Walmart shooting
- Thread starter BlackLivesMatter
- Start date
- Status
I'm not losing a debate you are failing to address any of the statistics on page 6 yet I'm answering yours and you still want to sit here and try to bait that I'm dismissing your statistics.
Tell me where you answered the most reply with your dystopian gun free zone.
How do you plan on getting all the unknown amount of weapons in criminals hands off the streets? Nothing you purposely skip over what you can't argue.
And yet you expect me to sit here and give you some sort of respect. Lol like I don't already know the troll you are.
And there you are spamming gifs.
Very mature.
Tell me where you answered the most reply with your dystopian gun free zone.
How do you plan on getting all the unknown amount of weapons in criminals hands off the streets? Nothing you purposely skip over what you can't argue.
And yet you expect me to sit here and give you some sort of respect. Lol like I don't already know the troll you are.
And there you are spamming gifs.
Very mature.
Last edited by a moderator:
AshleeLightBringer
Silver Member
Pretty lame example. The simple truth is there if you would just take the time to read it instead of arguing about it.
again, I can post the ss's showing who really got the short end of that stick if you want me to lmao.
i've already stated that how the guns would be taken away is irrelevant to the core of the debate.
these are classic, textbook examples of poor debate etiquette. Switching the goalpost and resorting to personal attacks.
The original debate was whether or not gun laws in the US would make an impact. I showed evidence that they would. No amount of statistics about which types of guns were used in which mass shootings do absolutely anything when faced with the statistics of gun related deaths in every single country that has strict gun laws. Now that the original point has been settled and its clear that gun laws in the US would make an impact, you've now changed the goalpost by saying I now also have to come up with a way to take away everyone's guns.
thats called changing the goalpost, in debate terms. and its poor form. and in an actual debate you'd get warned to move back onto the topic or risk facing a penalty. Because the debate was never "how would you disarm American citizens if strict gun laws were put into place". Not having a solution to that doesn't change the facts that have already been established. Its a different topic.
Just in case you don't get it:
If I make a debate centered around the idea that "We should ban all hats that have the letter A on them"
You can't make the argument "Well how would we take all the hats?"
That wouldn't be a valid argument, because the debate isn't about how the hats would be returned if such a ban were to happen, the debate is about whether or not the hats should be banned. And also because posing a hypothetical question is never a valid argument in an actual debate.
You might as well use "What would gun manufacturers do if there was no guns to make? what about their jobs" as an argument. Because both of these arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the original debate, and also aren't really arguments for the all of the reasons I explained above:
"Well how would the government take all these guns back?"
"What would happen to all the gun manufacturers? dont you care about their jobs?"
Both of these are not arguments and are in fact a tactic called changing the goalpost which is illegal in debates.
and I don't need to explain how pathetic resorting to personal attacks is because you're losing. and false personal attacks, like I said, i can post the receipts again if you want and show what really happened.
i've already stated that how the guns would be taken away is irrelevant to the core of the debate.
these are classic, textbook examples of poor debate etiquette. Switching the goalpost and resorting to personal attacks.
The original debate was whether or not gun laws in the US would make an impact. I showed evidence that they would. No amount of statistics about which types of guns were used in which mass shootings do absolutely anything when faced with the statistics of gun related deaths in every single country that has strict gun laws. Now that the original point has been settled and its clear that gun laws in the US would make an impact, you've now changed the goalpost by saying I now also have to come up with a way to take away everyone's guns.
thats called changing the goalpost, in debate terms. and its poor form. and in an actual debate you'd get warned to move back onto the topic or risk facing a penalty. Because the debate was never "how would you disarm American citizens if strict gun laws were put into place". Not having a solution to that doesn't change the facts that have already been established. Its a different topic.
Just in case you don't get it:
If I make a debate centered around the idea that "We should ban all hats that have the letter A on them"
You can't make the argument "Well how would we take all the hats?"
That wouldn't be a valid argument, because the debate isn't about how the hats would be returned if such a ban were to happen, the debate is about whether or not the hats should be banned. And also because posing a hypothetical question is never a valid argument in an actual debate.
You might as well use "What would gun manufacturers do if there was no guns to make? what about their jobs" as an argument. Because both of these arguments have absolutely nothing to do with the original debate, and also aren't really arguments for the all of the reasons I explained above:
"Well how would the government take all these guns back?"
"What would happen to all the gun manufacturers? dont you care about their jobs?"
Both of these are not arguments and are in fact a tactic called changing the goalpost which is illegal in debates.
and I don't need to explain how pathetic resorting to personal attacks is because you're losing. and false personal attacks, like I said, i can post the receipts again if you want and show what really happened.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
Historical evidence suggests that “assault weapons” – firearms that can hold larger capacities of ammunition and operate at faster rates of fire (at least that’s one of the myriad definitions as to what constitutes an assault weapon, in and of itself a term purely of arbitrary political manufacture) – have existed in the United States and its preceding colonies well before the drafters of the Constitution even bore the thought to bring quill to parchment.
