Iowa FTW

[Semicolon]

btw  find it kinda amusing that Lit and Rage are on the same side here, given Rage's views on "lazy" people who are a "burden to society" (his words, not mine)

Lit is PROUD to be exactly that

But both Rage and Lit are against the current political structure. They both want their respective governments to be overthrown and replaced. Their gun control arguments stem from this central viewpoint.

[TheoK]

 

[odeon]

And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.

I'll address this since my name was bought up.

I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.

"Fact"?

[odeon]

I did hurt your precious feelings, didn't I? It's a problem to you when we highlight some of the issues your country is faced with, isn't it? You become all defensive.

That doesn't answer my questions.

/shrug

You didn't address mine. You are still defensive, though.

Doesn't stop you from claiming things and calling it common sense. Go for that paper. Or prepare your hat.

Heaven forbid that they actually -are- common sense! 

How do you like our hat? Cooked?

So you claimed you defeated Adam because he didn't reply to you quickly enough. If you have problems reading things in context, don't remove the context.

So I have tons of responsibilities, and I manage to meet them all and more. And I still have time to come here and poke at your gay ass liberal agenda, because its entertaining. I didn't remove the context, you just insist on underestimating me as a person.

Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.

There you are with your precious feelings again. Is your constitution sacred, somehow? You mad, bro?

Is your constitution sacred, somehow?

It sure as hell is. 

Explains why you come off as a fanatic. Religion starts where rationality ends.

The word is 'mericans. Don't make this to be about your feelings.

I'm pretty sure its about your feelings. I was merely poking at you for whining that Lit HAD to make this about America. (especially since the original topic was about legislations in IOWA. A U.S. STATE.  )

Actually the original topic was about allowing the blind to carry guns. I should know. I started it.

But I was wrong about this being merely about your feelings. It's clearly also about your religion.

I realise you tend to see guns as a solution but I'll just ignore him. Easier.

Ah yes, pretend it doesn't exist. That's a common theme with people like you hmm?

Beats your solution to use a gun. That's a common theme with people like you.

We seem to be making some headway, then. I'm glad you realise your decisions are subjective.

Lol I wasn't aware that is what this was about. Some of any human being's decisions are subjective, but the extreme left tend to make all their decisions that way.

You said it, I merely commented on your realisation.

The numbers I presented did. Probably why you ignored them. Reality is a bitch, isn't it?

I didn't ignore them, I made them look silly by comparing them to another, much larger number related to your precious health care.

This comment is so clueless it's astonishing. Makes me wonder if you have any idea of you country's actual problems.

Yes, and the main one is a several trillion dollar debt that grows by the day. One that will become much worse by turning this country into a welfare state.

You can save more by closing down schools, too.

My dad is stronger than your dad.

If you want a serious argument, produce serious comments.

I *think* the world would be better without firearms.

And I am certain that's a silly fantasy.

Here's a question about your religion:

If ignoring the practicalities of getting rid of every firearm there is, if for a moment imagining it was possible (which, btw, I don't think it is), do you think the world would be a better place? A yes or no will do.

Just because you say so doesn't make it true. You are not defeating my arguments, the thread is slowing down, and you're beginning to resort to one sentence quips. Looks a lot like things are in my favor, here.

Oh wow did you come up with that all by yourself?

You invented numbers, from the looks of it. Back them up and I might take them more seriously.

Shows me how much you really know about this debate, since the medical error argument is a pretty common one. Don't feel bad, you reacted to it like most of them do. Also, invented? Heres the information again, since you must have just been skimming the first time.


Here is something that causes a lot more deaths. Hospitals, and medical error. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php Whats your excuse for 195,000 deaths a year? Accidents happen? Well then that's my excuse too.  195000 deaths as compared to less than a hundred. But you're worried about a tool people accidentally shoot themselves with sometimes.

You're absolutely SURE this isn't about feels, man?

Shoot themselves with? If they kept on shooting themselves, I'd say good riddance, good for the gene pool, but the fact is that others get hurt.

As for 195,000 as compared to less than a hundred, that last number, where did it come from?

This topic is not about health care, though. It's an important subject but I suggest you to start a separate thread for it.

Let's produce some gun-related numbers, though. Did you know, for example, that more people - nine - were killed with scissors in japan in 2011 than with guns? Guns are few and far between over there, but still, there are 120,000 registered gun owners there, in a country with 130,000,000 people.

The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.

That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?

But that's just silly, isn't it?

[TA]

And there's TA who will echo your sentiments.

I'll address this since my name was bought up.

I usually don't stay in these debates for very long because it boils down to the simple fact that people like you and Adam are of the opinion that another's rights end where your feelings begin. Do you have a right to have that opinion? Yes. Do I have to agree with it? No.

"Fact"?

Quibbling over a single word

[conlang returns]

Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.

epic

[TheoK]

The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.

That's a lot, especially if for a moment entertaining your silly notion of the gun being just a tool. Do you think there are more than 11,000 screwdriver-related deaths yearly in the US?

