Jumping off a building or cliff. Drowning. What does suicide have to do with the basic argument over "gun control" measures?
How many of them wouldn't of done it without guns? so many of them would of not even tried to kill themselves in the first place if not for the efficiency of a gun.
Most to all.

And you cannot speak for those who committed suicide. 


No, we do not. The problem is a lack of personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons. You know, all those things that were taught by fathers to their sons, or to young boys and men as a Cub/Boy/Eagle Scout. When you stop teaching these things, what we see today with the gun problems is a result of just that. Not to mention the added issue of mental health which compounds the problem 10 fold. 
So a cultural problem? why is it that Americans have a lack of personal accountability and discipline with guns while Swiss don't? genetics? evidently its culture.
No, it is NOT a "cultural" problem. Redundantly it is a lack of personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons.

As for the Swiss, they demonstrate personal responsibility, accountability and discipline when it comes to weapons. Swedes also respect the laws, criminals in the US do not.


A plastic knife can be just as deadly as a spoon when used effectively. 
Children today should not be around guns until such age they can demonstrate respect for the weapon and personal responsibility with it as well. 
Parents who buy guns (or help them) for their deranged child are also a part of the problem. 
You're correct. I can kill someone with a car, even a plastic bag. The big symmetry breaker between a gun and these utilities is what we would call, "primary usage" the intent, purpose, and function and goal of a gun is simply to murder. There is objective utility and societal viability for plastic bags and cars outside of murder weapons and enjoyment. Guns? not so much.
A gun's primary purpose or usage is not "to murder." Americans use guns for the same reasons the Swedes do. Hunting. Sort Shooting. Collecting. And obviously self-defense. Criminals knowing someone is armed won't criminalize them. Too risky. Gun free zones are a free for all. 


When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.
It seems we agree then, that it isn't necessarily the gun which is the issue but the user. Yet Americas gun crazy culture is part of why the gun problem exists.
I already indicated, quite clearly, that it is the user and why. *facepalm* 

Some could say Swedes have a crazy gun culture being allowed to individually own up to 16 firearms whereas some Americans only own one, many two firearms.



When I went to high school, we drove trucks with rifles hanging in the back window. We didn't have school shootings. What changed? Liberals giving too much freedom and less personal responsibility upon the individual.

90% if Americans are on edge around cops because they holster guns. When you get pulled over, its daunting enough even in Europe but in America its going to be  scarier because of guns.
Cite a credible source for that 90%. Never mind. It is completely irrelevant. 

#75
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
My friend, everything is either dictated by your environment or your genetics. If people are not irresponsible with guns because of genetics its because of the environment (culture).

I've looked at the source in the article, yet i cant seem to find the information at all on the site.

A gun's primary purpose or usage is not "to murder." Americans use guns for the same reasons the Swedes do. Hunting. Sort Shooting. Collecting. And obviously self-defense. Criminals knowing someone is armed won't criminalize them. Too risky. Gun free zones are a free for all. 

Hunting is murdering animals. Regardless, the primary intent of the gun and its sole purpose is some form of killing.
-
 you're just wrong if America didnt have guns it would give criminals more power, in fact its the opposite. Guns have enabled gangs to be able to combat the police and control neighbourhoods, where in the most places in Europe such a thing is much harder to do. Americans have out of this world crime rates compared to Europe. Evidently  (from the statistics) you having a gun doesn't seem to be a big deterrent from someone breaking into your car. Your self-defense argument is redundant if your aggressor has a gun too. At least in a nation where guns are illegal there's less likelihood of EITHER of you dying in the case of a robbery. Therefore you're not more safe with guns if other have guns too.
#76
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ehyeh
-->@TWS1405
My friend, everything is either dictated by your environment or your genetics. If people are not responsible with guns because of genetics its because of the environment (culture).
It is a lack of culture due to a lack of personal responsibility, accountability, discipline, respect and mental illness. 


I've looked at the source in the article, yet i cant seem to find the information at all on the site.

