Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dayton Ohio shooting, 9 dead
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
But you're happy for other freedoms to be taken away. 👍
🙄
Really? Name one.
And before you say "a woman's right to choose" to kill her own unborn child, that is not a constitutional right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a woman has that right.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
A few sentences is a "big rant." LOL. Oooookay. Whatever you say, dude. It seemed pretty obvious to me you were referring to the 2nd amendment.
Odd given that I was replying to DDM talking about legislation to stop news outlets reporting in detail on mass shootings and that I specifically mentioned the first amendment that covers freedom of the press thus highlighting that any such legislation would be unconstitutional.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Odd given that I was replying to DDM talking about legislation to stop news outlets reporting in detail on mass shootings and that I specifically mentioned the first amendment that covers freedom of the press thus highlighting that any such legislation would be unconstitutional.
Ok, perhaps I was mistaken about that but I'm still waiting to hear what Constitutional freedoms I am against.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I don't see expletive filled posts attacking DDM for proposing legislation that goes against the first amendment.
So because I haven't responded to someone's post you see that as supporting whatever the person typed in said post? That's crazy. There've been many comments I don't agree with by a variety of people on this forum on a variety of topics that I haven't bothered to respond to. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what they're saying.
For those who don't want to watch a video or can't right now, here is the original article from where Tim is talking about:
https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/connor-betts-twitter-politics-social-media/
I will also note it is a left leaning site with a factual reporting rating of "high" from the mediabias site people here like to use:
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
I don't see expletive filled posts attacking DDM for proposing legislation that goes against the first amendment.
Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.
Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.
Is it really a surprise if people die from the act of making money?
One of the major motivations of war and suffering is that some people are getting very, very rich. Ask any college professor of foreign policy and they'll tell you that. (Which makes them completely useless, since all they do is point out corruption, without contributing towards ending that corruption. Why are the only politically active powers the ones who try and hide the bodies, and never the one's who see their game?)
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So because I haven't responded to someone's post you see that as supporting whatever the person typed in said post? That's crazy. There've been many comments I don't agree with by a variety of people on this forum on a variety of topics that I haven't bothered to respond to. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with what they're saying.
Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.
We live in a country with over 330 million people and over 300 million guns.
I suck at math, but surely someone can figure out if the number of gun deaths here are disproportional to the number of guns we have in this country. I think the number is 30-40k, wth 60% of that suicides.
Which seems like a lot, but again..factor in...over 330 mil people, over 300 mil guns.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because I don't believe it falls under protected speech since we have objective research that shows The Media is causing deaths of others with their coverage.Meaning, it's not protected speech under the first amendment and we need to better regulate The Media to save lives.
Originally posted by Surtur
We live in a country with over 330 million people and over 300 million guns.I suck at math, but surely someone can figure out if the number of gun deaths here are disproportional to the number of guns we have in this country. I think the number is 30-40k, wth 60% of that suicides.
Which seems like a lot, but again..factor in...over 330 mil people, over 300 mil guns.
You'd need to compare guns per capita with gun deaths per capita with comparable countries.
So for example the US has a guns per capita rate 3.5x higher than Canada and a gun deaths per capita 6x that of Canada.
The US has an ownership per capita 6x that of Germany and a gun deaths per capita 12x
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Seems odd that you'll only vehemently defend certain bits of the constitution.
No, I defend all of them, moron (though admittedly I do think our 2nd amendment is the most important of all of them). You're obviously just trolling now because you're upset I talked bad about your precious socialism in the other thread lol.
Waah, waah, waah.
Cry me a river.
Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
No, I defend all of them, moron (though admittedly I do think our 2nd amendment is the most important of all of them). You're obviously just trolling now because you're upset I talked bad about your precious socialism in the other thread lol.Waah, waah, waah.
Cry me a river.
Odd given we started this conversation before that one. Or do you not understand how time works either?
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
You'd need to compare guns per capita with gun deaths per capita with comparable countries.So for example the US has a guns per capita rate 3.5x higher than Canada and a gun deaths per capita 6x that of Canada.
The US has an ownership per capita 6x that of Germany and a gun deaths per capita 12x
This is good stuff!
Do two things to those figures:
1. Subtract out suicides
2. Focus on total homicides, not only gun deaths
How do the new figures work out?
In other words, make it an apples to apples comparison.