First off i want to say I support reasonable restriction on guns, they are too easy to get, and I am not sure any private citizen should be able to have a military or military style weapon of the modern type, go ahead keep your m 1 garand or lee enfield but modrn assualt style weapons are too deadly
and the whole second amendment argument is sperious the founders first mentioned that a well regulated militia as a qualification for arms possession, why would they do that if they intended the right to be absolute? Secondly we do need to crack dont on these muslims and white crazies that think that violence terror and death are good ways to get the world they want.. we need to find them arrest them, or if necessary take them out with the trash.. you know what i mean
but in our quest to fight terrorism and be safe lets not forget about individual liberty lets not be safe inside a prison
The passion for destruction is also a creative passion. Mikhail Bakunin
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
great you have an opinion woohoo, I disagree, there's my opinion, or did you plan on presenting an argument with facts?
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 51%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 81%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
The researchers gave each county two scores. The first was a state policy score based on the strength of its firearm laws. The laws the researchers focused on include:
The researchers also gave each county an interstate policy score, where a higher score meant stricter laws in nearby states. This is important because firearms can be moved so easily across state lines, presenting a challenge to states that have stronger policies in place. Counties were then divided into low, medium, and high scores.
Using statistical models to compare groups of counties, the researchers found strong firearm laws in a state were associated with lower rates of firearm homicide. Conversely, counties in states with weak gun laws had the highest rates of firearm homicide.
They also discovered that counties in states with weaker gun laws had lower rates of firearm homicide when surrounding states had strong gun laws. This suggests that when a state strengthens its firearms laws, both that state and its neighbors could see protective benefits.
"We thought that because guns can cross state lines, counties in states with restrictive laws might have higher homicide rates if they were near other states with more lenient laws," Kaufman said. "But what we found was somewhat the opposite. Counties in states with weak laws had fewer deaths than expected when surrounding state laws were strong.
"We can't say what causes this relationship," she continued, "but it is encouraging to think that these policies might have benefits that extend across state lines -- a bit of a halo effect."
The authors note that the study is observational and cannot prove a cause and effect relationship between firearm laws and gun violence. The study also notes that only a few states -- mostly along the East Coast, plus Illinois, Michigan and California -- have strict laws, so the "ability to detect an effect of the strictest laws may have been limited," the authors wrote. Guns sold through the mail and internet can also make firearms equally accessible no matter where someone lives.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gun-control-laws-state-impact-on-shooting-deaths-suicide-study/
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 80%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.44  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
I've already posted about how comparisons with other countries doesn't work and why, search up the old posts if you care to learn the realities of that issue.
correlation =/= causation
what do you consider "reasonable restrictions"?
why is something that looks "military style" inherently more dangerous than the counter part that does not look so scary?
this is what comes to mind when I hear things similar to that statement you made
https://youtu.be/L5CxUZp5VZA
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.74  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 77%  
  Learn More About Debra
Have we gone too far with gun control hysteria? No.
We either do not tell the whole truth, or we do not know the whole truth. The reason why we the people are to presume a person is innocent, allow it as right to buy, own, and use a gun, is in fact due to a Congregational Armed Force and whichever type gun that institutional is issuing can be acquired for ability to participate in a common legal defense.
Meaning this we are upholding a United State in Constitutions understanding for capital punishment and use of lethal force. Gun ownership is a United States Constitutional right as common defense. This is a legal defense made on lethal force of others. It is not a self-defense argument of law, the basic principle is not to place a soldier, or officer of the law in a position where only they must use lethal force alone, on behalf of the public. A public must also assume this burden.
Our United State though just happens to believe that draft into military service is not necessary in regard to a legal defense when common opportunity of liberty can be used. This is equality held at the high level of impartially.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 72%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.38  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.32  
  Sources: 10  
  Relevant (Beta): 33%  
  Learn More About Debra
those ideas would effectively make the 2a null and void. Some states have tried to do some of those restrictions but the Supreme Court deemed them unconstitutional. The 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban was all about cosmetics and some states still have similar, which, imo is beyond stupid and useless.
It is more logical to want to ban the same functioning thing then it is to ban something based on looks or features that have no provable or only potential benefit to the individual, which is extremely minor at best.
this is where and why the slippery slope argument is used.
fyi the mass murder (3rd in number dead) at Virginia tech, that guy has a .22cal pistol, basic physics the same caliber shot out of a longer barrel = greater impact force. .22 cal is the same that almost killed Ronald Reagan, there have been other less well known and media covered mass murders that have also involved that caliber.