Not my problem if you cannot find the data provided by the FBI through their website. The authors of the article did. Or perhaps it is a measure of laziness since you responded awfully quickly.



A gun's primary purpose or usage is not "to murder." Americans use guns for the same reasons the Swedes do. Hunting. Sort Shooting. Collecting. And obviously self-defense. Criminals knowing someone is armed won't criminalize them. Too risky. Gun free zones are a free for all. 

Hunting is murdering animals. Regardless, the primary intent of the gun and its sole purpose is some form of killing.

Animals are not murdered. They are killed. Murder is a term relegated to human beings murdering one another. 
Collecting guns has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Sport shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Competition shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Self-defense doesn't always result in killing and has more to do with a show of force in order to deter from killing.

So, no. A weapons "sole purpose" is not "some form of killing."
#77
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
It is a lack of culture due to a lack of personal responsibility, accountability, discipline, respect and mental illness. 
Where does mental illness come from? you're using circular reasoning. We're agreeing, you're just too stubborn to admit it.

Not my problem if you cannot find the data provided by the FBI through their website. The authors of the article did. Or perhaps it is a measure of laziness since you responded awfully quickly.

Looking at the table. It seems like the article was lying. 600 people died by fist, legs etc. In the year 2020 while 3,000 did by guns. Its actually the same trend all across the board, in all years.

Animals are not murdered. They are killed. Murder is a term relegated to human beings murdering one another. 
Collecting guns has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Sport shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Competition shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Self-defense doesn't always result in killing and has more to do with a show of force in order to deter from killing.

So, no. A weapons "sole purpose" is not "some form of killing."
It doesn't change anything to what i said. Killing is the primary usage of guns then, it changes nothing to the original comment. Guns were also intended for war, with humans. The gun wasn't created to fight animals but man.
#78
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ehyeh
-->@TWS1405
It is a lack of culture due to a lack of personal responsibility, accountability, discipline, respect and mental illness. 
Where does mental illness come from? you're using circular reasoning. We're agreeing, you're just too stubborn to admit it.
My response was in direct reply to the cultural (environmental) aspect, NOT the genetic, specifically. 

Not my problem if you cannot find the data provided by the FBI through their website. The authors of the article did. Or perhaps it is a measure of laziness since you responded awfully quickly.

Looking at the table. It seems like the article was lying. 600 people died by fist, legs etc. In the year 2020 while 3,000 did by guns. Its actually the same trend all across the board, in all years.
The point I brought up was personal weapons vs rifles of any kind, not all guns. As such, you're still missing the point. 

Animals are not murdered. They are killed. Murder is a term relegated to human beings murdering one another. 
Collecting guns has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Sport shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Competition shooting has nothing to do with "some form of killing."
Self-defense doesn't always result in killing and has more to do with a show of force in order to deter from killing.

So, no. A weapons "sole purpose" is not "some form of killing."
It doesn't change anything to what i said. Killing is the primary usage of guns then, it changes nothing to the original comment. Guns were also intended for war, with humans. The gun wasn't created to fight animals but man.
Sure it does. You said the SOLE purpose of a gun is "some form of killing." My list above proves you wrong. Guns are not solely (or primarily) used for some form of killing. 

#79
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
Sorry, i forgot that you said only rifles (it was awhile ago you made the comment). I don't find it too relevant if AR-15's don't kill that many people. When they are used they kill the most people. If we look to the worst shootings in Americas history almost all of them are using rifles. It may only be time before more psychopaths catch on to this who want to spread havoc and chaos. Not that i believe guns in America should be illegal, i don't. Making guns in America illegal is an impossibility at this point, although i don't find the second amendment very pragmatically useful.
#80
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@NerdWhoDebates
Would you like to do an actual debate on this?
I don’t have time or energy.  Sorry.

Norway took people's guns for safety...was Norway wanting to do something they would be shot for?
No… but there have been countries that have, like:
1) Russia
2) China
3) The taliban.

There is also the possibility Norway becomes tyrannical.  Any government can go tyrannical at any time.  If Norway were to force people to adopt refugees, I’d grab arms over that.

