DivineHustle

It's always important to support allies.

Happens, hopefully, everyone is OK.

I'd say there was no recognition because it happened in Egypt, not because the victims were Muslim. I'm going to be brutally honest here: People in the developed world don't give a damn about what happens overseas. No one does. You don't, I don't, no one. Why do I say that? Are you going to lose sleep tonight over this? Are you going to now actively advocate to stop this? Are you donating to different organizations that try to prevent this from happening? Are you even going to remember this event in a few weeks? I'd bet that all or most of your answers are "no." I don't have any issue with the people, I have an issue with the ideaology. Gallup is a relatively accredited statistics gathering domain. Unless you can provide a better source, of course. I dont want to get us into trouble. I'll drop the discussion here.

Because we're tired of presenting facts and evidence against the religion and getting the same silence from those that support the religion.

You can, but it won't really make much sense and if you're looking for realism, it's far from it. There's also no ambient traffic and practically nothing to do.

The key word here is "work" not "volunteer". It wouldn't be a volunteer team like we have here, it'd be a paid team whose job it is to moderate. If they suck at what they do, get rid of them and hire others. A simple solution to a small problem. I know a lot of people that wouldn't have any issue getting paid to sit in front of a computer screen and moderate YouTube videos. I'm sure there are millions of people worldwide that wouldn't have any issue doing that. Disabled vets, retired elderly, bored gamers, anyone really. I know I would, I've got plenty of time in the barracks. And you're trying to tell me that a company estimated to be worth about $40 billion would be wasting money paying moderators just a little bit to keep trash out of the kid's section? From a business perspective, I'd say that it's not a waste of money at all because you're improving the quality of the filtering for your own users. That's a subjective perspective, not a business perspective. Therefore, whether or not it's a waste of money is a matter of opinion and needs to be determined by the financial section of YouTube, not by us. I'm also for certain that there are plenty of people that would take pleasure in moderating videos intended for children, especially if they have children of their own or happen to teach children in a learning environment. I don't think it's entirely accurate to suggest that the problem is simply a lack of good parenting. That's not always the case. You're putting the blame on the parents which is giving off the implication that you're perfectly content with this content existing. I don't see why you wouldn't just take "common sense" measures to help reduce the content in the first place. Blaming parents isn't going to solve anything, and kids are still going to see fucked up content. You also have YouTube TELLING users that the kids area is safe for children.

Yeah man, it's stupid and foolish. If Yahoo Answers is able to be moderated, then a small portion of uploaded YouTube videos should be able to be moderated. I'm sure there are many more questions on Yahoo than videos on YouTube.

Yes, that's exactly what we should do. Blame YouTube for failing to moderate its own website and not implementing some sort of system that they need to figure out in order to prevent this from happening on their website. How the hell don't you have control of your own website? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all Thanksgiving. If YouTube employees need to look at thousands of videos, then that's what they need to do. It really isn't that hard. I'm sure that there are millions of people that wouldn't mind getting paid to moderate videos. If people are willing to moderate websites for free and put forth countless hours of their own time to keep it peaceful, I guarantee you that there are plenty of people that'll do it for a paycheck. It's really not that hard. When it comes to videos uploaded for children, add a tougher filter. If the video is tagged for children, it should be filtered anyway. It's the same thing as having kids channels on TV, or a kids section at a library, or a kitty pool at the waterpark. It keeps the children away from the adults and the adult content. If YouTube isn't capable of doing something as simple as that and moderating it... jeez.

This is disgusting. It's not funny, it's stupid and retarded. Why someone would even try to upload inappropriate videos and attempt to reach children is completely beyond my capacity of thinking. The videos need to be taken down immediately. I don't see how YouTube isn't capable of ensuring that these videos aren't even uploaded in the first place. It's their own damned website. Get some freaking control.

I think what he/she means is that when a tragedy happens, we publicize the individual that committed the act to the extent that they're practically some sort of international superstar. If I understand @Arhub correctly, he/she is saying that we should not give extreme attention to the actual suspect because that's probably what they were after.

Yes I'm aware, hence the reason I said the original debate subject and not just the original subject. Is this an indication to end the debate?

It seems as though we've drifted from the original debate subject, which is gun control and it's legality. Now we're discussing whether or not guns are needed in the United States, and we're basing that (subjective) question off of how things are in Europe, which has been proven to be illogical. I'm still waiting for rebuttals from some people that mysteriously vanished from the topic.

