Thanks for the response, but I will pretty much agree to disagree with every remark you made.
For starters, you stated these kids speak don't speak out against violence. There's plenty of proof they are and have been all along. If you want to live in denial of it then go right ahead.

There is plenty of proof? And yet you didn't provide any, those kids have not said shit about violence or wanting to do anything about it, they have only called for counterproductive gun control. The proof is that they don't give a shit about violence because they cried about wearing name tags to prevent violence didn't they?

You also stated they're speaking out against basic civil rights. My question is, says who? They aren't calling for a ban of the 2nd amendment, they're calling for gun reform, a huge difference.

Well we do have Stevens out there openly calling to do away with the second amendment but the kids are quite clear about going after basic civil rights, every proposal they have made restricts people's basic liberty. How is a 19 year old single mother supposed to defend her kids without a gun?

In regards to censorship, contrary to your claims, not all censorship is the result of one trying to silence their critics. I moderate on Google+, and while we aren't concerned with a difference in opinion, we are concerned with people purposely lying to deceive the public, as well as harassing other users, and not without cause.

Oh I see so Google knows what is true and what is not and gets to be the arbiter of truth? What about when google lies? by "deceiving the public" you mean "disagreeing with Google". Google is in no position to decide what is true or not nor should they be.

For one, its easy to confuse ideas (opinions) with statements of events (news), but both are not the same thing, though are often showcased together. A statement of events is not an opinion. I'm sorry, I just don't find it reasonable to assume that social platforms should tolerate people purposely misleading the public with flat out lies.

But that is OK when Google or CNN or the government does that right? The solution to "flat out lies" like the ones Google likes to propagate is the truth, that is how free speech is the solution, not censorship.

You stated, "if you are right then why would you ever have to worry about silencing someone who was incorrect?"
The answer is very simple, misinformation often has the potential to lead to real-world violence, as was the case with the junk Pizza Gate story that ended with an an innocent pizzaria owner having his restaurant shot up while his employees and guests were inside.

LOL so you blame that slightly damaged wall on free speech? If only someone had been censored that guy would not have went nuts?

Or in the case of Sandy Hook, in which people started sending death threats to the victims families.

If only a censor was there!! How foolish to blame lack of censorship.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/08/sandy-hook-hoaxer-gets-prison-time-for-threatening-6-year-old-victims-father/?utm_term=.43945c45fda8

Speaking of spreading falsehoods, how many Washington post articles have you banned? Oh right the WaPo spreading fake news is fine, that's their job.

Or in the case of the Las Vegas tragedy, in which a politically motivated fake news story spun by the disreputable Gateway Pundit cited an innocent man as being the shooter. The Pundit blamed Geary Danley for the shooting, and we all know it was Stephen Paddock, not Danley that was behind it.

We all know that? How? Where is the official report?

The pundit trid to delete the story, but archive.org still has it: http://web.archive.org/web/20171002094504/http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/las-vegas-shooter-reportedly-democrat-liked-rachel-maddow-moveon-org-associated-anti-trump-army/
Danley started receiving death threats as a result of the Pundits story.

How is that the fault of anyone besides those making threats?

The lady who harassed the Sandy Hook victims families, along with the shooter of the pizzaria are both in prison now, and Alex Jones got sued and lost over the Sandy Hook story.

Yup, threats and liable are not protected speech.

The point here, misinformation is often used as a tool manipulate public thinking, and as I just showed you, it can seriously negative consequences if its allowed to persist.

Thank God for the ministry of truth, misinformation like this?

what's more dangerous than any random asshole being allowed to say any damned thing they want is google deciding which one they think is right and silencing the rest.

In regards to your statement about freedom of speech:
Freedom of speech doesn't mean the freedom to threaten and harass others, the law affords no one such a right.

That's a straw man, I am sure I didn't say it did.

Freedom of Speech is also a right afforded to citizens in a public place, or their own home. Social platforms are not a public space, although people often assume that they are. They are private platforms, and people should pay more attention to the disclosure agreements when they signup for these platforms. There is no right to freedom of speech on YouTube for example, but no one bothers to read the fine print.

I am sure I never said anything contrary to that, sounds like another straw man. In the future though we are going to have to regulate ISPs and certain sites as public accommodations. It does not make sense that you cannot refuse to serve people at your diner but you can refuse to serve them on your website.

Google makes it very clear they have the right to terminate anyone's account at any time, and for any reason.

Who said different?

If people want freedom of speech on the web, then they create their own website, social platform, etc.

Gosh I wonder if that is why we are chatting here and not on google.

