Mass Shooting Season 2014 still going strong as four+ are wounded at Seattle Pacific University
474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028419]Now you're being daft.[/QUOTE]
no, i clearly asked why it should be considered a human right and all you can say is "bcus constitution", you're the one being daft
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45028423]But he was right. It's a constitutional RIGHT.
You never asked if it was a human right, just if it was a right, and a constitutional right is a right.[/QUOTE]
i did make it pretty clear
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;45028423]But he was right. It's a constitutional RIGHT.
You never asked if it was a human right, just if it was a right, and a constitutional right is a right.[/QUOTE]
You're grasping at straws, it was quite easily implied asking if it was a human right.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028443]No. This is exactly what you said:
which was answered. Stop being an asshat.[/QUOTE]
except i also said
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45028017]i'm not asking "where does it say that it is a right", i'm asking how is it a right[/QUOTE]
which makes it pretty clear
also, it's silly that you love insulting people who disagree with you and yet you still have the balls to call someone edgy
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028510]Obviously it's a right because it's been granted to us.
You do realize that countries can grant things as "rights" that aren't universal human rights.. or are you that foolish?
Because several things on the "US bill of rights" aren't on the list of universal human rights, but they're still pretty fucking important to Americans.[/QUOTE]
jesus are you really that dense
all i asked is "how is it a (human/universal) right", not "why has that right been granted to you"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028538]Really, because you never once said "how is it a human right" You said how is it a "right". The capability of implying things is lost over the internet, spell out your questions if you want them actually answered.[/QUOTE]
except i have explained what my question originally meant and now you're just misinterpreting it on purpose so you can keep making snarky comments
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45028559]except i have explained what my question originally meant and now you're just misinterpreting it on purpose so you can keep making snarky comments[/QUOTE]
Well, let me answer all of your different questions:
1)How is it a right? = Because it's been granted a right in the U.S. Constitution.
2)How is it a human right? = It's not, but that's irrelevant anyways.
3)Why is it a right? = Because our founding fathers knew a day would come where we would have to put our government back into line. It also serves to help with self defense and hunting.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45028287]He's asking how owning guns is a human right, not where it can be found as a constitutional right. How dense are you to not realise that?
Fuck your constitution anyways. The bill of rights is at least 200 years old and when the founding fathers envisioned for people to bear arms for the defence against tyrants, I'm pretty sure they would have never imagined the issue would get so out of hand that students would die every week from school shootings. If the founding fathers were alive today they certainly wouldn't have passed the second amendment.[/QUOTE]
"Fuck your constitution"
Your country only exists because other countries couldn't contain their batshit insane prisoners. piss off.
mate.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;45028729]"Fuck your constitution"
Your country only exists because other countries couldn't contain their batshit insane prisoners. piss off.
mate.[/QUOTE]
what the fuck?
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
lmao people actually get offended at "fuck the constitution"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028752]Well you are essentially saying "fuck the document that your entire country was founded on, and all laws must follow".
That's pretty insulting.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
Not that this is any nicer.
Seriously. Can't we have a debate without saying "ungh, your country is dumb, mine is better".[/QUOTE]
You tried, it went down hill almost immediately.
[QUOTE=ZakkShock;45028729]"Fuck your constitution"
Your country only exists because other countries couldn't contain their batshit insane prisoners. piss off.
mate.[/QUOTE]
We might have had a significant amount of our population be convicts two hundred years ago, yes. At least today we don't have a mass shooting happen every few weeks. Can't say the same for the US though.
I wonder which country is the 'batshit insane' one.
But I'll finish that of there because that's going off-topic. This ain't a fight about which country is better.
this thread has moved from unnecessarily antagonistic arguments to semantic ad-hominem challenge pissing
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028752]Well you are essentially saying "fuck the document that your entire country was founded on, and all laws must follow".
That's pretty insulting.[/QUOTE]
no it's not. if someone says "fuck brazil", i'm not gonna take it as a personal insult because guess what- it isn't one
the constitution is the supreme law, meant to be enforced in order to improve the lives of citizens, not an infallible set of divine rules that cannot possibly become obsolete, and yet it seems that a lot of americans view it that way
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028806]Except we don't have a mass shooting every few weeks either.[/QUOTE]
Except this is the first one this month, you had 5 last month, 3 in April, 4 in March, 8 in February and 13 in January.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028890]There are problems, yes, we're all aware, but there's no need to devolve into "hurr muh cuntry" debates in every gun thread, just like we don't need to hear "well in "x" country we do "y" and it works for us, so you guys should do it too".[/QUOTE]
"this country has less guns, less crimes, better education and a smaller wealth gap than america but let's not bring that up just because"
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;45022448]it associates variables in a causal way, by holding all other variables constant. allows you to see the individual effect that a specific variable has on your dependent variable. it's sort of... standard procedure for comparative politics. a study with focus on quantitative methods without any sort of regression analysis will usually be turned away at the review phase for lacking it. i'm actually surprised that this got published in the Harvard PP journal without it given that it seems to place all of its quantitative evidence as a focus. that said there's only like 3 tables in the entire thing so i'm guessing they took a more qualitative approach, which is fine and interesting, but really is less impactful directly for the debate.