I don't think there should be any such ban for a variety of reasons included there are over 20 million ar-15s in circulation, it would take a military state to confiscate them all which would end up in more deaths then any mass murders per year. But that's a whole other topic
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
The Animals
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
Billbatard
Can I use the answer yes and no at the same time? The 2nd Amendment does in effect relay a whole truth made by the legal commitment set in united state in the explanation of constitutional preamble by principle, around common defense. The united state is made between military and civilian concern, this union of state went on to be legal defense of lethal force in the United States Civil War.
A really here is that what legal precedent set by civil court is doing in acts of restitution as compensation for justice, under a title of justice is now going up against the basic legal argument of lethal force as a united state. First any payment is not a substitution for justice it is the asking for permission to make payment instead of justice. As whole truth. This is outside the focus for now.
Second: If you pay tax and do not own a gun expect, receive, or interfere with protection by use of lethal force in any shooting. We have committed a crime equal to or greater than the one broken by a person who has used lethal force.
I’m going to stop there as that statement is a lot to take in. An requires answers to question to fulfill a state of the union made between people.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
Gun lobbyists have a greater issue to contend with as they dance a line between rights of ownership to design of, and Right to the institutions common defense. There are multiple United State created and not all are Constitutionally tested by court as impartial or in sequence to a whole truth.
  Considerate: 91%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
Religion of any sort, does not dictate gun violence brutality.
A gun of any sort, does not dictate gun violence brutality.
An individual human being inhumane with a gun, is the individual, solely dictating to the rest of the humanity around them with their violent inhumane brutality attitude
Regardless of religion, or the conversations that some may base on the pigmentation of ones skin, or how some use the 2nd Amendment, as a convenient platform device for their guns?
It's a double standard, in a sense, for some to use the second amendment to defend ones own guns, while some of the mass shooters, have used the same guns to commit their gun violence brutality crimes with?
Gun violence brutality in general, is solely humanity made.
Humans want weapons, so the rest of humanity, gets to live with how some are, and can be inhumane with them.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.94  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 68%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 44%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do not thing you understand CYDharat a buy back simply means one crime of theft is being avoided. The United States Constitutional common defense still describing other issues under protection by a right to common defense. The biggest is the civil liability of use applying lethal force. Also criminal conspiracy, racketeering, and a long list of all kinds of other criminal laws.
Yes a buy back is the start. However the people are still going to have unrestricted government access to the gun correct? 24-7 the gun is simply placed in an Amory along with ammunition. This simply crating a vulnerability the United States constitution was negating by use of common defense to the United State of lethal force.
Legally Australia is giving up a rather huge legal stance for its Armed Service men and woman to use lethal force in defense of the people of Austria.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.76  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
@CYDdharta
How about some of the human beings being consciously humane, to the other human beings, and end their being inhumane to the rest of humanity, via their multiple gun violence brutality crimes, and the mass shooters embracing some self respect towards themselves, and for the others around them?
And stop the abuse of the rest of humanity, via a human being inhumanely violent, towards others via the abuses of them via gun violence brutality?
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.24  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
"I'm not sure just what you're trying to say, but it seems to be why don't violent criminals stop being violent criminals? That's a question as old as humanity."
And some of humanity, seems to have gotten lazy after creating the firearm, and to in a sense, to let it in some cases do his arguing for himself?
Let me spell it out for you.
Murder, via gun violence brutality, shows how blatantly ignorant some of man has gotten, by becoming self spoiled via (an offender, or a criminal) babying a gun in their hand, and then ignorantly committing a crime, to self suit, their self entitling needs?
Humanity should come first, but when an offender or a criminal illegaly has gun in their hands, they're putting themselves before the rest of humanity, aren't they, when they commit their crimes against, thousands of victims?
Murders, drive by shootings, mass shooters, robberies, muggings, carjackings, abductions, and so on?
Guess what else is being victimized by those criminals and offenders gun violence brutality?
The 2nd Amendment is being victimized as well.
So maybe keep defending the gun, the weapon, or the firearm, as you wish to.
And do it, In the face of those unnecessary victimizations.
Because those criminals, and offenders, are victimizing your defense as well, also.
  Considerate: 55%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
"The gun isn't doing anything, and people have no problem committing crimes, even the most violent crimes, without touching a firearm. Guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history. If you want to come up with laws, regulations, restrictions that target criminals, great; who knows, they might even do some good. Just don't target law abiding citizens."
The above is the BEST pro gun argument that you have to make?
Guns have killed plenty of people, kids, teenages, and adults alike.
https://www.crimesceneinvestigatoredu.org/ballistics-expert/
"A ballistics expert (also often referred to as a forensic ballistics expert or afirearms examiner) is a forensic specialist who is responsible for collecting and analyzing ballistics-relatedevidence, which includes firearms and ammunition."
