Gun Control and your stance

[mican333]

No, I won’t stop. It’s not poor debating technique to point our the general flaws in ALL of your arguments. I am explaining WHY they are poor, weak and flawed. They’re not just bare statements - I offered and continue to offer counter-scenarios that are more realistic, less one-sided, and better evidenced.

Throughout my current response I noticed you have exhibited a lack of deep thinking and I have taken a lot of trouble to go into more detail about why your arguments are so poor. I ended up moving your final statement to the top because of I have done a lot of work to fully explain why your arguments fail from multiple perspectives and, spoiler alert, they are weak because:

Complain, complain, complain. My arguments are present in my posts and the only thing that will defeat them is solid counter-arguments. I could likewise complain about how your arguments are...blah, blah, blah and as a debater you are...blah blah blah. But instead I'm going to counter your arguments with my own arguments.

Can we keep the debate at that level, please?

Your fantasy position of the unlikelihood that you’d need to defend yourself (which you admit) forgets that there’s another side to the whole story: that criminals will have guns and criminals also feel that they should be able to defend themselves too. Whatever arguments you put up also applies to criminals, from their perspective.

Criminals do have the right to defend themselves. They just don't have the right to commit crimes. And it's not a fantasy that sometimes people need to defend themselves. Again, I can present you numerous stories of people defending themselves with guns and they will be from actual accounts, not from a fantasy novel. The fact that I don't take measures to defend myself have absolutely no bearing on whether I have the right to defend myself.

Why such an arbitrary limitation though? Since now everyone has this common firearm, surely, in order to be MORE EFFECTIVE fighter, you should be better defended and have better weapons. It’s your own argument that a gun is better than a knife, so a machine gun is better than a gun, right?

Again, I said one should be able to use one of the MOST COMMON AND UBIQUITOUS weapons in our society. Pistols are very common and people regularly carry them. Machine guns aren't. That is the difference.

We’re not talking about “likelihood” - that’s your straw man. We’re talking about possibilities. If it is possible that you can get attacked and in that scenario, you’re arguing having a gun is better than not, then you also have to consider all the other possibilities where your gun might make things worse. It is totally in line with the approach you are taking.

I do consider the possibilities that something bad might happen instead of something good when a gun is used in self-defense. And when I hammer a nail, I consider the possibility that I might slam my thumb instead of hitting the nail. When I drive I consider the possibility that I might die in a car accident instead of arrive at my destination. But that doesn't change the fact that a gun, a hammer, and a car are all effective tools for their purpose.

So okay, it's possible that an attempt to use a gun for self-defense could backfire. But that doesn't support the position that IN GENERAL a gun is not an effective self-defense tool.

To those doing the drive by shooting, it IS self-defense. You’re arguing ONLY from your own perspective and that’s where all of your arguments fail. You forget that your right to own guns gives criminals a right to them too.

No, even for criminals a drive-by shooting is not considered self-defense (they know they are not in danger from their victims at the moment they open fire). And the notion that I have forgotten that criminals will use guns too is a ridiculous statement - you can't read my mind so you don't know what I remember and what I forget.

The same way the drunk probably realized this wasn’t going to be an easy burglary. And you don’t know either. The drunk could have just changed his mind with seeing any minimal resistance.

It wasn't a burglary. The drunk was confused, thought it was his house, and tried to get in "his house". But I do agree with you that I don't know what would have happened if my friend had a knife instead of a gun. Neither of us know how he would have reacted if he saw a knife instead of a gun and therefore neither of us know if a knife would have deterred him. Therefore the notion that a knife would have worked just as well is not a supported argument since we don't know if it would have worked or not.

The fact is a gun DID DETER the drunk. Whether a different weapon would have had the same effect is unknown so one cannot logically argument that he would have gotten the same results with a knife.

But there are disarmed societies and people are fine. More importantly gun crimes are much less rare. I think that’s a good trade off from the rare occurrence that you’d be able to defend yourself successfully with a gun without harming others.

There are societies that never had many guns to begin with. But when you have a society where there are LOTS of guns (ours) and a lot of people don't want to give up their guns and then try to take away everyone's guns, you don't get everyone's guns and you don't have a disarmed society.

Um, you forget, it was in a night club. Not only was it dark, thus increasing the chance you’d kill an innocent, but they were also dancing. Where exactly are they supposed to carry their weapon? And are you seriously suggesting that a bunch of drunk people with guns is a great idea?

No, I'm suggesting that if some of the patrons had guns, they might have shot the killer before he killed as many people as he had. Do you have a rebuttal to that particular point or not?

Where they would have kept the gun or raising the possibility that one of the defenders might also have shot an innocent does not counter the notion that they might have stopped the shooter. I think the killer killing 10 people and and defender killing one innocent person accidentally is better than the killer killing 50 people.

I think all your arguments have been wrong on every level except the tiny cases where you might have a successful outcome.

You are basing that argument on the completely unsupported premise that the level of success in attempted cases of self-defense is tiny. Since this is constantly repeated, I will formally challenge you to support it.

So I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the level of success in attempted cases of self-defense is tiny.

And you don't have to respond to my challenge directly. Ceasing to repeat a claim counts as a retraction. But if you are going to repeat that claim, you will need to support it.

To support your tiny cases, we have to have an armed society and therefore armed criminals, we increase the risk of accidents in the home (google stories where children have killed their siblings or parents), increase the suicides by guns, increase domestic violence through guns and so on. Your tiny corner case hardly justifies the other side of the coin that you clearly haven’t thought about.

Again, since you aren't a mind reader, you don't know what I have and have not thought about.

As far as bad things happening with guns, many of them (although not all of them) would have happened without a gun in the house. Without a gun, a suicidal person might have killed himself by other means. Without a gun, a spouse might have murdered his/her spouse by other means (like a knife - if, as you have argued, knives are equal to guns, then I guess a knife in the house is just as deadly as a gun, right?). I don't ignore the notion that with a gun, such attempts are more likely to be successful (an attempted suicide by means other than a gun is less likely to succeed) but regardless, you can't say that every one of the domestic gun deaths would not have happened if there wasn't a gun.

You have also failed to support that you need to have that kind of defense in the first place. The odd story around the internet is hardly a strong argument.

I don't argue that I NEED it but should be allowed to have it. And I will provide reasoning.

As I said, guns are common and ubiquitous in this society which means that plenty of people have them. And therefore if I have a dangerous encounter with a fellow citizen, there is a real possibility that that person will be armed with a gun, especially if he is a criminal. Therefore, I should be able to defend myself with the kind of weapon that one might use against me.

To say otherwise, is to argue that I cannot defend myself with the kind of weapon that realistically be used against me and therefore that very much hampers my ability to defend myself which we (hopefully) agree that I have the right to do.

So my standard of common and ubiquitous as the standard for what kind of weapon I should be allowed to have is not arbitrary. The fact that it's common is very much the point.

The army we have now are several ordered of magnitude better trained and better armed and better organized than your average citizen who just needs a gun to defend themselves from their neighbor. Your argument that such citizens could defend themselves against an army of global caliber is laughable.

What's laughable is that you are attacking and argument that I never made. That's what's known as the straw man fallacy.

To repeat the argument that I DID make - I said that you have not identified what has changed between then and now. There was an army then and there is an army now. No change.

It is science fiction and you know it.

In your first scenario, you have to support that it is possible for the government to turn tyrannical - as if these things happen overnight. There are checks and balances and strong institutions to prevent such an occurrence. And again, your one sided argument forgets the flip side, that the tyrant’s supporters are so well armed, that they could easily take over the country with a massive coordinated secret attack.

My scenario in no way said that the tyranny happened overnight (in fact it takes place 200 years in the future) and it includes half of the army fighting against the tyrant so it's not a scenario where they can easily take over the country. So your arguments do not rebut that the scenario I laid out is possible.

In your second scenario, the US will not give up being able to defend itself against another foreign enemy - we have nuclear bombs as a final resort. And this foreign army, will probably bomb first and ask questions later if it knew it was going to be in a gun fight.

And using nuclear weapons could start WWIII so the notion that they would be used is not a definite. And who says the foreign army will be able to bomb everywhere?

So I stand by that your scenarios are unrealistic - you’re not considering from the perspective of the an enemy that already knows you have guns and they will adjust their plans to be more lethal more quickly. And your scenarios are laughably since they forget about every other protection or mitigation at your opposing side’s disposal. And I have to also add poorly thought out to the mix.

You seem to think you know EXACTLY what kind of enemy we would be fighting in 200 years. You don't and therefore your objections are not based on any valid data that you have access to and therefore you assessment that my scenarios are unrealistic is just based on guessing.

The fact is we don't know what kind of situation the US will be in in 200 years. We might not be much of a superpower by then. Who knows? So given the potential ways the future might shake you, you have no basis to say with any certainty that my scenarios are impossible.

I can match every imaginary scenario you come up with with a better one. So this is a dead end.

But what you can't do is show that my scenarios are impossible. Unless you can predict what's going to happen in 200 years.

In addition to the enormous disparity for your fantasy tyrannical government scenario, you also forget that such an army would have much better weapons. So by your own logic, we should have access to same said weapons too, which flies against your common sense restrictions. You’re contradicting yourself as to what you’re really supporting.

You forget, or didn't bother to read, that in my scenario half of the army opposes the tyrant. So tell me, if half of the army supports the tyrant and half of the army opposes the tyrant, is it possible that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZENS might just make the difference in whether the tyrant is overthrown?

If you are going to argue that they could not make any difference, you will need to support that.

We don’t need to be 100% successful and we don’t have to do it overnight. On top of your unrealistic scenarios in support of guns, you have unrealistic expectations as to how long this will take and unrealistic understanding of what a successful outcome is.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT this assertion. If my understanding is unrealistic, then you must have a realistic understanding. So please tell me how long it will realistically take to achieve success and support that that is how long it will take.

Until you do that, your assessment of my understanding of how realistic it is to achieve success will be rejected as baseless conjecture.

Reject all you want. I have pointed out that all your scenarios are unrealistic and your understanding of my position is unrealistic. Now, even your own understanding of history and the current is unrealistic!

I said we didn't rid of drugs and alcohol when we made them illegal. And I am completely right. So my understanding of history, in this situation, is entirely correct.

Given your own counter argument then we should make class A drugs legal and acceptable. And what happens when we do that? Do we have fewer drug instances or more? Do we have more kids dying through drugs or fewer? Do we have more or less incidents of accidental overdose? Replace guns with drugs and you’ll see why banning guns is a good idea.

Moving the goal post. I said that making drugs illegal didn't make them unavailable and I am obviously correct on that.

Whether drug prohibition is a good policy in general has no bearing on whether it made drugs unavailable. So my history is completely correct and your assessment of my view on history is completely incorrect. We outlawed drugs and alcohol and many people were still able to attain them and I assume you do not challenge this completely correct AND REALISTIC historical fact.

Therefore I have supported that outlawing guns will not necessarily deny everyone access to guns.

And note - when I forward something that is clearly historically accurate and you chide me for having an unrealistic view of history, it really shows that these claims about my understand is sometimes wildly inaccurate and therefore basically worthless to the debate and likewise rude. Really, can't we debate in a more civilized manner and just attack each others argument with just arguments?

Pro-tip: before making a gun argument, consider two things:

1. That arming the good guys also arms the bad guys.

Since I've made arguments about defending oneself against bad guys who have guns, I think any logical consideration of my arguments would give one the conclusion that I am fully aware that bad guys have guns and therefore allowing gun ownership arms bad guys as well as good guys.

Pro-tip, don't give condescending advice about someone else' debating when you don't have an adequate understanding of what they've been arguing to justify such advice. Again, when someone acknowledges that bad guys sometimes have guns, it's pretty obvious that they considered the issue of bad guys having guns.

