Life

I'll grant you the first point because I think that it is logical and correct. But the issue that I have is that most people on the other side of the gun debate believe that nobody is liscensed and background checks don't happen in general.Private sales of firearms should be illegal because it is like selling a gun out of the back of a car. I can get behind it easily. Where I differ from you is on the types of guns. First of all, I used an M16A1 during my army service and I believe that an AR-15 (the semi-automatic version of the M16) is excellent as a self defensive weapon. It is lightweight and very easy to maintain along with having a caliber that is much less powerful than your average hunting rifle. I also don't believe that the law should be uniform across the country because that infringes on states' rights. But that is really a discussion of big government vs. smaller government. Where I put my foot down is a gun registry. I am going to assume that you are for one (you didn't outright say it but implied) and while I can understand the logic behind it, I don't agree because I believe that it allows the government to target residences with firearms if it were to ever become totalitarian and wished to disarm the populace. And that's a risk that I don't want to take.

Crysta was making a bad joke.Young people love the idea of equity and socialism appeals to them, especially since they're already left. Tell them about free stuff and they'll love you (and it ain't free).

And Maccabi Tel Aviv just imploded against Zenit St. Petersburg. That was ridiculous since ZES put in the winning goal in extra time.

Watching the first quarter of that Bills/Ravens game was painful. Didn't see the rest but here's my dad's analysis. Feel free to disagree, Raven. Didn't watch the game.

Socialism in any form is an old idea. Bernie was almost quoting Lenin with some of his ideas.

I'll answer the last question now and the rest later. I'm on my phone. Too much of a hassle to quote individual things. And plus, I like to refer to the whole as a proper rebuttal with coherant points. Oh and regarding Illinois, go down the site I provided. As I stated, Chicago statistics before and after gun control legislation is listed there.

Back for more myth busting!With regards to Illinois comments, I don't think you get the idea that criminals do not care about gun control laws. It's hilarious that I even need to state something like this because I thought it would be obvious. As for causation, I'm not using correlation to prove anything because I already know what the causation is. But I am pointing out the correlation between more strict gun control and level of crime per capita. You don't need to be a genius to realize that gun control laws don't apply to criminals based on this premise. Oh, you wanted statistics? Sure. Chicago is listed here with before and after gun control laws that were implemented. http://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/ As for saying that I was factually false, I looked into your site. And I found a few interesting things. 1) That Mayors Against Illegal Guns is quoted as a reputible source. Which it isn't but we'll let it slide. 2) This case: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html Now remember that everything later in the article especially the "19 out of 30" bit is reported in a study... on behalf of Michael Bloomberg. Who has funded many campaigns to eliminate guns in totality and has forged data and claims in order to get there (see the controversy regarding John Lott and Katie Couric). Strangly enough, Bloomberg also runs Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Now I ain't saying that it's circular evidence but... well, let's just say that facts do get twisted here to fit the narrative. Long story short, your source relies on someone who has gone out of their way to lie in order to take guns out of law abiding citizen's hands. BUT! I'll meet you halfway. Let's assume that your source is 100% credible. Am I willing to eliminate private sales? Not a problem. But in return, you conceed that A) background checks are mandatory for reputable gun dealers and B) that states perform more background checks than the NICS as per FBI reports. https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics Or you could always go out and buy a gun. I'll even gift you a gun online to prove a point. We can do it through ar15.com. Hell, I'll go and check out how much it costs. That way, I can show you that I'm willing to drop my own money to prove a point and you get to learn practically about guns.

The problem I find with the gun issue is one of ignorance. Don't take this as an insult. But generally, people who have never touched a gun in their lives will usually argue against guns. My favourite issue is "well it's easy to get a gun". Not really. Background checks are mandatory by federal law and they work. Remember the reporter from the Chicago Sun Times? He was denied a gun because of his background check (domestic abuse). What needs to be pointed out is that gun control laws only affect those who follow the law in the first place. If a bad guy wants a gun, he'll get one illegally. Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the countries and some of the most crime (in proportion because when Raven responded to this in the last thread, he missed those words). I'll keep going later on busting common myths because I have used many different type of guns and have been shooting since age 10.