But that's just silly, isn't it?

Yes, it's silly. It's a lot compared to the gun deaths in Japan but not compared to the size of the US population, that is 317000000.

But this is shameful pramgatism/utilitarism. Freedom isn't for free and you are using utilitaristic arguments when discussing a right (because defending yourself is a right and thus owning the means for it is an extension of that right, and merely owning a gun is also not malum in se).

[TheoK]

But OK, I'll consider the utilitarist argument for a short moment. How many people in Syria are being raped, molested and murdered now because they don't have the weapons to defend themselves? How many Jews died because they didn't have the weapons to defend themselves against the nazis? How many citizens of the Soviet Union, who couldn't defend themselves against Stalins thugs? Quite a few more than 11000 out of 317000000.

[TheoK]

"But that will never happen in Sweden or the UK". Because history shows that everything is stable and will last forever 

[bodie]

You just hate us Brits

I have proof

The Emmy's   

[TheoK]

Britain started with licensing guns even before WWI. It was one of the first countries in Europe to do so.

Now just your fucking lords have pistols 

[Semicolon]

You just hate us Brits

I have proof

The Emmy's   

[bodie]

An anagram of awesome scale

is

same woe scale

[RageBeoulve]

So how do we decide who is a burden and who isn't? Or do you just pick and choose yourself?

Lol no. You decide someone is a burden if they are only taking from everyone and not giving anything back.

bur·den 1  (bûrdn)
n.
1.  Something that is carried.

2.
a.  Something that is emotionally difficult to bear.

b.  A source of great worry or stress; weight: The burden of economic sacrifice rests on the workers of the plant.

3.  A responsibility or duty: The burden of organizing the campaign fell to me.

4.  Nautical
a.  The amount of cargo that a vessel can carry.

b.  The weight of the cargo carried by a vessel at one time.

5.  The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.

tr.v. bur·dened, bur·den·ing, bur·dens
1.  To weigh down; oppress.

2.  To load or overload.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English, from Old English byrthen; see  bher-1 in Indo-European roots.]

Synonyms:  burden1, affliction, cross, trial, tribulation
 These nouns denote something onerous or troublesome: the burden of a guilty conscience; indebtedness that is an affliction; a temper that is her cross; a troublemaker who is a trial to the teacher; suffered many tribulations in rising from poverty. See Also Synonyms at substance.

5.  The amount of a disease-causing entity present in an organism.

[RageBeoulve]

/shrug

You didn't address mine. You are still defensive, though.

Explain to me how I didn't address yours?

How do you like our hat? Cooked?

 

Actually, no. I don't think it's possible to underestimate you.

Thanks for confirming my point.

Explains why you come off as a fanatic. Religion starts where rationality ends.

Hah, i'm an atheist, bro. I just don't thing a nation's constitution should be taken so lightly.

Actually the original topic was about allowing the blind to carry guns. I should know. I started it.

But I was wrong about this being merely about your feelings. It's clearly also about your religion.

Again, I have no religion. And yeah, that's what I said. This thread started on the basis of legislations in Iowa. Iowa is an American state. You would never have made this thread if you hadn't heard what was going on in this American state. 

Beats your solution to use a gun. That's a common theme with people like you.

And this is our fundemental disagreement. You are being ambiguous on purpose, but I will meet this point directly. Pretending something is not there will not solve a problem. In reality where the grown-ups live, its common knowledge that one must address problems as they develop or they will grow into a larger problem. As to your ambiguous statement, I laughed.

Beats your solution to use a gun.

Yeah whatever man. Use a gun for what? Do you even know?

You said it, I merely commented on your realisation.

It wasn't a realization. Dance around all you like sir, i'm actually trying to play ball with you.

You can save more by closing down schools, too.

Its foolish to get rid of anything, which again seems to be a common theme with you. I said nothing of banning anything or closing anything down. I stated that the welfare state design in the U.K. would destroy my country, which is already several trillion dollars in the red.

If you want a serious argument, produce serious comments.

I have been. You just don't like them.

Here's a question about your religion:

If ignoring the practicalities of getting rid of every firearm there is, if for a moment imagining it was possible (which, btw, I don't think it is), do you think the world would be a better place? A yes or no will do.

I have no religion, and no. People will continue to kill each other. You are looking to change the human condition, I think.

The US population is (roughly) twice the size. Yet, yearly, more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.

Big problem with the language there.

more than 11,000 people die yearly in gun-related incidents.

How many of those were criminals killing each other, or being killed by victims of crime in self defense hmmm? How many of those were actually lives of law abiding citizens saved?

This topic is not about health care, though. It's an important subject but I suggest you to start a separate thread for it.

I'm not arguing health care and you know it. I used a very large number (195,000 deaths) to illustrate that there are other very important life saving things that wind up killing a lot of people. More than your 11,000 people, I might add. I don't hear you rallying the social justice warriors to ban hospitals, because they are high priority in your mind, right? (mine too, but so are guns)

So yeah, thanks for the dance.