2. Consider how successful having drug laws are and the consequences if we don’t have them.

Pro tip. Don't move the goalpost. I wasn't arguing for the benefits of legalization but just pointing out that it didn't make drugs unavailable.

Also, while it's a different topic, a very strong case can be made for legalizing drugs (and I would happy to debate on another thread). Just look at Portugal if you want to see the consequences of legalizing drugs.

I have already rebutted that. If the most common weapon is NOT a gun then everyone will be better off.

That is not a rebuttal. Saying that something should not be a common weapon doesn't change the fact that it currently is a common weapon and therefore currently should be allowed for personal protection.

If you want to rebut my argument, you need to either:
1. Argue that I don't have the right to defend my life (I assume you don't challenge that)
2. Argue that I shouldn't be allowed to use a very common weapon, as in the kind that another can realistically use to attack me, to defend myself.

Saying that others should not have access to the weapons that they currently do have access to or that you seek to deny them access to such weapons in the future does not rebut point 2.

And that is what I am arguing for!

And while I disagree with you, that argument makes sense. There is nothing illogical or incorrect about arguing that the 2nd amendment should be removed (or that it should stay).

What doesn't make sense is the other argument you forwarded that the second amendment allows the government to ban any arms that it wants - in fact, it says the opposite.

Go ahead and ignore it: all your arguments are fantastical and flawed and simply unrealistic and one sided and not thought through.

Well, it that's the level of debating you are forwarding, then I guess I should respond in kind, so:

All of your arguments are lame and they suck and they are really stupid and only a complete numbskull would buy into them.

So do you actually think that this kind of exchange belongs on a debate site? I don't (and I only countered in the same vein to demonstrate how poor such debating is). If my arguments are actually bad, a good debater can muster solid counter-arguments to defeat my argument and have absolutely no need to say "your arguments suck". In no way does that provides a rebuttal, does not forward the debate, is rude and disrespectful and in general is just poor debating. So please quit doing that.

Let's just keep the good parts of our debate, alright?

[Squatch347]

The army we have now are several ordered of magnitude better trained and better armed and better organized than your average citizen who just needs a gun to defend themselves from their neighbor. Your argument that such citizens could defend themselves against an army of global caliber is laughable.

I don't think Mican made that argument. Nor do I see how this claim is laughable. (Certainly the Afghans didn't find it laughable). Can you elaborate?

[SharmaK]

Complain, complain, complain.

They’re not complaints - they’re *descriptions* as to how bad your arguments are. However, I do complain about your poor organizational skills so I’ll be grouping your arguments together so we don’t repeat ourselves.

Your arguments generally fall into the following categories:

1. Fantasy stories, which I’m going to have to ignore. We have real problems with real innocent deaths without you science fiction’ing. If you choose to go down that path then lay out how we get to that future point and we can argue each step. Ideally do this in a different thread. Even if you choose this path it is one that is of pure speculation at best, which are definitely no reason to continue down the path we’re on with innocent deaths.
2. We need guns now. Here the frequency of scenarios where you think you can successfully use a gun are minor compared to the number of scenarios you normally encounter. So you’re starting off with rare scenarios anyway. In addition, you ignore the 100% chance that additional risks are introduced with guns in that situation. And you also ignore the 100% chance that there would be accidental deaths outside of those specific situations.
3. Don’t bother trying. I know when you’re losing an argument when you have to argue for 100% success rates for my scenarios. Not only do I not expect a 100% success rate but being able to reduce the number of children being accidentally killed or accidentally killing by even 1% is a good one.

So essentially your position is that we should allow people to have guns on the small chance they might need it but ignore the documented associated risks and deaths. You’re literally trading 100’s of innocent lives on the tiny off chance that you will be mugged and the small chance that you’re going to successful with the gun.

So I reject that I am ‘complaining’. Your contrived offense masks the actual fact that your position is precariously fantastical and either ignores or or minimizes or accepts the additional deaths due specifically to guns. These are not insults, it’s the root problem with your arguments and I have to point them out as such so you back up your stories with facts and address head-on the associated risks that you have implicitly accepted and justify them with your corner cases.

When responding, please try and generally keep my argument tags together so I can keep track.


** MICAN: PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES **
** SHARMAK: IT’S NOT WORTH THE RISK **

Criminals do have the right to defend themselves. They just don't have the right to commit crimes. And it's not a fantasy that sometimes people need to defend themselves. Again, I can present you numerous stories of people defending themselves with guns and they will be from actual accounts, not from a fantasy novel. The fact that I don't take measures to defend myself have absolutely no bearing on whether I have the right to defend myself.

Criminals are people too. I agree criminals should not be able to use weapons to commit the crimes but you’re saying that they can use them defend themselves as they avoid the consequences of their crimes? Right?
I don’t deny you have stories but I have stories where guns have caused deaths through accidents, by children no less. You’re risking lives to save others and that is a poor bargain.
** M: PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO MOST COMMON WEAPON **
** S: THE GUN IS *NOT* THE MOST COMMON WEAPON **

Again, I said one should be able to use one of the MOST COMMON AND UBIQUITOUS weapons in our society. Pistols are very common and people regularly carry them. Machine guns aren't. That is the difference.
...
I don't argue that I NEED it but should be allowed to have it. And I will provide reasoning.
As I said, guns are common and ubiquitous in this society which means that plenty of people have them. And therefore if I have a dangerous encounter with a fellow citizen, there is a real possibility that that person will be armed with a gun, especially if he is a criminal. Therefore, I should be able to defend myself with the kind of weapon that one might use against me.
To say otherwise, is to argue that I cannot defend myself with the kind of weapon that realistically be used against me and therefore that very much hampers my ability to defend myself which we (hopefully) agree that I have the right to do.
So my standard of common and ubiquitous as the standard for what kind of weapon I should be allowed to have is not arbitrary. The fact that it's common is very much the point.

The MOST COMMON AND UBIQUITOUS *WEAPON* is NOT a gun. The most common scenario is described here (https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership...hree-charts/):
1. Only 3% of the people own half the guns in the US.
2. Only 23% of the population even own guns
So according to your logic of popularity, guns should definitely not be a weapon of choice.
** S:GUNS MAKE THINGS WORSE **
** M:GUNS ARE JUST TOOLS **

I do consider the possibilities that something bad might happen instead of something good when a gun is used in self-defense. And when I hammer a nail, I consider the possibility that I might slam my thumb instead of hitting the nail. When I drive I consider the possibility that I might die in a car accident instead of arrive at my destination. But that doesn't change the fact that a gun, a hammer, and a car are all effective tools for their purpose.
So okay, it's possible that an attempt to use a gun for self-defense could backfire. But that doesn't support the position that IN GENERAL a gun is not an effective self-defense tool.
Also, criminals also hang out in gangs - so do you also hang out in gangs for safety? They also take revenge, so do you think we should also take revenge on gang members too when one of their own has killed someone? How far does your ‘COMMON UBIQUITUS’ weapon does this stretch to?

That’s not arguing the point. We began with your point that guns are effective. I pointed out that guns are not effective because of their associated risks. You agree with my point and just repeat your original point. That’s not an argument on your part - you’re just blocking your ears to my valid points, which you also agree with.
** M: CRIMINALS USE GUNS **
** S: AGREES **

No, even for criminals a drive-by shooting is not considered self-defense (they know they are not in danger from their victims at the moment they open fire). And the notion that I have forgotten that criminals will use guns too is a ridiculous statement - you can't read my mind so you don't know what I remember and what I forget.

Good - I want to record that you agree that arming society ALSO arms the criminals.

** M: GUNS DETERS A DRUNK STORY **
** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **

It wasn't a burglary. The drunk was confused, thought it was his house, and tried to get in "his house".

OK, so this isn’t basically getting rid of someone who made a mistake. I agree a gun would work in this case, but it seems to be overkill and just telling the guy to leave would easily have resolved the situation. Your friend over-reacted and could have made a mistake and accidentally killed an innocent.
Your scenario just highlights the problems with a gun-mentality - of people over fearful of situations that could be dealt with using basic social interactions (I mean really, who doesn’t know how to deal with a drunk?). It was a necessarily a hostile situation and the gun *could* have made the situation much worse when the person is not 100%.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/u...o-arizona.html tells of a cop who shot a drunk who was aware enough to beg for his life but he accidentally moved in a way that forced the cop to shoot him. And this is a trained professional.
** M: GUNS SAVE GAY NIGHT CLUB **
** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **

No, I'm suggesting that if some of the patrons had guns, they might have shot the killer before he killed as many people as he had. Do you have a rebuttal to that particular point or not?
Where they would have kept the gun or raising the possibility that one of the defenders might also have shot an innocent does not counter the notion that they might have stopped the shooter. I think the killer killing 10 people and and defender killing one innocent person accidentally is better than the killer killing 50 people.

OK, this is yet another story where you ignore my points and continue down your original path. That they MIGHT have shot the killer is irrelevant - they also MIGHT have shot even more people, causing more innocent deaths and ruining their own lives.
Your point again disregards the actual risk associated with guns on the small chance of a gun actually being able to make a difference.
** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **
** M: CHALLENGES **

You are basing that argument on the completely unsupported premise that the level of success in attempted cases of self-defense is tiny. Since this is constantly repeated, I will formally challenge you to support it.
So I you to SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the level of success in attempted cases of self-defense is tiny.
And you don't have to respond to my challenge directly. Ceasing to repeat a claim counts as a retraction. But if you are going to repeat that claim, you will need to support it.

First of all, is not just based on cases of self-defense. It’s the FACT that the number of situations where you are in need of self-defense is TINY. We live in a largely safe society and I doubt anyone has more than a tiny portions of their lives where a gun is needed.
Otherwise, within the TINY chance you are in a such a situation, it’s basic math - the more guns you have, the more chances there are of something unwanted happening. The number of POSSIBLE unwanted happenings (accidents, failed weapons, weapon taken by criminal, innocents being killed) is INCREASED the moment one more person has a gun.
And you have to consider that OWNING a gun HAS CAUSED accidental deaths that WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED if the owner didn’t have a gun in the first place.
So on top of increasing the POSSIBILITIES of additional deaths, you’re also increasing POSSIBILITIES of ACCIDENTAL deaths. See (https://www.aftermath.com/content/ac...s-statistics):
1. From 2006-2016, 6,885 people died from unintentional shootings.
2. Accidental deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old.
So I have shown that:
1. The chances of being in such a situation is tiny.
2. The possibilities of other problems happening in such a situation increases more if own a gun.
3. The possibilities of accidental deaths increases 100% just by owning a gun.


** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **
** M: SOMETHING ELSE WOULD BE USED **

you can't say that every one of the domestic gun deaths would not have happened if there wasn't a gun.

That is not a good argument - just because the deaths COULD have happened without guns, the fact that they DID is what we’re arguing. And suggesting suicide by knife is kinda ludicrous and kinda offensive to those people that have been affected by gun suicides.

** M: WHY BOTHER: BANNING GUNS CANNOT BE DONE OVERNIGHT SO WHY TRY **
** S: WUT? **

There are societies that never had many guns to begin with. But when you have a society where there are LOTS of guns (ours) and a lot of people don't want to give up their guns and then try to take away everyone's guns, you don't get everyone's guns and you don't have a disarmed society.

Irrelevant. Just because it is difficult it doesn’t mean it cannot be done. We fought a war over slavery. I think banning guns is going to be very difficult but it can be done and hopefully not have to war over it.

** M: WHY BOTHERL: GETTING RID OF DRUGS DIDN’T STOP DRUGS. **
** S: WUT? **

I said we didn't rid of drugs and alcohol when we made them illegal. And I am completely right. So my understanding of history, in this situation, is entirely correct.
Moving the goal post. I said that making drugs illegal didn't make them unavailable and I am obviously correct on that.
Whether drug prohibition is a good policy in general has no bearing on whether it made drugs unavailable. So my history is completely correct and your assessment of my view on history is completely incorrect. We outlawed drugs and alcohol and many people were still able to attain them and I assume you do not challenge this completely correct AND REALISTIC historical fact.
Therefore I have supported that outlawing guns will not necessarily deny everyone access to guns.