Are you referring to police killing innocent people, such as George Floyd?
That’s an example.  The government can’t be trusted.
I'm curious, do you agree with the people who stormed the capital on January 6th?
On their actions and motives to storm the capital; no.  Biden won fair in square.  But they are right on guns.  They also bootlicking the government too much if it’s a right wing government.

This is measuring homicide rate, not gun violence statistics. Additionally, this only shows the next 5 years when significant legislation like that often takes longer to really take effect.
People that want to murder will always find a way to murder.  I’d rather get shot to death than stabbed to death; I’m scared of being conscious when losing blood.  I think legislation that would ban guns can have the homicide rate impacted by that legislation in 5 years tops if gun control reduces the homicide rate.
The argument that guns are necessary to fight a tyrannical government is outdated and nonsense, contradicted by the very fact that Americans were given guns by the French to fight the British. Not only that, but the current war in Ukraine and the wars in the Middle East show you get guns anyway during war times.
America was lucky enough to have allies.  What if you don’t have allies?
#81
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@Ehyeh
 I don't find it too relevant if AR-15's don't kill that many people. When they are used they kill the most people. If we look to the worst shootings in Americas history almost all of them are using rifles.

"And despite public perception, more mass shootings (where four or more victims are killed) are carried out with handguns as opposed to long guns, according to Garrett." -- The type of gun used in most US homicides is not an AR-15 - ABC News (go.com)



#82
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TWS1405
"Owing to their use in several high-profile mass shootings, there has been much public discussion over suitability or necessity of assault weapons for the purpose of self-defense. While any definition of assault weapon is contentious, semi-automatic rifles are generally the main focus of debates around this issue. Since 1985 there has been a known total 52 mass shootings involving rifles, mostly semi-automatics. This figure is underreported though, as it excludes the multiple semi-automatic (and fully automatic) rifles used in the 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre – the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, killing 58 and wounding 546. In fact, semi-automatic rifles were featured in four of the five deadliest mass shootings, being used in the Orlando nightclub massacre, Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and Texas First Baptist Church massacre."

Your source says "MORE mass shootings are carried out with handguns" what i argued is not percentages on which is used more in mass shootings. But 9/10 of the worst are with rifles. Its only time before more psychos catch onto this and start using rifles more and more.

#83
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,293
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
@NoOneInParticular
Just reminded of an older coworker, who said carrying guns around town, shooting things, or to school was normal when he was a kid.


#84
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
In an ideal world, Americans should not have guns, in my personal opinion.
Then we would get robbed a lot.  Criminals will have guns and you can’t disarm criminals unless they are in jail (which they can avoid since government police suck).

Almost all the worst mass shootings in American history were with AR-15's. It's only a matter of time before others who want to wreck maximum havoc recognise this.
AR 15s were legalized in 2004 and the mass shooting rate started to skyrocket in 2012.  The two aren’t connected.
This has little to do with your government, but more so geography.
People are fleeing CA which has some of the best geography in the world.

People want to move to America simply because the economy is good.
The economy is good because of right wing economic policies.

The UK would have an economy as large as the US's if it were the same size, as with most European nations.
The per capita income of the UK is 75% that of America’s.
if you're poor in America its worse than being poor in Germany, Scandinavia or the UK simply due to all the robust social services and welfare systems in these nations (something you probably vehemently detest)
The poor need to get better paying jobs to get more money.  They also should spend less.  I make minimum wage and I have $24,000 in assets because I invest and don’t spend.  If you can’t afford a home, live with your parents if you can.  It’s what I do.  I’m 20.  If your above 25, you should have a job that pays more than minimum wage.

If you care so much about poor people, your free to adopt them; that’s your right.  Jus don’t force me to pay for it.
#85
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
"Then we would get robbed a lot.  Criminals will have guns and you can’t disarm criminals unless they are in jail (which they can avoid since government police suck)."

Americans rob more than the rest of the world anyways. The problem is not guns but culture. You're just assuming people will steal more without guns.