Abstinence is 100% effective in warding off pregnancy.That's right, I said it. Only abstinence from sex is being socially responsible. Even if you use every birth control option, the act of sex itself is being socially irresponsible if you are trying to subvert pregnancy. I'm not saying "don't have sex". I'm saying that you should admit that you are being socially irresponsible. I can do that.

Jesus Christ... Ok, here goes some gun education.1) The vast majority of gun crimes are commited in inner cities. Chicago, NYC... pick a city that has a big poor black community. In addition, 80% of these homicides are drug and/or gang related. 2) Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. If a bad guy wants to get a gun, he's going to do it illegally. Let's take Adam Lanza as an example. He stole thr gun from his mother (which is already a felony because he could not legally acquire a gun), drove to a gun free school and shot up kids. How is taking a gun away from me who acquired it in a legal fashion going to stop that? If he couldn't steal it from his mother, he would have gotten it from another source. Nobody is going to decide not to do an evil act just because it's more of a hassle. I will personally say that Nancy Lanza should have locked her guns up much better and that is on her. But the fact is that Adam Lanza would have commited that act anyway. He would have either looked for another gun or gotten a knife or something. Evil is evil. In the meantime, disarming me is not going to help that. There is more than enough evidence to show that (and this is an example) women who are packing heat are able to ward off more attacks by predators than if they were disarmed. 3. Legislation is only as effective as how effective you choose to be in upholding it. Criminals don't follow the law. Go after them. Not those who legally exercise the right to defend themselves.

That's a very radical position if I'm reading this right.Is a baby that is immediately born and has taken its first breath considered as a person? Before knowing if it fully functional? Raven: Sex is socially irresponsible when it is done to feel pleasure and not for procreation as it is designed for biologically. Any aversion of the biological function is socially irresponsible since there is always a chance for procreation. Your turn. Bear in mind that I accept that I myself am socially irresponsible and I accept that my actions can lead to consequences. And I continue to do so because I choose to for my own pleasure. As for why I don't believe that it should be publicly funded, it goes like this. If I have no right to comment on an abortion (because only the women gets to make the decision), I don't believe I should pay for it. Now if you want to know if I personally believe it should be publicly funded, that is a different matter and I have not stated my own position. Nor do I care to. That's why I always laugh at my username.I like to joke to my best friend that I am a right wing nut job and he's a bleeding heart liberal. The truth is that I'm conservative but pragmatic. And what's funny about it is that I'm 25 years old, educated and moved right politically in the past 5 years. Before that, I was center-left due to growing up in Canada under liberal governments.

Gun buyback in 1996 did not significant curb gun violence. It was already on the decline and in a static fashion.As for my hypocrisy, I'll explain it thusly even though you bring up an excellent point. There is enough data to show that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun. Mass shootings like Sandy Hook take place in gun free zones the vast majority of the time. I'll take you a step further. States with more restrictive gun control have more gun homicides than those with less. Compare Wyoming to Illinois. There are more guns per population in Wyoming and less gun violence in proportion as opposed to Illinois which has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Since mass shootings are a very small fraction of all gun violence (and actually take place is gun free zones), they are not representative of gun violence on any scale. As for Islamic attacks, sure we're also talking about a very small minority. But once again, I point to Rotheram and Thessaloniki. These are refugees that come from countries where (for example) honour killings are legal and not rare (1000 per year in Bangladesh as an example). And it just so happens that these are Islamic countries where Sharia is the rule of the land. This is a culture that I don't want. Forget Islamic attacks; child grooming gangs and honour killings are not compatible with Western culture. Therefore, slowing immigration from countries that do practice these things is absolutely acceptable. I don't want it here in Israel and I don't want it in Western countries. Is that acceptable?

Excellent.Figure 9 shows no significant decrease in firearm related deaths. Slow decrease yes. But not significant relative to when the buybacks occurred. As for religious descrimination, I think that it doesn't hold water because I personally object to immigration from Islamic countries where that is the law of the land. Not all Muslims in general. A muslim in Israel should be able to move to the USA without any issues as an example. It's close but let's be practical when we look at the Islamic world. Call me xenophobic if you want but I live next door to a country that deems it illegal for Muslims to marry Jews (Egypt). There is a clear contrast in culture between Western countries and Islamic countries and with the way that Europe is slowly changing, I don't like it. I do not think that America should go that route.