If your only argument is that we should not have laws because since we already have criminals then you’re entirely missing the point!
We make drugs illegal to make it hard to get and hard to maintain. Same with guns, if we made them difficult to own then there will be even fewer people that will have them.
Your argument that EVERYONE will be prevented from having a gun is flawed:
1. Firstly, outlawing guns NECESSARILY DENIES them legal access. So your conclusion is wrong.
2. What you mean is that it doesn’t PREVENT everyone to otherwise get access. But that’s not a good argument either since that’s an impossible goal that no-one is arguing for!
3. Just because it isn’t 100% then we shouldn’t do it is to ignore that we can 100% prevent deaths caused by LEGAL access to guns. So there we have a reason with a 100% certainty of being successful.

————————————-
** M: BUT BUT TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT **
** S: GOVERNMENT ARMY IS MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN CITIZEN **

What's laughable is that you are attacking and argument that I never made. That's what's known as the straw man fallacy.
To repeat the argument that I DID make - I said that you have not identified what has changed between then and now. There was an army then and there is an army now. No change.

I did respond - the army back then is nowhere near as powerful than the army now; both in raw power and in the power relative to the average citizen. It makes your scenario of a government take over more of a fantasy.
** M: BUT BUT TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT (IN 200 YEARS) **
** S: STOP FANTASIZING **

My scenario in no way said that the tyranny happened overnight (in fact it takes place 200 years in the future) and it includes half of the army fighting against the tyrant so it's not a scenario where they can easily take over the country. So your arguments do not rebut that the scenario I laid out is possible.
And using nuclear weapons could start WWIII so the notion that they would be used is not a definite. And who says the foreign army will be able to bomb everywhere?
You seem to think you know EXACTLY what kind of enemy we would be fighting in 200 years. You don't and therefore your objections are not based on any valid data that you have access to and therefore you assessment that my scenarios are unrealistic is just based on guessing.
The fact is we don't know what kind of situation the US will be in in 200 years. We might not be much of a superpower by then. Who knows? So given the potential ways the future might shake you, you have no basis to say with any certainty that my scenarios are impossible.
But what you can't do is show that my scenarios are impossible. Unless you can predict what's going to happen in 200 years.
You forget, or didn't bother to read, that in my scenario half of the army opposes the tyrant. So tell me, if half of the army supports the tyrant and half of the army opposes the tyrant, is it possible that HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF ARMED CITIZENS might just make the difference in whether the tyrant is overthrown?
If you are going to argue that they could not make any difference, you will need to support that.

It could be a 1000 years and it’s still fantasy. And you still haven’t state WHICH country would physically LAND and attack our citizens (). If you’re going to insist on making up scenarios, you have to show they are possible.
All your scenarios could result in a win by the other side, so it’s a null argument for having guns in the first place. Also, I’d like you to stop fantazing more scenarios - we have actual problems to deal with without having to make things up.

** S: STOP FANTASIZING **
** M: SUPPORT THAT FANTASIZING IS UNREALISTIC **

SUPPORT OR RETRACT this assertion. If my understanding is unrealistic, then you must have a realistic understanding. So please tell me how long it will realistically take to achieve success and support that that is how long it will take.
Until you do that, your assessment of my understanding of how realistic it is to achieve success will be rejected as baseless conjecture.

It’s unrealistic because your fantasizing about scenarios that you’re not proving a path to from our current reality nor basing them on facts. You’re literally creating these scenarios out of thin air.
And it is NOT my burden to tell you why they’re not unrealistic, it is YOUR burden to prove that they are. If you think they are then you have to lay out the whole history of what might happen and defend each step. Otherwise, just drop the fantasy stories.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[evensaul]

Firstly, it will be impossible to pull off such an oppressive government because we can just vote out the people we don't like.

What if, for example, we experienced a military coup? Or if Trump and other evil Republicans enacted laws suspending federal elections and making him Supreme Leader for life? Similar things have happened around the world throughout history. There is no reason I can see to believe it could never happen in the US.

And secondly, if the government somehow wanted to oppress people, a few armed citizens aren't going to be able to do much against bombs and tanks that they'd have to deploy.

The problem with this argument is that there wouldn't be just "a few armed citizens". Estimates are that there are 270-300 million guns in the US, enough for every adult to carry one, if necessary.

Gun control doesn't stop murderers but it does limit the weaponry they'd have access to. Otherwise why ban anything? Just allow anyone to make any kind of bomb or poison they wish? That's not realistic - we already know that Americans in the past, with easy access to bomb ingredients can and will make them. And now we have potential terrorists doing the same. So limiting weaponry and controlling access to raw materials is a very good thing.

And most people would agree that preventing access to weapons of mass destruction or mass murder is necessary. But you're going light years past what most people would support, by wanting to ban all weapons. Why are you at the furthest left-extreme position? What is the moral imperative guiding you to ban all weapons?

With a knife there's more of a chance of someone being able to fend them off or better still run away. Surely you agree that a gun can kill more people than a knife, right?

And surely you agree that a gun is more effective at fending off an attacker than a knife would be, right? So why, in your mind, is the ability to defend oneself less important than minimizing the risk that a gun will be used illegally?

I'd argue that martial arts should be mandatory - at least people are trained to avoid fights as much as possible and to only fight when absolutely necessary.

And how is that different from firearms training?

[SharmaK]

What if, for example, we experienced a military coup? Or if Trump and other evil Republicans enacted laws suspending federal elections and making him Supreme Leader for life? Similar things have happened around the world throughout history. There is no reason I can see to believe it could never happen in the US.

The problem with this argument is that there wouldn't be just "a few armed citizens". Estimates are that there are 270-300 million guns in the US, enough for every adult to carry one, if necessary.

I don't understand the need to fantasize about situations that won't happen. And then when those fantasies are described they are so one-sided that it's obvious they it's not even thought through properly:

1. WTF military coup, led by whom? What will lead to this 'coup'?
2. Trump becoming Supreme Leader is in his own head - there will be no support from the Republicans from this and you forget the Supreme court might have a say.

Also those '300 million' guns are actually owned by only 20% of the country (https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership...-three-charts/). 3% of Americans own HALF the guns in the country. So your fantasy of the country rising up (after the 3% share their weapons out somehow) is ludicrous.

Even then, you're forgetting that a good half of the country support Trump so the fantasy that all 300m guns are going to attack Trump is unlikely. Given that, it's likely the ones with all the weapons are of the ilk that support Trump in anyway. So in this case, I think removing guns are for the better! So your scenario isn't particularly realistic or even useful from a 'Democratic' view.

Moving forward, let's deal with facts and things that have happened and not speculate on some weird future where somehow we turn into the Soviet Union.

And most people would agree that preventing access to weapons of mass destruction or mass murder is necessary. But you're going light years past what most people would support, by wanting to ban all weapons. Why are you at the furthest left-extreme position? What is the moral imperative guiding you to ban all weapons?

I'm talking about banning all guns and repealing the 2nd amendment. It's a different world now and if the only argument (thus far anyway) is that gun supporters are afraid of some government take over fantasy or invent strawmen (no one said ALL weapons) as their first argument then frankly, you have already lost.

And surely you agree that a gun is more effective at fending off an attacker than a knife would be, right? So why, in your mind, is the ability to defend oneself less important than minimizing the risk that a gun will be used illegally?

You don't think that bad people could use karate or judo to mug or murder? Really? Please support your position.

Of course a gun is more effective than a knife. But then again you're putting on blinkers and picking these tiny situations to support your case and ignoring the side effects of what you're saying.

OK, so let's say you are lucky enough not to hit a bystander and not have the gun jam on you and not have the attacker take your gun, then you still have to contend with the fact that arming yourself also arms the criminal: he might just kill you as soon as he sees the gun, or since he might know you have a gun then he might shoot you as soon as he sees you. And then your family too. The chance that you're in a situation where you get the outcome you want is small compared to all the risks you are introducing.

In addition, to support this one situation, that you could likely avoid by frequenting safer areas, just owning a gun can have serious consequences. Hundreds of accidents happen with children either killing or being killed because the owners are just not careful enough.So to support your situation where you are not guaranteed a great outcome you are also supporting a program that kills children.

You have to think about the whole picture and not the unlikely chance that you will be in such a situation where having a gun is going to be useful. Your fantasy stories about a government take over doesn't work as an argument anyway - if the army was brought in then a few guns isn't going to help against tanks and bombs.

[mican333]

They’re not complaints - they’re *descriptions* as to how bad your arguments are.

Oh gee, well your arguments are really lame, weak, and dumb. Now, I have to ask. How does COMPLETELY WORTHLESS comments like the ones we just exchanged help the debate? Quick answer - they don't.

However, I do complain about your poor organizational skills so I’ll be grouping your arguments together so we don’t repeat ourselves.

And I complain about how bad your assessments of my arguments are. Almost half the time you are attributing arguments to me that I didn't make. But likewise complaining is a waste of time.

1. Fantasy stories, which I’m going to have to ignore. We have real problems with real innocent deaths without you science fiction’ing. If you choose to go down that path then lay out how we get to that future point and we can argue each step. Ideally do this in a different thread. Even if you choose this path it is one that is of pure speculation at best, which are definitely no reason to continue down the path we’re on with innocent deaths.

Okay. So why should I believe your fantasy that the second amendment will never be of relevance for the rest of the history of the US?

The notion that the citizenry will never have the need or ability to defend their liberty is no less a "fantasy" than a scenario that they will have to do that in the future.

2. We need guns now. Here the frequency of scenarios where you think you can successfully use a gun are minor compared to the number of scenarios you normally encounter. So you’re starting off with rare scenarios anyway.

Which in no way rebuts the notion that one has the right to defend one's life. Just because an incident where someone has the right to defend his life is indeed rare, it in no way rebuts the notion that one has the right to defend ones life if necessary.

In addition, you ignore the 100% chance that additional risks are introduced with guns in that situation. And you also ignore the 100% chance that there would be accidental deaths outside of those specific situations.

No and no. Wrong on both counts.

I factor in the possibility that a legally owned gun might be used in a detrimental way and I'm pretty sure I've acknowledged this numerous times in my prior arguments.

I think you are the one who is ignoring things, like large parts of my arguments.

3. Don’t bother trying. I know when you’re losing an argument when you have to argue for 100% success rates for my scenarios. Not only do I not expect a 100% success rate but being able to reduce the number of children being accidentally killed or accidentally killing by even 1% is a good one.

Again, does not really resemble any argument that I actually made. I never argued that we shouldn't try to impose a gun ban because it won't get every single gun. Can you cut and paste an argument where I actually said that? Of course you can't because I never made such an argument.

So essentially your position is that we should allow people to have guns on the small chance they might need it but ignore the documented associated risks and deaths. You’re literally trading 100’s of innocent lives on the tiny off chance that you will be mugged and the small chance that you’re going to successful with the gun.

Your are literally misusing the word "literally".

I don't carry a gun for self-defense, remember? I just agree to the right to self-defense and when it comes to trading lives, we need to include the lives of those who actually do defend themselves with a gun.

You seem to be counting the number of those killed by wrongful firearm use and ignoring the number of those who do defend themselves (and instead just refer to the likelihood that something like that will happen).

If we are honestly and accurately talking about the trade off, we need to trade the number of people who defend themselves with guns versus the number of innocents who die because of the gun (which would exclude those who were killed by a gun but would have died even if a gun was not involved).

So this percentage versus numbers argument really does not work. Make an argument showing the relative numbers of good incidents versus bad incidents and then you will have an argument worth considering.

** MICAN: PEOPLE NEED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES **
** SHARMAK: IT’S NOT WORTH THE RISK **

When summing up my argument, you need to take quotes THAT I ACTUALLY SAY. I never said "people need to defend themselves". I said "people have the right to defend themselves."

It's really a significant difference. Saying someone has the right to something is a philosophical statement and I'm forwarding the philosophical principle that a person has the self-evident (or God-givent) right to protect his life.

And I think his really might be the crux of the debate. I mean here is the general basis of our arguments as far as I can tell:

ME: People have the right to defend themselves and if there's a common and ubiquitous weapon that another might use against them, they should have access to the same weapon. Otherwise, their right to self-defense is being infringed upon.

YOU: I don't directly challenge your statement about the right to self-defense (note: I haven't seen that really challenged) but considering all of the bad that happen when people are generally allowed to have guns, we are better off if we ban the private ownership of guns and therefore should do that.

The notion that I ignore the issue of bad things happening due to gun ownership is clearly not true and I ask that you cease telling me what I'm ignoring. As far as i can tell, you have been incorrect about it every time.

Criminals are people too. I agree criminals should not be able to use weapons to commit the crimes but you’re saying that they can use them defend themselves as they avoid the consequences of their crimes? Right?

Wut?

No. If a guy robs and house, thus making him a criminal, and also kills a guy in justifiable self defense in an incident completely separate from his crime, he should be punished for robbing the house and not punished for defending his life.

I don’t deny you have stories but I have stories where guns have caused deaths through accidents, by children no less. You’re risking lives to save others and that is a poor bargain.

Lives are at risk either way. You do acknowledge that if a person can't defend himself, he's more likely to die, right?

And whether having a law banning guns will make things better is very debatable. As I've said, laws will not get rid of all guns and those that still have guns will be inclined to be less law-abiding than those who will give up their guns. I think one can have very reasonable doubts if banning guns will indeed decrease the number of deaths. And is it worth denying people the individual right to defend their lives (especially whether it will even help is debatable)?

If you were talking about waving a magic wand and have all guns vanish from the world, then we can discuss the ramifications of a gun-free society. But that is not possible in our current society. We can have less guns but we can't have no guns and the outcome of such a thing is very much an open question.

[QUOTE=SharmaK;559244]

** M: PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE ACCESS TO MOST COMMON WEAPON **
** S: THE GUN IS *NOT* THE MOST COMMON WEAPON **

Again, you assessing my argument instead of addressing it directly leads to you attacking a straw man. I didn't say it was THE MOST common weapon but ONE OF THE MOST common weapons.

And it absolutely is. In fact, you haven't shown that there is a more common weapon. I understand that most people don't own guns but that doesn't mean that there is a more popular weapon that people buy - it would indicate that most people don't own a weapon at all. When I said i don't carry a weapon for self-defense, I mean I don't carry any weapons at all.

** S:GUNS MAKE THINGS WORSE **
** M:GUNS ARE JUST TOOLS **

That’s not arguing the point. We began with your point that guns are effective. I pointed out that guns are not effective because of their associated risks.

Associated risks does not make something not effective. There is an associated risk to driving a car and yet cars are clearly effective tools.

And I demonstrated a scenario where my friend EFFECTIVELY used a gun to defend his house and please note that no one even got hurt when did it.

** M: CRIMINALS USE GUNS **
** S: AGREES **

Good - I want to record that you agree that arming society ALSO arms the criminals.

As if I ever denied it.

Will you acknowledge that banning guns will remove more guns from the hands of the law-abiding than it will remove guns from the hands of the criminals?

** M: GUNS DETERS A DRUNK STORY **
** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **

OK, so this isn’t basically getting rid of someone who made a mistake. I agree a gun would work in this case, but it seems to be overkill and just telling the guy to leave would easily have resolved the situation.

My friend DID ask the guy to leave. He refused and kept trying to open the door.

The point is showing a gun DID get rid of the guy and the notion that he could have done so by other means is pure speculation (you don't know what would have happened if he had pulled out a knife instead and therefore have no basis to argue that it would have worked as well). So your speculation on what might have been as effective or what might have gone wrong in no way changes the notion that my friend DID defend his house, non lethally, with a gun.

So I have demonstrated that at least sometimes a person does effectively defend himself with a gun.

Your scenario just highlights the problems with a gun-mentality - of people over fearful of situations that could be dealt with using basic social interactions (I mean really, who doesn’t know how to deal with a drunk?). It was a necessarily a hostile situation and the gun *could* have made the situation much worse when the person is not 100%.

And it *could* have been worse if didn't have a gun. A gun-less likely alternative scenario is that my friend would have had to physically remove the drunk from the porch as in grab the guy and throw him off the porch. THAT'S a scenario where someone icould have gotten hurt. Someone could have been injured in the ensuing fight (the drunk breaks his neck falling from the porch). Maybe the drunk has a knife in his pocket and stabs my friend when he tries to throw him off the porch.

There's an endless number of possible outcomes. But the point is the ACTUAL outcome is that my friend defended his house with no violence or injury because he had a gun.

So can we just acknowledge that sometimes a person effectively defends himself with a gun and move on?

** M: GUNS SAVE GAY NIGHT CLUB **
** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **

OK, this is yet another story where you ignore my points and continue down your original path. That they MIGHT have shot the killer is irrelevant - they also MIGHT have shot even more people, causing more innocent deaths and ruining their own lives.
Your point again disregards the actual risk associated with guns on the small chance of a gun actually being able to make a difference.

No. You are the one who is ignoring the point of the exchange. Let's look at the actual argument of yours that I was responding to.

Sharma K: "The stories may seem numerous but there are plenty of stories where it wouldn’t have helped at all: eg Vegas and the gay night club."

And I'm saying, and you have not rebutted, that it MIGHT have helped at the gay night club. If some of the patrons were armed, they MIGHT have shot the killer before he killed as many as he did. And you have not rebutted that at all.

Just pointing out that it's possible that the defenders might have shot some innocents along with the killer doesn't rebut that. If the killer killed ten innocents and the defenders kill two innocents along with the killer, that's still a total of 12 deaths instead of 50 thus saving 38 lives. That would overall be a good thing and might have happened if several patrons were armed.

And I should point out that I made this argument in my last post and you did not address it directly. Your summations of my argument seem to ignore some of my responses (and sometimes are an incorrect summation of my argument).

** S: STORY HIGHLIGHTS THE RISKS OF HAVING GUNS **
** M: CHALLENGES **

First of all, is not just based on cases of self-defense. It’s the FACT that the number of situations where you are in need of self-defense is TINY. We live in a largely safe society and I doubt anyone has more than a tiny portions of their lives where a gun is needed.
Otherwise, within the TINY chance you are in a such a situation, it’s basic math - the more guns you have, the more chances there are of something unwanted happening. The number of POSSIBLE unwanted happenings (accidents, failed weapons, weapon taken by criminal, innocents being killed) is INCREASED the moment one more person has a gun.
And you have to consider that OWNING a gun HAS CAUSED accidental deaths that WOULD NEVER HAVE OCCURRED if the owner didn’t have a gun in the first place.
So on top of increasing the POSSIBILITIES of additional deaths, you’re also increasing POSSIBILITIES of ACCIDENTAL deaths. See (https://www.aftermath.com/content/ac...s-statistics):
1. From 2006-2016, 6,885 people died from unintentional shootings.
2. Accidental deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old.
So I have shown that:
1. The chances of being in such a situation is tiny.
2. The possibilities of other problems happening in such a situation increases more if own a gun.
3. The possibilities of accidental deaths increases 100% just by owning a gun.

Okay but I challenged you to show that the number of effective attempts of self-defense are tiny as in for those that attempt to defend themselves with a gun, only a tiny number of them succeed in defending themselves. I don't see an attempt to support that in your above argument. Maybe that's not what you were arguing.

And again, you are using percentage for self defense and using numbers for accidental deaths. You will need to use a consistent method for comparing the two before you can make a coherent argument for their relative effect.


If you want to weigh the comparative benefits and hazards of owning a gun, then you really need to start forwarding some numbers. We need to count the number of incidents of successful self-defense with a gun (which will be difficult since non-violent self defense, such as the incident with my friend) doesn't get reported versus the number of bad incidents that happened because a gun was in the house which also means that they would have happened if a gun was not in the house. For example, if a guy commits suicide with a gun but if he didn't have gun, he would have killed himself by hanging, then the gun really isn't a significant factor in the guys death (he was dead with or without a gun and I personally know two people that committed suicide by hanging and yet if they had killed themselves with a gun instead they would have been counted as suicide by gun despite the fact that they would dead with or without a gun and the gun really couldn't be blamed). If a man would have stabbed his wife to death if a gun wasn't in the house, then again the gun wouldn't have made a difference in whether a murder occurred (but if she had a gun, she might have not been killed).

So in short, you will need to forward something more solid than just using the word "tiny" or mentioning "possibilities" if you are going to argue that guns endanger the owner more than protect him.

** M: WHY BOTHER: BANNING GUNS CANNOT BE DONE OVERNIGHT SO WHY TRY **
** S: WUT? **

Irrelevant. Just because it is difficult it doesn’t mean it cannot be done. We fought a war over slavery. I think banning guns is going to be very difficult but it can be done and hopefully not have to war over it.

Straw man. I never made the argument you have attributed to me.

I don't argue that we can't disarm the population overnight. I argue that we can't disarm the entire population PERIOD (at least not by just banning guns). We can disarm some people but not all of the people.

Again, we outlawed alcohol and drugs and yet people who want them still get them.

And please don't pretend I'm saying something more than I am. An earlier exchange brought up Britain as a nation where practically no one owns a gun and I'm pointing out that we are not that society and cannot become that society because while Britains pretty much never had guns, we have plenty of them and are not able to take them all away.

** M: WHY BOTHERL: GETTING RID OF DRUGS DIDN’T STOP DRUGS. **
** S: WUT? **

Maybe you wouldn't have to say "Wut?" if you would respond to my actual arguments. The nonsense you are responding to was written by you, not me.

Can you show me where I said we shouldn't bother getting rid of guns because we'll never get all of them? Of course not. So yeah, that's a ridiculous argument. Take it up with the actual author - you.

If your only argument is that we should not have laws because since we already have criminals then you’re entirely missing the point!
We make drugs illegal to make it hard to get and hard to maintain. Same with guns, if we made them difficult to own then there will be even fewer people that will have them.

Fewer, yes. But I am referring to the notion of "disarming society" which means that NO ONE (or almost no one) has guns. So "fewer" does not qualify. I have supported the notion that we cannot disarm society - we can only somewhat decrease the number of guns that people own. And I hope you realize that the decrease will primarily come from the law-abiding. So the ratio of bad guys with guns to good guys with guns will go up.

Again, my point is you can't actually disarm society. At least not by any method that you have forwarded so far.

Your argument that EVERYONE will be prevented from having a gun is flawed:
1. Firstly, outlawing guns NECESSARILY DENIES them legal access. So your conclusion is wrong.
2. What you mean is that it doesn’t PREVENT everyone to otherwise get access. But that’s not a good argument either since that’s an impossible goal that no-one is arguing for!

Then we agree. You can't disarm society. This point is settled.

** M: BUT BUT TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT **
** S: GOVERNMENT ARMY IS MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN CITIZEN **

I did respond - the army back then is nowhere near as powerful than the army now; both in raw power and in the power relative to the average citizen. It makes your scenario of a government take over more of a fantasy.

Actually, if the government is more powerful than the citizen, it would make a government take over easier.

But my scenario is if army split and half of the army was fighting for the dictator and half was fighting against the dictator (I'll call this the "Future civil war scenario"). In that scenario, it's clear that hundreds of millions of armed citizens could make a significant difference in whether they kept their freedom. The armies are equal and hundreds of million of armed citizens would almost certainly tip the balance against the oppressor.

** M: BUT BUT TYRANICAL GOVERNMENT (IN 200 YEARS) **
** S: STOP FANTASIZING **

It could be a 1000 years and it’s still fantasy.

Actually, it's called a hypothetical scenario. Introducing hypothetical scenarios in support of an argument is completely valid. You can call them "fantasies" or "science fiction" or whatever and ask me to stop using them, but I have no need or desire to not use this valid debate technique.

(). If you’re going to insist on making up scenarios, you have to show they are possible.

No problem. I'll use a logic chain (each point follows the preceding point).

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

So I have supported that in the future, it's possible that an armed citizenry could make a difference in defending their liberty and therefore I have supported that the second amendment is not irrelevant today.

All your scenarios could result in a win by the other side, so it’s a null argument for having guns in the first place. Also, I’d like you to stop fantazing more scenarios - we have actual problems to deal with without having to make things up.

If you want to drop the argument that the second amendment is no longer relevant, I'll drop my arguments that it is relevant and cease forwarding a hypothetical scenario to support my side of the debate.

So shall we drop this issue? It's up to you.

** S: STOP FANTASIZING **
** M: SUPPORT THAT FANTASIZING IS UNREALISTIC **

Complete straw man. I never asked you to support that fantasizing is unrealistic. So I'm not going to respond to that since I'm only going to defend arguments that I actually make.

And I have supported that the "future civil war" scenario is possible which is all I need in order to use it show that the 2nd amendment is not irrelevant.

[evensaul]

I don't understand the need to fantasize about situations that won't happen.

Says the person who dreams of outlawing guns, knives and pointed sticks!

And then when those fantasies are described they are so one-sided that it's obvious they it's not even thought through properly:

1. WTF military coup, led by whom? What will lead to this 'coup'?
2. Trump becoming Supreme Leader is in his own head - there will be no support from the Republicans from this and you forget the Supreme court might have a say.

Yes, perhaps I made a mistake suggesting a Trump/Repub takeover. Make it your progressives attempting to abolish elections to keep power. That really is more likely.

Also those '300 million' guns are actually owned by only 20% of the country (https://qz.com/1095899/gun-ownership...-three-charts/). 3% of Americans own HALF the guns in the country. So your fantasy of the country rising up (after the 3% share their weapons out somehow) is ludicrous.

Even then, you're forgetting that a good half of the country support Trump so the fantasy that all 300m guns are going to attack Trump is unlikely. Given that, it's likely the ones with all the weapons are of the ilk that support Trump in anyway. So in this case, I think removing guns are for the better! So your scenario isn't particularly realistic or even useful from a 'Democratic' view.

Well, if progressives seized power and outlawed guns, you can bet those 20% would be sharing guns with friends and relatives pretty fast to take their country back.

Moving forward, let's deal with facts and things that have happened and not speculate on some weird future where somehow we turn into the Soviet Union.

You're advocating some weird future where carrying a pointed stick is illegal! I guess this is another case where rules don't apply to progressives. You know, like don't discriminate (except for affirmative action), ensure freedom of speech (except when it is from the right), and protect constitutional rights (except when is the 2nd Amendment).

I'm talking about banning all guns and repealing the 2nd amendment.

Yes, and it is nice to have someone honestly claiming that as their real goal, rather than lying their way through incremental restrictions. So, kudos to you.

It's a different world now and if the only argument (thus far anyway) is that gun supporters are afraid of some government take over fantasy or invent strawmen (no one said ALL weapons) as their first argument then frankly, you have already lost.

lol, I don't think so.

Of course a gun is more effective than a knife. But then again you're putting on blinkers and picking these tiny situations to support your case and ignoring the side effects of what you're saying.

OK, so let's say you are lucky enough not to hit a bystander and not have the gun jam on you and not have the attacker take your gun, then you still have to contend with the fact that arming yourself also arms the criminal: he might just kill you as soon as he sees the gun, or since he might know you have a gun then he might shoot you as soon as he sees you. And then your family too. The chance that you're in a situation where you get the outcome you want is small compared to all the risks you are introducing.

In addition, to support this one situation, that you could likely avoid by frequenting safer areas, just owning a gun can have serious consequences. Hundreds of accidents happen with children either killing or being killed because the owners are just not careful enough.So to support your situation where you are not guaranteed a great outcome you are also supporting a program that kills children.

You have to think about the whole picture and not the unlikely chance that you will be in such a situation where having a gun is going to be useful. Your fantasy stories about a government take over doesn't work as an argument anyway - if the army was brought in then a few guns isn't going to help against tanks and bombs.

Okay, you understand that there are counter arguments to all of those, right? Like, YOU have to contend with the fact that disarming me does not disarm the criminal, unless you can show that repealing the 2nd amendment will not only take guns away from criminals, but keep them unarmed. And not owning a gun can have serious consequences when you're facing a criminal. Etc. Etc.

Again, I want to get to the bottom motivating influence. Do you understand what a moral imperative is? That is what I'm seeking from you. Give me the root motivation for your point of view. Is it that government is supposed to make everyone safe? Or what? For example, I believe that I have a right to self-defense against any individual determined to attack and kill me. I'm not asking for the right to a machine gun or a fertilizer bomb or a tank. Just the right to protect myself against a bad guy with a gun coming into my house. And yes, on the slim chance that our government becomes hostile to the people, the ability to resist it with other like minded people. So, what is the equivalent motivation on your side, driving your argument? Can you explain it to me? Because so far, you haven't.

[SharmaK]

Says the person who dreams of outlawing guns, knives and pointed sticks!

Um no, it’s not a dream - it’s a goal.

Yes, perhaps I made a mistake suggesting a Trump/Repub takeover. Make it your progressives attempting to abolish elections to keep power. That really is more likely.

Well, if progressives seized power and outlawed guns, you can bet those 20% would be sharing guns with friends and relatives pretty fast to take their country back.

Good, you admit the 20% are a danger to our society. All the more reason to get rid of guns.

You're advocating some weird future where carrying a pointed stick is illegal! I guess this is another case where rules don't apply to progressives. You know, like don't discriminate (except for affirmative action), ensure freedom of speech (except when it is from the right), and protect constitutional rights (except when is the 2nd Amendment).

Never talked about sticks. Stop making things up and arguing with yourself.

Yes, and it is nice to have someone honestly claiming that as their real goal, rather than lying their way through incremental restrictions. So, kudos to you. lol, I don't think so.

Incremental changes are how we do this. As you pointed out the crazy 20% need to be slowly accustomed to changes in gun laws.

Okay, you understand that there are counter arguments to all of those, right? Like, YOU have to contend with the fact that disarming me does not disarm the criminal, unless you can show that repealing the 2nd amendment will not only take guns away from criminals, but keep them unarmed. And not owning a gun can have serious consequences when you're facing a criminal. Etc. Etc.

Disarming the general citizenship will make weapons harder to get for criminals too! That should be obvious. Sure there may be some criminals with guns but they will be rare, just as in Europe where it’s rare. And it won’t happen overnight but it must begin with making guns illegal to own first.

Again, I want to get to the bottom motivating influence. Do you understand what a moral imperative is? That is what I'm seeking from you. Give me the root motivation for your point of view. Is it that government is supposed to make everyone safe? Or what? For example, I believe that I have a right to self-defense against any individual determined to attack and kill me. I'm not asking for the right to a machine gun or a fertilizer bomb or a tank. Just the right to protect myself against a bad guy with a gun coming into my house. And yes, on the slim chance that our government becomes hostile to the people, the ability to resist it with other like minded people. So, what is the equivalent motivation on your side, driving your argument? Can you explain it to me? Because so far, you haven't.

The root motivation is simple. Guns cause many unnecessary and innocent deaths. The reasons stated to have guns are all bogus - either fantasy stories about government takeovers that ignore that the army is stronger than everyone; or fantasy self-defense stories that ignore the other risks introduced by having such weapons in the general populace.

Therefore, we should get rid of guns, but take a path that doesn’t spook the crazy 20%.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[evensaul]

The bottom line, Sharm, is that your side can't convince rational adults that law abiding people should be stripped of their Constitutional right to own firearms. You've only got Left-wing loonies and some high school kids who don't know better. I was hoping you would be able to offer more than the tired "guns kill people" argument, to have a substantive debate, but you apparently are unable to do that. You'll ban guns, then knives, and even pointed sticks rather than blaming the criminals and recognizing a right to effective self-defense. I really wanted to understand the morality behind all that, but perhaps I was seeking something that doesn't exist.

[SharmaK]

Oh gee, well your arguments are really lame, weak, and dumb. Now, I have to ask. How does COMPLETELY WORTHLESS comments like the ones we just exchanged help the debate? Quick answer - they don't.

Well, I’m not just insulting you: I am pointing out general weaknesses in your argument so that I don’t have to waste time arguing one fantasy story against another. Also, you’re general lack of organization is becoming detrimental to the debate: your current response is just spam with no overarching argument and it makes it difficult to see where you’re coming from.

I have to limit my precious time and ignore most of what you’ve said and since you’ve disorganized my arguments, I have to focus on just the important points. I will cull your comments aggressively since you appear to be incapable of repeating yourself. You’re welcome.

Okay. So why should I believe your fantasy that the second amendment will never be of relevance for the rest of the history of the US?

The notion that the citizenry will never have the need or ability to defend their liberty is no less a "fantasy" than a scenario that they will have to do that in the future.

You have yet been able to point out who we’re defending our liberty against and you have yet been able to to produce a realistic scenario i.e. steps from our current day to your fantasy.

I’m not saying the 2nd Amendment is not ‘relevant’ - I am saying it is unnecessary.

Which in no way rebuts the notion that one has the right to defend one's life. Just because an incident where someone has the right to defend his life is indeed rare, it in no way rebuts the notion that one has the right to defend ones life if necessary.

It rebuts the notion that you’re allowed to risk the deaths of children and make the country in general more dangerous just so that you can dream about the fantasy situation where you would successfully be able to defend yourself out of a situation you could likely easily avoid.

I factor in the possibility that a legally owned gun might be used in a detrimental way and I'm pretty sure I've acknowledged this numerous times in my prior arguments.

So you’re OK for children to die so that you MIGHT be able to defend yourself?

So this percentage versus numbers argument really does not work. Make an argument showing the relative numbers of good incidents versus bad incidents and then you will have an argument worth considering.

Rubbish - I can give you actual statistics of the CHILDREN that are being killed. All you have been able to muster is “google it”. It’s not up to me to do your leg work and since you won’t then your point is invalid.

When summing up my argument, you need to take quotes THAT I ACTUALLY SAY. I never said "people need to defend themselves". I said "people have the right to defend themselves."

It's really a significant difference. Saying someone has the right to something is a philosophical statement and I'm forwarding the philosophical principle that a person has the self-evident (or God-givent) right to protect his life.

And I think his really might be the crux of the debate. I mean here is the general basis of our arguments as far as I can tell:

ME: People have the right to defend themselves and if there's a common and ubiquitous weapon that another might use against them, they should have access to the same weapon. Otherwise, their right to self-defense is being infringed upon.

YOU: I don't directly challenge your statement about the right to self-defense (note: I haven't seen that really challenged) but considering all of the bad that happen when people are generally allowed to have guns, we are better off if we ban the private ownership of guns and therefore should do that.

The notion that I ignore the issue of bad things happening due to gun ownership is clearly not true and I ask that you cease telling me what I'm ignoring. As far as i can tell, you have been incorrect about it every time.

And no one is removing the RIGHT! I’m just talking about removing guns as a the weapon of choice. If you’re core argument is about a RIGHT then you’re missing the point. And if guns are banned then they’re not going to be ubiquitous or common any more are they?

So I think your argument falls apart after we’ve made guns uncommon and illegal.

Lives are at risk either way. You do acknowledge that if a person can't defend himself, he's more likely to die, right?

In the tiny cases where such an occurrence would happen. Yes. So using rare cases to defend killing children.

