Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by Robtard
I find it hilarious that the snowflakes that cried over sanctuary cities, are now doing similar, but for guns, it's like they're unaware how silly they look. As the for the actual 'gun protection zones', I couldn't care less; not bothered by it at all.

Why would people, especially criminals, agree to voluntarily turn over a perfectly well-functioning gun? And according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, gun buyback programs actually help criminals get rid of guns that they have used in crime and to get rid of them in a way to get some money...just to get a new firearm.

And studies in Seattle and Sacramento in 94 and 98 suggest that those who sold their firearms didn't resemble the general gun-owning population and weren't likely to commit gun crimes. Seattle saw no significant change in gun-related homicides after its gun buyback.

And before we get to Australia's gun buyback program...well...that didn't translate into any tangible reductions in terms of firearm deaths. Firearm related deaths in Australia were already on the decline before the buyback and after the buyback, the rate of decline actually lowered and when mass shootings virtually went to zero in Australia, well, Australia already had so little mass shootings that it was already in the margin of error. And also, there are more guns in Australia in 2010 then were was before the buyback.

So no. There is zero evidence to suggest that gun buybacks reduce gun deaths. And also there's that whole 2nd Amendment thing. Whereas Sanctuary cities are a violation of federal law under 8 USC section 1324. And also, 2/3 of all outstanding felony warrants in Los Angeles involved illegal aliens - as well as 95% of outstanding murder warrants.

The Center for Immigration Studies found that in a 9-month timeframe in 2014, sanctuary cities shielded 9,265 illegals from deportation, 62% of which had significant prior criminal histories and 2,320 of them were rearrested for new crimes. Odds are against the cities' residents.

Also, crime surged in sanctuary cities. Los Angeles, for example, saw all crime rise in 2015; violent crime up 19.9%, robberies up 12.3%, and aggravated assault up 27.5%. There is an estimated 300 sanctuary cities, counties, and states. And illegal aliens cost Californians $25.3 billion per year, $4.4 billion on criminal justice system costs alone. As of 2007, 18% of households in LA County were on welfare, 48% of households headed by an illegal was on the welfare program. Such costs aren't relegated to just California. According to the CIS, the average illegal household takes $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, far higher than the native-born population. So there are economic and criminal costs to illegal immigration. At the very best, the case is mixed.
Whereas gun rights are enshrined in the Constitution, no such thing exists for illegal immigrants.

So, no. It's not a double standard. One is an inalienable right that doesn't come from government but were endowed to us and supersede that of government. The country has a right to usher in only those who benefit it.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So no. There is zero evidence to suggest that gun buybacks reduce gun deaths.

Well, it gets worse.

We have evidence that extreme gun restrictions have 0 influence to a slight influence on increasing homicides. If you narrow the scope of years reviewed in Australia, for example, from the law enacted until present, there's a slight statistically significant increase in the homicide rate.

To be fair, I do not count it as increasing homicides and just state that there's no correlation (because I don't want to be painted as someone who makes sweeping generalizations to support my liberal agenda...which is exactly what I'm doing).

Note: gun rights is a liberal position. Contrary to popular belief, being against rights is a conservative position. For some weird-ass reason, liberals are against guns in the US.

Liberals:
Pro-UHC? Check
Pro-Woman's Reproductive Rights? Check
Pro-Gun Rights? No.

WHAT?

How is that "liberal"?

I know, I know..."No True Scotsman." And this is why many liberals in the US prefer the label of libertarian: to disassociate from liberals.

UHC doesn't strike me as classical liberal or libertarian tbh.

Seems more like social liberal.

And I guess the reason for the conservatives in the US holding some liberal principles is because our government, constitution, and foundation of our nation was built on classical liberalism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Note: gun rights is a liberal position. Contrary to popular belief, being against rights is a conservative position. For some weird-ass reason, liberals are against guns in the US.

Liberals:
Pro-UHC? Check
Pro-Woman's Reproductive Rights? Check
Pro-Gun Rights? No.

Only one of the things listed here is a right. Healthcare is not a right but a commodity. You do not have the right to the service or product of any other human being because that would constitute slavery or at least indenture servitude.

And pro-woman's reproductive rights is just a euphemism to killing a baby. No one has a "right" to dehumanize a life and murder an unborn human being for their own "right" to convenience.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Only one of the things listed here is a right. Healthcare is not a right but a commodity.

I think that's trangential to my point. Do you know what my point is?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You do not have the right to the service or product of any other human being because that would constitute slavery or at least indenture servitude.

But wait...before we continue.....are you trollin', bruh?

So all the healthcare professionals in....say...France, are slaves?

