debate

Alright, since this is a lot to go through, I'd like to touch on a couple subjects. I will sort these out, but for the most part you're missing context. These 13 million jews killed for example, doesn't mean anything. if they had guns? still doesn't mean anything. you're missing context. it's not about the jews being killed, it's about why the jews were killed. how did it come to that? no killing is better than killing with reason (self-defense). most of my arguments will be based on the numbers you've provided me, but i can't assure you that i'll touch on every subject as you've given me a lot to talk about. i don't want to disregard your statistics, but fact of the matter is that they don't matter, they simply don't after what i've said. no matter how many death rates you can pull up and the GDU thing, like, it just doesn't matter.

"Guns are more lethal than knives in the hands of most people - I won't even argue this I've already conceded this. In the grand scheme of things it doesn't even matter to be honest. " Common misconception, it does matter. Guns are just that violent. The only use guns have is killing, and killing only. And the accessibility in the US is just ridiculous. Let's say you have a gun in your house, you're showing it off to your friends so you load a magazine to kind of show it off or something (i don't know if you do that but it's a hypothesis and a realistic situation, you usually show off stuff you've recently bought especially if it's a dangerous item) and you happen to pull the trigger. now what? you're gonna apologize? that guy is dead. the problem here isn't that he's dead, but HOW IT HAPPENED. why did he die? well, you loaded a magazine like an idiot. actually, no, you were showing off your gun. actually, no, you had a gun! an instrument which sole purpose is to kill, kill so fast that we humans can't even comprehend how fast it happens. THAT is the problem with guns. With knives, unless you're a spastic (although you're usually not allowed to hold a knife as a spastic) you can't make these kinds of mistakes that easily. even if you were to slip, you can't just "accidentally slice someone's skull open" or "accidentally stab someone's heart out". cases of this happening are pretty much non-existent, and with guns, they aren't. Common misconception, it does matter. Guns are just that violent. The only use guns have is killing, and killing only. And the accessibility in the US is just ridiculous. Let's say you have a gun in your house, you're showing it off to your friends so you load a magazine to kind of show it off or something (i don't know if you do that but it's a hypothesis and a realistic situation, you usually show off stuff you've recently bought especially if it's a dangerous item) and you happen to pull the trigger. now what? you're gonna apologize? that guy is dead. the problem here isn't that he's dead, but HOW IT HAPPENED. why did he die? well, you loaded a magazine like an idiot. actually, no, you were showing off your gun. actually, no, you had a gun! an instrument which sole purpose is to kill, kill so fast that we humans can't even comprehend how fast it happens. THAT is the problem with guns. With knives, unless you're a spastic (although you're usually not allowed to hold a knife as a spastic) you can't make these kinds of mistakes that easily. even if you were to slip, you can't just "accidentally slice someone's skull open" or "accidentally stab someone's heart out". cases of this happening are pretty much non-existent, and with guns, they aren't.

"I prefer to live in a society where the people have a means to protect themselves and not be dependent on praying law enforcement arrives in time in the event of a situation. I prefer to live in a society where say for example a woman isn't defenseless against an abusive (ex) boyfriend who is hell bent on doing harm - where that woman has the option to stand up for herself - defend herself. Sure she can call the police or go to a shelter but .... what if she's dead or permanently injured by then. A restraining order doesn't mean shit to someone hell bent on doing harm..... but put a gun in her hand instead of a restraining order and see how quick that guy goes from "I'm going to squeeze your neck so hard your eyes pop out" to "hey babe lets talk and then I'll leave you alone". " this is the fundamental mistake you are making. "I prefer to live in a society where people have a means to protect themselves and not be dependent on praying law enforcement." you see, why I disagree here is.. that our entire society is built off of trust. You are trusting someone not to pull out a gun, just like you're trusting bankers not to take your money, just like you're trusting your neighbor to watch your house if you leave for holiday. what we should've learned from WW2, and what we ARE STILL NOT doing, is that we should build up society together. you can't just have everyone be playing for themselves. what constructed society exactly? oh yeah! that's right, someone decided to build a farm, other people also want food so they bought his food and bam! social hierarchy! i just don't know how to explain this in easier to understand words. i'll grab the example of 13 million jews killed bc gun control.

