Walmart shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Finn2.0 but what if I told you that people die in cars as well? Might as well ban those. I bet that little factoid will change your mind about guns and the fact mass shootings have tripled in the US since 2011. Go ahead and just get that out of your mind, because car deaths are the exact same thing as gun deaths.

And idk if you know this, but a bunch of old guys from 1787 wrote some words down on a piece of paper that says I can own guns. And don't even try telling me that weapons that can kill an entire room full of people in seconds didn't exist back then. Because cannons. It would take the exact same amount of time to fully set up and fire a cannon in a theatre as it would take to walk into a theatre with a gun and kill a bunch of people. People would totally just sit there while some dude set up and load a cannon pointed at them and watch to see what happens next. People have the exact same amount of time to react to a cannon being set up and fired as they would have reacting to a gun.

The paper written literal centuries has already been modified a whole bunch of times, but I feel like modifying it again would be a personal attack against my rights.

I bet you didn't think the fact that cannons exist and the fact that people die in cars would be the arguments that shatter gun control.
 
Last edited:
There is no amount of evidence that will change the mind of someone convinced.
brainwashed sci fi GIF
 
@SerenityMoon

Less guns would lead to less gun related deaths. Strict gun control laws would lead to less guns. Therefore, strict gun control laws would lead to less gun related deaths.

I've been waiting for evidence that disproves this, but so far the "smoking gun" arguments for the other side have been:

A) cannons exist. and B) people die in cars.

Its not that it would be impossible to change my mind, its just that so far none of the opposing sides nonsensical arguments have been able to disprove my very clear line of logic. Also did you see what I did there? Get it? "Smoking gun" argument? Once you have an argument thats actually *relevant* to a *gun control* debate, I'll hear you out.
 
@Frombo That's a negative. I've posted several times from FBI data base "
Gun ownership in the US has increased 30% in the last 20 years while violent crime has fallen 50% -(FBI crime statistics)
So logically as you like to point out it is a statistical probability that gun related deaths have fallen at the same rate.
And, there are between 800,000-2.5 million uses of a firearm in self-defense annually which do not end in death or injury.
Frombo said:
@SerenityMoon and like I've stated numerous times, yes taking away guns wont stop the people who really want to kill, you're right. But I'd rather have a psychopath on the loose armed with a knife than a psychopath on the loose armed with a gun. Someone with a gun that intends to kill people can kill a large amount of people in an extremely short amount of time.
Click to expand...
You are forgetting that guns more often save lives than take them.
Researchers at the CDC deleted a reference to a self-defense gun use study after gun control groups complained that including the data would prevent them pressuring Congress to pass more gun control laws, it was the result of months of political arm-twisting by three different gun control groups – Gun Violence Archive, GVPedia and Newtown Action Alliance.

The groups took issue with a study by Gary Kleck, award-wining Professor Emeritus at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Kleck’s study estimated defensive gun uses (DGU) happen between 60,000 and 2.5 million times per year in the United States. That 2.5 million figure was too much for the gun control groups to accept. Instead of providing refuting evidence, they killed the study and censored the data.

“[T]hat 2.5 Million number needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again,” Mark Bryant, one of the attendees who also runs Gun Violence Archive – the source for mainstream media’s “mass shooting” statistics. He wrote to CDC officials after their meeting, according The Reload, complaining of Kleck’s study. “It is highly misleading, is used out of context and I honestly believe it has zero value – even as an outlier point in honest DGU discussions.”

Professor Kleck stood by his research. “CDC is just aligning itself with the gun-control advocacy groups,” Kleck told The Reload. “It’s just saying: ‘we are their tool, and we will do their bidding.’ And that’s not what a government agency should do.”

It’s more than that. That’s what the CDC is forbidden by law from doing.