Tell me more about that before I post rude things to you. You deserve a chance to expand before I do my rude things.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
And pro-woman's reproductive rights is just a euphemism to killing a baby.

Agreed. But it's not just the right to kill a baby. It's also access to contraceptives and healthcare related to it. You are probably aware but some women are not allowed to get medical care without approval from....say...a family member.

But do you care to actually address the point from my post you quoted? Please? I think I made a good point.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
UHC doesn't strike me as classical liberal or libertarian tbh.

But it's a "US Liberal" position, which is my point.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And I guess the reason for the conservatives in the US holding some liberal principles is because our government, constitution, and foundation of our nation was built on classical liberalism.

That makes sense in the political science definition of "conservative" but not as it applies to US Liberals and US Conservatives.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So, no. It's not a double standard.

One is an inalienable right that doesn't come from government but were endowed to us and supersede that of government.

The country has a right to usher in only those who benefit it.

It is.

The 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution and it is our governing rules, it is part of the government. It's also subject to change (eg an amendment) by the people/government, ergo it's not really "inalienable" in reality.

Okay?

^ Sorry if that came off as snarky, ESB, wasn't the intent. My point is simply that our Constitution was written by people, enforced by people and can (and has) be changed by people.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So all the healthcare professionals in....say...France, are slaves?

Tell me more about that before I post rude things to you. You deserve a chance to expand before I do my rude things

Do you know the difference between a public and private good? Tell me more about that before I post rude things to you. You deserve a chance to expand before I do my rude things.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Agreed. But it's not just the right to kill a baby. It's also access to contraceptives and healthcare related to it.

Not having someone else pay for something doesn't equal not having access to contraceptives and healthcare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You are probably aware but some women are not allowed to get medical care without approval from....say...a family member.

You mean kind of like how a man needs his wife's consent to get a vasectomy?

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Sorry if that came off as snarky, ESB, wasn't the intent. My point is simply that our Constitution was written by people, enforced by people and can (and has) be changed by people.

No worries, bro-ski. I know it's hard to pick up tone when it's just text.

But even without the Constitution, our right to self-preservation is inalienable. The right is not granted by the Constitution; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the amendment is that the right shall be preserved.

Even the Founders saw problems with having a Bill of Rights as seen in Federalist No. 84 that you can read here at your leisure, this one written by Hamilton.

Tl;dr: The issue was that the Bill of Rights would constitute a danger because it would imply that government provided the rights as opposed to the Creator.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Do you know the difference between a public and private good? Tell me more about that before I post rude things to you. You deserve a chance to expand before I do my rude things.

You didn't answer my question. You trollin', boy. You made the claim. I asked for clarification on your claim.

So far, it seems like you think UHC = slavery for medical professionals and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Not having someone else pay for something doesn't equal not having access to contraceptives and healthcare.

Does not having the money to buy contraceptives mean you do not have access to them regardless of availability?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You mean kind of like how a man needs his wife's consent to get a vasectomy?

So you were not aware that reproductive rights includes more than just abortions? Got it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't answer my question. You trollin', boy. You made the claim. I asked for clarification on your claim.

So far, it seems like you think UHC = slavery for medical professionals and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. That means you have the right to conscript a physician. It means you believe in slavery. When you say you have a "right" to something there is an implication of force.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Does not having the money to buy contraceptives mean you do not have access to them regardless of availability?

Since I have a right to bear arms, but access does not fulfill that right according to you, you should pay for my Glock.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So you were not aware that reproductive rights includes more than just abortions? Got it.

Great. Outlaw abortions. Pay for contraceptives yourself. Done.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
With regard to the idea whether or not you have a right to health care you have to realize what that implies. That means you have the right to conscript a physician. It means you believe in slavery. When you say you have a "right" to something there is an implication of force.

So all doctors and medical professionals who accept Medicare, Tricare, Medicaid are being forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care?

And all police are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect and serve?

And all firemen are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect life and property from hazards?

I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Since I have a right to bear arms, but access does not fulfill that right according to you, you should pay for my Glock.

Are you using your Glock to prevent unwanted pregnancies so you don't get pregnant because it is against your personal or religious beliefs to get an abortion?

How are you using your Glock as a contraceptive?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Great. Outlaw abortions. Pay for contraceptives yourself. Done.

So how is a poor person who cannot afford contraceptives supposed to get contraceptives? And what happens if they get pregnant when they shouldn't get pregnant and they want to take the very expensive morning after pill? Too bad? Just get pregnant and save up money for 3 months to get an abortion? Better yet, a back-alley abortion?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So all doctors and medical professionals who accept Medicare, Tricare, Medicaid are being forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care?

And all police are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect and serve?

And all firemen are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect life and property from hazards?

