- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
When a dozen white kids get murdered in CT and absolutely nothing happens, you know it's never going to happen.
This same BS fearmongering gets trotted out every time a shooting happens. Alot of talk. Some proposals. And then nothing happens.
I could maybe entertain the concerns over assault weapons being banned. But ALL guns? Lmao. K. Over 300m guns in circulation are just gonna be rounded up? K.
Depends how you're defining liberal. Is it a classical liberal merely concerned with toleration and equal rights? Or is it a policy focused liberal like bernie sanders? Or is it a "liberal" who is really just an SJW with no political savvy whatsoever who calls themselves a liberal for no reason?
i suspect youre talking about the 3rd option.
Yeah this was covered in a Last Week Tonight segment. Its not that science doesnt work, it obviously does. But money and media can corrupt it. They will take an entry-level study on, say, coffee beans and the study might conclude that coffee beans contain a chemical which MAY be able to lower body fat. But theres no other studies cross confirming this. But the media will take it and youll see blown up news stories like: THE NEW HOT WEIGHT LOSS CURE! 2 CUPS OF COFFEE A DAY AND WATCH THE WEIGHT FALL RIGHT OFF!!
But of course they dont tell you that the study isnt conclusive by any means. Also they completely leave out the fact that you need a healthy diet and regular exercise in addition to the coffee consumption.
Wow you mined a quote from one democrat from 1995. Here is the contents bill that Mrs Feinstein proposed in the senate in the wake of the orlando shooting: "1) determines that the transferee is known (or appropriately suspected) to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources for terrorism" and "(2) has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism." The amendment Feinstein introduced last Wednesday, by contrast, lets the attorney general block a sale if he "determines, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the transferee represents a threat to public safety based on a reasonable suspicion that the transferee is engaged, or has been engaged, in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism, or providing material support or resources thereof."
So while she as an individual wants a ban, she has proposed no such legislation at all. Also, even her above proposal has been criticized by OTHER democrats as too extreme. So you singled out one democrat that literally no other democrats agree with. And this is supposed to be evidence that all liberals want a ban on guns. Congratulations you made a terrible argument
Because its done with a gun thats fake significance? How exactly is it not significant? People who are suicidal have easy access to the 100% sure way to kill themselves and that shows in that statistic. That is a problem. It is one part of the entire large problem of gun violence in america. Gun accidents, suicides, mass shootings, homicides, theyre all part of the collective problem.
Nobody is proposing gun confiscation. Once again, you made that up. However if someone commits a crime and they already have a gun then that gun will be confiscated. So that criminal no longer has a gun.
How are we disarming the law abiding citizen? Not one piece of legislation that has been proposed involves removing guns from people who already own them. All were talking about is gun purchases moving forward. Nobody has suggested confiscating guns from law abiding citizens, once again, you made that up.
Theres no progressive spin. I can literally go get you the bill that is being proposed and you can read the law that theyre voting on. It says nothing about gun confiscation. None. So what this is is YOU taking gun laws and spinning it to seem like were taking away guns when nobody actually said that
Do i need another source or is 5 sufficient? Because i could gon on and on. Also, not sure why black lives matter has to address gun violence in chicago. That isnt what their group agenda is about.
You haven't disputed that there is 32,000 gun deaths per year. 63% are suicides and accidents. That's still a huge problem! If you have background checking, safety training, and proper gun storage then that number drops. 10,000 homicides. And just because most are gang related that excuses it? You haven't disputed that there's a gun problem you just spread out the statistics to state that mass shootings are not a problem by comparison to the rest of the statistics. You also just ignore accidents and suicides as if they're not part of the problem? 32,000 is still the most important figure. 32,000 a year in the US compared to a world average that is MUCH lower.
Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries, a new study finds.
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.
The study was published online Feb. 1 in The American Journal of Medicine.
You're just putting stats in contexts that make it appear like they're negligible. Yes 32,000 in a nation of 300 million doesn't look bad. But you have to compare that to the rest of the world to see where we stand. And youd think right off the bat seeing 357 million guns to 312 million people would be a red flag to you.
This is just a theory. There's no actual evidence that more good guys with guns = more peace. What if more people with guns does what it would seem to logically do and just creates more gun violence? What if 10 guys in the pulse club had guns? The shooter kills maybe 20 people then 10 guys all start shooting at him. 20 more people are killed in the crossfire. Police arrive and only,know there's 10 people with guns shooting. Who is the shooter? How do they know? So police are now slow and cautious to enter the scene because they have no idea what the threat is. They end up shooting 2 of the 10 guys with guns and 10 people bleed out because the cops took too long.
Obviously this is a hypothetical too but it's clear to see how good guys with guns so NOT necessarily defuse the situation calmly and quickly. Having more shooters can create more problems.
So instead of just trusting that a good guy with a gun will be an ace with a pistol and put one quick bullet between the eyes of a crazed gunman and carry 2 babies and a puppy out of the building at explodes like Rambo behind him. Why don't we do what we know will cause less gun deaths and try to cut down on guns as much as possible? That seems like the more logical direction to go in.
Well it depends what you mean by best as they each have pros and cons. HTC makes the One line which are really solid phones. Theyre really durable because of the metal frame and gorilla glass screen. Also they're incredibly easy to take apart and repair by yourself with cheap replacement parts. You could buy all the parts and build it yourself for 100$.
I'm torn on the Samsung galaxies. I had the S5 which was a steaming pile of garbage. It became slow very quickly and the battery life was attrocious however those things have been remedied in the S6 and S7 which run perfectly fine. The upside to these phones are their beautiful displays but that's about it. Another downside for me was the sheer amount of bloatware they come with. There's a good 2 dozen programs that come preloaded on the phone that I never used once. So you buy a 16g phone that's really 14g considering there's 2gigs of bullshit on there. But if that stuff doesn't bother you then it's not really that big a deal. You can also disable them so they don't pop up but they will still be on the phone.
I have heart awful things about droids. Theyre really not user friendly at all and their performance is just standard. There's nothing really special about them except they can become mobile hotspots but then again I think that feature is now present on most all new phones so it's not really a standout feature for them anymore.
I personally have the LG G4 and I love it. It's really fast, the screen is responsive, bright, and clear. The battery life is great especially compared to the s5 which died by 2pm with light use. The downsides for this phone are it's shape. It does not sit comfortably in the hand and is very easy to drop of you don't have a case. The screen is also not very durable so a case and screen protector are a must but everyone gets those things for any phone so they're negligible downsides. There wasn't a lot of bloatware which I liked and it's got some cool festures like tap to open where you can tap the screen when it's off instead of putting in your password or pressing the on button. A downside for me is that the on button is on the back. Its not that big a deal but it's just kinda awkward to get used to considering every other phone has it on the sides. Also this is a downside for nearly every Android I've ever seen: the speaker is on the back. So your media plays audio in the direction away from you instead of towards you so people across from you hear it more clearly than you do. Also if you place it on a surface the audio plays into the surface thus muffling it. It's not a big deal at all but I've always seen it as a general design flaw for androids in general.
Hope this was useful
This argument is based off of the assumption that Liberalism breeds political correctness which absolutely isnt true. There is NOTHING liberal about safe spaces, trigger warnings, and political correctness. They are psuedoliberal values that SJWs use and theyre unfairly attributed to liberalism. A real liberal doesnt care what is politically correct or not because a real liberal values the first amendment right to free speech above all else. So a real liberal is going to value someones right to say whatever harmful ignorant shit they want over someones "right" to not be offended.