Likewise, if there was no censorship on the web, then we'd be permitting thousands of spam posts full of junk ads, hate speech, harassment, and links to sites riddled with malware all over G+. Obviously we aren't going to tolerate that.

And you get to decide what constitutes hate speech right?

In regards to your statement regarding my being shot: "Why was I unable to shoot back?" So you're stating that people should have to carry a gun with them in order to walk to the store to buy ice cream?

No, it was not a statement at all, it was a question, why is it that you were unable to shoot back? You were unable to shoot back because you couldn't carry a gun legally if you wanted to because of gun control laws, without those laws you would be allowed to carry a gun, if the guy who shot you thought you had a gun would he have shot you? If all the good people in your neighborhood had guns would that guy even be alive to shoot you?

I'm sorry, but that's not only irrational, but unreasonable.

So your straw man was irrational and unreasonable?

Not everyone can afford a gun, and why should people have to live in fear just to walk to the store?

Maybe not everyone, but in America almost everyone can, you have a phone in your pocket that costs as much as a gun right now, don't you?
It seems like you are living in fear now, isn't that what is motivating you to want to disarm your law abiding countrymen? You reminded me of this old story:

A police officer stops an elderly lady for speeding, her asks for her driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. The little old lady gives him the information, along with a concealed pistol permit. Surprised, the officer asks her if she has a weapon on her presently. She tells him she has a .45 in her glovebox. The officer is impressed, and asks if she has any other firearms on her. The little old woman calmly lists the 9mm in her center console and the .38 special in her purse. Shocked, the officer asks her “What are you afraid of ma’am?” Without missing a beat, the woman calmly responds “Not a goddamn thing.”

You stated that anyone who cries about gun violence is out of touch with reality?

Yes, because by every measure it has been improving markedly for decades. Yet they believe that things are getting worse and/or worse than ever.

Tell that to the family's of all those dead kids in Florida.

So that is some sort of emotional appeal right? Why would my message be any different to them? Here is what I would ask them:

While you're at it please make the same statement to all the victims of the Las Vegas tragedy, as well as the Google employees who were shot at YouTube headquarters today.

ok, sorry stricken relatives but djdaniel2020 really want to know

Apparently you don't visit St Louis MO much,

I'll cop to that, it's a shithole, why would anyone?

as gun related violence and murder are an almost daily occurrence here, and much of it does happen at the hands of legal gun owners.

There is loads of gun related violence and murder there, almost none of it perpetrated by legal gun owners. Why would you think that? You know who is shooting at each other, gang members, mostly under the age of 21 right? In other words they wouldn't be legal owners even if they didn't have criminal records because they are underage, right?
So let me get this right, you have drug gang members, who shoot at each other with illegal guns generally over illegal drugs or illegal drug turf, who make money selling illegal contraband that is smuggled in from other countries and you think more restrictions on legal guns is the solution? More restrictions on legal guns just gives the cartels and gangs a bigger black market in guns to profit from, you are just giving the cartels a new product to import and expanding the number of buyers.

If there were no restrictions on guns would there be any black market for them?
If you actually gave a shit about the people there you wouldn't waste one moment pushing gun control, you would spend every minute of advocacy calling for the end of the prohibition of drugs and be writing long rants to anyone calling for gun control or debating gun control instead of ending the prohibition of drugs that causes rampant slaughter in our inner cities.

In fact, the perpetrator of the Las Vegas tragedy legally purchased all of his guns. He had no real criminal history other than minor infractions that were non violent.

He also legally purchased a jet plane, he was a millionaire, Dianne Feinstein said "No law would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter" was she wrong? What if he crashed his jet plane into the crowd?

Also, Nikolas Cruz who shot all those students legally purchased his guns as well. So I'm not sure where your argument is going.

So doesn't that prove how foolish the background check system is? Let me get this right, you are from St Louis but you think if this kid could not have bought those guns legally he would not have been able to get a gun?
You are from St Louis but you don't know one person who could get you an illegal gun?

At this point its pretty obvious you're just denying the facts and preferring to believe what you like, rather than what's true and correct. Which is your choice to do so.

That sounds like projection again.

While I honestly thought your reply was very irrational, at least you were rational enough to carry on an argument while keeping your cool. Its obvious we have strong differences of opinion here, and that's fine too.
And for the record, no I wouldn't down vote your content over a simple disagreement, and I would agree people she be more respectful of others opinions than that. In fact, I up voted your content, despite my disagreement. I do respect that everyone should be entitled to their own opinion.

As long as you don't feel like it is "hate speech" right? ;) I appreciate your composure as well. Here is a good article I didn't write from a leftist source about what works and what does not work in terms of gun control policy from a scientific standpoint:
http://freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-full-transcript/