I think one can have very reasonable doubts if banning guns will indeed decrease the number of deaths. And is it worth denying people the individual right to defend their lives (especially whether it will even help is debatable)?

Rubbish: It will decrease the number of children killing or being killed. And no one is removing an individual’s right to defend themselves; what’s being removed is the choice of weapon and it would be done to level the playing field.

If you were talking about waving a magic wand and have all guns vanish from the world, then we can discuss the ramifications of a gun-free society.

Sigh - so because it can’t be done overnight, it can’t be done? Please stop with the bad arguments that have already been debunked. I’m talking about repeal as a goal not an overnight action.

Again, you assessing my argument instead of addressing it directly leads to you attacking a straw man. I didn't say it was THE MOST common weapon but ONE OF THE MOST common weapons.

Either way, it’s still not ONE OF THE MOST common weapon either - most people still don’t have guns.

And it absolutely is. In fact, you haven't shown that there is a more common weapon. I understand that most people don't own guns but that doesn't mean that there is a more popular weapon that people buy - it would indicate that most people don't own a weapon at all. When I said i don't carry a weapon for self-defense, I mean I don't carry any weapons at all.

The most common weapon, as I pointed out, is none; i.e. relying on the laws of our country and our legal system to protect us. Further, removing guns from the mix will make it much less common - stop repeating this terrible argument - we’re discussing the FUTURE state, not the CURRENT state!

Associated risks does not make something not effective. There is an associated risk to driving a car and yet cars are clearly effective tools.

And I demonstrated a scenario where my friend EFFECTIVELY used a gun to defend his house and please note that no one even got hurt when did it.

No, you showed a scenario where your trigger happy friend over reacted to a situation.

So can we just acknowledge that sometimes a person effectively defends himself with a gun and move on?

He didn’t DEFEND himself at all since he wasn’t under a direct attack. He just got rid of a drunk, which could just as easily have been done by yelling at them.

Will you acknowledge that banning guns will remove more guns from the hands of the law-abiding than it will remove guns from the hands of the criminals?

Of course it will - don’t you already see the numbers: 300m legally owned guns!

Sharma K: "The stories may seem numerous but there are plenty of stories where it wouldn’t have helped at all: eg Vegas and the gay night club."

And I'm saying, and you have not rebutted, that it MIGHT have helped at the gay night club. If some of the patrons were armed, they MIGHT have shot the killer before he killed as many as he did. And you have not rebutted that at all.

Just pointing out that it's possible that the defenders might have shot some innocents along with the killer doesn't rebut that. If the killer killed ten innocents and the defenders kill two innocents along with the killer, that's still a total of 12 deaths instead of 50 thus saving 38 lives. That would overall be a good thing and might have happened if several patrons were armed.

And I should point out that I made this argument in my last post and you did not address it directly. Your summations of my argument seem to ignore some of my responses (and sometimes are an incorrect summation of my argument).

It does rebut the argument because your GOOD GUY WITH A GUN only works in fantasy stories in the wet dreams of gun owners. And while you fantasize about fixing a situation where it doesn’t even make sense to have a gun, children die.

Okay but I challenged you to show that the number of effective attempts of self-defense are tiny as in for those that attempt to defend themselves with a gun, only a tiny number of them succeed in defending themselves. I don't see an attempt to support that in your above argument. Maybe that's not what you were arguing.

They’re both rare situations - you’re quibbling over minor details whilst children die.

And again, you are using percentage for self defense and using numbers for accidental deaths. You will need to use a consistent method for comparing the two before you can make a coherent argument for their relative effect.

OK, are you prepared that it is acceptable that a small number of children die for the off chance that you may be able to defend yourself? That’s the sacrifice that you’re making?

So in short, you will need to forward something more solid than just using the word "tiny" or mentioning "possibilities" if you are going to argue that guns endanger the owner more than protect him.

I already have. Of the millions of interactions in the entire world, there are very few where having a gun will help. On the other hand, the additional risks of having a gun in the house are continuous and pervasive and it makes the gun a go-to solution where it may not need to be. Particularly with your friend’s over reaction to get rid of the drunk.

I don't argue that we can't disarm the population overnight. I argue that we can't disarm the entire population PERIOD (at least not by just banning guns). We can disarm some people but not all of the people.

Rubbish, just in your response above you talk about a magic wand! And I’m not talking about disarming the ENTIRE POPULATION! You’re scrabbling at the bottom of the barrel if you’re looking at a 100% success rate.

Can you show me where I said we shouldn't bother getting rid of guns because we'll never get all of them? Of course not. So yeah, that's a ridiculous argument. Take it up with the actual author - you.

Are you kidding me? Just above you’re using that exact argument!

I don’t think you have any arguments that are plausible any more. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight in the same exact thread!

If you have nothing else to add, then I can’t keep debunking the same points over and over again as you keep forgetting things. To help you along. Just pick a single point and we will discuss that but you haven’t shown you can keep multiple ideas in play so don’t try.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[mican333]

Well, I’m not just insulting you: I am pointing out general weaknesses

Well, this is kind of stuff is just a waste of time and not worth responding to. So I will skip it and move on to the actual debate.

You have yet been able to point out who we’re defending our liberty against and you have yet been able to to produce a realistic scenario i.e. steps from our current day to your fantasy.

Actually, I just have to present a possible scenario - something that could possibly happen in the future. And I did.

I’m not saying the 2nd Amendment is not ‘relevant’ - I am saying it is unnecessary.

And please support that it will never be necessary in the future.

It rebuts the notion that you’re allowed to risk the deaths of children and make the country in general more dangerous just so that you can dream about the fantasy situation where you would successfully be able to defend yourself out of a situation you could likely easily avoid.

Despite the plethora of unsupported premises smuggled into that argument, it does not rebut my argument that one has the right to defend his life.

And I'm not talking about my own personal right to anything in particular but the general human right to life which includes the right to defend one's life. And yes, allowing the person the means to defend his life does introduce things that could be used to harm others aside from self-defense and that goes for ANY weapon. If guns didn't exist and we had swords, then someone could take a sword and cut down people who are innocent, including children. IF we defended ourselves with rocks, one could bash a child's head in with a rock.

So are disagreeing that a person should be able to defend himself just because the kind of methods one might use to defend oneself could possibly be used to harm innocents and therefore people don't really have the right to defend themselves?

So you’re OK for children to die so that you MIGHT be able to defend yourself?

Since that question is based on unsupported premises, I choose to not respond. It's kind of like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"?

Rubbish - I can give you actual statistics of the CHILDREN that are being killed. All you have been able to muster is “google it”. It’s not up to me to do your leg work and since you won’t then your point is invalid.

Actually, it's your argument that more harm than good comes from legal gun ownership so it's up to you to provide the numbers to show this. If you refuse to support your argument, then your point is invalid.

So I reject any argument based on the premise that legal gun ownership causes more harm than good until data is provided showing that this is so.

And no one is removing the RIGHT! I’m just talking about removing guns as a the weapon of choice. If you’re core argument is about a RIGHT then you’re missing the point. And if guns are banned then they’re not going to be ubiquitous or common any more are they?

So I think your argument falls apart after we’ve made guns uncommon and illegal.

Except guns will still be present in our society and more likely to be in the hands of criminals than the law-abiding. So while they will be less common, there will still be plenty of them out there and likewise more likely to be in the hands of the bad guys. As I think I have the right to effectively defend myself against these bad guys, I have the right to the kinds of weapons they might use against me.

In the tiny cases where such an occurrence would happen. Yes. So using rare cases to defend killing children.

By that logic, since children die in car accidents, I can say that you are defending killing children by not advocating the outlawing of cars.

Rubbish: It will decrease the number of children killing or being killed. And no one is removing an individual’s right to defend themselves; what’s being removed is the choice of weapon and it would be done to level the playing field.

But it doesn't level the playing field - quite the opposite. If you take the guns from the good guys and leave them in the hands of the bad guys (which would be the case if you outlaw guns), the bad guys have the advantage so the playing field becomes less level, not more level.

And saying one has the right to X while denying them the means to get X is in essence denying them the right to X. It's like agreeing that someone has the right to eat while denying them food.

Sigh - so because it can’t be done overnight, it can’t be done? Please stop with the bad arguments that have already been debunked. I’m talking about repeal as a goal not an overnight action.

And please stop attacking straw man arguments. I never said that it can't be done because it can't be done overnight.

I'm saying that you have forwarded no proposals that will actually remove all guns from society. What you propose are roughly the same steps that were taken to outlaw booze and drugs and yet people still get booze and drugs.

So I'm not saying it can't be done overnight. I'm saying it can't be done PERIOD and I have supported that assertion.

So if you want to argue about the benefits of fewer guns in our society, you are speaking of something realistic (that probably would happen if we were outlaw guns). If you are talking about a gun-free society, you are basically talking about a fantasy.

Either way, it’s still not ONE OF THE MOST common weapon either - most people still don’t have guns.

I think that's because most people don't have weapons at all. But for those who do have weapons, it's pretty obvious that a gun is a very common one. About everyone I know who has a weapon for self-protection has a gun.

The most common weapon, as I pointed out, is none; i.e. relying on the laws of our country and our legal system to protect us. Further, removing guns from the mix will make it much less common - stop repeating this terrible argument - we’re discussing the FUTURE state, not the CURRENT state!

No weapon is not a weapon. And the legal system is not there to protect us but to punish those who commit crimes. There is absolutely no penalty for the police, or any official, for failing to protect someone from harm. Why? That is not their duty.

If you want to protect yourself, it is your responsibility. No one else has that responsibility in any legal sense (unless you contract body guards).

No, you showed a scenario where your trigger happy friend over reacted to a situation.

Since that statement of yours is without any merit, it will be ignored.

A man tried to break into his house and he chased the guy away. By any standard of "self-defense", he defended himself.

You have provided no credible criticism of his action that doesn't stem from opinion or guesswork on your part.

He didn’t DEFEND himself at all since he wasn’t under a direct attack.

Someone trying to force their way into your house counts as an attack.

He just got rid of a drunk, which could just as easily have been done by yelling at them.

And you know this how? Obviously, you are just guessing.

Of course it will - don’t you already see the numbers: 300m legally owned guns!

Okay. So you are fine with the law-abiding giving up their guns even though many criminals will keep theirs.

It does rebut the argument because your GOOD GUY WITH A GUN only works in fantasy stories in the wet dreams of gun owners.

Support or retract this assertion. Please show that the situation where someone actually defends themselves with a gun never actually happens in real life.

OK, are you prepared that it is acceptable that a small number of children die for the off chance that you may be able to defend yourself? That’s the sacrifice that you’re making?

Actually, I'm not arguing for my own right to self-defense but the right to self-defense for everyone (or the general right to self-defense). So when you factor in the incidents of self-defense, you have to factor in ALL OF THEM.

And THEN you compare that number to the number of people who die due to the misuse of firearms.

Your argument that people having the right to defend their lives with guns is costing more lives than it saves has not been supported and therefore the very premise of your argument is rejected along with the rest of the argument.

I already have. Of the millions of interactions in the entire world, there are very few where having a gun will help. On the other hand, the additional risks of having a gun in the house are continuous and pervasive and it makes the gun a go-to solution where it may not need to be.

And it likewise makes the gun a go-to solution when it very much is needed as well. And while the occurrences of a hostile encounter is rare, the possibility always exists and therefore the risk of needing a gun is continuous and pervasive, moreso if one lives in a dangerous area.

Particularly with your friend’s over reaction to get rid of the drunk.

Since you keep saying this I will formally challenge you on it.

SUPPORT OR RETRACT that my friend overreacted to the drunk. Again, you don't have to formally address the challenge, but you cannot repeat the claim without support.

Rubbish, just in your response above you talk about a magic wand! And I’m not talking about disarming the ENTIRE POPULATION! You’re scrabbling at the bottom of the barrel if you’re looking at a 100% success rate.