AR 15s were legalized in 2004 and the mass shooting rate started to skyrocket in 2012.  The two aren’t connected.
Its irrelevant how many of these masshootings there has been with this gun, i was point out that when they are used they cause the most deaths.

People are fleeing CA which has some of the best geography in the world.
I was talking about the reason why America as a whole is so economically powerful. Its simply geography. America has statically the most arable and best land on the planet.

The economy is good because of right wing economic policies.
I'm unsure about that.  Many European nations (with far more left leaning economies) do just as well as America domestically. The only reason America is so powerful is geography not policy. If the UK was the size of America it would be almost as rich (America still has better land).

The per capita income of the UK is 75% that of America’s.
This is in large part controllable by controlling through income distribution. America has one of the largest income disparities in the developed world. Europeans are also taxed a lot more than Americans (in most nations) this is also in large part why Europeans have more robust social programs and developed public transport systems etc. America has decent policy, but its mostly about the geography as to why its so economically and culturally powerful.

The poor need to get better paying jobs to get more money.  They also should spend less.  I make minimum wage and I have $24,000 in assets because I invest and don’t spend.  If you can’t afford a home, live with your parents if you can.  It’s what I do.  I’m 20.  If your above 25, you should have a job that pays more than minimum wage.

If you care so much about poor people, your free to adopt them; that’s your right.  Jus don’t force me to pay for it
There's such thing as taking personal responsibility and at the same time creating systemic changes to help people make better personal choices. Some people aren't as smart or educated as you, who may need more of a push through positive systemic changes.
#86
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
You're just assuming people will steal more without guns.
I’m saying that if America banned guns, only criminals and gangs would have guns, so they rob people who can’t defend themselves.  Gun control sounds like this:

1) A wolf bites a sheep and tears its teeth into the sheep killing it.
2) All the other sheep notice that it was teeth that killed the sheep.
3) All the sheep agree to take their own teeth out for their own safety and let’s say they can still eat grass.
4) THE WOLF STILL HAS TEETH

Replace teeth with guns, wolf with criminals/government, and sheep with normal people, and that’s what gun control is.

i was point out that when they are used they cause the most deaths.
And banning them won’t lead to less mass shooting deaths because people that want to murder will always find the guns that they need to commit mass murder.  Gun control disarms only law abiding citizens.

I was talking about the reason why America as a whole is so economically powerful. Its simply geography. America has statically the most arable and best land on the planet.
California has better land than most of the country, but people are fleeing that shithole because of the failed policies.  Hopefully they don’t turn their new states into the shithole they fled from.
America has one of the largest income disparities in the developed world.
Nothing wrong with that.  What matters is per capita wealth.  If one person has $1 million and another person has $5 million, that’s better than if they both have $20.  But the ladder situation has less income disparities.  What matters is per capita income.
Europeans are also taxed a lot more than Americans (in most nations) this is also in large part why Europeans have more robust social programs and developed public transport systems etc.
The taxes in the EU are insane.  No wonder people perfer the states to the EU.  If your a European immigrant to America, just remember your a refugee and not a missionary.

America has decent policy, but its mostly about the geography as to why its so economically and culturally powerful.
Western EU has better geography than America; less warm summers and more warm winters.  But people still move to America.
There's such thing as taking personal responsibility and at the same time creating systemic changes to help people make better personal choices. Some people aren't as smart or educated as you, who made need more of a push through positive systemic changes.

If every single democrat adopted a homeless person, sponsored a kid in poverty, and put solar panels on their roof, they would be able to end a lot of the problems they bitch about.
#87
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Nothing wrong with that.  What matters is per capita wealth.  If one person has $1 million and another person has $5 million, that’s better than if they both have $20.  But the ladder situation has less income disparities.  What matters is per capita income.
Americas per capita wealth is high because of the amount of extremely rich people. The middle class is constantly shrinking in America. There's a whole lot wrong with people becoming super rich as there can only be so much money in the economy at one time. If the money is all concentrated in 1% of peoples hands this means some people are not going to be able to afford basic things. This is bad in Europe but even more so in America. In Europe we do just fine with our per capita wealth. We get a lot more privileges than many Americans in other areas such as public transport (free college and healthcare) things you probably loathe.Most of us enjoy these things, and we see it as worth the increased tax burden.