So what to take from that other than the CDC is buffering its numbers illegally? Between 60K and 2.5M times a gun has saved a life where as roughly 45k People are killed by guns. Mathematically I'll go with the 60K statistic.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...ked-about-defensive-gun-uses/?sh=fbd97e299aac
 
Wait ... Wasn't It Professor Plum That Colonel Mustard Said Stole The Hammer From Mrs Peacock Who Got It From Mrs White Who Had A

Torrid Affair With Mr Green Who Had Been Summarily Dumped By Yvette Who Was Having An S&M Indulgence As A Dominatrix With

With Wadsworth Who Was Having A Hot N Heavy Full Flame On Incendiary Love " The Love That Dare Not Speak It's Name " Affair With

Boddy ? ..... I'm Lost ... But What's Any Of This Got To Do With The Walmart Shooting In Virginia ?

No Way Wtf GIF by Harlem
 
isn't funny how there are millions of gun owners in America, with legally obtained firearms but only a fraction of those commit the mass shootings & some of them with firearms they took from their parents or w.e & not even firearms they own themselves l0l

someone tell me why millions of law abiding, mentally stable people that outweigh greatly the ones who commit these crimes, should have their rights literally infringed upon due to a small portion of psychopaths???

how does that make any sense???

i don't care frankly wat the logic is, how is it this *works* in other countries because the entire idea is fucking STUPID
 
babydolla said:
someone tell me why millions of law abiding, mentally stable people that outweigh greatly the ones who commit these crimes, should have their rights literally infringed upon due to a small portion of psychopaths???

how does that make any sense???
Click to expand...
I Will Gladly Tell You Why Dear .... The Walmart Shooting Is Another Of the Way Too Many Mass Shootings In America Or Even Globally

It Is Infact An Epidemic .. Hell If It's Global It's A Pandemic ... That Being Said, Then It Is A Health Emergency And Should Be Declared

A National Emergency By The Federal Government And Take All Extreme Measures To Abate Mass Death Events From A Mass Amount Of

Mass Shooters Committing A Mass Amount Of Mass Shootings Where A Mass Amount Of Innocent People At Random, Are Being

Murdered By Insane Killers With High Powered Military Grade Or Other. WEAPONS OR FIREARMS OR BALLISTIC WEAPONS OR GUNS

OR LONG METAL THINGIES THAT GO BAM BOOM POW WHAP WHAP WHAP THUMPA THUMPA THUMPA BHUDDAH BHUDDAH

And Let's Not forget KA-POW ! . Sorry If I A'm Infringing On Your Second Amendment Rights .. But Since We Are In Or Should Be In

A State Of National Emergency Due To A Pandemic Of Mass Shooting Events

From Which Hundreds Leading Up To Thousands Of Innocent Lives Have Been MURDERED ....

I Can Honestly Say PHUCK YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ..

When The Pandemic Is Over You Can Go Back To Shooting Empty Can's Of Pork N Beans In Your Back Yard .

Black And White Wow GIF by Laff
You Might Git Lucky ...And Miss ..Strike Gold .. Black Gold .. Texas Tea ...Up From The Ground Will Come A Bubblin Crude .


Y'all Come On Back Now ... You Hear ?
 
little cindy lou who said:
I Will Gladly Tell You Why Dear .... The Walmart Shooting Is Another Of the Way Too Many Mass Shootings In America Or Even Globally

It Is Infact An Epidemic .. Hell If It's Global It's A Pandemic ... That Being Said, Then It Is A Health Emergency And Should Be Declared

A National Emergency By The Federal Government And Take All Extreme Measures To Abate Mass Death Events From A Mass Amount Of

Mass Shooters Committing A Mass Amount Of Mass Shootings Where A Mass Amount Of Innocent People At Random, Are Being

Murdered By Insane Killers With High Powered Military Grade Or Other. WEAPONS OR FIREARMS OR BALLISTIC WEAPONS OR GUNS

OR LONG METAL THINGIES THAT GO BAM BOOM POW WHAP WHAP WHAP THUMPA THUMPA THUMPA BHUDDAH BHUDDAH

And Let's Not forget KA-POW ! . Sorry If I A'm Infringing On Your Second Amendment Rights .. But Since We Are In Or Should Be In

A State Of National Emergency Due To A Pandemic Of Mass Shooting Events

From Which Hundreds Leading Up To Thousands Of Innocent Lives Have Been MURDERED ....