Okay. So to be clear. You concede that we never will be in a situation like Britain where almost no one has a gun. Because THAT is what I was referring to when I pointed out that we will never get rid of the guns in this society. Banning will get rid of some but there is no feasible way to get to Britain level gun ownershiip.

Are you kidding me? Just above you’re using that exact argument!

I didn't say that we shouldn't bother get rid of guns so no, I didn't say that above.

I don’t think you have any arguments that are plausible any more. You can’t even keep your own arguments straight in the same exact thread!

If you have nothing else to add, then I can’t keep debunking the same points over and over again as you keep forgetting things. To help you along. Just pick a single point and we will discuss that but you haven’t shown you can keep multiple ideas in play so don’t try.

Hey, I can't help it if you can't read my arguments correctly. Your last post where you tried to summarize my arguments features as many misinterpretations of my arguments as much as you got them right.

Again, while I say that we will never get rid of all guns, I DID NOT SAY WE SHOULD NOT TRY BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET RID OF THEM. If I'm wrong, then PLEASE show me where I said we shouldn't even try because we can't succeed.

----------------------------------------------

And mys primary point should be clear.

People have the right to defend their lives and should have access to the common weapons of their society in order to do so.

That's it. And I'm not sure I've really heard much of a rebuttal to that.

You don't seem to disagree that people have the right to defend their lives.

You didn't really challenge whether guns are a common weapon because your "more common" weapon is no weapon at all and of course that's not a weapon.

Your challenge to my argument does not seem to say that I am wrong but that the cost of allowing people to defend themselves with common weapons is too steep since guns are also misused in crimes and accidental deaths. But for that argument to hold water, you need to show that the numbers bear this out and you haven't. Your comparisons are vague to say the least with you just saying that out of all the encounters a person has, it's rare that any will require self defense. That might be true, but it in no way tells us how often people do defend themselves with guns. And of course guns don't need to be fired for self-defense - someone having a gun or even might have a gun gives one a reason to not mess with them. In fact, crime seems to drop when it's known people are carrying weapons in the area. In support:

"The number of concealed carry handgun permits has skyrocketed since President Obama was first elected, while murder rates have fallen, according to a new report released Wednesday.
Since 2007, the number of concealed handgun permits has soared from 4.6 million to over 12.8 million, and murder rates have fallen from 5.6 killings per 100,000 people to just 4.2, about a 25 percent drop, according to the report from the Crime Prevention Research Center."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...permits-soar-/

I don't consider this exhaustive support for the "more guns, less crime" viewpoint but I'm certainly not going to concede that allowing people to be armed ends up in more deaths than defense without some real statistics as opposed to this rather weak argument about instances of defense compared to all interactions.

[SharmaK]

Well, this is kind of stuff is just a waste of time and not worth responding to. So I will skip it and move on to the actual debate.

Then I’m going to help you by just answering only your first point. Let’s deal with that before moving on

Actually, I just have to present a possible scenario - something that could possibly happen in the future. And I did.

No, fantasizing about scenarios does not constitute an argument. You haven’t shown them to be plausible and you certainly not backed them up with any facts.

If that’s all you have on this in order to support keeping guns then you must retract this line of argument.

[mican333]

Then I’m going to help you by just answering only your first point. Let’s deal with that before moving on

I should say that is you would drop the condescension and rudeness, I might take your comments regarding the debate more seriously. But when it comes across as trolling on your part, I don't consider it worth responding to. So if you want to forward some kind of constructive criticism that you think might actually help out the debate, just be polite and civil in forwarding it.

Seriously, why not be kind and civil to each other? I'm actually good at being respectful to those who are respectful to me. And likewise I can sink to whatever level my opponent wants to sink to. It's really up to you what the tone of the debate is. I'd prefer a nice tone. So truce? Let's be nice?

No, fantasizing about scenarios does not constitute an argument. You haven’t shown them to be plausible and you certainly not backed them up with any facts.

If that’s all you have on this in order to support keeping guns then you must retract this line of argument.

First off, the hypothetical scenario (that's the correct term for it, not "fantasy") I presented is not my argument. It services my argument.

My argument is that you have not supported that the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant. And the hypothetical scenario is presented to show that it's possible that in the future, an armed citizenry will be effective in preserving their liberty. So the only issue regarding the scenario is whether it is possible that such a thing could happened. If it is possible that such a thing could happen, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. So is the scenario possible? I have supported that it is. I will repeat an argument that I forwarded earlier - one that was not addressed.

This is what I call a "logic chain" with each point following points that came before it.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

So I have supported that in the future, it's possible that an armed citizenry could make a difference in defending their liberty and therefore I have supported that the second amendment is not irrelevant.

If you disagree, then you must show that the hypothetical scenario is not possible. Short of that, the scenario must be considered possible and therefore it must be conceded that the 2nd amendment can still be relevant.

[SharmaK]

The bottom line, Sharm, is that your side can't convince rational adults that law abiding people should be stripped of their Constitutional right to own firearms. You've only got Left-wing loonies and some high school kids who don't know better. I was hoping you would be able to offer more than the tired "guns kill people" argument, to have a substantive debate, but you apparently are unable to do that. You'll ban guns, then knives, and even pointed sticks rather than blaming the criminals and recognizing a right to effective self-defense. I really wanted to understand the morality behind all that, but perhaps I was seeking something that doesn't exist.

Considering that you’re the one that had to admit to fantasizing, not really knowing any facts about gun ownership and having to retract your entire line of argument, I’m surprised that you’re still attempting to form an argument here.

That you don’t understand the “guns kill people” argument whilst simultaneously arguing for people to kill people just means that you have no rational argument at all.

And of course the constitution can be changed: it’s in the constitution! So on top of not being able to form a cohesive argument, you’re literally complaining about people wanting to exercise their constitutional rights!

You’re contradicting yourself at every turn so I have to say: Three strikes! You’re out!



---------- Post added at 03:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:10 AM ----------

I should say that is you would drop the condescension and rudeness, I might take your comments regarding the debate more seriously.

You should take it seriously. I’m not trolling when you’re all over the place and I try and organize your work and you scatter everything to the winds. That’s just rude. Let’s hope moving forward, one argument at a time we can make progress.

First off, the hypothetical scenario (that's the correct term for it, not "fantasy") I presented is not my argument. It services my argument.

My argument is that you have not supported that the 2nd amendment is no longer relevant. And the hypothetical scenario is presented to show that it's possible that in the future, an armed citizenry will be effective in preserving their liberty. So the only issue regarding the scenario is whether it is possible that such a thing could happened. If it is possible that such a thing could happen, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. So is the scenario possible? I have supported that it is. I will repeat an argument that I forwarded earlier - one that was not addressed.

This is what I call a "logic chain" with each point following points that came before it.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

So I have supported that in the future, it's possible that an armed citizenry could make a difference in defending their liberty and therefore I have supported that the second amendment is not irrelevant.

If you disagree, then you must show that the hypothetical scenario is not possible. Short of that, the scenario must be considered possible and therefore it must be conceded that the 2nd amendment can still be relevant.

*** IT’S STILL BAD FANTASY **
Where you go from hypothetical to fantasy is that you’re jumping straight into a scenario tailored for the conspiratorial mind without the intervening events in between and without an understanding of the institutions we have to prevent such a scenario in the first place.

You haven’t even shown how guns are going to even make a civil war any better or end more quickly; indeed, I can imagine that such a war with civilians on both sides would end up being much worse. Your scenario doesn’t even stand up to basic scrutiny.

And your scenario more likely means that the crazy 20% will be the ones that will have more weapons and more successful in “defending their liberty” whereas, the side that we want to win, wouldn’t have as many guns. All the more reason to disarm them now.

It’s not my burden to show that your scenario is impossible. It is yours to show that it is. How do we get from today to your scenario? If you cannot then you’re not showing an understanding of the world and not supporting your case.

Any fool can imagine space aliens landing on earth and America would be the only country able to fight back, because muh guns. That’s what your argument amounts to: a lazy fantasy with no substance, realism, or facts.


** BETTER HYPOTHETICALS **
But if you like hypotheticals then keep them grounded in reality:

1. It is *possible*, the 20% of crazies that own half the guns will try to take over the country. They may not succeed but those traitors might end up killing a lot of people. Therefore, we must try and disarm these lunatics before they decide to preemptively “save” the constitution.
2. It is *possible* that your civil war scenario would end up not happening if no one had guns in the first place. After guns have been outlawed, there would be no weapons available to have such a war.

Now that I have more realistic hypotheticals to support a repeal of the second amendment than your unsupported fantasies, I win this point. Right? Since you have to prove that my hypotheticals, which are based on facts, are impossible, my scenarios win.

They also win because they provide a better argument: no weapons means fewer accidental deaths (obviously) and not having the weapons around means that a civil war will be much less bloody and much less protracted. We already know from Vietnam, Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq what happens when you arm people: the wars just keep going on and meanwhile, those who want to have a normal life can’t have one. In the end, no-one really wins.

** HYPOTHETICALS ARE IRRELEVANT **
Finally, I don’t need to prove your fantasies are impossible in order to argue that the constitution shouldn’t be changed:

1. You’re resorting to fantasy to support your case. They can be summarily rejected unless you can show they are likely to occur and guns would help. You have shown neither so your fantasy is rejected.
2. Your fantasy is irrelevant to repealing the second amendment since the reasons for repeal have nothing to do with the conspiratorial ramblings of people of a 2nd I’ll. My arguments are about reducing the number of accidents, suicides and accidental deaths.

So you’re arguing a problematic and unsupported fantasy against facts and need to concede this point.

[mican333]

You should take it seriously. I’m not trolling when you’re all over the place and I try and organize your work and you scatter everything to the winds. That’s just rude. Let’s hope moving forward, one argument at a time we can make progress.

Again, when you offer such criticisms in a respectful and constructive manner is when I will respond directly to them.

So if you actually want me to take your criticisms seriously, you should know how to phrase them so I will. If you think my points could be better organized, you can say something like:

"I think the debate would move more efficiently if we categorize our arguments into their main points instead of just responding point by point. So anyway, I'm going to organize my response in a fashion where I think things will be more organized and efficient and suggest that you do likewise. Thanks."

If I got a response like that I absolutely consider it a sincere request to help improve the debate instead of an excuse to give me crap. So basically, if you are actually trying to improve the debate instead of trolling me, then just adopt a decent tone and I will take such requests seriously. Being rude and condescending is counter-productive when one is trying to correct another's behavior and likewise indicates that one's goal is not to make things better but to give the other person crap.

So to sum up, if you got something constructive to offer, just forward it in a respectful tone. If instead you are being insulting and rude, then I will assume giving me crap is the purpose of your statement and justifiably ignore it.

And I'm going to help keep things on track and hold us to debating ONLY the point that this exchange was about - whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant. All other issues will be ignored for focus' sake.

*** IT’S STILL BAD FANTASY **
Where you go from hypothetical to fantasy is that you’re jumping straight into a scenario tailored for the conspiratorial mind without the intervening events in between and without an understanding of the institutions we have to prevent such a scenario in the first place.

I disagree that my scenario is tailored for the conspiratorial mind. Tyrannical governments have existed throughout history and still exist today and there's no good reason to think that they will not exist in the future. And a conspiracy theory posits that there CURRENTLY is a conspiracy that is a threat to us. My scenario in no way leads credence to the notion that there currently is any kind of conspiracy for us to be wary of as the scenario is about the far future and therefore makes absolutely no assertions about our current situation. Nor is my scenario without historical precedent - civil wars and tyrannies are well documented throughout history and there's no reason to think that they will not happen in the future.

So I disagree that my hypothetical qualifies as fantasy or qualifies as a conspiracy theory. And more to the point, whether my scenario qualifies as fantasy or conspiracy theory is irrelevant in regard to its usefulness to my argument. My scenario has only two relevant aspects to the debate.