I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Again, you prove you know nothing about the difference between public and private goods. And there's a reason more and more doctors won't accept Medicare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Are you using your Glock to prevent unwanted pregnancies so you don't get pregnant because it is against your personal or religious beliefs to get an abortion?

How are you using your Glock as a contraceptive?

It's like you're deliberately avoiding the point. Noted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how is a poor person who cannot afford contraceptives supposed to get contraceptives? And what happens if they get pregnant when they shouldn't get pregnant and they want to take the very expensive morning after pill? Too bad? Just get pregnant and save up money for 3 months to get an abortion? Better yet, a back-alley abortion?

Or be an adult and do that magical thing called be responsible and abstain if you can't afford contraceptives. Magic! And really, who can't afford a 25 cent condom from a truck stop?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Again, you prove you know nothing about the difference between public and private goods. And there's a reason more and more doctors won't accept Medicare.

You're right, I know nothing. So you can help me understand why I know nothing by answering my questions.

All doctors and medical professionals who accept Medicare, Tricare, Medicaid are being forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care?

And all police are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect and serve?

And all firemen are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect life and property from hazards?

I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Let's make your point more clear...

1. You said UHC solutions force healthcare professionals into slavery.
2. You said they are forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care which is why you oppose it.
3. I cited examples that already exist, in the US, for social systems. And then you said doctors are, less and less, not accepting medicare.
4. So by your own admission, doctors are not forced into slavery because they are rejecting medicare, a social healthcare funded program.

Did you talk yourself out of your terrible ideas?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Or be an adult and do that magical thing called be responsible and abstain if you can't afford contraceptives. Magic!

That's not how it works in the real world, though. You need to live in the real world to come up with solutions that prevent abortions.

Your solution: "Just don't have sex if you're poor." Does that solution work in the real world? No, research finding after finding shows that teaching abstinence doesn't work and it is actually harmful.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues

Do you have a realistic solution other than "poor people need to stop having sex"?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
And really, who can't afford a 25 cent condom from a truck stop?

So that's the end-all be-all for contraceptives, right? In your opinion, that's all it takes, right? So what about the billions of other sexual encounters that don't use condoms each year? Are you aware of how many people do not like condoms and will not use them?

Your solution is "more abortions." Mine is "less abortions." I want less abortions. What about you? Do you have solutions that result in less abortions? You haven't presented one. You've presented solutions to result in more abortions. That's terrible. Why do you want babies murdered so badly?

Originally posted by dadudemon
All doctors and medical professionals who accept Medicare, Tricare, Medicaid are being forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care?

No, but then again as far as I know they're not FORCED to accept those forms of insurance. I believe Doctors and hospitals choose what forms of insurance they'll accept.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right, I know nothing. So you can help me understand why I know nothing by answering my questions.

All doctors and medical professionals who accept Medicare, Tricare, Medicaid are being forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care?

And all police are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect and serve?

And all firemen are forcefully conscripted by the state to protect life and property from hazards?

I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Let's make your point more clear...

1. You said UHC solutions force healthcare professionals into slavery.
2. You said they are forcefully conscripted by the state to provide medical care which is why you oppose it.
3. I cited examples that already exist, in the US, for social systems. And then you said doctors are, less and less, not accepting medicare.
4. So by your own admission, doctors are not forced into slavery because they are rejecting medicare, a social healthcare funded program.

Did you talk yourself out of your terrible ideas?

You obviously are dense or just don’t want to address a point. First off, the United States does not have universal health care. So saying that doctors are refusing to accept a certain form of payment (this being Medicare) isn’t contradicting a damn thing I said. So please, explain where I lost you.

But let’s follow your 1-4 here. Let’s say that the United States does go through and get UHC. And none of the doctors decide to take it? Then what happens? They’ll be forced to see patients by threat of government force.

 

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not how it works in the real world, though. You need to live in the real world to come up with solutions that prevent abortions.

Your solution: "Just don't have sex if you're poor." Does that solution work in the real world? No, research finding after finding shows that teaching abstinence doesn't work and it is actually harmful.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/08/23/545289168/abstinence-education-is-ineffective-and-unethical-report-argues

Do you have a realistic solution other than "poor people need to stop having sex"?

Okay. We’re going to play a game called “When should you be able to kill a baby?” Because you think that people shouldn’t have to hold any personal responsibility at all. So, can we kill the baby at week 15? When the baby has an adult’s taste buds? Or 9-10 week? When the baby’s teeth and fingernails are beginning to develop? That’s 2 months. It can turn its head and frown. The baby can hiccup. Is that okay to kill because of convience sake?

How about day 22? The heartis beating with the child’s blood, which may be a different blood type than the mom’s. So where in here exactly do you think it’s okay to muder a kid because you have a personal convenience issue?
 