If every single democrat adopted a homeless person, sponsored a kid in poverty, and put solar panels on their roof, they would be able to end a lot of the problems they bitch about.
Only democrats should care for and look after the homeless? you're essentially saying they should do it themselves. Although i hate political allegiances. I don't consider myself within any part or position. I think its understandable why conservatives are seen as being more ignorant and low IQ.


Western EU has better geography than America; less warm summers and more warm winters.  But people still move to America.
It isn't just the weather which matters, but natural resources. Yes, policy effects a country and even if i granted that's the case with cali. That still doesn't deny the fact that geography is literally the only thing setting America apart from Europe.

 taxes in the EU are insane.  No wonder people perfer the states to the EU.  If your a European immigrant to America, just remember your a refugee and not a missionary.

Taxes in the EU are perfectly fine if you're willing to sacrifice some of your wealth for your common man, for your brothers and sisters and to make sure to create the best not just for yourself but others too. Its evident most people in the EU don't dislike this system, as the happiest nations in Europe seem to have rather high taxes....huh, strange. When you're poor in America, its worse than being poor in the EU. When you're rich in America, its better than being rich in the EU. Its that simple. 

what's with the refugee comment?  Many Americans preach the same stuff. you hold so much pride in your nation to the point you degrade your fellow humans simply for being born in a different nation, like you did just now. Essentially calling Europe a shithole. I loathe those with tribalistic mentalities like the one you just presented, people with the egotistical mindset you show are the reason why the world isn't a haven. I love America and Americans at large.
#88
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Americas per capita wealth is high because of the amount of extremely rich people.
America’s median income is also higher than the EU’s; it’s probably higher than even the UKs.  People in America are just more hard working than Europeans because Europeans are too lazy.

If the money is all concentrated in 1% of peoples hands this means some people are not going to be able to afford basic things.
That’s not the case in America.  America has a middle class which is why Bernie Sanders will never become president in the US.
This is bad in Europe but even more so in America.
Our poverty rates are comparable.
In Europe we do just fine with our per capita wealth.
In America, we do better, mainly because gas here usually sells for under $1.2 a liter.  I’m Europe, you couldn’t get gas that cheap.

we see it as worth the increased tax burden.
In America, we have healthcare; we just pay for it directly.  Europe subsidizes the unvaccinated and the smokers.

That still doesn't deny the fact that geography is literally the only thing setting America apart from Europe.
Western Europe has better geography than America.  Less warm summers and more warm winters.
Taxes in the EU are perfectly fine if you're willing to sacrifice some of your wealth for your common man,
Why should I sacrifice for strangers?  How many kids have you sponsored?  If the answer is 0, it’s hypocritical to demand others sacrifice for strangers when you don’t sacrifice with your own funds.
Its evident most people in the EU don't dislike this system, as the happiest nations in Europe seem to have rather high taxes
This is because Scandinavians lack adrenaline, common in ‘Murica.

When you're poor in America, its worse than being poor in the EU. When you're rich in America, its better than being rich in the EU. Its that simple.
Yeah, because Americans don’t subsidize laziness and unproductivity.  

what's with the refugee comment?  Many Americans preach the same stuff. you hold so much pride in your nation to the point you degrade your fellow humans simply for being born in a different nation
If you think that’s wrong, adopt a homeless bum from some random country.  That’s your right.  Just don’t tread on my economic liberty.
Essentially calling Europe a shithole.
Compared to America, any place is a shithole and in general, American immigrants hate socialism(which is why they move here as opposed to Spain).  Also, the term shithole isn’t just for black countries; some whit countries are shitholes too.  I’m not racist.  

