Walmart shooting
- Thread starter BlackLivesMatter
- Start date
- Status
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
well, theres no debating someone like bread. he uses logical fallacies as arguments left and right, switches the goalpost when an opposing point has been settled with facts. just all in all poor debate etiquette. I made the claim that the US would have fewer gun related deaths if it implemented strict gun control, and I backed this claim up with statistics that proved my claim. and bread would counter it with facts about AR15s, even when I made it clear banning specific guns was never included in my argument several times, and he threw in conspiracy theories based in speculation the the government wants to kill its citizens. in summary, his style of debating involves a lot of unrelated facts and nonsense.
in this debate he's used the constitution that the US the government is based off of as an argument as to why guns shouldn't be banned.
and then in this same debate used a distrust of that very same government as an argument for the exact same thing.
in a debate, as in life; you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't at one moment use the constitution that forms the government as an argument, and then later use the fact that you distrust that same government as an argument. and then say that both of those arguments should prove the same point.
and even if that in itself didn't prove that debating with bread is pointless, using the constitution and using conspiracy theories are both forms of unacceptable arguments in actual debates. using the constitution as an argument is as I've stated before: an appeal to law, which a logical fallacy that asserts that because something is lawful it is automatically right. using conspiracy theories, in this case: "will the government kill citizens if they implement strict gun control" is also not a valid argument. because as with any argument that ends in "yeah but what if this happens?" the opponent can simply counter with "well what if it doesn't?".
more specifically, in this case the counter argument to breads hypothetical what if scenario
"what if the government turns on its citizens once strict gun control is implemented?" is the following:
"what if the government doesn't do any of that though?"
and that right there is why hypothetical scenarios and conspiracy theories have no room in actual debates.
you've just been had by the best @SerenityMoon , no tip needed but always welcome
in this debate he's used the constitution that the US the government is based off of as an argument as to why guns shouldn't be banned.
and then in this same debate used a distrust of that very same government as an argument for the exact same thing.
in a debate, as in life; you can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't at one moment use the constitution that forms the government as an argument, and then later use the fact that you distrust that same government as an argument. and then say that both of those arguments should prove the same point.
and even if that in itself didn't prove that debating with bread is pointless, using the constitution and using conspiracy theories are both forms of unacceptable arguments in actual debates. using the constitution as an argument is as I've stated before: an appeal to law, which a logical fallacy that asserts that because something is lawful it is automatically right. using conspiracy theories, in this case: "will the government kill citizens if they implement strict gun control" is also not a valid argument. because as with any argument that ends in "yeah but what if this happens?" the opponent can simply counter with "well what if it doesn't?".
more specifically, in this case the counter argument to breads hypothetical what if scenario
"what if the government turns on its citizens once strict gun control is implemented?" is the following:
"what if the government doesn't do any of that though?"
and that right there is why hypothetical scenarios and conspiracy theories have no room in actual debates.
you've just been had by the best @SerenityMoon , no tip needed but always welcome
D
Deleted member 292068
Guest
It wasn't intended for civilian use or made for it. It was sold to civilians because it didn't have selective fire and was poorly made. They needed money.
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
Personally, I think you're full of crap. You just want a big gun to serve as a phallic symbol, as many do. Have you ever tried hunting squirrels with a .22? Oh, wait, you probably use an AR-15, right? So sporting.
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
The problem is, when someone points out something you don't like, you attempt to belittle them for it. This is indeed an exchange of ideas, otherwise, why post the thread unless you're all about wasting whatever gets in your way with your great big guns?
I dont hunt unless I am going to eat. If i were to hypothetically hunt squirrels i would probably use an adequate pellet gun not an ar 15. I might use a .22 for small game like rabbits and birds.
No i rebute their comments by posting their own quotes and posting facts. I didnt post this thread and im not about wasting whatever gets in my way with guns. I am however fine, with wasting someone that is threating my life or the life of other innocent people. All the points i made are valid and im sure even your family with a military background would agree with them if you actually asked them.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
Facts that cannot be disputed:
Fact 1-every single country that has ever enacted strict gun reform laws has a dramatically lower number of gun related deaths compared to those that don't.
Fact 2- based on probability statistics, when you consider the above fact, it can be argued that the US would also see a dramatic decrease in gun related deaths if it were enact strict gun reform laws.
