• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

One year after Parkland...1100 children killed

Threegoofs said:
I think if the pool manufacturer is at fault, they should be liable.

You apparently think we should carve out special protections for them.
Click to expand...

How would the pool manufacturer be at fault if someone drowned in it?
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. what else would you call it?

the number of firearms sales skyrocketed in the last decade.. and yet our violent crime rate hovers around the lowest its been in decades.

the number of firearm sales skyrocketed in that same period.. and the number of firearm accidents

The US has more guns per capita.. far and away more than Japan..and has a much lower suicide rate.

The US has more guns per capita than the UK and yet our violent crime rate is comparable. In fact there are studies that show that Americans are less likely to fear walking home at night than those in the UK.

Your hysteria about guns is paranoia and irrational fear.

Seriously.. the facts are in.. and your position is not rational.
Click to expand...

Except for the tens of thousands who get shot every single year.
 
Keridan said:
This is not trying to strawman. I'm trying to extrapolate from you anecdotal evidence. You are saying that most abortions (or is it just more than gun murders of children in America) are from rape, forced prostitution, etc? I have some evidence to refute that (well, 100s of articles), but I'm curious if I'm wasting my time by misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

He's saying that abortion isn't evil.
 
Threegoofs said:
Not sure, but it seems kinda nutty to specifically say that this is impossible without a case in front of you.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a gun manufacturer who manufacturers a legal product who legally sells it to a distributor, who legally sells it to a gun shop, who legally sells it to a law abiding citizen whose gun is stolen, that the manufacturer be held liable for criminal use of that gun?
 
Threegoofs said:
Zero, although I suppose their may have been deaths from complications of young teens, but that’s so incredibly rare it’s about zero.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I predicted this "answer" much earlier. Sure, those kids would never be born healthy left to the natural evolution of life. It's all about the woman. There is no other life.
 
Rucker61 said:
He's saying that abortion isn't evil.
Click to expand...

Sure. One form of killing isn't evil because it only ends 700,000 lives a year. The other is because it is a tool used to end 40k including suicides.
 
Keridan said:
Sure. One form of killing isn't evil because it only ends 700,000 lives a year. The other is because it is a tool used to end 40k including suicides.
Click to expand...

Now you're delving into emotion and opinion.
 
Rucker61 said:
No, that's an emotional response, too.
Click to expand...

This is my point. Do you think I really expect people to suddenly admit two (three if you include the father) are involved in abortion?
 
Keridan said:
Honestly, I predicted this "answer" much earlier. Sure, those kids would never be born healthy left to the natural evolution of life. It's all about the woman. There is no other life.
Click to expand...

You predicted it!

Wow.

Maybe because... you know how ridiculous the premise is.
 
Threegoofs said:
You predicted it!

Wow.

Maybe because... you know how ridiculous the premise is.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, of course I predicted how absurd it is to think ending a life before it has a chance is. Anyone defending this murder is likely to follow the absurd reasoning that makes this killing okay. But good on you for admitting it!
 
Keridan said:
Well, yes, of course I predicted how absurd it is to think ending a life before it has a chance is. Anyone defending this murder is likely to follow the absurd reasoning that makes this killing okay. But good on you for admitting it!
Click to expand...

Does every egg that fails to get fertilized each month represent a life that never had a chance?
 
One year after the Parkland shooting, doctors have killed another quarter of a million people by medical errors. But let's not talk about that. Let's have the CDC tell us to not think about that and instead think about gun deaths instead.
 
joko104 said:
One year after the Parkland shooting, doctors have killed another quarter of a million people by medical errors. But let's not talk about that. Let's have the CDC tell us to not think about that and instead think about gun deaths instead.
Click to expand...

It’s hard to keep more than one thing in your head... I understand.

Note that hundreds of thousands of people each and every day are working to minimize medical errors, and thousands of medical professionals are being sued for mistakes all the time.