It's all down to the person. If you are a retard with a gun and play with it like an idiot and disrespect the firearm someone is gunna get shot. But If you know what to do with a firearm it's harmless. Just know your firearm safety stuff.

But i come from a place where everyone has a gun and where i took a class in middle school about guns and hunting plus we even got to shoot 22s for it too.

"1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939-1945, 13 million Jews and others rounded up and exterminated." I do not know much about the other examples I have talked about, but I am 100% confident that they are as easily explainable as this example. The question here isn't: "13 million jews were killed, what if they had guns?" but: "How could we have prevented the war starting in the first place?" To answer that question, we have to delve into some history, as you said, we need to look at history and learn from it (i don't know the exact words but you said something like that) now, let's see here, hitler rose to power because of WW1, the extreme contract of versailles. Then the US started helping germany to repay the debt, but then the US wanted their money back because great depression and then germany was upset because they not only - were already in crisis - now had even more crisis people were upset and couldn't find a proper middle ground in politics. hitler basically said: hey, i'll fix everything for ya and everything will be fine and dandy, so he became the chancellor and after taking the army and killing political opponents he had become a dictator. now, how could this have been prevented? "well, the contract of versailles shouldn't have been that harsh, then germany wouldn't have been as deep in the shit as they were." is an easy thing to say. but that wasn't the problem, indirectly i suppose it was but it wasn't the real problem. the problem was that people stopped believing in democracy as it had failed them for the last decade or decade and a half. it wasn't "far left - middle ground - far right" but it was "far-left - far right" and anything inbetween would've meant you were some weirdo. "it's obvious democracy isn't working, look at our economy, look at what we've lost, and what we have yet to repay" and they were right! absolutely. change was very needed. they were in a deep, deep economic crisis, they lost a lot of land and had an immense, unrepayable debt. "printing money didn't work, so what's left? what can we do now? since america stopped lending us money, we have no option: we need to attempt a revolution." they tried, but it failed. nobody would help germany. no-bo-dy. after america's crisis, they had nobody to rely on, nobody that would want to help them. the takeaway here is that we need to help each other, build a better society for everyone. we can't just play "iedereen voor zich" which is a dutch expression that literally means: "everyone for themselves". i don't understand why you say i have a disconnect from reality when my reality is a lot more real than yours. you're saying we should go back to "everyone defend yourself", the epitome of individualism. the base of individualism is relying on yourself, but that's not how todays society works. you can rely on yourself if you want to. you can start a farm somewhere, make your own food, build your own house, if you want. that's possible. but you might realize after a while: hey, i want a partner, being alone sucks, it's boring. that's human nature, you'll want someone else to be with. nobody wants to be absolutely alone, because that means (indirectly) that there is no purpose in life. humans are herd-animals. they want to be together.