Circa 1590 – The 16-shot wheel-lock: An oval-bore .67-caliber rifle designed to fire 16 stacked charges of powder and ball in a rapid “Roman candle” fashion. The rifle operated through the use of two wheel locks and one matchlock mounted on the gun.
No where in the constitution is a Musket even mentioned.
Last edited:
Figures your reply is copied word for word from an NRA site.
It's common knowledge muskets were the weapons used when the 2nd amendment was written, and muskets could only hold one shot at a time. So even if it doesn't say muskets per se, it's understood what they're talking about.
It's common knowledge muskets were the weapons used when the 2nd amendment was written, and muskets could only hold one shot at a time. So even if it doesn't say muskets per se, it's understood what they're talking about.
Yes common knowledge amongst ignorant people like yourself.
The 2nd amendment isnt about using flintlock rifles to hunt pheasants. The 2nd amendment is about prohibiting the government from stepping on your rights and protecting yourself from threats. There is a difference between rights and privileges. Guess what back then social media didnt exist, nor television, nor radio. So that should mean we shouldnt protect freedom of speech or freedom of the press either they can go right to hell since its 2022 now and they didnt plan for any technology. Hey look your gang of armed neighbors are trying to sexually assault your sister, we should call 911. Oh wait where are the police? I need a telephone! Wait were living in 1776 none of that exists whatever should i do. Maybe people shouldnt own a gun in the future, yeah lets include that in our constitution.
SCOTUS(the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States) has already debunked your bullshit musket debate.
Caetano vs Massachusetts
Dist of Col. vs Heller
Mcdonald vs Chicago
Weapons of war is literally the entire point to the 2nd amendment. Should you need to fight a war then atleast youll have some arms to do it with.
if only people in the US could play with their toys like big boys.
If a parent gives their kid a scooter and the kid goes around beating neighbours to death with it, maybe that kid shouldn't get to play with scooters until they can learn to play nice.
The 2nd amendment is something that sounds good on paper, and made sense when it was written. but again, you didn't have guns that could kill an entire theatre full of people with 2 clips when it was signed.
If your entire argument as to whether or the US should undergo gun reform relies solely on clinging to the constitution, then you have a flawed argument. because again, that is an argument called "an appeal to law" and isn't an actual argument. It was lawful to euthanize the mentally handicapped at one time. Then that law changed because people realized it was flawed. You can't just point to the constitution and be like "game over I win" lmao. the old English laws stated that all Kings had the legal right to have sex with everyones wife before the husband. I could make a whole list out of outdated, often times foolish things that used to be laws and were written into the foundations of countries laws. when that constitution was signed, it was unfathomable to the people of the time that there would one day be guns that could kill 30 people in a matter of seconds.
Don't you love American people more than guns? As I've already proven, strict gun reform laws have always led to a huge decrease in gun related deaths. And by implementing gun reform, the US could save on average 15,000-22,000 lives per year.
I swear Americans are the only people whos patriotism makes them dumb lol.
"I love America"
"Great, because I have a way to save like 20 thousand American lives per year"
"Okay I'm listening"
"It involves all your guns"
"nOt mAh gUNs tHoUgh"
Let me Jeff Foxworthy this again.
if your patriotism is making you value guns over human lives, you might be a redneck
If a parent gives their kid a scooter and the kid goes around beating neighbours to death with it, maybe that kid shouldn't get to play with scooters until they can learn to play nice.
The 2nd amendment is something that sounds good on paper, and made sense when it was written. but again, you didn't have guns that could kill an entire theatre full of people with 2 clips when it was signed.
If your entire argument as to whether or the US should undergo gun reform relies solely on clinging to the constitution, then you have a flawed argument. because again, that is an argument called "an appeal to law" and isn't an actual argument. It was lawful to euthanize the mentally handicapped at one time. Then that law changed because people realized it was flawed. You can't just point to the constitution and be like "game over I win" lmao. the old English laws stated that all Kings had the legal right to have sex with everyones wife before the husband. I could make a whole list out of outdated, often times foolish things that used to be laws and were written into the foundations of countries laws. when that constitution was signed, it was unfathomable to the people of the time that there would one day be guns that could kill 30 people in a matter of seconds.
Don't you love American people more than guns? As I've already proven, strict gun reform laws have always led to a huge decrease in gun related deaths. And by implementing gun reform, the US could save on average 15,000-22,000 lives per year.
I swear Americans are the only people whos patriotism makes them dumb lol.
"I love America"
"Great, because I have a way to save like 20 thousand American lives per year"
"Okay I'm listening"
"It involves all your guns"
"nOt mAh gUNs tHoUgh"
Let me Jeff Foxworthy this again.
if your patriotism is making you value guns over human lives, you might be a redneck
pretty sure even back then the 2nd amendment didn't apply to ship cannons. you're proving my point the more you talk lmao.
pretty sure if some guy was like "the 2nd amendment says I have right to arm myself so I bought 20 ship cannons for my backyard" the government would have been like "thats clearly not what we meant lol we're taking those"
like i might be wrong, maybe the 2nd amendment did apply to owning ship cannons for your household, but I would bet it didn't.
and thats still not a good example either way. theres a reason ships needed a row of several cannons to be effective, they had poor accuracy and needed a fair amount of time to reload. a single cannon couldn't kill an entire room full of people in 30 seconds. I could get into the specifics of why, but i feel like that would be wasting time explaining it to you.
You just cant admit when you're wrong lol.
pretty sure if some guy was like "the 2nd amendment says I have right to arm myself so I bought 20 ship cannons for my backyard" the government would have been like "thats clearly not what we meant lol we're taking those"
like i might be wrong, maybe the 2nd amendment did apply to owning ship cannons for your household, but I would bet it didn't.
and thats still not a good example either way. theres a reason ships needed a row of several cannons to be effective, they had poor accuracy and needed a fair amount of time to reload. a single cannon couldn't kill an entire room full of people in 30 seconds. I could get into the specifics of why, but i feel like that would be wasting time explaining it to you.
You just cant admit when you're wrong lol.
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
SerenityMoon
Gold Member
It makes Zero difference where information came from so long as it it the truth.
And you're disputing the existence of the Circa 1590? Or as @Bread. pointed out the existence of canons and there was no regulation on who could own them.
if there was no regulation on owning cannons that just proves our point even more lol. aint no way some dude could own 100 cannons and NOT be a public menace lmao.
"screw you fred"
"oh yeah? screw you terry watch what happens next"
*shows up an hour later with 100 cannons strapped onto 50 trailers being pulled by horse-carriage*
*blows up Terry's entire house, terry's next door neighbors house, and the local pub*
"that sure showed Terry. he wont tell me to screw off anymore"
"screw you fred"
"oh yeah? screw you terry watch what happens next"
*shows up an hour later with 100 cannons strapped onto 50 trailers being pulled by horse-carriage*
*blows up Terry's entire house, terry's next door neighbors house, and the local pub*
"that sure showed Terry. he wont tell me to screw off anymore"
Now youre a cannonball/explosives expert and master historian making expert claims?(that are false)
First it was:
You got fact checked with supreme court rulings.
Then it was:
You get politifact checked with the same false claims your daddy Biden used.
Now its:
Again answering FACTS with asinine hypothetical examples and opinions. Not facts or statistics.
Weren't you arguing that a menace with ”one gun" can kill a theater full of people?
Now a person who owns 100 cannons is a menace?
You are just disqualifying your own points and proving my own
How can a person with one gun simultaneously be as menacing as a person with 100 cannons?
Ill tell you how.
Because guns have nothing to do with mentally ill people aka "menaces".
The only common denominator in both of your examples is a mentally ill person aka "public menace".
Fun FACT: There is currently no federal law that limits how many guns you are allowed to own.
Allowed is italicized because the 2nd amendment is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
@Apollo i think sherlock has had enough ownage in this thread. This can be closed.
"A cannon ball can pass through up to 40 men"- jeez that would be super dangerous if someone ever found 40 guys all lined up and they just happened to stand there while some guy loaded up a cannon and didn't move out a single file line formation.
and I'm not replying with facts anymore because the original debate has been settled. and now you're just extra mad and feel the need to have the last word lol. asking for this to be closed so you can be the last person to say something lmao. the debate was never about the effectiveness of cannons, whether or not they were legal to own, how they compare to people with guns, etc.
I wouldn't even classify this as moving the goalpost. its almost like you're starting an entirely new debate, thats how far away we've gotten from the original topic right now lol.
I proved that strict gun reform laws would save between 15,000-22,000 American lives every year (and those are conservative numbers). And with the evidence I provided, that estimation can be said with 99% certainty. and now you're just changing the debate into seemingly whatever you can grasp onto to make it seem like you won lmao. cannon facts dont matter, thats why i didn't bother to actually look anything up. because none of what you just said in your last post has any bearing on what the actual debate was.
simple analogies seemed to help you understand last time so I'll try that again:
This is like if someone started a debate that claimed "we should ban all hats with the letter A on them"
And your argument was "Hats with the letter C on them weren't banned"
the debate isn't about cannons, or cannon related facts, or whether or not they were banned. the debate is about gun control. and I have proven that strict gun control, when implemented the same way as countries with 100-300 gun related deaths with strict gun control, would save thousands of American lives each year.