And the above individuals, are utilized to help link, the bullets from the victims, to the very guns that the mass shooters, criminals, or offenders used to kill their victims with.
If the mass shooters didn't use their GUNS to kill, all of those innocent people with, then we wouldn't be having this conversation over people having used their GUNS to kill people with now, would we?
"Just dont target law abiding citizens."
Who is "targeting" law abiding citizens?
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.34  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 55%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.1  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 14%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 34%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 76%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You own guns right?
So you have a pro gun owner mentality?
Look at how you talk about guns:
Guns don't kill people.
Criminals and offenders are always going to commit crimes.
It's amazing how you wield the 2nd Amendment with your mindset.
You wield it like a gun.
"As I mentioned and you ignored, "guns played no role in the worst school attack in our history". If someone is determined to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not."
Here you are making excuses for your guns, by saying that if someone is determined to make to make such an attack, they'll find a way to do it whether they have access to guns or not.
Lets name them off together: Knives, bats, cars, tire iron, and so on?
The above is what is called pulling the other irrelevant weapons that aren't a gun, into the conversation, that have nothing to do with a gun, but it's apparently how you're trying to downplaying the negative gun talk from your mindset, by pulling those other irrelevant objects into to the conversation?
Where the students who lost schoolmates, and the parents who lost their kids, and the families who lost loved ones as we'll, because a mass shooter killed them with guns, were they wrong to protest gun violence at the March For Our Lives rally in DC last year?
Who is more wrong when it comes to the gun violence brutality that the mass committed by killing innocent people with their guns?
Are the parents, and the students, wrong for protesting gun violence, in your estimation?
Or is the mass shooter, wrong for killing people with his guns?
"NONE of these proposed measures are aimed at criminals, they are all aimed at law abiding citizens. They would have a negligible affect on crime, but a major impact on how, where, and even if one could defend himself."
And then you end your comments with the above?
It's all about you, having your guns isn't it?
You like having things your way, don't you?
Guns don't kill people, and @CYDdharta likes having his guns, and wielding the 2nd Amendment, like a gun as well right?
Those innocent people killed by those guns, wielded by the mass shooters, the criminals, and the offenders, they got their way as well didn't they?
Do you know who didn't get their way?
All of their victims, didn't get their way, because their right to live, got taken from them, by their shooting offenders, right?
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
It's fabulously educational, to watch how some use the internet, to turn it, into their own biased court of individualized opinion?
You're not the first internet debater, who likes to twist words around to suit your individual attitude.
I'm pro humanity, but when people use GUNS to kill innocent kids, teenagers, and adults alike, those gun users are being anti humane aren't they, so because you own guns, you refuse to see it that way right?
"No one is making excuses, I'm just pointing out reality."
No, you're not.
Because reality doesn't belong to you, being that youre merely a part of it.
So please, stop treating it, like you in a sense own it, and talking around the gun abusers who have made life and death decisions with their guns by taking other people's lives with them.
Your pro gun talk makes you sound like a defense attorney, or a liberal?
Please, which one are you?
"It's not an either or, the criminals and the people who want to ban guns are both wrong."
This answer from you isn't good enough, reach deeper into your individual conscious, and try again.
Again:
Who is more wrong when it comes to the gun violence brutality that the mass committed by killing innocent people with their guns?
Are the parents, and the students, wrong for protesting gun violence, in your estimation?
"Nothing I've said was about me. Guns are law abiding citizens' only defense against violent criminals. Why don't these innocent people factor in your argument? Why do you want more people victimized?"
Because with guns, those gun owners, have the overall ability to take another's life by pulling a trigger, and because of that fact, both gun owners, the "Legal, and the Illlegal gun owners, self own a responsibility on how they may treat people with their guns.
When you say "why don't these innocent people factor in your argument?"
Who factor wise are you referring to?
1) The innocent people who were killed by a gun wielded by a criminal?
2) Or maybe the rest of the country who doesn't own a gun, or who's life or lives, that haven't been affected yet by an offenders gun violence brutality?
Can you please be more specific, about what "citizens," I should be factoring into my argument, according to how you engineered your statement towards me?
So that your posed question, gets to have the proper platform?
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 95%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
"Are You a Gun Sense Voter?
Gun sense is the simple idea that we can do much more to keep our families and communities safe from gun violence. It's the belief that we, as Americans, don't have to tolerate 31,000 deaths from gun violence every single year.
If you believe that felons and domestic abusers shouldn't have access to guns; if you think guns don't belong in places like churches, schools, and playgrounds; if you think the right to life and liberty is just as important as the right to bear arms: You have gun sense."
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 39%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: U.S    awful school shootings   las Vegas massacre   enough attrosities  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra