TakeYouToTasker

Actually, and bizarrely ironically, this attempt at ironic sarcasm actually hits the nail squarely on the head instead. Fatherlessness is one of the most, if not the most, critical issues of our time. Fathlessness is linked as a direct cause of intergenerational poverty; poverty being a leading indicator of just about every negative/criminal human behavior; actively works to create marginalized communities; and is on the rise.

It says all anyone needs to know about a person when they condemn, wholesale, the exercise on another human's natural rights. It's also hilarious that they don't realize that mindset: that they believe they should have a say in what natural rights a person should be permitted to exercise, is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists. Fortunately, no matter how much the gnash their teeth and wail, "shall not be infringed" is the High Law of the land and cannot be changed without Constitutional Amendment, and the gun owning populace is very awake to the would be monarchists who are quick to deny them not only their Second Amendment rights, but other rights protected by the Constitution as well. Further, the nature of guns themselves makes them impossible to confiscate without a civil war (anyone advocating gun grabbing to "prevent gun deaths" is a liar, as the gun deaths instigated by their desire to confiscate would lead to unfathomable amounts of gun deaths); while those they would be asking to do the confiscating (law enforcement and military) are amongst the demographic most likely to be private gun owners themselves, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

I made a case for freedom of speech. Then I made 100 gypsies dig their own mass grave.

We're literally Nazis, remember?

Some, but the data was still able to be collated fairly easily because of uniformity of definitions. When the definitions vary, it's far more difficult as Levi says. But still, even if we wish we had more recent data, how does it render data from 2013 invalid? The OECD is a legitimate international organization whose member states are all in the developed world, and 2013 is recent enough that there haven't been any major cultural or technological shifts.

Correct. The data is through 2013. That's how data works. Were you hoping I would provide data from the future? Or are you saying that data from 2013 is no longer relevant because humans and society are vastly different from how we were way back in 2013 in the Mesozoic Era? And while that particular website no longer exists, the data it collated from the OECD, referenced in the chat, does.

Are you saying OECD data isn't a reliable source? That's what the chart is compiled from. I think your problem here is that you're being forced to argue honestly, and it doesn't suit you.

Actually, that's entirely untrue. Per capita, which accounts for the US's size and population, we have fewer mass shooting fatalities than places like Norway and Switzerland. http://archive.is/f4gbv

For the purposes of this discussion it's correct though, for exactly the reasons you stated.

The entire concept of rights began with religion. Prior to the Enlightenment, only one man had rights in a nation, and his claim on those rights was that they were granted to him by divine providence, IE The Right of Kings. Enlightenment philosophers made the religious argument that we are all created in God's image, and therefore all enjoyed the same natural rights granted by providence. This is where the entire concept of natural rights comes from. This is where every single argument anyone makes in favor of any rights rests their priori , as rights are not the same as privileges. Rights are intrinsic to your humanity which is what makes their violation a "wrong". Privileges are not rights. They are not intrinsic to your being. There is nothing "wrong" about removing someone's privilege, as someone had to first grant that privilege, and the Granter of Privilege is the only one who has any rights, as this is a might makes right philosophy.

It would infringe on the rights of everyone under the age of 21 directly, and indirectly infringes on the rights of everyone else by ceding the "right" to own a firearm to the government in exchange for the "privilege" of owning a firearm.

Not likely, Bob. See, people who subscribe to the philosophies I do tend towards community involvement and churches. We break bread with our neighbors, and trust our children in their homes.

Not true. I have Communist gun grabbers to worry about. Which is why I like to remind them that they can have all my bullets first.

Actually, you'll never bell that cat. The group of people you want to come an seize the guns of private citizens is comprised nearly 100% of gun owning private citizens, and you're asking them to shoot at their neighbor in order to infringe on the rights they've sworn an oath to protect. Forcing on them the choice to kill to infringe on the inalienable rights of their neighbor will give enough pause that rights will be protected without shooting.

They're certainly trying. But don't worry, when they come for the guns they can have the bullets first.

He doesn't care about his students that much either, given that he's willing to stand on their still warm dead bodies to make a political point that won't solve the problem. He's just another gun grabbing communist. But hey, since you're all about the logical fallacies today, lending weight to this man's position because of his recent experience, what are your thoughts on this: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/19/colorado-congressman-columbine-survivor-pushes-to-end-gun-free-zones-in-schools.html

Which is just as helpful as having your right hand surgically removed because your car got a flat tire. What they are doing is a non-sequitur, and is motivated by their communist gun grabbing teachers. He's free to be wrong. His opinion doesn't matter, he's a gun grabbing communist, and if he'd like to, he can come take mine first

Like I said, they've been encouraged by their gun grabbing communist teachers. And you know what else? The kids don't have the life experience or body of knowledge to have their opinions valued here anyway. Those not taking the day because its a day off, and actually protesting, are misinformed and don't understand the event in question itself. I'm not at all interested in their opinions.

The entire concept of human rights is embedded in religion, and begins with John Locke. He was arguing, against the Church and the Crown (but I repeat myself), that God created all men equal in the capacity of rights, and thusly no man had the "Devine Authority" of dominion over others, which until this point in time was how society was organized. It was Locke's words which inspired Jefferson in his declaration, and were the inspiration for self-governance. The idea, if you wish to secularize it, is that rights are an intrinsic part of humanity, as much a part of you as your heart or brain. Any movement from that principal is a defacto movement away from Enlightenment thinking, and back towards the Dark Ages of monarchal rule. No, it wasn't. That's the excuse. They're taking a day out of school, encouraged to do so by immoral, communist gun grabbers like yourself.

They aren't taking responsibility, they're taking a day out of school which is not hard to convince teenagers to do, and the impetus was probably some gun grabbing communist teacher encouraging it in order to use dead babies to build a soap box.

Like I said, you're the one who thinks it's appropriate to build a soap box from the corpses of babies in order to grab guns. That's all I need to know about a person's "argument".

If you want to weaponize dead children politically, that's on you.

With rare exception, first and foremost they want your guns. It's the same argument we've been having forever. Your friends are monarchists. They may not realize it, but they are. They have an idea about how people should live, and they want to force people to live that way, and they don't want people to be able to resist their brand of "trust me, I know better" tyranny, so they want your guns. And they want them so badly that they're willing to stand on the bodies of dead children to tell you so.

Well, yeah, you've identified an important part of the problem. We're working as a society to redefine things away from being "a mental illness", which makes them much harder to treat. Keep in mind, I did not say "reduces cases of mental illness", I said "more mentally ill going without treatment".