Raider5678

Would downvotes that don't affect reputation be better in your opinion?

I just think it'd get rid of some of the value placed into downvotes/upvotes if you can see how many of each you have. Just IMO though. Another one would be a dislike rather than downvote. They don't affect reputation, but you can still disagree with someone with the click of a button.

I feel it should be changed, not removed. We should be able to downvote, as always, but it shouldn't affect our reputations. OR perhaps add a way to see how many downvotes someone has and how many upvotes someone has. So the reputation system would stay the same, but you'd be able to see how many upvotes in total they have gotten, and how many downvotes. If you can't do that, I feel it should be removed.

1. Opioids 2. They're designed to kill yes, but I assure you, they are not as deadly as it can be. Research into different ammunition banned by the Geneva convention. Then imagine las vegas with one of the ammunition rounds. The casualties would have been much closer to the thousands. That being said, I'm not saying we shouldn't restrict assault weapons. You can't make someone more dead, but you can make it so that they'll die 90% of the time if they're hit. Currently, there are usually far more injuries than deaths. 3. Okay, listen. I didn't say anything about the effectiveness of the ban that took place. I said it's much different than the ban you seemed to think it was. It did not limit the sale of them. It did not limit who could own them. It did not even put restrictions on them. It made them illegal to manufacture. At no point did I even comment on whether it reduced murders. I very clearly said if the guns were completely banned a black market would develop. And I know for a fact, that you realized that. You're not even remotely close to being short-sighted. So comparing what I said and trying to place it onto another subject is just taking my argument out of context, placing it into your own scenario, and then musing about how it no longer holds up.

Nope. Now that I look at it though, I could see how you could see that.

I realized this. Hence all the facepalms.

Let's observer the answer: Obviously it can't run faster than itself, so it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived. Let's say there are two horses alone on the earth. One is the fastest, at 90 mph. The other is the second is 5mph. It can now run faster then a horse. Making the statement "it can't run faster than any horse that has ever lived" because it just did......wait.........

Part of the previous solution that was entertained is getting rid of most current politicians, that'd most likely include getting rid of most of the GOP.

Legal drugs are harder to obtain. I'm not saying anything to incriminate anyone, but I know easy ways that I could find out how to obtain drugs quickly. Getting a prescription is not on that list. Look no farther then drugs. Before the war on drugs, it wasn't very potent. After the war on drugs had begun, it's much more profitable to ship one ounce packets of highly potent drugs then 1 pound bags of relatively mild drugs. With guns, in the hypothetical scenario that we banned a particular weapon, let's say assault rifles, it'd be much the same. Rather than selling many lower "potency" guns, they'd sell guns, with the ammo designed to kill. No. It's not what happened. But there is also a massive difference. The assault weapons ban didn't make all assault weapons illegal, nor did it really ban even the sale of them. It made them illegal to manufacture. Didn't even bann the selling of them. So I'm not exactly sure that's a good example of what a full out bann would result in.

It's impossible. I looked at the answer, the answer contradicts itself.

I know. I was trying to support what you were saying, that wasn't aimed at you. I was supporting the "Make no mistake school shootings are not just about assault rifles." statement.

As I've stated before, assault rifles account for less than 3% of school shooting deaths, and we should definitely look into regulating handguns more(which makes up around 95%) as well, but nope. I'm just anti gun control to support that idea. I believe we need to add universal background checks for all gun sales. I believe we need to eliminate the private sellers and gun show loopholes. I believe we need to have a gun license everyone must have to own any type of gun, and another for all semi-automatic guns including handguns. I believe we need to have mental fitness checks to obtain gun licenses. I believe we need to have said gun license renewed every two years. I believe you should not be allowed to obtain the gun license until you're at least 18 years old. I believe you should be required to safely store your weapons if you have children in your household. I believe you should be disqualified from owning a gun if you ever threaten gun violence on social media. I believe you should be disqualified from owning a gun if you ever commit a violent crime. I believe you should be charged with first-degree murder if you sell a weapon knowingly circumventing aforementioned rules. But yes. I'm actually just calling for inaction because I don't agree with your own ideas for gun control 100%. Your way or the highway.