Then do you mind explaining to me why a vast majority of police officers support gun ownership? Gun ownership inherently means that gun owners carrying are likely to get involved in a mass shooting situation, or any sort of tragic situation. I'm sure police know this, but still, hold overwhelmingly favorable views of guns. We can look at this recent church shooting. An armed citizen was able to contain the individual before he could (probably) wreck out and go on a shooting spree. It makes perfect sense as to why the police would support this. It makes their job easier. The criminal wants the loot, regardless of if I'm home or not. If it's a stupid criminal, which most of them are because they're caught, then they'll break in while I'm home. In that case, it's guns blazing.

Of course, I understand your point. It's hard for me to really determine exactly what would happen because the entire thing is dependent upon the situation and subjective to each individual. What I do know is that I and those that I serve with take pride and honor in what we do, and there'd have to be some really twisted shit going on for us to be content with an illegal deployment in our own country against our own people and our own families. Now, another country is different. We may not necessarily agree with our own presence around the world, but we do what we must. When we begin to talk about our own land, that's a totally different story man. Like I said, there's a difference between being deployed to a riot, and being deployed to take away rights. But the decision to continue obeying the government is subjective to each individual soldier. I, personally, and many others wouldn't stand for it, and I'm not afraid to say that.

Well, we aren't a Democracy, we're a Republic. And I mean considering the fact that the natives were practically wiped out, slavery lasted so long in this country with colored people being treated horribly thereafter, imprisonment of Japanese-Americans, Benghazi, Russian collusion, it's easy to see why people wouldn't trust the government. Whether the whole Russia thing is true or not, the fact that it's a topic puts me on edge about the government as a whole, not just on Donald Trump. Our guns ensure that we aren't dragged out of our homes and rounded up like the Jews were back in Nazi Germany. That's an exaggerated example, yes, but hopefully, you get my point. Okay, my apologies then, I misinterpreted what you said. But regardless, this statement: This statement gives off the implication that the founding fathers were foolish and didn't have any concept of time and progression. I guarantee you that they could definitely foresee the future and the advancement of weaponry and technology because they had technological advancements of their own. Why would they not assume that guns would gradually become more lethal and harbor more firepower?

That's the thing, most Americans are not voting, and there's a reason for that. This past presidential election, Donald Trump had *roughly* 60M votes. Hillary Clinton had about 61M votes. Gary Johnson had about 4M, and Jill Stein had about 1.2M. That's only about 125M votes yet there are about 324M people in the United States. We had to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That should say enough about the political state in this country and why Americans distrust the government. If you have complete trust in your government, you need professional help right away. So, you're essentially suggesting that the founding fathers of the United States were retarded and didn't think that (with time) technology would progress and develop? They didn't say that we have the right to bear muskets and blunderbusses. Specifications such as those would imply exactly what you're attempting to suggest. They said that we have the right to bear arms. Obviously, when technology develops and the government gains possession of more developed weaponry, the people should be allowed to also gain (limited) access to the same weaponry. What good would the 2nd amendment be if we have muskets and the government has assault rifles? That's dumb as hell man, come on. An overreaching government would likely use its police and its military, that is correct. But that's not the case in the United States. As a member of the United States Army, I can safely guarantee you that we're not going to willfully march down our own neighborhoods and take away our own rights simply because wealthy men in business suits tell us to. If you really believe that American servicemembers would willfully roll armored vehicles down our own neighborhoods and engage our own citizens, you are delusional. There's a difference between a lawless riot and an illegal deployment of the military to our own country. We aren't some third world country.

I challenged you to get the numbers from two American cities with opposing gun laws and present the statistics here in support of your argument. Practically no one in the US cares about gun crime in other countries when compared to the US, as evidently noted by the increasing number of Americans that still continue to support gun ownership. The few Americans that agree with you are in the minority of this country. Most Americans do NOT feel the way that this handful of Americans here do. Once you bring us numbers relevant to the US, then we'll gladly debunk the argument as we always do and continue to prove why your suggested and implied restrictions won't work here. This would require a certain level of thinking, something that I cannot explain. This is something that you would have to do, friend. You need to expand your level of thinking (respectfully) and try to understand why comparing two different countries doesn't make any sense. In my mind, it's obvious why comparing two countries is illogical, but it may not be obvious to everyone else. This is why I say that you need to try and understand that on your own because I can't explain that for you because there's simply too much depth to it. I'd be writing an essay just to get the point across, and I'm not going to do that. We don't need to try it, we already know that the results won't be the same. I will patiently and respectfully wait, and I will no longer respond to this topic until someone quotes me with numbers relevant to the US in favor of gun restrictions, or someone presents a new and valid argument.