Originally posted by dadudemon
So that's the end-all be-all for contraceptives, right? In your opinion, that's all it takes, right? So what about the billions of other sexual encounters that don't use condoms each year? Are you aware of how many people do not like condoms and will not use them?

So the birth control pills, which costs between 15 to 50 dollar a month...is just too difficult to obtain? Again, you want to obsolve people from personal responsbility.
 

Originally posted by dadudemon
Your solution is "more abortions." Mine is "less abortions." I want less abortions. What about you? Do you have solutions that result in less abortions? You haven't presented one. You've presented solutions to result in more abortions. That's terrible. Why do you want babies murdered so badly?

This is a retarded assumption.

Declaring something a right doesn't guarantee its provision. Now that's the last I'm commenting on this thread because we are off topic. If you want to take this to another thread, fine. If you want to PM me to continue, fine. But we're taking this topic waaaaay off topic

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You obviously are dense or just don’t want to address a point. First off, the United States does not have universal health care.

That's irrelevant. The point I made is that socialized medical insurance already exists in the United States and no one is forced to use it. Your weird point about slavery is invalid. It's actually really dumb.

And since doctors cannot legally refuse to treat patients in the US, IF they receive public funding, your point is actually painfully idiotic.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/books/lbb/x220.htm

https://www.seeker.com/can-doctors-legally-refuse-to-treat-patients-2006482720.html

In an emergency situation...it's pretty much impossible, even if you're state funded, to deny medical care to a patient. This shit has gone to court.

Your house of cards came tumbling down. Very quickly.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So saying that doctors are refusing to accept a certain form of payment (this being Medicare) isn’t contradicting a damn thing I said. So please, explain where I lost you.

Yes it certainly did contradict. You think a socialized medical insurance system enslaves doctors. It clearly doesn't. lol

Originally posted by ESB -1138
But let’s follow your 1-4 here. Let’s say that the United States does go through and get UHC. And none of the doctors decide to take it? Then what happens? They’ll be forced to see patients by threat of government force.

Here's what happens: the patients still don't get healthcare or they go to ERs and the system remains the same as it is now.

Wait, you didn't think your scenario through, did you?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Okay. We’re going to play a game called “When should you be able to kill a baby?” Because you think that people shouldn’t have to hold any personal responsibility at all. So, can we kill the baby at week 15? When the baby has an adult’s taste buds? Or 9-10 week? When the baby’s teeth and fingernails are beginning to develop? That’s 2 months. It can turn its head and frown. The baby can hiccup. Is that okay to kill because of convience sake?

How about day 22? The heartis beating with the child’s blood, which may be a different blood type than the mom’s. So where in here exactly do you think it’s okay to muder a kid because you have a personal convenience issue?

Why are we entertaining "when is it okay to kill a baby"? We both agree it's not. You're supposed to be talking about contraceptives so people don't have to abort babies. Why you tryin' so hard for this red herrin' braaaaah?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
So the birth control pills, which costs between 15 to 50 dollar a month...is just too difficult to obtain? Again, you want to obsolve people from personal responsbility.

https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/alpha-consumer/2012/03/05/the-real-cost-of-birth-control

...birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health-insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.

So you have no problem covering those costs with taxes then, right? Since it cost so little, all birth control should be covered with taxes.

But what about this problem:

On average, 5 out of every 100 women who rely on birth control pills get pregnant each year.

Do you have a solution for that, as well? Because many of those 5 out of 100 get abortions. I'd like to reduce that number.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
This is a retarded assumption.

Right, you're making retarded assumptions. Since I've shown to you the facts about teaching abstinence and the fact that free, state-covered contraceptives reduce abortions, we can be sure your assumptions are retarded and that you prefer murdering more babies.

https://medicine.wustl.edu/news/access-to-free-birth-control-reduces-abortion-rates/

Also, A+ to you for being so angry about my posts that you decided to continue the debate via your mobile phone.

Originally posted by darthgoober
No, but then again as far as I know they're not FORCED to accept those forms of insurance. I believe Doctors and hospitals choose what forms of insurance they'll accept.

Thanks for actually answering the question.

In other words, ESB's pretend problem with UHC is just stupid fear-mongering at best.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Declaring something a right doesn't guarantee its provision. Now that's the last I'm commenting on this thread because we are off topic. If you want to take this to another thread, fine. If you want to PM me to continue, fine. But we're taking this topic waaaaay off topic

No thanks, address it in this thread or start a new thread. Going to "PM" is your way of hiding the fact that you're making very stupid posts.

So, in your opinion, UHC (in any form?) is slavery for medical care professionals?

Also, I see that you're back on your computer. Didja poop?