Yet the CDC is banned from looking at gun violence as a health problem, thanks to gun nuts.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s hard to keep more than one thing in your head... I understand.

Note that hundreds of thousands of people each and every day are working to minimize medical errors, and thousands of medical professionals are being sued for mistakes all the time.

Yet the CDC is banned from looking at gun violence as a health problem, thanks to gun nuts.
Click to expand...

It's not a health problem. The CDC isn't banned from looking at gun violence. They are banned from funding studies specifically to increase gun control.

First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws
http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/cdcfinalreport.pdf
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press

No matter what the CDC could find, given unlimited budget and no restrictions, nothing gives the government the authority to ignore Constitutional protections. You wouldn't like that if they could.
 
Keridan said:
This is not trying to strawman. I'm trying to extrapolate from you anecdotal evidence. You are saying that most abortions (or is it just more than gun murders of children in America) are from rape, forced prostitution, etc? I have some evidence to refute that (well, 100s of articles), but I'm curious if I'm wasting my time by misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

nope...saying that you have no right.. nor does any government official.. to determine the course of a persons life and their children while they are in the womb (and still part of that person). There are a whole host of issues that people have.. private reasons.. rape, medical issues. genetic problems.. and so forth that are involved here. Its up to the person and their doctor to determine the best course of action.. for that person AND for the life that's in it. Not a government official.

And by the way.. you don't have evidence that states "most abortions are not due to rape etc".. and that's because most rapes, incest, and other abuses to woman.. like date rape.. go vastly unreported. So any evidence that says.. "well.. they didn't list that as a reason".. is inherently problematic.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s hard to keep more than one thing in your head... I understand.

Note that hundreds of thousands of people each and every day are working to minimize medical errors, and thousands of medical professionals are being sued for mistakes all the time.

Yet the CDC is banned from looking at gun violence as a health problem, thanks to gun nuts.
Click to expand...

Anyone with the Center for Disease Control who doesn't want to be involved with diseases and instead wishes to fight the 2nd Amendment should quit the CDC and go work for the Southern Poverty Law Center's campaign to disarm poor people.

Note: Millions of people work day and night against all violent crimes including with guns. They are called "police" and "prosecutors."
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s hard to keep more than one thing in your head... I understand.

Note that hundreds of thousands of people each and every day are working to minimize medical errors, and thousands of medical professionals are being sued for mistakes all the time.

Yet the CDC is banned from looking at gun violence as a health problem, thanks to gun nuts.
Click to expand...

Actually they are not "banned"..

However.. it actually makes sense to ban the CDC from looking at gun violence as a health problem. And that's because using "gun violence".. is a largely invalid statistic..and shows bias.

I think you have a bit of a research background.

Lets say you and I were doing two separate studies on the effect of bicycles in a community.

We are both studying two communities.. one community uses bicycles.. the other doesn't.

I design my study and compare these statistics: overall accident rates. Severity of accidents.. and mortality rates of the community.

And when I compare a community that uses bicycles with one that doesn't... what do a find.

The community that uses bicycles has no higher accident rate than the one that doesn't.
The community that uses bicycles has a lower severity of accident (perhaps less car crashes as people commute on bicycles)
The community that uses bicycles has a lower mortality rate and lives longer than the one that doesn't. (perhaps because of the health effects of bicycles from exercise. less respiratory problems, so on.)

so I conclude that bicycle use is either not harmful to the community.. or perhaps it might be beneficial.

Sounds pretty reasonable right?

now.. you design your study.. and you use two statistics: Bike accidents..and Bike deaths..

And lo.. what do you find? Why the community that uses bicycles has more bike accidents and more bike deaths than the community that does not.

Surprise surprise right?

So you conclude that bicycle use is dangerous for a community and you recommend that bicycles should be banned from use.

now.. does that seem reasonable? I would hope it would not. but how did you arrive at such an erroneous assumption? By using bike death,, and bike accidents as statistics.

It biased your research.

Well sir.. the same with using "gun violence".. and "gun death".

Its not surprising.. that when you compare the US to Mexico.. that Mexico.. has way less GUN DEATH.. while America has far more.

Because.. we have way more guns per capita.

but.. which country would you rather live in and have less fear? Mexico? No.. and why? because despite having so fewer firearms.. their murder rates, their violent crime rates.. are much higher than the US.

So studying gun violence.. as a "health problem".. is inherently biased and invalid. And its not lost on me that researchers who want to study "gun violence"... actually understand that.

Anyone with any sense can understand the point I just made. So.its pretty clear that the purpose of studying "gun violence"..is really to reach an agenda against guns.. and not actual to actually help society.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think if the pool manufacturer is at fault, they should be liable.

You apparently think we should carve out special protections for them.
Click to expand...

Well.. do you think the pool manufacturer is at fault because a person dies because someone pushes them into the pool?

Do you think that the pool manufacturer is at fault because a child drowns because the parents left the toddler playing next to the pool unsupervised?

I don't. And what if some pool hating morons decided that every time a person was pushed into a pool and died.. or a child drowns because they are unattended.. they would sue the pool manufacturers for making an "unsafe product". and their sole purpose was simply to use those lawsuits to push pool manufacturers out of business? endless frivolous lawsuits?

I would support protection from that. Would you? Or would you allow a group of pool hating morons to get rid of pool manufactures.

Hmmm.. what if it was some right wing whackadoos that decided the best way to get rid of the manufacture of say plan B.. was to sue the manufacture for wrongful death everytime Plan B was used?
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually they are not "banned"..

However.. it actually makes sense to ban the CDC from looking at gun violence as a health problem. And that's because using "gun violence".. is a largely invalid statistic..and shows bias.

I think you have a bit of a research background.

Lets say you and I were doing two separate studies on the effect of bicycles in a community.

We are both studying two communities.. one community uses bicycles.. the other doesn't.

I design my study and compare these statistics: overall accident rates. Severity of accidents.. and mortality rates of the community.

And when I compare a community that uses bicycles with one that doesn't... what do a find.

The community that uses bicycles has no higher accident rate than the one that doesn't.
The community that uses bicycles has a lower severity of accident (perhaps less car crashes as people commute on bicycles)
The community that uses bicycles has a lower mortality rate and lives longer than the one that doesn't. (perhaps because of the health effects of bicycles from exercise. less respiratory problems, so on.)

so I conclude that bicycle use is either not harmful to the community.. or perhaps it might be beneficial.

Sounds pretty reasonable right?

now.. you design your study.. and you use two statistics: Bike accidents..and Bike deaths..

And lo.. what do you find? Why the community that uses bicycles has more bike accidents and more bike deaths than the community that does not.

Surprise surprise right?

So you conclude that bicycle use is dangerous for a community and you recommend that bicycles should be banned from use.

now.. does that seem reasonable? I would hope it would not. but how did you arrive at such an erroneous assumption? By using bike death,, and bike accidents as statistics.

It biased your research.

Well sir.. the same with using "gun violence".. and "gun death".

Its not surprising.. that when you compare the US to Mexico.. that Mexico.. has way less GUN DEATH.. while America has far more.

Because.. we have way more guns per capita.

but.. which country would you rather live in and have less fear? Mexico? No.. and why? because despite having so fewer firearms.. their murder rates, their violent crime rates.. are much higher than the US.

So studying gun violence.. as a "health problem".. is inherently biased and invalid. And its not lost on me that researchers who want to study "gun violence"... actually understand that.

Anyone with any sense can understand the point I just made. So.its pretty clear that the purpose of studying "gun violence"..is really to reach an agenda against guns.. and not actual to actually help society.
Click to expand...

Why Can't the U.S. Treat Guns as a Public-Health Problem? - The Atlantic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom