debate

"Are you aware of the use of Subversive tactics, Dragging, Stringing, Minor derailment, and framing that have been employed here? I think Lamby used some of this " i don't know the dutch translations of those terms "On the terms of debate I think the issue is If your basing a win solely on intention then it becomes not about truth and resoloution which for some ppl, who’s minds are generally conservative would get mad at. Good intention are the pathway to hell would be the saying used in response." sorry i can't really explain it, one of my debating teachers explained it, but with the reasoning you guys use i could win too, i've already shown that. my way is just a lot easier. i'm gonna hop off MO for today

Night. I’m sure in your native tongue it’s probs way easier for you to debate for this subject

alright one last thing then: "But then again one could say that’s just “one” account and there are other places where a person had shot up a church against ppl but they had “no” guns and if there was some gun-control the aggressor wouldn’t have the gun" steven crowder likes to win debates in his kind of "space" as i like to call it. a very specific topic, in a very specific place, where nobody but him can win that debate. but it's about the bigger picture. and the bigger pictures are ideologies. i actually seriously doubt you've read anything of what i've said, and you've just kind of skimmed over it and taken your own conclusion. i've never said anything about ideological opinions. nothing comes down to intention, everything comes down to what is/has happened. you might rape a baby on accident and tell me that wasn't your intention, but you still raped a baby and you're still accountable for it. it's not about if he's lying about his intentions, it's about his actions. i don't know how many examples i have to give you before you understand, stop trying to belittle my arguments and taking your own conclusions out of them.

Totes your arguments are based off of paranoia, fear, and myths. I'll delve more into it shortly but I read what you've said and you keep arriving at incorrect conclusions based off of false premises and the method that you have chosen to do so by is very closed minded. Are you even open to the concept or possibility of guns being good or are they just a tool for cold blooded murder and nothing else? You've once again made some very ignorant, uneducated, closed minded and bigoted statements.

Totes: The theme of my list of atrocities in the 20th century had a central point that when guns were outlawed atrocious events followed. I did not mean to say that gun control was the sole and only reason however I will contend that it is the biggest factor in these atrocities actually materializing. It is the biggest common denominator and that should not be discounted. The 20th century has taught us that when gun control happens so do massive atrocities (genocide). It isn't just a fluke one or two time thing either where the rest of history suggests that gun control ends well for everyone. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe it was you that called out Lamby in her veganism debate(s) for narrowing a debate to specific thoughts or ideas and "winning" in a limited playing field. This is exactly your tactic here - you're only interested in like one or two ideas and anything outside of that is invalid just because. This is a very closed minded, intellectually dishonest, and idiotic manner in which to debate. In retrospect it might have been PM. Statistics shouldn't be the entire point I agree but statistics aren't meaningless either. They shouldn't be disregarded just because they're statistics - with flaws inherent in statistics themselves. Once again you're being guilty of creating specific rules and narrowing the spectrum of "acceptable ideas". I've done the same thing but I at least provide a detailed reason as to why subject to counter scrutiny. Your logic for what "does" and "does not" matter is completely subjective and emotionally based and you don't provide a comprehensive basis as to why this is fair or just. It is like anything I said just went "in one ear out the other" as if you aren't open minded enough to approach a debate with any sort of "good faith" to debate fairly or be open to the possibility of being wrong. Defensive Gun Use (DGU) DOES matter as it shows and is (one of the main ways) how we use guns in a productive and beneficial manner. If you're going to compare anything at all and determine whether something is good or bad.... you look at both the good AND bad. Just looking at the bad and going *lalalalala I cant hear you lalallala* to the good is closed minded and just arrogantly ignorant and childish. Provide a sufficient explanation as to why DGU does not matter - not only the statistic or numerical value I've placed on them but the entire concept itself. Why does people using guns defensively to avert harm to themselves or other not matter? Guns being compared to knives not mattering in the grand scheme of things - how the fuck would you know you're clearly not open minded enough to factor in more circumstances and ideas. You go on and on like an emotionally petulant child like lalalala I can't hear you and I don't like what you say so it doesn't matter. Your argument rely heavily on some very ignorant assumptions: 1. Guns only purpose is to be used offensively to cause harm 2. People when in possession of a gun turn into vigilantes or become hell bent on doing harm 3. That because guns do bad and can easily be harmful that there is no reason to think or investigate any further 4. That just because guns can cause tragedy or harm where other objects couldn't that this is enough of a basis for their outlawing with no other ideas allowed to be considered 5. That self reliance and common good are mutually exclusive. You can have the ability to do things for yourself AND come together with other people for a cause or purpose. You're so ignorant and closed minded in how you debate you're not even worth taking all that seriously. Open your mind some and try again if you like or otherwise just be quiet. You clearly do not understand at all the thought processes or mentalities of people who cherish guns, the good they can do (in order to do that you have to actually be open to the fact they can do good), or just the availability of them. How you perceive "gun people" to think is ignorant, bigoted and for the most part completely opposite how we think and value. An example of a highly ignorant, bigoted, closed minded statement that is just an emotional and paranoid myth (far from the only one) "Police is just doing their job, just like the guy from the train checks your ticket. it's not news-worthy to report every person who saves another person, because a person with a gun is someone who can take matters into their own hands. just like the police can. every day life will now not only consist of: - waking up, eating breakfast - going to work - coming home from work, watch tv with wife - going to bed but instead will be: - wake up, before you eat breakfast hear gunshots outside and think: "hey might as well save this guy" - eat breakfast - save another guy - go to work - coming home, not watching tv with wife because you don't have time for that because you spent all day trying to play police - go to bed" Your entire debate style or thought process can be summed up as: 1. Take everything to the extreme 2. Only what I say matters just because 3. Guns are scary so nobody should have them 4. Guns provide no good You can argue that guns are more harmful than good (which I think is what you're trying to get at - it is hard to tell) but in order to do that in an honest, fair, and conclusive way you have to at least be open to the concept of guns being used for good Also...... "generally don't really like to participate in debates, even though (if i may say so myself) i'm pretty good at debating. it's because i don't like to debate. because i feel that, whatever i do, people won't become enlightened. there will always be people who don't understand, people who are close-minded, obnoxious people, situations that are easier to believe than certain others. ^<= this might be a very close-minded thing to say, but personally i'm not happy when i convince people of my argument. i'm just eager to learn from them, that's all. Almost everything you've posted on the topic/debate of gun control contradicts this. People won't be enlightened because the tactics and factors you consider are so narrow that only a limited amount of "acceptable" conclusions can be drawn. People who are closed minded and obnoxious is a gigantic part of your debate strategy here so ... hypocrite much? Just because you don't like what someone said or like their ideas does not (alone) give you the intellectually honest reason to discredit and ignore said ideas. I've discredited your ideas and tactics but not solely because I don't like the conclusion or idea but also methodology and lack of substance.

PM: I won't insult you like Totes or Lamby as there isn't any ignorant or bigoted drivel in your remarks to me. I can even see why you have the ideas or opinions that you do about my style and such. I'm actually looking for a legitimate sound debate but the odds are I won't find one and when people reply like totes do I do feel vindicated if not also let down. I do however believe you're putting too much emphasis on "feelings" though. We conservatives (or conservative leaning people) also value knowing what you're taking about when it comes to guns which clearly the left does not. You're conflating what has/is happening to what I really want to happen. Just because I'm being aggressive and condescending does not mean that is the way I would prefer to go about it. I choose this because others have chose an ignorant, short sighted, and bigoted way of countering me or my ideas. Notice the lack of aggression going in your direction - you aren't being obnoxiously and inexcusably ignorant therefore no cause for aggression or condescension. I never finished my entire argument I only got as far as a statistical base and showing that guns can in fact be used for good and not just harm. I use both emotion and logic while all I get in return is emotional drivel. Your views on how I've conducted myself are fair (not entirely accurate - nor entirely inaccurate) but your "mental algebra" is a bit off (factoring in feelings and optics more than content and my actual point)

As promised I'm going to talk about why guns are a net positive from a logical and practical standpoint as statistics should not be an entire point. Having an armed general populace provides quite a few benefits. I'll also drop some knowledge on how gun people think and our actual mentality as there are a lot of myths and fallacies that are very commonly believed. That way people who want to actually learn have an opportunity to do so. 1. Keeps government in check (to some degree) 2.Protects other rights or ideas people may hold sacred or important 3. Creates more equality than just about anything else 4. Allows for personal self defense and self reliance (not relying on law enforcement) 5. Reduces crime by being an ever present deterrent (increases risk for criminals) 6. Allows an otherwise lethal or harmful situation to be diffused without harm Contrary to popular belief guns actually are capable of having positive outcomes. Any negative outcomes must be weighed against positive outcomes in order to as fairly as possible reach a conclusion on whether guns are a net negative or positive. I will now elaborate on my list above. 1. Keep government in check An armed populace keeps the government in check by providing the populace with a means to defend themselves and provides an incentive for a government not to violate certain boundaries. I've listed atrocities over the 20th century that have happened after gun control was instituted by a government. While there are other reasons each atrocity (genocide) occurred the fact that gun control was present early and often in these large scale atrocities cannot be ignored. It has been shown over and over again that when the government wants a disarmed populace there is a solid to great chance nefarious purposes are the reason. Gun control may not be the central factor in the 20th century atrocities but it certainly is the thing that made it all possible. In Nazi Germany had the populace been armed people would have had to take on more risk and therefore would have put more thought into slaughtering Jews. An armed populace isn't going to let itself be gassed to death in death camp gas chambers. Gun control has always been the first step to these type of events because evil governments don't want to deal with resistance so they eliminate the ability of the populace to do so. Large scale atrocities aren't the only thing that can (and has multiple times) or could have gone wrong when a civilian populace has been disarmed. Once a populace is disarmed the government is empowered to restrict or destroy other rights or institute policies that will damage the populace without fear of retribution. Putting too much faith, power and trust in government has proven multiple times that it can fail and backfire heavily. It is logically sound to conclude that a government is more likely to infringe or impose on a populace that is disarmed as oppose to armed as the people are unable to forcibly fight back. With the threat of force removed any use of reason is impacted as the government has less or no incentive to use reason. Guns in essence provide security in a populace's rights and their life. 2. Protects other rights that a populace may feel are important or sacred When a populace is disarmed and forced (or the option removed) to rely on government the government is in turn free to impose restrictions on rights and privileges on the populace. These can include restrictions on free speech notably. Once speech is restricted the spectrum of acceptable thoughts narrows as with a restrictive enough policy discourse can be narrowed dramatically. Once this occurs things can be very reminiscent of the Gestapo or Gulags of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union. A disarmed populace empowers to the government to dictate what the "correct" opinions and ideas are and this is a very dangerous thing. 3. Creates more equality than just about anything else A popular saying among American conservatives is "God made man - Samuel Colt made them equal" and in many ways this is true. A gun is one of a few things that is equal in the hands of a white man, black woman, transgender person or whatever demographic of person. The ease of danger that is present in a gun is also the ease of which it can be empowering. What other object or idea puts people on completely equal terms and circumstance to one another. A gun is just as lethal in the hands of a 6 foot 8 inch 280lb man as a 5 foot 2 woman who weighs 120 soaking wet. Guns actually achieve equality where ideas and policy only hope to create it. Remove guns and the equality that is enabled by their access disappears. Guns in the world (unfortunately) are power and removing guns from civilians strips them of a great deal of power and.... equality. Guns eliminate physical and other inequality by making everyone equally as powerful both citizen to citizen and citizens to government. You can want to achieve equality by other means but it is hard to argue the equality actually achieved by guns in a general populace. One prominent example of this are the Black Panthers back in the 1960's and 1970's they would use guns among other things to stand up for their oppression. Guns give the oppressed a viable resource to fight back and correct said oppression. When slavery was abolished in America guns were restricted in the south as a means to keep black people oppressed which shows just how powerful guns can be as a means of power and equality. 4. Allows for personal self defense and self reliance The ability to have personal arms for self defense allows someone to be able to defend themselves from those with harmful intent. The police are great but they literally cannot be everywhere - this limitation with a disarmed populace is a criminals playground. A gun is more practical than law enforcement as guns can be just about anywhere - in other words guns are immediately and quickly accessible whereas law enforcement has no such perk. Law enforcement also suffers from other downsides such as corruption, judgment errors (which of course non law enforcement people do as well), and being more good for determining "what happened" as opposed to "stop it from happening". Relying solely on law enforcement is just a plain bad idea and causes more harm than good. It does so by reducing the deterrent for a criminal (reduces the risk to them to victimize someone) and removes immediate accessibility to potent and reliable means of self defense. People armed for self defense do not (contrary to popular opinion) see themselves as police or vigilantes and 99.99999999% of (non criminal) gun owners do not "play police". More on this later. In other words having a personal firearm for self defense does not create the illusion of "being deputized law enforcement". When trouble strikes an armed citizen does not have to fear for their life waiting for the authorities to arrive. It is irrational to believe a person in a dangerous situation is better off *waiting* for someone else WITH A GUN to arrive rather than having a gun readily available to diffuse said situation. I repeat it is irrational to believe that waiting for help is better than having that help immediately available. 5. Reduces crime by being an ever present deterrent I'm not really sure how much I have to explain this one - it is common sense. You don't see criminal rule in populaces that are armed themselves for one. Gangs and cartels reign supreme where gun control is present. A criminal is logically more likely to criminal if there is little to no risk for them. I am at a loss for words for anybody who believes otherwise. Many people from Latin America are trying to migrate north into the United States and one of the most common reasons cited by the media among other sources is "fleeing violence" or "asylum from violence". Most of these countries have leftist ideas including gun control in common. The general populaces are disarmed so governments and criminal cartels and organizations are unimpeded in their oppression and victimization of the people at large. Other reasons are a factor such as economic opportunity and overall quality of life however rampant violence enabled by gun control cannot be ignored. 6. Allows an otherwise harmful or lethal situation to be diffused without harm This one is another mythbuster. The common myth is that self defense with a firearm is rare and the occurrences that do happen are always lethal. This is untrue for a number of reasons and I've already statistically broken down how untrue but I'll do so with logic. Self defense with a firearm does NOT require firing the firearm - even brandishing the weapon is sufficient to satisfy using the gun for defense (in other words its presence is enough) If someone is intent on doing some sort of harm to someone else and that someone else has a firearm that first someone is going to have to really think about what they're about to do. Once an assailant is made aware that their targeted victim has a means to make the victimizing action really risky and harmful to them it isn't a stretch to believe the assailant will lose their harmful intent and flee. If you are going to be open and aware that guns can escalate an otherwise non-lethal situation you must also be open to the reverse being true (if you aren't a closed minded bigot that is). I'm not sure what the basis would be for arguing that guns cannot be used non-lethally. Just because the threat is there does not mean it has to be realized to be effective.

Mythbusting: There is a lot of plain incorrect and ignorant assumptions and such among people who believe in gun control (whether it be heavy restrictions or total bans) about guns, how people act with guns, and the mentality people who own guns have about them. If anybody is genuinely interested in learning "what the other side" thinks or just learning in general this is the post for you. I am an American gun owner. I own four guns (three handguns and one rifle (and yes it is the "scary black rifle" kind of rifle)). I have a conceal and carry permit and exercise my rights often when I go out into public. I have taken a few courses to learn how to properly operate my guns and I go to the shooting range to practice. I'm going to speak on what happens in public first. When I go out into public unless I plan on drinking any alcohol, going to work, or crossing state lines into New Jersey (which is a place with very strict firearm laws and does not recognize my conceal and carry rights) I will usually be armed. What activities will I partake in while armed - the same ones I would if unarmed. I go grocery shopping, I go out to a local park to play pokemon go ... shit like that. I don't go around announcing to the world "hey I have a gun - everything is just fine citizens of America there is a good guy with a gun right here". "So Napalm when you're on your way to go grocery shopping and someone takes your parking spot do you get mad enough to contemplate opening fire on them" - no just fucking no .... actually I find myself infinitely LESS aggressive when I'm armed and much more passive. Anybody who believes that "that asshole took my parking spot I'm going to blast him" is the prevailing mentality of those who possess guns.... is fucking braindead - point blank I said it and I fucking mean it. I haven't been carrying for years so I'm still not completely used to having a firearm on my person however people that have claim that oftentimes they forget they have it. I can see how that can happen although I don't forget at all how tight I have to wear my belt to account for the weight of my firearm to keep my pants from falling. In practical everyday terms - my interactions with other people in public are largely unaffected by the firearm at my hip. People ignorant about our mentality would think that we would largely be more aggressive and "empowered" to be more of a prick when the opposite usually is true. We're by and large more passive (less aggressive) and enabled to be unaffected by things that would normally bother us. To say that I am completely unaffected in any way would be a lie. When I'm carrying I am much more cognizant of my interactions and surroundings. This awareness of interactions and the idea of escalation lead me to be much more passive. Since I have a firearm and a primary reason being self defense (and if in public the defense of others around me) I do have the option to respond if a threatening situation arises. This contrary to popular belief is NOT me "playing police". I don't walk around a mall going "hmmmmm who can I save from danger today". TLDR: I suppose to summarize the point of my experience and knowledge is that guns do not create vigilantes and people "looking for trouble". They do not enable or create aggression nor do they create "wannabe police". The ideas of "taking law into own hands", "vigilantes everywhere", "gunfire over trivial arguments like parking spaces" is just a complete myth and paranoia. These are not rooted in the mentality of an overwhelming super majority of gun owners. These create a fundamental misunderstanding of the real mentality gun owners have when they have their weapons on their person (particularly in public).

you're repeating yourself. i suppose this debate was meaningless after all. guns sole purpose is to do harm. even if it's in self defense, that still means they cause harm. they might not kill, but they still cause harm. the only purpose of guns, is to cause harm. no matter what you say, that's their purpose. whether this be in a good (or defensive way) or in a bad (offensive, bad way (e.g. killing innocent people)), the only purpose guns have, is to do harm. if you carry a fake gun in the Netherlands and it's not identifiable whether it's a real or fake gun, the police will shoot you if you act in a dangerous manner with it. if you are serious about the monopoly on power, that's kind of ridiculous. the army and the police have more power than citizens. if you think an AR-15 can stop the police, then the police will knock on the army's door and say: hey, these civilians don't listen because they're too self-centered and too self-reliant, would you throw a couple bombs on 'em? the police can be everywhere, if the US would actually get their shit together. police shouldn't have to be everywhere but i guess that's US etiquette, the fact that walking around on the street with a gun is seen as normal so you need policemen walking around on every m^2. when i walk around on the street, i don't feel the need to carry a gun with me. i don't think you'd understand, somehow you're scared of your surroundings, and i don't know why. i'm not going to offend you by calling you brainless or anything like that like you did to me, but it seems you are too clouded in your sense of reality to realize that i'm right, and you're wrong. you are not open to having your mind changed like you've told me, i've debunked all of your statements, and you repeat them saying that you're right. i didn't use my "feelings" at all in this debate, but if you want to believe that i did you can do that. maybe it's better that way, if you think humans only work with facts and no feelings, you can go ahead and think that. that "feelings" argument of the right is so weird, i always wonder why they think it's a good argument. facts aren't everything, whatsoever. by the way, it was me who said that specifying a certain topic until there can only be one victor was wrong. the reason i think statistics are useless is because they do exactly that. if you are debating a certain topic, and you pull up a statistic to prove ONE of your arguments right, or like, an example of your argument, that means it only goes for THAT SPECIFIC scenario. it doesn't take into account the rest of the world. not all humans are equal, that is a fact. that is the reason a king is treated like a king, and not a civilian. that is the reason a president is protected better than a working person. you cannot "equalize" humans with guns. someone without hands won't have any use for a gun. my examples are exaggerated to prove a point. ofcourse i'm going to exaggerate. conclusion: this only confirms what i already knew, too bad people don't listen. china has gun control laws and look at how many people die there, due to guns, while there are many, many more people living there than in the US. the netherlands has gun control laws and look at how many people die due to illegal possession of guns (as in, deaths/million civilians per illegal gun). calling me names doesn't make you win an argument, it only makes you look bad. https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands look at deaths/100.000 due to guns in the netherlands, then look at the stats for the US. it should tell you enough. (in any category) i pulled this statistic from the first result from my search engine (duckduckgo), i've never tried looking for gun statistics before because i thought they weren't necessary to win. i don't like going as low as statistics but it's kinda w/e.