Fact 3- following the line of logic that I have outlined above, it can be further asserted with a reasoning based on facts and statistical probability; that implementing strict gun reform laws would save thousands of American lives every year.
for anyone whos already thinking "well how can you say that the US might follow those same trends and use it as a factual argument"
well, a claim based on predicting a trend that uses a sample group where 100% of the group all ended up all following the exact same trend is more than just a claim, its an educated prediction. there is a 99.99999999% chance that the US would see a decrease in gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun reform laws.
Betting on a 99.9999% chance isn't really a bet.
Like I've previously stated, I get patriotism exists as a core part of American identity; but that shouldn't extend to
"Nah the US is so special that we would be the one country where this doesn't work and gun deaths wouldn't change"
TLDR: I have proven that strict gun reform lives would save thousands of American lives.
Fact 1-every single country that has ever enacted strict gun reform laws has a dramatically lower number of gun related deaths compared to those that don't.
Fact 2- based on probability statistics, when you consider the above fact, it can be argued that the US would also see a dramatic decrease in gun related deaths if it were enact strict gun reform laws.
Fact 3- following the line of logic that I have outlined above, it can be further asserted with a reasoning based on facts and statistical probability; that implementing strict gun reform laws would save thousands of American lives every year.
for anyone whos already thinking "well how can you say that the US might follow those same trends and use it as a factual argument"
well, a claim based on predicting a trend that uses a sample group where 100% of the group all ended up all following the exact same trend is more than just a claim, its an educated prediction. there is a 99.99999999% chance that the US would see a decrease in gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun reform laws.
Betting on a 99.9999% chance isn't really a bet.
Like I've previously stated, I get patriotism exists as a core part of American identity; but that shouldn't extend to
"Nah the US is so special that we would be the one country where this doesn't work and gun deaths wouldn't change"
TLDR: I have proven that strict gun reform lives would save thousands of American lives.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Statistically a government that disarms its citizens does it for a reason. I mean if you want to argue statistics you have to accept them all. No not ALL governments that disarm their citizens turns tyrannical but statistically the majority of them do.
King George of England attempted to implement gun confiscation policies in the Colonies before the Revolutionary War. We all know that didn’t work! The King’s intent to disarm American colonists was one of the foundational reasons for our Founding Fathers adopting the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
Some lawmakers, academics, pundits and ordinary Americans call for outright gun bans and confiscation in the wake of these shootings. Given the increase in calls for more gun control including confiscation and even talk about repealing the Second Amendment I believe it is appropriate to start with an examination of the history of gun control around the world and its impact on common folk.
The Ottoman Empire existed in the region of current-day Turkey. That government slaughtered millions of Armenians who were native to the empire. A short history of the slaughter was published by the University of Michigan. The university’s report noted that in 1911 the empire achieved full gun confiscation. Between 1915 and 1917 approximately 1.5 million Armenians (out of a total of 2.5 million) were murdered by their government. This mass murder has become known as the Armenian Holocaust.
Soviet citizens were allowed to have firearms until 1929 when private gun ownership was abolished. The repressive and brutal régime of Joseph Stalin emerged at the same time that firearm ownership was outlawed. Tens of millions of Soviet dissidents and others perceived as threats to the government were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camps or prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths during Stalin’s tenure.
Stalin’s heartless indifference for life combined with his extreme paranoia eventually led to the purging of the Communist Party at the same time a total gun ban was instituted. Stalin once famously said during the purge “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” (This reminds us of a statement by Representative Eric Swalwell, the first 2020 presidential candidate to drop out of the race, when he said: “If Americans fight against gun confiscation, Feds can nuke them.”)
Nazi Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler instituted gun control in 1938 at about the same time he ordered the extermination of Jewish men, women, and children. By the time the killing stopped his murderous decisions resulted in the death of approximately 13 million Jews and others from different unwanted minority groups.
The greatest mass murderer of the 20th century was China’s Mao Zedong. According to the authoritative “Black Book of Communism,” an estimated 65 million Chinese died as a result of Mao’s repeated, merciless attempts to create a new “socialist” China. Anyone who got in his way was done away with — by execution, imprisonment or forced famine. The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935.
Mao Zedong famously said on at least two occasions in speeches “Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Although he was likely referring to the use of firearms in times of war given the number of Chinese citizens and dissidents killed under his régime we presume that his “truth” applied to gaining power by killing innocent people.
The year this Asian nation issued its total gun control edict was 1956, but the real carnage did not begin until several years late during the regime of the demonic Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million “educated” people in “killing fields” that were later depicted in a movie by the same name.