[editline]7th June 2014[/editline]
a basic way of looking at regression:
i want to see the effect of education on levels of health, and see if they have any significant impact. with regression analysis, i can control other variables that will traditionally impact health very significantly - probably more significantly than just what i'm looking at - such as GDP. regression gives me the ability to effectively ignore GDP entirely and examine the relationship between education and health directly. the more variables you control for, the better (most of the time).[/QUOTE]
It is a qualitative meta-analysis.
The regression analysis would be done in the quantitative studies that it is reviewing.
k fuck your youth, guns are a right you need to protect yourself
too bad that right hasn't worked out very well to protect all these kids that die every year in school
have fun, bye
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45028933]k fuck your youth, guns are a right you need to protect yourself
too bad that right hasn't worked out very well to protect all these kids that die every year in school
have fun, bye[/QUOTE]
100% aggreement. Guns are what's wrong in this situation.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028942]You just defeated your own argument. If the country has better education, smaller wealth gap, less crime, and less firearms then how is it even remotely compareable?
Lets take the UK for example. 63 million people, compared to a country with 319 million people, its not exactly fair to compare the two countries now is it?[/QUOTE]
By this logic, there isn't much you can compare.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45028933]k fuck your youth, guns are a right you need to protect yourself
too bad that right hasn't worked out very well to protect all these kids that die every year in school
have fun, bye[/QUOTE]
You mean basically none?
Again, the notion of school shootings being common is a misperception.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028971]You've got a "fuck the US" boner in every thread i've seen you in. And you don't even know your own laws.[/QUOTE]
But I do know we don't even have a fraction of the mass shootings your country have. And if not approving of your "guns-blazing" logic while you cry about mass shootings, then yes I have a big, juicy "fuck US" boner.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028987]It's hard to take you seriously because a guy in the US knows your own laws better than you do.[/QUOTE]
Yes, try trivializing my arguments based on merits which have nothing to do with the current discussion. That sure shows how level-headed you are and secure in your arguments.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45028966]You mean basically none?
Again, the notion of school shootings being common is a misperception.[/QUOTE]
None? Really?
No one has died from school shootings?
No one, especially when there are 3 wounded and 1 DEAD students according to the shooting this thread is specifically for?
Ok.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45029003]I'm trivializing your arguments because you don't have a clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
I wish everyone went into a debate with your view. Everything would be so much shorter, sweeter and ignorant. But ignorance is bliss, right? If you don't want to discuss anything, fine.
[QUOTE=w00tf1zh;45028981]But I do know we don't even have a fraction of the mass shootings your country have. And if not approving of your "guns-blazing" logic while you cry about mass shootings, then yes I have a big, juicy "fuck US" boner.[/QUOTE]
Do you want a cookie for keeping your culturally homogeneous nation of 9.5 million with a land area of roughly the size of California happy? Meanwhile you participate in basically no global politics and remain utterly useless militarily even if the world crumbles at your doorstep.
I'm not impressed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45029030]Do you want a cookie for keeping your culturally homogeneous nation of 9.5 million with a land area of roughly the size of California happy? Meanwhile you participate in basically no global politics and remain utterly useless militarily even if the world crumbles at your doorstep.
I'm not impressed.[/QUOTE]
Great defense. "Are you proud of being superior in pretty much every way that matters except making wars and spending a massive amount of money on your army?" Yes, yes I am.
But nonetheless, I wasn't here to boast my country's success, but rather focus on a problem where America has critically failed.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45029065]It's not hard to keep a country happy when it has a population of 9.5 million. For the record that's just slightly more than the population of ONE of our cities (New York city to be exact). Good job. Here's your cookie now.[/QUOTE]
Once again, yes. Thank you for the cookie. I will share it with all the welfare, equality and most importantly: the absence of school shootings. All the hot chicks can also have a bite.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45029006]None? Really?
No one has died from school shootings?
No one, especially when there are 3 wounded and 1 DEAD students according to the shooting this thread is specifically for?
Ok.[/QUOTE]
2.5 million people die every year in the US.
[url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm[/url]
Yes, ALL of the people who die in mass shootings are an insignificant number.
ah yes, since other people died of other things, shootings are irrelevant
sorry for disturbing your freedom
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45029006]None? Really?
No one has died from school shootings?
No one, especially when there are 3 wounded and 1 DEAD students according to the shooting this thread is specifically for?
Ok.[/QUOTE]
statistically insignificant figures.
even the virginia tech massacre, the deadliest shooting by a single person, resulted in 33 deaths, which are small in comparison to the number of deaths by, say, gang violence or domestic violence, and extremely small compared to the total population of the united states.
the reason that mass shootings seem to be so common and so threatening is because the media inflates them, and that inflation ends up leading more people to do it.
any psychologist with half a brain would tell you this, and it's already been well-established (and well-ignored) at the beginning of the thread.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45029114]ah yes, since other people died of other things, shootings are irrelevant
sorry for disturbing your freedom[/QUOTE]
the point that you seem to be missing is that devoting a large amount of resources, specifically to stopping school shootings from happening, would be a much less helpful goal considering that so few people actually die from them.
if you want to save lives, fight gang violence, domestic violence, DUIs, etc.
[QUOTE=Gwoodman;45029114]ah yes, since other people died of other things, shootings are irrelevant
sorry for disturbing your freedom[/QUOTE]
Since the number of people who die is insignificant, any action taken to prevent them would require a disproportionate allocation of resources. The same resources could be allocated basically anywhere else and save more lives.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.