Compared to the states of Texas, Florida, Tenessee, and Nevada (America’s freedom outposts), every other state is either a crap place to live or filled with too socialistic income taxes.  Make America Texas.  Abortion banned and the income tax unconstitutional.


#89
Ehyeh
Ehyeh's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 318
3
4
9
Ehyeh's avatar
Ehyeh
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
"America’s median income is also higher than the EU’s; it’s probably higher than even the UKs.  People in America are just more hard working than Europeans because Europeans are too lazy."
Americans work more hours. Once more, you have the most billionaires on the planet by far, which raises your medium income substantially. You can literally look at any graph of income inequality and see that America tops the charts in the developed world. You don't even earn more than me if you work a minimum wage in the US, than what i would in the UK! Why do you brag about the fact that Americans work like Africans and barely get any more pay than Europeans? In fact, you don't. I would earn more money than you on a minimum wage in the UK than what you currently do in America!  Northern and western EU refugees earn more than you on our minimum wage, while working fewer hours. while getting more vacation time and free healthcare! You're literally coping. You have to catch up, breaking your back with extra hours. It is not a blessing that most people in America cannot choose their holidays; I rarely take vacations because I enjoy my job. It should at least be a choice, though. If you want to be a work dog than do that but don't force that on others.
-
Some people want more time with their kids, their families. More time to build a connection with God. Not all of us want to be rich men with fancy cars, hollow hearts and nice watches. Through some people being so wealthy, it literally forces others into being economically deprived. I find it shocking that you say America is economically free. Its truly sad you feel that way when 1 bad decision (like having a child before you're 25) will essentially ensure that you live in economic poverty for the rest of your life, when your brain and decision making isn't even fully developed. Is that really a haven to you?

America is great but its still a shithole! the whole world is a fucking shithole and something needs to be done! stop being complacent thinking America is the ultimate place, like you don't have people born into poverty. Like you don't have people suffering and blowing their goddamn heads off because they hurt so much! Like you don't have people not being able to afford to pay for their cancer treatment. Like people don't work 60 hours a week on two jobs just to survive. Open your eyes, wake up to reality! Escape the matrix. 


Our poverty rates are comparable.
Being in poverty is worse in America than in most of Europe. At least I can still go to the dentist.

In America, we do better, mainly because gas here usually sells for under $1.2 a liter.  I’m Europe, you couldn’t get gas that cheap.
There is better public transport in Europe. People don't realise how much a car costs.

Why should I sacrifice for strangers?  How many kids have you sponsored?  If the answer is 0, it’s hypocritical to demand others sacrifice for strangers when you don’t sacrifice with your own funds.
Do you want roads? If it wasn't for taxes, you would have very underdeveloped roads. Roads would only exist in population-dense areas (though private funding). We live in a democracy. You enter into a social contract when you're in a democracy, stating you have your say in how things are run through your votes. If you don't like roads or seatbelts existing, you can support that and try to persuade others to think the same. You live in a society that agrees that people shouldn't be able to frolic naked in the park. If you don't like that, you either have to persuade people to tyranny or live in a different nation with those who agree with you. You happen to live in a society which has agreed (through votes and elections) its worthwhile to have taxes!
Yeah, because Americans don’t subsidize laziness and unproductivity.  
If you want to clean the boots of your corp daddies all day, that doesn't mean others should want that. I'm not lazy if I don't want to fill out paper work all day when I could still have a nice life with more holidays. You're complacent. America may be great, but it can be even better.


If you think that’s wrong, adopt a homeless bum from some random country.  That’s your right.  Just don’t tread on my economic liberty.
Yes, we can. That's what democracy is. If you don't like it, persuade people. If not, you have to leave.

Compared to America, any place is a shithole and in general, American immigrants hate socialism(which is why they move here as opposed to Spain).  Also, the term shithole isn’t just for black countries; some whit countries are shitholes too.  I’m not racist.  

Compared to the states of Texas, Florida, Tenessee, and Nevada (America’s freedom outposts), every other state is either a crap place to live or filled with too socialistic income taxes.  Make America Texas.  Abortion banned and the income tax unconstitutional.