And these are just a few examples.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Facts Vs. “Truth”
The president of Spartan firearms training group observed that the anti-firearms crowd was interesting to him. He related a story about a conversation with the father of one of his friends. He gave the father some data points and numbers on firearms deaths to which the father replied: “Using statistics and data in the gun control debate is counterproductive.”
That statement from the father reminded us of a quote by Joe Biden who is currently (2019-2020) running to become our next President. He said we choose “truth over facts.” Some people thought that was just another of Biden’s infamous gaffes. We don’t think it was a gaffe in the sense of not saying what he meant to say. Rather it was a gaffe in the sense of divulging a dirty secret of the anti-gunners.
The secret is this: truth is subjective whereas facts are not. Facts get in the way of the truth. Facts and data about firearms deaths in the United States get in the way of the anti-gunners’ “truth.” Their truth is that all guns are evil and must be strictly regulated or even confiscated. They don’t care about the facts they only care about their truth and seeing it come to fruition.
Here are some of those pesky facts:
32,000 die annually from firearms
60% are suicide-
Of the remaining 13,000 roughly 65% are drug and gang-related.
There are estimated to be between 300,000,000 and 500,000,000 firearms in the U.S. (the number is estimated because they have not always tracked them and it is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use).
Gun ownership in the US has increased 30% in the last 20 years while violent crime has fallen 50% -(FBI crime statistics)
history of gun control around the world
The U.S. isn’t even in the top 100 countries for homicide rate per 100,000 (we are 103, about the middle). -U.N. homicide statistics
Annually police kill on average 606 people.
There are between 800,000-2.5 million uses of a firearm in self-defense annually.
Of all the self-defense uses of firearms, between 80,000-200,000 are women defending themselves. -Journal of Criminal Law
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that firearms are 80 times more likely to be used in defense of life than by a criminal to take it.
The FBI reports that during a mass shooting the average number of deaths when the shooter is confronted by police is 14.3. When confronted by an armed citizen the average number of people killed is 2.3.
The UK and much of the EU has a violent crime rate that is 4 times that of the US (UK 2,034 per 100,000 US 466 per 100,000).
The media reports there have been 250 mass shootings in the US this year. Their definition of a mass shooting is when 2 or more people are injured or killed including the assailant (imagine that?). When you look at the assailant in those shootings 25% are Caucasian, 73% are black or Hispanic, 2% other. In 99% of those 250 cases, the weapon of choice is a handgun. Less than 1% are motivated by politics. However, the mainstream media would have us believe that most of the mass shootings are committed by crazed white men using those evil weapons of war (aka, long rifles) and motivated by the rhetoric of President Trump
The media leads uninformed people (Lenin’s “useful idiots”) to believe that the firearm of choice for mass shootings is what they call a “weapon of war”… a long rifle often called an AR-15 (AR, by the way, doesn’t stand for Automatic Rifle…it stands for the manufacturer–ArmaLite Rifle). They assume that because it resembles a military firearm that it must be a weapon of war. There is no soldier or marine that we know of that would use one of these civilian semi-automatic rifles in combat.
The Firearms of choice in mass shootings since 1982 is the handgun.
The above facts are important because they are being left out of the conversation from the anti-gun crowd. They manipulate the language, gun deaths versus gun homicide to inflate the numbers to make the case that firearms must be severely restricted or confiscated. The facts conflict with the anti-gunners’ truth: guns are evil, used by crazy politically motivated white guys and therefore firearms must be severely restricted and even confiscated.
All of those gun deaths are tragic. We don’t mean to make them seem insignificant. It is important however to remember that in the last century somewhere between 160,000,000 and 200,000,000 people were murdered by their Governments. History and human nature tells us that can happen anywhere and it’s why the Second Amendment is so important.
The president of Spartan firearms training group observed that the anti-firearms crowd was interesting to him. He related a story about a conversation with the father of one of his friends. He gave the father some data points and numbers on firearms deaths to which the father replied: “Using statistics and data in the gun control debate is counterproductive.”
That statement from the father reminded us of a quote by Joe Biden who is currently (2019-2020) running to become our next President. He said we choose “truth over facts.” Some people thought that was just another of Biden’s infamous gaffes. We don’t think it was a gaffe in the sense of not saying what he meant to say. Rather it was a gaffe in the sense of divulging a dirty secret of the anti-gunners.
The secret is this: truth is subjective whereas facts are not. Facts get in the way of the truth. Facts and data about firearms deaths in the United States get in the way of the anti-gunners’ “truth.” Their truth is that all guns are evil and must be strictly regulated or even confiscated. They don’t care about the facts they only care about their truth and seeing it come to fruition.