I Can Honestly Say PHUCK YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ..

When The Pandemic Is Over You Can Go Back To Shooting Empty Can's Of Pork N Beans In Your Back Yard .

Black And White Wow GIF by Laff
You Might Git Lucky ...And Miss ..Strike Gold .. Black Gold .. Texas Tea ...Up From The Ground Will Come A Bubblin Crude .


Y'all Come On Back Now ... You Hear ?
Click to expand...

literally none of that answered my question, youre just parroting the same sh!t three other ppl before you said... which is what lead me to make the post youre responding to, & that you failed to actually answer
 
babydolla said:
literally none of that answered my question, youre just parroting the same sh!t three other ppl before you said... which is what lead me to make the post youre responding to, & that you failed to actually answer
Click to expand...
If The Light Hasn't Come On Then ......... As Bud Bundy Said To Peggy Bundy His Mom

Whom When Discovered That She Technically Had Not Really Graduated From High School

As Her Diploma Was Invalid, And The Family Dog "Buck" Had Graduated From Obedience School

" You're Dumber Than The Dog Mom "

Lets Go Yes GIF by Bubble Punk
 
@SerenityMoon your old debate partner Bread already debunked your claims about those FBI statistics. and now you're talking about things that supposedly existed but dont anymore? sorry but unless you post your sources I doubt everything you claim. because like I said, your own debate partner bread was the one who debunked your claims about the fbi statistics. I recommend you go back and read it, you cant miss it, he typed in huge letters and posted like 4 lol'ing gifs. Its the one where he called me a liar for making a rebuttal to your claim and then posted the evidence that proved you were lying.

Also I'm sorry but i must have missed the part where you disproved the following:

Less guns would lead to a decrease in gun related deaths. Strict gun control laws would lead to less guns. Therefore, strict gun control laws would lead to less gun related deaths.

None of the words in your long response proved that wrong. It is purely speculative to say "actually guns save more lives than they end". In fact, by the end of today, there will be about 85 people (give or take a few) that did in fact die in an incident involving a gun in the US alone. There is no study that can pinpoint the number of lives that were saved today by the use of a gun. But I can tell you the number of people who will have died by the end of day in a death involving a gun.

Simplified summary: You CANT tell me the number of lives that were saved by a gun today but I 100% CAN tell you the number of people who died today in incidents involving a gun.

Again, the patriotism that inherently comes with pro-gun people is astounding, you love your country so much that you'd rather watch Americans die than change the words on a piece of paper that was written literal centuries ago. A paper thats already been changed a whole bunch of times. In fact, now that I think about it, isn't the right to bear arms one of the many changes that the constitution had done? I might be wrong. Maybe I'm forgetting what the word amendment means.
 
@SerenityMoon also I just want to warn you that your debate tactics are getting very sloppy. You are now going into territory that would be downright illegal in actual debates.

"Yeah i have this piece of proof that I could show you, but the government deleted it because they know I'm right, so I cant actually show you this proof. Just take my word that it exists, and that it proves you wrong"

This is such terrible debate etiquette that I feel like explaining why its terrible debate etiquette would be a waste of time. If this was an actual debate, you wouldn't get a warning, you'd have been straight up disqualified for trying to use that as an actual argument.

Your own article disproves your own point. The following paragraph comes from the article you linked.

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

Other things you purposely didn't include from your article are the conclusions it reached, probably because they debunk your claims:

1) We still don’t really know how many defensive gun uses (DGUs) there are each year.

3) We don’t know why the CDC chose not to publish that data from the 1990s.

Everything you are saying about a conspiracy to kill this study is just that, a conspiracy. In a debate, you go by the facts. Your own article says that there is no known reason as to why these findings weren't published. You cannot speculate that it must be a conspiracy and use this speculation as an actual example of proof. We've already gone over why conspiracies aren't actual examples of proof in a debate. Because I can just make the following counter argument: "What if the findings weren't published because there wasn't enough definitive proof of the claims?" If your argument is based in a "what if" statement, as in "what if it was a conspiracy to kill these findings?", it is a baseless argument in a debate and only serves to waste time because the counter argument is "but what if its not?"


Your own "proof" debunked your claims. You said that you had proof that guns save more lives than they took. And your own article says that at the very least, that these instances are "at least as common as offensive uses by criminals". Do you ever read the full thing before responding? lmao.

Time for another Jeff Foxworthy: If the article you posted as proof for your claims instead actually debunks your claims, you might need to finish reading the article.
 
Last edited:
Also, heres an article from Harvard that debunks your claims. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/. I'm not sure about most people, but personally I'd take the word of Harvard University than the word of Forbes. One of those makes money by generating interest in the words they write, the other makes money by being a respected institute of knowledge and writes words to share the knowledge they've found. One has an incentive to right words for money, the other has no such incentive.

also, also. heres another example from your own article that proves that you don't understand statistics. The following sentence comes straight from your article.

"However interesting attempts to estimate the inherently uncountable social phenomenon of innocent DGUs (while remembering that defensive gun use generally does not mean defensive gun firing, indeed it likely only means that less than a quarter of the time)..."

the actual firing of a gun in defensive gun uses (DGU's) only occurs less than a quarter of the time. Guess what happens 100% of the time someone is hurt in an incident involving a gun? thats right, guns get fired.

You're literally comparing a scenario where less than 25% of the time a gun gets fired, to scenarios where guns get fired 100% of the time. Have I introduced apples to oranges yet?

Man I love when debate opponents post proof they think will help them and all it does is give me a whole bunch of fresh ammunition. get it? ammunition? because we're talking about guns? LOL
 
Last edited:
Frombo said:
"Yeah i have this piece of proof that I could show you, but the government deleted it because they know I'm right, so I cant actually show you this proof. Just take my word that it exists, and that it proves you wrong"
Click to expand...
But I did produce those files. I'm not going to debate this any longer with you simply because you have provided zero proof other than you repeating your own facts that less guns will bring less gun deaths and this single Harvard report you just produced. When you start living in reality and do a bit of research and can back up your claims then let me know. If you really think that passing legislation will convince those gang members to turn in their guns and sing Kum Ba Yah, My Lord You're greatly mistaken. Maybe if you lived in Mayberry and Andy told them to put down their guns this would be true, but in the real world limiting access to guns to law abiding citizens just makes it less safe. And if you believe that the police are going to help you're also badly mistaken.
It will get interesting when you learn how to read what is presented so you can understand and not read to only answer.
Mark Twain said that it's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled and No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.

If corrective facts only make matters worse, what can we do to convince people of the error of their beliefs?
1 keep emotions out of the exchange.
2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum).
3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately.
4 show respect.
5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion.
6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews.
 
I love it when people don't realize they're talking about themselves. its you who needs to learn to read everything being shown to you, I've read every single one of your posts in their entirety. I don't think you've ever once read anything i've said fully before responding. This is evidenced by the fact that you've brought up points several times now that were previously proven wrong.

and of course now that I figured how to paste links and can debunk your Forbes articles, and was able to prove your own points wrong by using your own article, only now are you suddenly "too good" for this debate.

I've provided a lot of proof to back up my claims. But you don't like any of my proof because it completely shatters your argument.

You still have yet to prove this wrong, most likely because you can't: Less guns would equal less gun related deaths, strict gun control laws would lead to less guns, therefore strict gun control laws would save American lives.

If you go back and read, this isn't just a line of logic that I puled out of thin air, it is backed up by statistics. I've provided statistics and different proofs a myriad of times in this debate. So to sum it up as "you just keep repeating your own facts" is a minimalistic argument that doesn't hold up if you've actually been reading what I'm saying. What about the fact that the US is one of 6 countries that make up half of the entire world's gun related deaths? What about the fact that by the end of today, the amount of people that will have died by a gun would be equal to the number of gun related deaths for the entire year in the UK. What about the fact that mass shootings have tripled in the US since 2011? What about the fact that bread of all people, proved your FBI statistic wrong? What about the fact that the article you posted debunked your very own claims?