Free would be the answer.Do you believe that sex without the intent of procreation is being socially responsible? If so, why? Also, I never said that rape is why abortion should be legal. Abortion should be legal because they'll happen anyways. There's no reason to waste funds and effort on a procedure that may or may not be biological beneficial to women (an argument I saw recently and since I am not a scientist, I'm not going to refute the science behind it). Rather, make it legal and have it privately funded.

Constitution applies only to American citizens. Are immigrants before citizenship considered citizens?As for Australia... http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/assault.html http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html Assaults trending upwards. No significant drop in the homicide rate (which itself was on the decline anyways). Gun violence itself was on the decline before gun control was instituted and there was no major drop off in gun violence after the mandatory buy back. I'll grant you England for right now as that I'm at work. Let's not get into the realm of "mass shootings" because they are far too rare to be considered anything more than an outlier. If that's your measuring stick, then fine but you're not looking at the whole picture.

I'm saying "I should not pay for it but not get a say in the matter".I've already pointed out that I believe that it should be legal up to a point (end of 2nd trimester maximum). But I don't believe that it should be publicly funded if I can't comment on it. As for social irresponsibility, I see sex before marriage as being socially irresponsible. I still partake myself because I enjoy it but if I knock up a girl, it is both of our faults and we should pay, not the general public. In fact, sex without the intent of procreation in general is social irresposibility. I can admit that and I've slept with many women in my adult life. It doesn't change my opinion of sex. What's the big deal?

I'm not frustrated. More just amused that you're going to claim that I'm getting upset when it's you. But sure, have it your way.As for Trump's immigration policy, I don't know if it will curb terrorism but I do know that cases like Lubin, Rotherham and Thessaloniki won't happen in the USA with a temporary ban on immigration from Islamic countries. As it stands right now, I like Trump's immigration reform. My issue is that I don't know if he'll scale back more which is why I still can't say I support him.

Then I should be allowed to comment on the matter.My point is that if someone takes the position that it is the mother's choice only to have an abortion (which I am absolutely OK with upholding), then it cannot be publicly funded because my opinion is not considered and I still have to pay for it. I'm of the opinion that abortion clinics should fund abortions that are life-threatening or rape based. And if they refuse, then that would be illegal and the mother has legal grounds to sue. It's a sticky position but it is a constant defendable position because both can be proved by medical records. And since they constitute for so few abortions, that is acceptable. As an aside, I don't believe in welfare anyway.

Holy shit.Sarcasm, bro. Talk about hijacking someone's point. I brought up an example of Islamic terrorism that recently happened in the US and made a joke about how Obama attributes it solely to gun violence. You went off on an unrelated tangent. Tryhard is the only one who responded properly. And he still conceeded that the wife was an immigrant. As an aside, we can talk about how Australia's gun control policies have not resulted in any significant change in gun violence or how gun violence has actually increased in countries like England but that is another conversation entirely.

I don't care what the reason is. It has no connection to life-threatening situations or rape. It is a choice to not have a baby for whatever reason.Are you telling me that I should pay for someone's social irresponsibility (in the case that they cannot raise the baby feasibly) and not have a say in it because I am not a woman?

I brought up San Bernadino because it has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with Muslim immigrants who decided to kill Americans just because.I didn't mention mass shootings, you did. Keep the point on topic.

Let's throw out those cases simply because they are exceedingly rare. Same with rape. Both of those constitute for something like 1% of all abortions (please fact-check me, I'm lazy).I'm referring to your average "I don't want the kid" cases which are the vast majority.

Fair point.So it cannot be publicly funded. If I don't get a say so I refuse to pay for something I am not allowed to comment on.

Wait, we're still attributing San Bernadino to gun violence?Ok.

I liken this to a practical example of "do the ends justify the means". Hence why I want this to play out.