I'm just waiting for a logical, sensible, accurate rebuttal to all of our claims in support of gun ownership. It seems like every gun debate I ever have, both online and in person, turn out this way. The guys against gun ownership make claims, the guys in favor of gun ownership pull facts and numbers, then the guys against gun ownership either disappear, resort to ad hominem, or put a noticeable increase of sentiment into their statements without providing any sort of material evidence. Then they continue to say that gun owners are wrong even though all of their arguments have been dismissed at incorrect, invalid, or inaccurate. This argument is invalid because, statistically speaking, victims of crime are more likely to become gun owners. See the links I've posted earlier. Following this statistic, those same mothers, brothers, and daughters would be more so in favor of gun ownership than those that weren't involved with the shooting. Kinda diggin into the ad hominem there man.

Laws can be modified, yes, but should they be modified? Most Americans think not on the grand scheme of things. We're in favor of what I've listed several times above, but practically no one supports a ban on handguns, and less than half support restrictions on assault weapons. Like I said, we actually value our Constitution and the founding fathers' original intent. They were very clear on the 2nd amendment and what it means. This is why, again, the Supreme Court has upheld that it protects our right to personally own (certain) firearms and that right CANNOT be infringed. You're comparing one country to a completely different country. That, therefore, renders your entire argument invalid for the simple reason that it doesn't make any logical sense to make that comparison. It's like comparing an apple to an orange. If that were a valid argument, guns would have been banned quite some time ago because obviously crimes committed with guns are going to be lower in countries that don't have a rich history of gun ownership. I challenge you to compare a city in the US with strict gun laws to a city with loose gun laws. In France, less guns clearly equals less crime. That's not the case in the United States. Why? Because we're a totally different country. When you compare the United States to France, you're setting France as the standard of measure (Kind of forcing that definition of measure here but hopefully you get the point). "Well since this is how it is in France, it should be that way in the United States." That is an argument that I will truly never understand because it's illogical in nature. You have to expand your capacity of thinking to a larger scale and realize that practically everything is different. Different culture, different mindset of the people, different history, different laws, different law enforcement agencies and response times, different demographics and geographics, it's not comparable. "Since something works here, it's going to work there." No, that's not how it works.

Well, the problem with that is that Americans actually value the Constitution and our rights and our founding fathers' original intent. It's why the Supreme Court has ruled that we have the right to own weapons according to the 2nd amendment. There's plenty of evidence that less legal gun owners equals more crime. See the statistics I've cited several times previously on how Americans feel about the situation. What America wants is clear. Americans want background checks, registration with law enforcement, a waiting period between purchasing weapons, and a large minority want a restriction on assault weapons. Americans, statistically speaking, as a whole, don't want any weapons bans or restrictions to purchasing weapons for the "common man"... which is exactly why they haven't been completely banned yet and won't ever be completely banned. Because that's not what Americans want. No, no one has said that the only solution to gun crime is to add more guns. We're saying that if a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a gun, they should have every right to do so without any sort of impediment. A good guy with a gun is definitely a beneficial matchup against a bad guy with a gun. At least the police seem to think so, and most Americans. I also find it strange that an overwhelming majority of law enforcement say that law-abiding gun owners help reduce shootings against police, and thus support gun ownership. You know, since a good guy with a gun being beneficial is supposedly incorrect. Unless you have some numbers handy, of course. How ironic that the men and women most likely to face gun violence just so happen to vastly support gun ownership. Who'd a thought? Maybe because police officers just happen to be good guys with guns and decided to be good guys with guns as a career? Maybe there are a lot of good guys with guns that decided not to go into law enforcement? I dunno, but let's ban them anyways because everything is wrong. Guns still kill people regardless of what the numbers say. Because like Trumps White House minion said, sometimes we can disagree with the facts. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438327/gun-control-police-officers-overwhelmingly-support-second-amendment-rights https://www.policeone.com/gun-legislation-law-enforcement/articles/6186552-Police-Gun-Control-Survey-Are-legally-armed-citizens-the-best-solution-to-gun-violence/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/11/pew-survey-police-support-gun-rights-over-gun-control-3-1-margin/

This does not make any logical or statistical sense. Guns are not the problem, people are the problem. You're telling me that people are perfect but guns are keeping people from being perfect? That's the implication you're giving with that statement "guns are the problem not the people using them". By the way, more Americans die from cars than guns every year.