You can keep trying to shift away to other topics because you realize you can't argue with the facts I brought to the table, but it doesn't make you right about anything lol. it just makes you desperate. literally none of what you just said would have scored you any points if this were an actual debate, its the opposite lol you would have just been warned again to move back onto the topic or risk facing a penalty. bread if this was an actual debate you'd already be very close to being disqualified at this point or possibly already disqualified.
I see my Jeff foxworthy gifs made you mad so I guess I'll include one of those.
and I'm not replying with facts anymore because the original debate has been settled. and now you're just extra mad and feel the need to have the last word lol. asking for this to be closed so you can be the last person to say something lmao. the debate was never about the effectiveness of cannons, whether or not they were legal to own, how they compare to people with guns, etc.
I wouldn't even classify this as moving the goalpost. its almost like you're starting an entirely new debate, thats how far away we've gotten from the original topic right now lol.
I proved that strict gun reform laws would save between 15,000-22,000 American lives every year (and those are conservative numbers). And with the evidence I provided, that estimation can be said with 99% certainty. and now you're just changing the debate into seemingly whatever you can grasp onto to make it seem like you won lmao. cannon facts dont matter, thats why i didn't bother to actually look anything up. because none of what you just said in your last post has any bearing on what the actual debate was.
simple analogies seemed to help you understand last time so I'll try that again:
This is like if someone started a debate that claimed "we should ban all hats with the letter A on them"
And your argument was "Hats with the letter C on them weren't banned"
the debate isn't about cannons, or cannon related facts, or whether or not they were banned. the debate is about gun control. and I have proven that strict gun control, when implemented the same way as countries with 100-300 gun related deaths with strict gun control, would save thousands of American lives each year.
You can keep trying to shift away to other topics because you realize you can't argue with the facts I brought to the table, but it doesn't make you right about anything lol. it just makes you desperate. literally none of what you just said would have scored you any points if this were an actual debate, its the opposite lol you would have just been warned again to move back onto the topic or risk facing a penalty. bread if this was an actual debate you'd already be very close to being disqualified at this point or possibly already disqualified.
I see my Jeff foxworthy gifs made you mad so I guess I'll include one of those.
Last edited:
TLDR: i openly admit I don't know anything about cannons lmao, and I admit that because all these cannon facts have absolutely no bearing on whether or not strict gun reform laws should happen in the US. And I have proven that strict gun reform laws would save lives.
I guess at this point you do have an avenue that you could argue that you believe guns are more important than human lives, but I've already explained how that would be the epitome of toxic American patriotism. But thats really all you have left bread. You better come up with a convincing argument that explains why guns should take precedent over human lives.
Just be warned, whatever you come up with, i'm going to counter it with this:
"If there were no humans left and the world was covered in guns, who would fire them?"
I guess at this point you do have an avenue that you could argue that you believe guns are more important than human lives, but I've already explained how that would be the epitome of toxic American patriotism. But thats really all you have left bread. You better come up with a convincing argument that explains why guns should take precedent over human lives.
Just be warned, whatever you come up with, i'm going to counter it with this:
"If there were no humans left and the world was covered in guns, who would fire them?"
You mean something like an entire theatre full of people?
Guess these exist at the time the constitution was written either right?
Yet youre the one who claimed the 2nd ammendment didnt apply to them. Then used them as example of gun control. Then got owned and said they "prove your point even more". Then you got owned again and now you want to exclude them from your debate because you dont want to respond my facts.
Where did you prove this? by pasting in your own bullshit 99% certainty statistic? That is called bullshit, not fact or statistic.
I posted actual facts and backed them with sources/statistics on page 6. Thats why you cant argue that these gun reform laws that are trying to remove ARs would be effective at all. Because in about 3/4 of these "mass shooting" events, an AR is not even being used. You cant argue that these "weapons of war" are any more deadly than a gun because the virginia tech shooter managed to kill 32 people with just 2 handguns.
Like i said @Apollo
Someone has clearly lost and has resorted to replying with walls of text and double posts full of useless information
They are using fantasy examples and opinions not facts.
they aren't bullshit statistics, they're just statistics that shatter your argument so they make you mad. look at you gif spamming. apollo isn't going to close this for you lol. my entire point has never been about banning AR's. I've actually made it clear several times now that my point is related to strict laws regarding all guns. And the statistics I provided showed proof that countries with strict laws regarding all types of guns have drastically reduced gun related deaths. You can look up any country that has actually implemented strict gun laws and look at how many deaths per year are gun related and see a clear pattern. Its not bullshit just because it proves you wrong lol. the 99% isn't just a made up figure, its based on the trends of literally every single country thats ever had strict gun laws.
you really are mad about this aren't you? getting proven wrong actually hurts your feelings lmao
you really are mad about this aren't you? getting proven wrong actually hurts your feelings lmao
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status