Here are some of those pesky facts:
32,000 die annually from firearms
60% are suicide-
Of the remaining 13,000 roughly 65% are drug and gang-related.
There are estimated to be between 300,000,000 and 500,000,000 firearms in the U.S. (the number is estimated because they have not always tracked them and it is legal to manufacture firearms for personal use).
Gun ownership in the US has increased 30% in the last 20 years while violent crime has fallen 50% -(FBI crime statistics)
history of gun control around the world
The U.S. isn’t even in the top 100 countries for homicide rate per 100,000 (we are 103, about the middle). -U.N. homicide statistics
Annually police kill on average 606 people.
There are between 800,000-2.5 million uses of a firearm in self-defense annually.
Of all the self-defense uses of firearms, between 80,000-200,000 are women defending themselves. -Journal of Criminal Law
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that firearms are 80 times more likely to be used in defense of life than by a criminal to take it.
The FBI reports that during a mass shooting the average number of deaths when the shooter is confronted by police is 14.3. When confronted by an armed citizen the average number of people killed is 2.3.
The UK and much of the EU has a violent crime rate that is 4 times that of the US (UK 2,034 per 100,000 US 466 per 100,000).
The media reports there have been 250 mass shootings in the US this year. Their definition of a mass shooting is when 2 or more people are injured or killed including the assailant (imagine that?). When you look at the assailant in those shootings 25% are Caucasian, 73% are black or Hispanic, 2% other. In 99% of those 250 cases, the weapon of choice is a handgun. Less than 1% are motivated by politics. However, the mainstream media would have us believe that most of the mass shootings are committed by crazed white men using those evil weapons of war (aka, long rifles) and motivated by the rhetoric of President Trump
The media leads uninformed people (Lenin’s “useful idiots”) to believe that the firearm of choice for mass shootings is what they call a “weapon of war”… a long rifle often called an AR-15 (AR, by the way, doesn’t stand for Automatic Rifle…it stands for the manufacturer–ArmaLite Rifle). They assume that because it resembles a military firearm that it must be a weapon of war. There is no soldier or marine that we know of that would use one of these civilian semi-automatic rifles in combat.
The Firearms of choice in mass shootings since 1982 is the handgun.
The above facts are important because they are being left out of the conversation from the anti-gun crowd. They manipulate the language, gun deaths versus gun homicide to inflate the numbers to make the case that firearms must be severely restricted or confiscated. The facts conflict with the anti-gunners’ truth: guns are evil, used by crazy politically motivated white guys and therefore firearms must be severely restricted and even confiscated.
All of those gun deaths are tragic. We don’t mean to make them seem insignificant. It is important however to remember that in the last century somewhere between 160,000,000 and 200,000,000 people were murdered by their Governments. History and human nature tells us that can happen anywhere and it’s why the Second Amendment is so important.
Facts that are undisputable:
Fact 1- Every single country that has ever implemented strict gun control laws has a drastically lower number of gun related deaths when compared to those that don't.
Fact 2: It is a statistical probability that any country that implements similar laws would see the exact same result.
Fact 2 continued: (for simplicity) If a sample group testing the results of something comes back with a 100% success rate, adding something else into that sample with similar parameters has an extreme chance of procuring similar results. In layman's terms, if 100% of countries that have adopted strict gun reform laws have seen drastically lower gun related deaths, it can be said with a great level of certainty that the United States would not be the exception.
Fact 3- Combining the previous two lines of logic leads you to a conclusion that the United States would see a drop in the death rate of gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun control.
The debate isn't amount conspiracy theories about whether or not the government would take over its people. Especially when you're using that same governments constitution for a basis in a major part of your argument. No amount of examples of governments taking over their people hold any ground in this debate for as long as you use that same governments constitution as an argument. Like I've stated, in an actual debate- it would be impossible to use the constitution of the US government as an argument to oppose gun reform laws, and then use the fact that you distrust that same exact government that's representing the constitution also as an opposing argument to gun reform laws.
In laymen's terms, you can't do the following in an actual debate:
"the constitution created by this government says I can own guns, so gun reform shouldn't happen"
"but also, I distrust the government that created that constitution, so gun reform shouldn't happen"
You can't use the government as an argument for both of those points.
Fact 1- Every single country that has ever implemented strict gun control laws has a drastically lower number of gun related deaths when compared to those that don't.
Fact 2: It is a statistical probability that any country that implements similar laws would see the exact same result.