And thats just what I could think of off the top of my head, imagine if I went back and actually came back with a list lol. The fact is, you posted an article you thought would prove your points and cherry picked through it, probably not expecting me to actually read it. But I did read it, and used your very own article you used as proof, to completely shatter the points you tried to say the article was making. Your own proof was able to be used to prove you wrong. To top it off, I then was able to provide a supplementary article published by Harvard University that also completely shattered the assertions you were making about DGU's. And now all of a sudden you're bowing out of the debate for personal reasons? Thats the most cap out of everything thats been said thats ever been cap.

You tell me not to get emotional or to use attacks, and then use a quote to insinuate that I'm an idiot. I don't even think you read your own words before you post lol. You can't say someone else is getting too emotional when you're the one calling people idiots lol. Just because you veil it inside of a Mark Twain quote, doesn't mean you get a pass.

And speaking of cherry picking, its funny that you picked one single line from everything that I responded with. You ignored all of quotes from your own article that I brought forward that showed you're wrong about the statistics regarding DGU's, you ignored the article I provided that also proved your assertions about DGU's wrong. You ignored it and threw it to the side saying "You've just been repeating yourself aside from this one single Harvard link" , like somehow because it was a singular link that took away from its validity? You had no answers to anything I said other than to say you can't debate this any longer. Lets be honest, it has nothing to do with anything except the fact that I prove you wrong at every corner. I'm three steps ahead in any debate and it can get tiresome. But don't sugarcoat it and say you're leaving for other reasons.

You're leaving because I seemingly have answers to everything and am always somehow prepared for whatever you say next. That doesn't make me a bad debate opponent, it just means I'm psychic. And its hard to argue with a psychic. I know what you're going to say next before you ever type a word. lmao.
 
Actually everything I’ve said is a verified fact. If you don’t believe me you can freely look up anything I’ve said and see that it’s a fact. Unlike some of what you’ve been saying. Your own debate partner Bread debunked your claims about the FBI statistics. No one has been able to pinpoint a single time I’ve just been making things up. On the other hand there has been an example of you just making things up. I made the mistake of believing you because I had assumed you had done your homework. But Bread showed that your FBI statistics are wrong, if you go back a couple pages he posted the actual proof.

So between the two of us, #WhenYourProofIsISaidSo, actually applies to you more than it does to me.

Also this is my favourite part of the debate. Me still going strong, sharing evidence and highlighting key facts, my opponent just resorting to making snide remarks. Not a single shred of anything actually resembling a thought out argument, the cornerstone of any debate. No, just a single hashtag, implying that my proof has been fabricated. Coming from someone who’s been caught making things up earlier in the debate. Oh, the irony. The sweet, sweet irony.

I guess I’ll try and make it easy for you? Tell me one fact I’ve said that you believe my proof of is just the fact that I’ve said it.

This really is poor debate etiquette. You’d have been thrown off the stage in an actual debate by this point.

“I have absolutely no counter argument to anything you just said, so I’ll just imply that all of your proof is made up” - actual gun control debate argument used by @SerenityMoon, circa 2023
 
Here, just in case it was too much to go back and find it. I found where your own debate partner Bread proved your own point wrong by mistake. He didn’t realize I was making a rebuttal to a claim you had made, and that he was actually proving you instead of me to be wrong. Again, that’s my mistake for thinking you had done your homework and weren’t just making things up. So again I say, if the hashtag #WhenYourProofIsISaidSo applies to anyone, it’s you. And here is the proof of that claim lol

https://ibb.co/h21m6GQ

I’m sure if he had realized that he was actually debunking something you had said he wouldn’t have said anything and just let it be. So don’t blame Bread it was an honest mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top