You mean if there's no legal way to obtain something, then the black market will dry up? Amazing! Why don't we do that for drugs?? Not your finest argument. Guns would develop a black market extremely fast. And like drugs, you'd be seeing much deadlier guns as well. Full metal jackets, shrapnel bullets, etc, will all become much more prevalent.

At this point I would hope you'd realize I am doing anything but calling for inaction.

This is impossible.

That's the point. Also, socialized education is already something the U.S. has........ just not as socialized as other countries. Ours goes to high school and stops there, rather than extending to secondary education.

No, I think it's a case of them being portrayed as a stereotype. I don't doubt that there are people who say it, but I definitely don't believe it's as common as you both seem to believe. I live in a very conservative area, from the people who were convinced Obama was born in Africa, and that he was the devil incarnate. However, I still don't ever hear "I disagree because it's socialist" I hear "I disagree because it doesn't work." Whether it actually works or not is not what I'm discussing. I'm saying the conclusion that just because they don't agree with something that it's because of why you think they don't agree with it, is wrong. They can disagree for reasons different then what you think they do. The same way iNow took my statements as "Nope." and dismissed it. Rather than looking at the reasoning I provided, it's dismissed immediately as though there is no reasoning. So I am skeptical that you of all people know exactly what all Americans believe and why they believe it. Especially since there is such political divide on so many issues. Additionally, on top of all this, you're definitely subject to confirmation bias. You can find a lot of examples of America not following Europe, but that doesn't mean there are no examples of America following Europe, or even Europe following America. Also, as a side note, we're back to just bickering back and forth without even actually talking about any solutions.

I realize Europe isn't a country. I misspoke as Zapatos said. Come to think of it, how would you say that? Two different entities? Two different unions? The states are definitely a single nation though. I'm not sure. Either way, general idea, they're two different places, several different cultures, and definitely two entirely different political landscapes. That's odd. How many people do you know say they don't want to copy Europe because the policies are socialist? I've never heard it. I've typically heard that they don't believe they work, but never dismissed as "Well they work, but they're socialist."

The US and Europe are two different countries. Just because we don't do something that is done in Europe doesn't mean we don't do it because we see it as socialist.

Not to mention, I live in an area where at least three people I know of, could build a gun from pretty well scratch as long as they get their hands on the raw materials(mostly metal.) and have a pretty good idea of what they're making. I know one guy who actually makes them for a living as well.

I'd seriously disagree. I know MANY people, personally, who are pushing to legalize drugs because that way we can at least monitor them due to the black market completely undercutting the law. The war on drugs is deemed as a massive failure by them(actually, by me as well. I just disagree on legalizing drugs) and they think we have to take a whole new approach. As a side note, those same people also feel pretty much the same thing would happen if we tried to make guns illegal.(Notice I said illegal, not restricted.) But this isn't germane. Just felt like going on a little side note to point out that's not exactly true.

Yes, I quoted him a few minutes after, before he added the second line. I then went to bed. Lying to a police officer is a crime, in both Canada and America. Again, we'll take your word for it, but your posts seem very Anti-American. As for the logbooks, they sound fine to me for Semi-Automatic weapons and pistols. I'm not sure of the necessity for rifles, shotguns, etc.

An all or nothing mentality isn't going to get anything done.

I'm attempting to make it so that whatever gun control methods we come up with, don't simply get a "Screw you, I'm never going to agree to that" from the entire right wing side. Making a regulation that you have to have a valid point(which literally nobody will be able to come up with if target shooting isn't considered valid) effectively bans anyone from having them. That will never pass. Again, my attempt is to utterly limit the amount of gun violence. If I didn't care about making it reasonable, I would simply ban guns in their entirety and gun violence would drop dramatically. But that would never pass now, would it? So. Let's refrain from curse words, take a deep breath, and debate in a method that does not involve fingerpointing and insults.

Assault weapons, modular weapons, and rapid-fire weapons are very rarely used in homicides except for mass shootings. And in mass shootings, a throughout background check and mental fitness check would have disqualified every single mass shooter that I can think of as of now from obtaining a modular weapon, assault weapon, or a rapid-fire weapon in the first place under the gun control methods I previously mentioned.