Fact 2 continued: (for simplicity) If a sample group testing the results of something comes back with a 100% success rate, adding something else into that sample with similar parameters has an extreme chance of procuring similar results. In layman's terms, if 100% of countries that have adopted strict gun reform laws have seen drastically lower gun related deaths, it can be said with a great level of certainty that the United States would not be the exception.
Fact 3- Combining the previous two lines of logic leads you to a conclusion that the United States would see a drop in the death rate of gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun control.
The debate isn't amount conspiracy theories about whether or not the government would take over its people. Especially when you're using that same governments constitution for a basis in a major part of your argument. No amount of examples of governments taking over their people hold any ground in this debate for as long as you use that same governments constitution as an argument. Like I've stated, in an actual debate- it would be impossible to use the constitution of the US government as an argument to oppose gun reform laws, and then use the fact that you distrust that same exact government that's representing the constitution also as an opposing argument to gun reform laws.
In laymen's terms, you can't do the following in an actual debate:
"the constitution created by this government says I can own guns, so gun reform shouldn't happen"
"but also, I distrust the government that created that constitution, so gun reform shouldn't happen"
You can't use the government as an argument for both of those points.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
fact
/fak(t)/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"
1911Turkey guns were restricted and a result one and a half million Armenians were unable to defend themselves and were ethnically cleansed by the government.
1929 Soviet Union established gun control and as a result Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
1933-1938 Nazi germany established gun control where countless of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled were killed.
1935 Communist China established gun control and 50 million political dissidents were arrested and killed.
1964 to 1981 Guatemala established gun control and 100,000 were killed.
1970 Uganda established gun control and from 1970-1979 300,000 Christians were killed by the dictatorial government.
1975-1977 Cambodia gun restriction laws prevented people from defending themselves against the tyrannical government who arrested and killed one million people.
1994 Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves one million were executed.
Not agreeing that any of the above info on his quotes correct, just the dumb logic. I cant expect to have a logical debate with someone that cant comprehend the difference between fact and fiction.
/fak(t)/
noun
noun: fact; plural noun: facts
a thing that is known or proved to be true.
"he ignores some historical and economic facts"
Fiction: see below
1911Turkey guns were restricted and a result one and a half million Armenians were unable to defend themselves and were ethnically cleansed by the government.
1929 Soviet Union established gun control and as a result Stalin’s government killed 40 million Soviets.
1933-1938 Nazi germany established gun control where countless of millions of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, disabled were killed.
1935 Communist China established gun control and 50 million political dissidents were arrested and killed.
1964 to 1981 Guatemala established gun control and 100,000 were killed.
1970 Uganda established gun control and from 1970-1979 300,000 Christians were killed by the dictatorial government.
1975-1977 Cambodia gun restriction laws prevented people from defending themselves against the tyrannical government who arrested and killed one million people.
1994 Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves one million were executed.
Probability is not fact
Probability is not fact
Not agreeing that any of the above info on his quotes correct, just the dumb logic. I cant expect to have a logical debate with someone that cant comprehend the difference between fact and fiction.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 292068
Guest
Lol he's giving examples of countries run by dictators 50-100 years ago, some of them even third World countries.
its almost like you guys purposely didn't read any of what I said. I understand that those facts shatter your arguments, but it doesn't change the facts. Its okay guys.
this is why I hate debating with people like Bread and Serenity lol. if they at acknowledged that its a fact that every country with strict gun laws has a reduced number of gun related deaths, the debate could move on onto finer points like the conspiracy theories, facts about cannons and facts about dictators.and how those might relate to gun reform laws. but as long as facts that have been brought to the table are ignored and theres an outright refusal to address them, then further points about things like cannons and dictators are moot. thats why I keep repeating my same point over and over, because all of these unrelated topics don't disprove the fact I brought to the table. these are points that can be brought up and debated by themselves, but you haven't actually brought out any arguments that disprove my fact as of yet.
the closest either of you have came to producing an actual argument is when bread said "probability isn't facts" in reference to me saying that the US would follow the same trend as literally every other country thats implemented strict gun laws. and he's right. like I said theres an extremely small chance that the US would be the single exception when it comes to this. It cannot be said for sure if the US would see reduced numbers of gun related deaths if it implemented strict gun reform laws.
See? thats how debating works. bread brought forth a factual claim and I acknowledged that it is indeed a fact. and now I will stay on topic and address this specific issue. and not bring up conspiracy theories or unrelated facts about cannons, etc.