I mean guns are suppose to kill if they didn’t that’d be shipping a faulty product. Also your hypothetical kinda seems like just an expedited confirmation bias just re affirm what ever your feeling. It also contradicts your knife example which basis itself on accidental intent which is what you argued for for knives but then before you gave an accidental intent situation but purposely hyperbolizing it. There’s is a reason why there is gun safety and concealed carry laws that yes are stricter per state and area that a person lives in. If your concern is HOW IT HAPPEN then it solely becomes an issue of bad gun owner ship and management in refutation to your argument from your own statement Yes totally I would be very careful to tread lightly in arguing in solely a morale basis that only concurs in those who argue that way to be more heated then they should be and as it will always lead to hypotheticals. For every negative you pop up you can show a positive and Vice versa anecdotal or stat wise even hypothetically one could argue that if you had a gun and there was a grown ass man robbing a gas station who had already injured people and you have the chance to shoot him in a split second because your to far away to actually disarm (Which btw would be an outcome which you wouldn’t know if you would kill him or not cause flight or flight would be person dependent at that point). Which would then Just lead to tacking on more admendments. This is why Nap said braindead because from his view you have stats v.s hypothetical that you are offering which by what I am perceiving of your argument means you don’t care about stats cause you most likely subconsciously are seeing it as an invalidation of humanity and morales of those who would be killed or have been killed because the stats seem mechanical. This is something you should be careful in debate presentation that could be weaponized against you and if you respond with I don’t care others in other debates will just take it as a win over you. Yes guns are violent and so is everything else that paved the way for every nation whether it be social or metaphorical or physical. You can force Napalm to submit if you got him on culture, find some conservatives not actually making comprises which ontop of the Dems not making compromises ruin any improvement discussed, using stats against him, Maybe even showing that local politics in some areas with lose gun control don’t work, etc. I know you can’t research everything as there are other things to worry bout which is fine but the core of how your arguing even in the hypothetical just feels very wrong and I’m sure you could go a bit better with a little more time. It’s kinda hard to argue with out some sort of fact or a functioning hypothetical tbh. It’s kinda hard to add more when there’s not much to go off of if your just plainly arguing in a morale basis of killing people is wrong which yes it is your harming someone’s liberty of life. On the side of Naps. You have a lot to say to put up a wall inadvertently creating a listing tactic which would cause the person your debating against to be in a metaphorical corner to be even more staunch in there belief whether it be emotional or logical argument against yours. Ontop of that the precursor of tone and how your debating is so reminiscent of those in the gundebate who have used the same arguments right or wrong in a very “smug” or “Gotcha” kinda way that you end up in reality not actually winning cause no one ends up winning if all your gunning for is wow “Libtard executed” regardless whether your write or wrong. This is kinda why tbh the gun debate is no more then a dead topic to some of the higher up Dems and Cons because someone has to die and both sides kinda just get clicks and then don’t care to address any cultural concerns or mental concerns even when conservatives have presented things pundits and otherwise because of the execution of the argument based in just “Winning” and “Listing” doesn’t actually work to win those who are generally “Open minded” to social and cultural things v.s those which are “Trad” and generally “Close minded”. (And yes both have their advantages for different things). But I think more right leaning people should learn why they can’t convince a certain of something people unless the person they’re trying to convince brains innately functions a certain way so they can switch sides adhering to their rational nature rather than emotional. If you can debate from a standpoint of a fork which could accompany both emotions ontop of facts and logic you may be able to force a concedement in what you argue. You have to make the stats actually matter more then they merit stand alone to people when debating and package them. Believe it or not you do have to deal with offense of how others feel so it would be hue of you to learn some sort trapping or slyness or vindictiveness in terms of tone ontop of your facts which could help. It’s kinda messed up to go Someone debate just so you lay out a spread and go “Hah” so dumb just cause you did so much research to get the result that you wanted. Which is the equivalent of a leftist on twitter with a blue check mark sending a gif because they had a list of hottakes and anything you respond with just becomes “Hah brain dead Nazi” all because there is no actual debate to be had just someone “owning” someone because they think they can. This is why I myself just didn’t care for the gun debate (Well if I entertained it I would’ve been bored and secondly I’m not a liberal sooo.... well I’m not a conservative either idk what I’d even be learning new) when you presented it as “DEBATE ME I NEED A GOOD DEBATE” (Or that’s the way it felt to me personally) I felt a very specific style of debate that I’ve seen before coming. This is why I also felt you would get the response from that you have argued against before so in your subconscious mind you already “Won” metaphorically Tbh this is another one of those circles that can be dismantled as hey you remember late 2017 to mid 2018 and the gun debate that literally ended up at this same point here which is no where. If I sound incoherent I’m tired AF rn and I felt like dismantling the debate rather than partaking in it cause to me that’s more interesting. Actually tbh I should’ve for the left side linked Adam ruins everything or some weird cringey video and for the right link a freedom toons YouTube vid

okay and, if you don't accept that reasoning, fine, fuck it then. you want me to reason on your level? look at the netherlands. country with gun control. i know of maybe 1 or 2 accidents in the past decade where illegal weapon possession caused death. as for the US, i hear of accidents of shootings every fucking week. i know, the netherlands is smaller. but it shouldn't matter, realistically. it's weird to walk around with a weapon in the netherlands. it's absolute nonsense, if you're not police, to carry a weapon on your belt. you don't want the police to be in control? do you actually believe that?