That's a lot of nonsense. In my opinion, America is the greatest nation in the world, but it is not the best. It's not the best in terms of education. It's not the fairest. It is not even the most democratic nation on the planet. There are studies to back this stuff up.
-

#90
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ehyeh
Once more, you have the most billionaires on the planet by far, which raises your medium income substantially. 
Billionaires skew the mean income, but barely the median.

You don't even earn more than me if you work a minimum wage in the US, than what i would in the UK! Why do you brag about the fact that Americans work like Africans and barely get any more pay than Europeans?
About 1% of the US workforce works a minimum wage job; it’s probably higher in the EU.  The vast majority of American minimum wage workers are young enough to where living with their parents is feisable.

It is not a blessing that most people in America cannot choose their holidays; I rarely take vacations because I enjoy my job. It should at least be a choice, though. If you want to be a work dog than do that but don't force that on others.
It doesn’t get forced on others.  If you want to be lazy, that’s your right.  Just don’t force a company or anybody else to pay for your laziness.

More time to build a connection with God.
I talk to God at work.  You can do both work and talk to God at the same time.
Its truly sad you feel that way when 1 bad decision (like having a child before you're 25) will essentially ensure that you live in economic poverty for the rest of your life, when your brain and decision making isn't even fully developed.
This is why people shouldn’t have sex until they can afford a kid.  I don’t even think people should date unless the goal is marraige with such a person.  I know I don’t date and if a hot girl asked me out, I’d turn her down.  I don’t think it should be banned because that’s too authoritarian.  But I don’t think it’s smart to date and have sex until one is married and fiscally able to have a kid.
Is that really a haven to you?
It’s tough for sure, but I wouldn’t want my tax dollars paying for the kids other people shouldn’t have had.  I don’t want them aborting.  People that have one kid when they can’t afford it should not be having any more kids and I would encourage such men to get vasectomies so I don’t have to pay for their kids if they produce a 2nd kid (because they wouldn’t produce a 2nd kid).  I also recommend setting their kid up for adoption.
America is great but its still a shithole!
Are you aware this sentence is a contradiction?  You can’t be great if your a shithole.
stop being complacent thinking America is the ultimate place, like you don't have people born into poverty. Like you don't have people suffering and blowing their goddamn heads off because they hurt so much! Like you don't have people not being able to afford to pay for their cancer treatment. Like people don't work 60 hours a week on two jobs just to survive.
You think Europe is better than America because of social democracy.  I think America is better than the EU because of relative anarcho capitalism.  How does one objectively measure which is better?  My measurement is the number of people that merely want to move to the US or any country in the EU.  America is a more popular destination to move than any country in Europe.  We attract less tourists than some countries.  But we attract more immigrants.  The immigrants generally believe America is the better location to move to since they come to the US in higher numbers than any country in the EU.

Being in poverty is worse in America than in most of Europe. At least I can still go to the dentist.
It’s worse, but I don’t want to pay for other people’s health bills with high taxes.
There is better public transport in Europe. People don't realise how much a car costs.
Why should America make the switch to public transport?

You happen to live in a society which has agreed (through votes and elections) its worthwhile to have taxes!
I understand the need for taxes.  I just don’t want an INCOME tax, a PROPERTY tax, and I don’t want taxes going to programs that subsidize the unproductive adults.

If you want to clean the boots of your corp daddies all day, that doesn't mean others should want that.
I don’t do that.  My Chipotle job sucks, but I do it for the money.  I’m willing to work harder than most Europeans and this makes Americans grittier.

I'm not lazy if I don't want to fill out paper work all day when I could still have a nice life with more holidays.
You are lazy if you don’t want to work.
Yes, we can. That's what democracy is.
Democracy is forcing me to adopt a homeless person?  That is unconstitutional.  Goes against the fourth amendment I think.


t is not even the most democratic nation on the planet. There are studies to back this stuff up.
A pure democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on who’s for lunch.  A Republic is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.  Republics are better than democracies.