Every gun owner I've ever met hasn't given me this impression, but that's not really based on anything other than some simple and short interactions. We don't believe that everyone should own a gun. We believe that law-abiding citizens that wish to own guns should be able to own guns. And if one of said law-abiding citizens were placed into the ground-zero of a shooting, that's another good guy that's hopefully ready to take down the perpetrator. The police take time to respond, especially in rural areas where response times can be more than 10 minutes. The police aren't reliable. I support them and I love them, but they aren't reliable. Every gun owner I've ever met hasn't given me this impression, but that's not really based on anything other than some simple and short interactions with them. It takes a certain type of person to want to own a firearm and then intend to use it if needed. Not just anyone is gonna roll up to a shop and purchase weapons. I have no numbers, but I think it's safe to assume that a significant number of gun owners actively go to ranges for personal firearms training. Usually, someone that legally owns a gun knows what they're doing. I have good confidence in legal gun owners and their ability to take down perpetrators when appropriate. There aren't very many stories of that type of situation going terribly wrong, but it does happen. I dunno man. Just as someone with that impulse would likely be barred from going into law enforcement or the armed forces, they should probably be barred from owning a firearm. That's really subjective to the individual and the situation. It's hard to make a solid statement on that because it really just depends.

A vast majority of Americans support this, and so do I.

It isn't difficult to discover where shooting is coming from when you're in a tiny little church building. It is definitely much more difficult in an open environment, but not under these circumstances. I'd say the difficulty of determining a direction for the shooting is subjective and non-debatable as a result. Background checks, and a requirement to register the weapons with law enforcement, something that a vast majority of Americans agree with. http://news.gallup.com/poll/220637/americans-widely-support-tighter-regulations-gun-sales.aspx?g_source=Politics&g_medium=newsfeed&g_campaign=tiles Well, that's because we aren't Australia, or the UK, or France. Those countries also don't have a rich heritage of gun ownership and gun rights like the United States do. They also have much smaller populations than we do, smaller land masses than we do, and much fewer guns than we do. I'm also sure that they don't have a 2nd amendment like we do or some other document that they actually hold dear to them like we do with the Constitution. A growing minority of Americans live in a household with guns present. That minority is 48%. No one is forcing you to own a firearm, but you can't force me NOT to own one. We can look at the Constitution and the Supreme Court ruling and see that it's already been settled and debated on several times. Statistically speaking, that is false. Most that are against banning guns are Republicans, and most Republicans own guns. About 40% of Democrats also own guns, which is almost half of those that somehow also want to restrict gun ownership. http://news.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx So then you're basing your statement off of probability, without any actual material evidence to support it? We can do that all day, friend. If I don't do a courtesy flush when I take this dump, I'm probably going to clog the toilet. Do I have any numbers to back that up? No, but it's likely to happen right? I don't think anyone would agree that everyone pulling out a gun and shooting in the direction of the shots is a good idea. Nobody is saying that, and no one in their right mind has ever said that. The idea is that a shooter enters the building, and a few that are carrying pull their weapons and eliminate the threat. There are hundreds of videos on how this has saved lives and businesses on YouTube. And the fact that I had to actually explain this is evidence that you are against gun ownership, but don't quite understand why people would support gun ownership. It's OK to disagree with something, but you need to understand why people feel a certain way before you can disagree with it. That's a problem that we have in this country. Well, that's on you. I'd much rather have someone who thinks they know how to use a firearm in front of me rather than no one and I'm facing first into the shooter.

Do you happen to have any sort of studies or statistics that can show that gun crime would plummet and that a minority know about the dark web? I can agree that it seems like common sense (I hate that term) that fewer guns = less gun crime, but something that seems like common sense isn't always necessarily what's true. Not necessarily. Battling the perpetrator doesn't inherently mean that we're targeting the tool as well. We can look at cars. We are battling texting and driving by making it illegal to text and drive. Did we do anything to limit car access or car purchasing? No. We battle DUI by creating a legal toxication limit. Did we decide to ban cars or a certain type of car? No. We battle people flying through windshields by making it a legal requirement to wear your seatbelt. It goes on and on brother.