While it cannot be said for sure whether or not the US would see a drop in the number of gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun reform laws, when considering that 100% of the countries that did enact such laws have seen reduced numbers of gun related deaths, it can reasonably be assumed with a great amount of certainty that the US would not be the exception.
In laymen's terms: If you plan on dropping 100 feathers to see if they reach the ground and 99 of them do, it can be assumed that the 100th feather would do the same. It cannot be said for sure, rare events could happen like a bird swooping in and picking up the feather in its mouth and flying off. But as an argument in a debate, stating that the 100th would reach the ground like the first 99 would not lose you any points, and the opposing side would have to counter with a basis as to why they think the 100th feather wouldn't reach the ground.
In this case, you'd have to provide an articulate reason based in fact as to why the US would be the sole exception. Just be warned, the only good argument is that the people of the US for the most part are worse than people in the rest of the world. So if you want to stay patriotic then I suggest you just accept these facts at face value, acknowledge that they are indeed facts, and then we can move on to dictators, conspiracy theories and cannon facts.
He's giving examples that in no way disprove anything I said lol. Dictators that killed people aren't an argument that gun control doesn't reduce gun related deaths. I think he's lost it lol. Next he's going to be like "cancer exists so gun control shouldn't happen" ahaha
this is why I hate debating with people like Bread and Serenity lol. if they at acknowledged that its a fact that every country with strict gun laws has a reduced number of gun related deaths, the debate could move on onto finer points like the conspiracy theories, facts about cannons and facts about dictators.and how those might relate to gun reform laws. but as long as facts that have been brought to the table are ignored and theres an outright refusal to address them, then further points about things like cannons and dictators are moot. thats why I keep repeating my same point over and over, because all of these unrelated topics don't disprove the fact I brought to the table. these are points that can be brought up and debated by themselves, but you haven't actually brought out any arguments that disprove my fact as of yet.
the closest either of you have came to producing an actual argument is when bread said "probability isn't facts" in reference to me saying that the US would follow the same trend as literally every other country thats implemented strict gun laws. and he's right. like I said theres an extremely small chance that the US would be the single exception when it comes to this. It cannot be said for sure if the US would see reduced numbers of gun related deaths if it implemented strict gun reform laws.
See? thats how debating works. bread brought forth a factual claim and I acknowledged that it is indeed a fact. and now I will stay on topic and address this specific issue. and not bring up conspiracy theories or unrelated facts about cannons, etc.
While it cannot be said for sure whether or not the US would see a drop in the number of gun related deaths if it were to implement strict gun reform laws, when considering that 100% of the countries that did enact such laws have seen reduced numbers of gun related deaths, it can reasonably be assumed with a great amount of certainty that the US would not be the exception.
In laymen's terms: If you plan on dropping 100 feathers to see if they reach the ground and 99 of them do, it can be assumed that the 100th feather would do the same. It cannot be said for sure, rare events could happen like a bird swooping in and picking up the feather in its mouth and flying off. But as an argument in a debate, stating that the 100th would reach the ground like the first 99 would not lose you any points, and the opposing side would have to counter with a basis as to why they think the 100th feather wouldn't reach the ground.
In this case, you'd have to provide an articulate reason based in fact as to why the US would be the sole exception. Just be warned, the only good argument is that the people of the US for the most part are worse than people in the rest of the world. So if you want to stay patriotic then I suggest you just accept these facts at face value, acknowledge that they are indeed facts, and then we can move on to dictators, conspiracy theories and cannon facts.
I named 10+ countries that had increased 100s of millions of deaths due to control being enacted. If the ultimate goal for gun control is to "save lives" then I have proven the opposite.
If you took the time to actually read what you post and intellectualy debate the arguments proposed, you can see how you jump back and forth and avoid topics. >>>
Your argument that removing guns would reduce gun related violence is quite comical. I can make equally stupid and comical claims:
1. Banning all cars from the road is going to reduce car related deaths.
2. Banning boats from the ocean is going to reduce shipwrecks.
3. Banning slavery is going to reduce slaves.
We are discussing how enforcing stricter gun laws, specifically those that aim to ban the use of AR15s or "military grade" weapons is going to result in less gun deaths. These laws aren't going to eliminate gun violence with 99.99% certainty per your claim.
These laws are not going to make gun ownership illegal.
These laws are trying to address 0.5% of the nations gun violence problem of which less than a quarter of that 0.5% actually has to do with these "ar15s"
But let me see you type another 8 irrelevant paragraphs that don't address the issues in my rebuttal.
- Status