First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
Post Reply Why don't pro-life people advocate defunding the NRA instead?
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Well, to be honest, I've been doing quite a bit of thinking about a certain subject you and I both find interesting...although I know when you're interested and you aren't, just by the sheer quantity and quality of your posts.

It sure is fun being a P! (ENFP IS ME!) *Were not as stupid as we act you know!*




That's a really good indicator actually, lol. You got me curious now, mate.


Ok, why not.

The subject is this: Gay Marriage.

Objectives: Refute it.

Rules: No Religious Arguments, Only Facts, No Emotional Arguments, Hyperbole is allowed.

Guess what.....I FOUND A WAY!!!! :DDDDDDD Teeehehheheheehehehe.......

NO ARGUMENT IS INFALL-Hey Look a Penny!



PENNYS!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDDDD
22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

JustineKo2 wrote:

No it's a real statistic. You're assuming I was referring to people with suicidal thoughts and those who have committed suicide. This group I doubt even fits into the statistic to any significant degree. What it refers to is ACCIDENTAL incidents of being shot by oneself as opposed to the actual numbers of people shot by a home invader.

Sorry I apparently worded in a way that made you misunderstand.



Provide a source in that case.

"actual numbers of people shot by a home invader"

Shot by? That's not a good comparison.


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Ok, why not.

The subject is this: Gay Marriage.

Objectives: Refute it.

Rules: No Religious Arguments, Only Facts, No Emotional Arguments, Hyperbole is allowed.

Guess what.....I FOUND A WAY!!!! :DDDDDDD Teeehehheheheehehehe.......

NO ARGUMENT IS INFALL-Hey Look a Penny!



PENNYS!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDDDD


Oooo, you're right I'd definitely fight you on that one.

You saw all the yaoi didn't you? Heh.
7547 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Ark-La-Tex
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

ishe5555 wrote:
The NRA doesn't kill anyone, they are just a civil rights association that advocates for citizens to be able to continue to buy and use tools. The tools have multiple reasons for desirability - self defense, hunting, sport (shooting skeet/targets), and display among the possible legal uses, and illegal uses include murder and suicide. While Planned Parenthood directly kills babies (call them "zygotes" if you will, they are human offspring).
Thank you with your clarification with the funding part. However I think your summary of the differences between the two groups is a little off. I wouldn't really call the NRA a civil rights organization. When we think of civil rights we think more of rights for marginalized groups. There is nothing marginalized about gun enthusiasts and customers. It is entertainment, guns are luxury items, people use them as ornaments and displays of power. The 2nd Amendment may protect your "right" to own one but most gun owners don't actually get a gun because they "need" it.

And yes, you are right Planned Parenthood provides a service that results in ending a potential human life. But like I mentioned before it is untrue that the funds received from taxpayers go toward funding this service. They use their public funds solely for educational and health care services. If you cut off that funding, you are simply shutting down a health care clinic. Another reason why pro-lifers are actually pro-DEATH.

6947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
First off when you make a topic like this do some research first. The NRA is not funded by the government. Most of their money comes from members payments and donations. I had not even heard people shooting themselves against an home invader.
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

No it's a real statistic. You're assuming I was referring to people with suicidal thoughts and those who have committed suicide. This group I doubt even fits into the statistic to any significant degree. What it refers to is ACCIDENTAL incidents of being shot by oneself as opposed to the actual numbers of people shot by a home invader.

Sorry I apparently worded in a way that made you misunderstand.



Provide a source in that case.

"actual numbers of people shot by a home invader"

Shot by? That's not a good comparison.


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

Ok, why not.

The subject is this: Gay Marriage.

Objectives: Refute it.

Rules: No Religious Arguments, Only Facts, No Emotional Arguments, Hyperbole is allowed.

Guess what.....I FOUND A WAY!!!! :DDDDDDD Teeehehheheheehehehe.......

NO ARGUMENT IS INFALL-Hey Look a Penny!



PENNYS!!!!!!!!!!!! :DDDDDDD


Oooo, you're right I'd definitely fight you on that one.

You saw all the yaoi didn't you? Heh.


So...if you give me a little bit of time, I'll show you my argument. But I'm going to warn you, it's going to be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

But I also want you arguing simply due to the fact that I think your the most intelligent poster here. When I argue with you, it's like I'm fighting an equal.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The tittle will be "I challenge you PrinceJudar!"

But I must warn you, Phoenix Wright is on my side!

MUHAHAHAHHAA! :DDDD

I could really use a nap.



(really beating me in arguments is simple. 1. Get my friends to argue against me. 2. Make me tired. 3. Make me feel bad.

That's really all you have to do. :P




22653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:

So...if you give me a little bit of time, I'll show you my argument. But I'm going to warn you, it's going to be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

But I also want you arguing simply due to the fact that I think your the most intelligent poster here. When I argue with you, it's like I'm fighting an equal.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The tittle will be "I challenge you PrinceJudar!"

But I must warn you, Phoenix Wright is on my side!

MUHAHAHAHHAA! :DDDD


I could really use a nap.


(really beating me in arguments is simple. 1. Get my friends to argue against me. 2. Make me tired. 3. Make me feel bad.

That's really all you have to do. :P


Stroking my ego you are, mate.

I have a lot of stamina, I can go for weeks.

6947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

So...if you give me a little bit of time, I'll show you my argument. But I'm going to warn you, it's going to be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

But I also want you arguing simply due to the fact that I think your the most intelligent poster here. When I argue with you, it's like I'm fighting an equal.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The tittle will be "I challenge you PrinceJudar!"

But I must warn you, Phoenix Wright is on my side!

MUHAHAHAHHAA! :DDDD


I could really use a nap.


(really beating me in arguments is simple. 1. Get my friends to argue against me. 2. Make me tired. 3. Make me feel bad.

That's really all you have to do. :P


Stroking my ego you are, mate.

I have a lot of stamina, I can go for weeks.



O shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

So...if you give me a little bit of time, I'll show you my argument. But I'm going to warn you, it's going to be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

But I also want you arguing simply due to the fact that I think your the most intelligent poster here. When I argue with you, it's like I'm fighting an equal.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The tittle will be "I challenge you PrinceJudar!"

But I must warn you, Phoenix Wright is on my side!

MUHAHAHAHHAA! :DDDD


I could really use a nap.


(really beating me in arguments is simple. 1. Get my friends to argue against me. 2. Make me tired. 3. Make me feel bad.

That's really all you have to do. :P


Stroking my ego you are, mate.

I have a lot of stamina, I can go for weeks.




Not if I make you agree with me............hehehehhehehe...........you have no idea what's about to hit you....and I already knew how long you can argue.....don't think I know your patterns already...but you don't know mine! >:3

We both have the ability to swim in the stream of debate... for a long period of time my deary...may the best swimmer win.

Or at least till one of us gets hungry and quits...I can't compete with my stomach.


48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

paul25454 wrote:

First off when you make a topic like this do some research first. The NRA is not funded by the government. Most of their money comes from members payments and donations. I had not even heard people shooting themselves against an home invader.
And when responding to a topic like this check for phraseology. It's a thing. My topic title is not literal, I know some people here are such literalists, but please bear with me.
Where the money comes from is not too relevant when "defunding" the NRA = not supporting it because its cause contradicts something that many of it's supporters believe in (apparently). Sounds confusing but it's not really.
13131 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16
Lets look at the question solely in terms of "Does the presence of guns increase the likelihood of death". There are three aspects to this question:

1) Accidental Deaths: I think it should be fairly obvious that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of accidental death. The numbers seem to be a little over 500 people a year die in unintentional gun deaths and I believe a few thousand are wounded per year.

2) Suicide Deaths: The numbers here seem to be a little less clear. Some studies say that things like a waiting period reduces gun suicides across the board (which I think is a good measure to speak to guns as a whole, because it implies that suicide would not have happened without a gun in some cases), some state it only reduces suicide in the above 55 population and some say it has no effect. Additionally, the presence of a gun does increase the likelihood of suicide in the home, and while some of that can be explained by the factors PrinceJudar stated, however, even in adolescent population you see this trend where the parents own a gun, and its not like the parents would purchase a gun for their kid to commit suicide with.

I personally interpret all of these findings to believe that there is some causation present (feel free to interpret differently), which largely comes down to the ease and efficacy of suicide with a gun. Guns are generally and easy and painless way to commit suicide which tend to be more successful than other methods. When considering that suicide attempts can be impulsive (statistics I have seen show a wide range of "impulsive" vs "planned" suicide attempts, but going with a lower estimate, about 1/3 of suicide attempts are impulsive), and that those who attempt suicide don't always make another attempt (again, wide range, but it seems about 15% of those who attempt suicide make another attempt), I think the logic follows that reducing gun presence will at least have some effect on reducing successful suicide rates.

3) Homicide Death: The numbers here are a bit more confounding. Most of the studies I have seen show that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of death by homicide. These studies do control for a wide variety of factors, but it is entirely possible that this is due to other factors that were not accounted for, so I wont even try to make a judgement here. I will say that from the statistics I have seen, a gun in the home is more likely to be used for negative purposes than for legitimate self defense purposes.

Sources:
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-guns-in-home-increase-suicide-homicide-risk/
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/
http://web4health.info/el/bipolar-suicide-repeat.htm
http://www.psychiatrist.com/jcp/article/Pages/2015/v76n03/v76n0307.aspx

EDIT: I'm probably not going to follow up on this a ton...just a warning for those who want to debate :/
8502 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Imoutoland!
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


WeeabooWarrior wrote:

So...if you give me a little bit of time, I'll show you my argument. But I'm going to warn you, it's going to be GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

But I also want you arguing simply due to the fact that I think your the most intelligent poster here. When I argue with you, it's like I'm fighting an equal.

LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

The tittle will be "I challenge you PrinceJudar!"

But I must warn you, Phoenix Wright is on my side!

MUHAHAHAHHAA! :DDDD


I could really use a nap.


(really beating me in arguments is simple. 1. Get my friends to argue against me. 2. Make me tired. 3. Make me feel bad.

That's really all you have to do. :P


I have a lot of stamina, I can go for weeks.



48494 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / ar away
Offline
Posted 4/28/16 , edited 4/28/16

sundin13 wrote:

Lets look at the question solely in terms of "Does the presence of guns increase the likelihood of death". There are three aspects to this question:


EDIT: I'm probably not going to follow up on this a ton...just a warning for those who want to debate :/
Well I appreciate it, your point does nicely address the idea whether those who support having guns is more or less a deadly proposition. To take the other half of my argument into account, perhaps one can address whether greater social acceptance of and access to birth control contributes to fewer unwanted babies.

18912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/16

PrinceJudar wrote:


JustineKo2 wrote:

No it's a real statistic. You're assuming I was referring to people with suicidal thoughts and those who have committed suicide. This group I doubt even fits into the statistic to any significant degree. What it refers to is ACCIDENTAL incidents of being shot by oneself as opposed to the actual numbers of people shot by a home invader.

Sorry I apparently worded in a way that made you misunderstand.



Provide a source in that case.

"actual numbers of people shot by a home invader"

Shot by? That's not a good comparison.


The OP is misquoting Kellerman's discredited statistic from 1986, on gun ownership being related to homicide in the home. The study uses the kind of sloppy science that if it were applied for instance to the number of sugar free drinks in someones fridge would indicate that sugar free drinks are the primary cause of obesity. Kellerman later downgraded his statistic from 43 times more likely to 2.5 times more likely. Additionally the groups he used in his study had high rates of alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse all of which he discounted as having any influence on his results.
18912 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / F / Reston, VA, USA
Offline
Posted 4/28/16
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.