1. It's a scenario where the 2nd amendment is relevant in the future.
2. I have supported that this scenario is possible.

Anything else you might say about it doesn't really effect its usefulness in support that the second amendment is still relevant. Really, the only relevant criticism that you can give my scenario is that it's can't possibly happen (not possible).

It’s not my burden to show that your scenario is impossible. It is yours to show that it is. How do we get from today to your scenario? If you cannot then you’re not showing an understanding of the world and not supporting your case.

While I agree that it is my burden to show that it's possible, how I do that is up to me. I've supported that it's possible twice with an argument you have not directly responded to twice and now I will present it for a third time.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

What's above IS support that my scenario is possible. So I have supported that my scenario is possible.

If you are going to argue that my scenario is not possible, you will need to address this argument directly.

** BETTER HYPOTHETICALS **
But if you like hypotheticals then keep them grounded in reality:

Irrelevant to my argument. Saying that I could produce a better hypothetical than the one did produce in no way shows that the one that I did use isn't possible, which, for organizations sake, will be the sole point of this exchange.

** HYPOTHETICALS ARE IRRELEVANT **
Finally, I don’t need to prove your fantasies are impossible in order to argue that the constitution shouldn’t be changed

But you do need to show that my scenario is impossible if you are going to argue that the 2nd amendment is not relevant. Other reasons for rescinding the 2nd amendment are not relevant to this particular. We can move on to those other points AFTER this one is settled.

1. You’re resorting to fantasy to support your case. They can be summarily rejected unless you can show they are likely to occur and guns would help. You have shown neither so your fantasy is rejected.

No, I have to show that it's possible that it will occur. And I have done that.

2. Your fantasy is irrelevant to repealing the second amendment since the reasons for repeal have nothing to do with the conspiratorial ramblings of people of a 2nd I’ll. My arguments are about reducing the number of accidents, suicides and accidental deaths.

And you also argued that the second amendment is no longer relevant which is the ONLY issue we are discussing in this particular point. If you want to address all of the points one at at time, we can't move on to a different point until this one is settled. Other reasons to get rid of the second amendment beyond its alleged irrelevance are currently not at issue (but can be once we move on from this issue).

So again, I have supported that the 2nd amendment is relevant.

If you want to challenge that particular argument, go ahead. If you don't want to challenge it further, THEN we can move to the next point from my previous post.

So can we agree that I have supported that the second amendment is still relevant?

[SharmaK]

Again, when you offer such criticisms in a respectful and constructive manner is when I will respond directly to them.

I thought I was being respectful and constructive. I took the trouble to organize things and you just tossed it away - that took a great deal of organization because you keep repeating the same arguments. It's not disrespectful to point out some obvious flaws in how you debate - as you answer every single sentence, repeating yourself, sometimes even contradicting yourself, it shows that you're not paying attention and you're kinda on some kind of automatic disagreement mode. I'm telling you because unless you can distill your ideas down to some salient points then it becomes impossible to keep track of the different threads going on and each thread starts of some tangent and we end up resolving nothing.

I'm a software engineer by profession so I like things organized in a way that they can be dealt with and done so that I don't have to revisit them. Anyway, I think we're on a good path: you shouldn't take any of it as an insult - it's just that when you see yourself arguing the same points again then don't. I apologize if I did offend but when talking to other engineers, it's better to be direct, point out flaws in code, discuss why you shouldn't write code that way, and then move on.

And I'm going to help keep things on track and hold us to debating ONLY the point that this exchange was about - whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant. All other issues will be ignored for focus' sake.

Thank you, that is appreciated. I agree that we should discuss whether the 2nd amendment is still something that we need to have and keep everything else off limits.

I disagree that my scenario is tailored for the conspiratorial mind. Tyrannical governments have existed throughout history and still exist today and there's no good reason to think that they will not exist in the future. And a conspiracy theory posits that there CURRENTLY is a conspiracy that is a threat to us. My scenario in no way leads credence to the notion that there currently is any kind of conspiracy for us to be wary of as the scenario is about the far future and therefore makes absolutely no assertions about our current situation. Nor is my scenario without historical precedent - civil wars and tyrannies are well documented throughout history and there's no reason to think that they will not happen in the future.

We have a huge number of institutions that prevent a tyrannical government, of the Soviet sort, or a theocracy as seen in the Middle East, or a dictatorship or any other 'tyrannical' government you may have in mind. Specifically, we have the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Legal branches of government at a national, state and city levels. We have the Press and Media to warn when our liberties are being trampled on (not that we always listen). We have our financial and commercial institutions that profit more from peace (in the US, at least) than from a civil war. And we have the day to day Americans that would prefer to live their normal lives that get into some situation where they're going to have to kill their neighbors.

Granted that there are plenty of problems around the world, but I think you'll find that it's America (or at least the CIA) that is either cause of some of those disruptions or that they don't have the Institutions that we do or they really have nothing to lose. Americans have a great deal to lose if they were to vote themselves into oblivion,

That you can blithely, and without justification, cast away all the important institutions means that you're just cherry picking some scenario where you think guns might be useful, means that you're really not thinking things through: indeed your support is as pointless as the scenario itself: a canned bit logic that somehow justifies anything you say, no matter how far fetched.

It's that unjustified far fetched scenario that places your scenario into the area of conspiracy theory: just like other conspiracy theories, you focus only on a specific action you want to support your cause, whilst ignoring ALL the things that might your scenario very unlikely if not impossible.

So I disagree that my hypothetical qualifies as fantasy or qualifies as a conspiracy theory. And more to the point, whether my scenario qualifies as fantasy or conspiracy theory is irrelevant in regard to its usefulness to my argument. My scenario has only two relevant aspects to the debate.

1. It's a scenario where the 2nd amendment is relevant in the future.
2. I have supported that this scenario is possible.

Anything else you might say about it doesn't really effect its usefulness in support that the second amendment is still relevant. Really, the only relevant criticism that you can give my scenario is that it's can't possibly happen (not possible).

You haven't supported it is possible at all! Where did you do that?

While I agree that it is my burden to show that it's possible, how I do that is up to me. I've supported that it's possible twice with an argument you have not directly responded to twice and now I will present it for a third time.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

What's above IS support that my scenario is possible. So I have supported that my scenario is possible.

If you are going to argue that my scenario is not possible, you will need to address this argument directly.

What rubbish - you could use that "argument" to support everything. Even if it's 'possible' if it's unlikely to happen then it's wholly irrelevant to any debate. And if you can't support the scenario being likely then it should be considered unlikely on top of being unsupported.

Irrelevant to my argument. Saying that I could produce a better hypothetical than the one did produce in no way shows that the one that I did use isn't possible, which, for organizations sake, will be the sole point of this exchange.

Um no, I was pointing out that my scenarios were better and more likely and I gave you a trajectory from the current day with statistics. That makes my scenarios more plausible and more likely than your unsupported ones.

Certainly, it's not worth taking your scenario seriously when weighed against all the negative effects we're seeing from gun ownership today.

But you do need to show that my scenario is impossible if you are going to argue that the 2nd amendment is not relevant. Other reasons for rescinding the 2nd amendment are not relevant to this particular. We can move on to those other points AFTER this one is settled.

It's irrelevant whether your scenario is impossible or not: what's relevant is whether your scenario even makes sense.

One, the people with guns are likely going to be the ones doing most of the killing since they're likely the ones that are also better trained. That they're already in the mindset of killing, it means they are harder to control and much more likely to use their guns against the other side. Those are the people that we would need to fight against in a civil war: the conspiracy minded Walmart shopper that clears out the guns and ammo whenever Obama blinked. So this is an argument FOR rescinding 2A and as soon as possible so that when we do have a civil war, they would be mostly disarmed.

Two, the other failure in your scenario is that even if it does happen, it's unlikely going to be your scenario of a 'tyrannical' government with its army bearing down on all the citizens. There will be citizens on both sides and the outcome would be devastating for everyone involved. Your obvious lack of detail as to the causes of such a civil war makes your scenario even less likely

Three, it's also *possible* that a peace is reached before war even begins so even within your scenario, it could easily be avoided. And all these ideas make your scenario even less likely as people realize they have a great deal to lose fighting such a war.

No, I have to show that it's possible that it will occur. And I have done that.

Repeating yourself again. Stop it.

And you also argued that the second amendment is no longer relevant which is the ONLY issue we are discussing in this particular point. If you want to address all of the points one at at time, we can't move on to a different point until this one is settled. Other reasons to get rid of the second amendment beyond its alleged irrelevance are currently not at issue (but can be once we move on from this issue).

So again, I have supported that the 2nd amendment is relevant.

If you want to challenge that particular argument, go ahead. If you don't want to challenge it further, THEN we can move to the next point from my previous post.

So can we agree that I have supported that the second amendment is still relevant?

Repeating yourself again. You already said this at the very beginning of your response. There's no need to ask the same exact thing again at the end. I haven't forgotten in the 10 minutes it took me to compose my reply.

[mican333]

I thought I was being respectful and constructive. I took the trouble to organize things and you just tossed it away - that took a great deal of organization because you keep repeating the same arguments. It's not disrespectful to point out some obvious flaws in how you debate - as you answer every single sentence, repeating yourself, sometimes even contradicting yourself, it shows that you're not paying attention and you're kinda on some kind of automatic disagreement mode.

THAT'S respectful? Quite the opposite. I find THAT to be a bunch of unfair and false criticisms coming from someone who apparently can't consider that they might be misinterpreting what the other person says and I likewise could unload on you with a bunch of similar criticisms about how you are engaging in straw men arguments and avoiding the main points of my arguments. And the reason I don't do that is the same reason that I don't bother even responding to such rubbish. It's bad for the debate. Going down that road will not have any positive effect on a reasoned, logical debate on the issue at hand and has the potential to derail it entirely as we just get snottier and snottier with each other.

In fact, any comments outside of debating the actual issues is technically spam but there's nothing wrong with a comment about the debate itself or the other person but the other person has no obligation to respond to non-debate comments and I agree that it might be good manners to address such comments but then when the comments themselves are rude and disrespectful, even commenting out of good manners is no longer an issue.

I am not obligated, by debate rule or even etiquette, to respond to any of your comments about the debate if they are not presented in a respectful manner and therefore I won't.

So quite simply, if you want me to even pay much attention to your outside of the actual debate comments, don't be rude or condescending in your comments (your "you're welcome" comment was definitely condescending and rude).

Thank you, that is appreciated. I agree that we should discuss whether the 2nd amendment is still something that we need to have and keep everything else off limits.

And thank you for the classy reply (seriously, not sarcastically).

And I think to help keep things focused, let me lay out my entire argument first. It should address all of your rebuttals beforehand so my response to your actual rebuttals will be pretty brief but will reference the argument.

So the issue is whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant. And if there ever is a time in our country's future where an armed citizenry can be effective in maintaining their liberty, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. So the question is "Will there every come a time in our country's future where an armed citizenry will be effective in maintaining their liberty?" If the answer is yes, then the second amendment is still relevant. If the answer is no, then the second amendment is no longer relevant. If the answer is "maybe", then the second amendment is still relevant because it's possible that we will need an armed citizenry to protect their freedom.

And what, by all logic and known fact, is the correct answer to whether at some point in the future, an armed citizenry can be effective in maintaining their liberty? It's "maybe". We can't predict the future well enough to know for certain either way so the only logical answer is "maybe".

Which is the point of the presented scenario. I could present numerous different scenarios of an armed citizenry being necessary to maintain their freedom. I could present scenarios of foreign enemies infiltrating the homeland, civil unrest due to food shortage, civil unrest due to the effects of global warning, and so on. But I only need to show that one scenario MIGHT happen to make my point and I'm using the future civil war scenario and have supported that it's POSSIBLE that it could happen. And I supported it with the logic chain that I have presented four times (including this one).

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

That is support that the scenario is possible and therefore support that in the future an armed citizenry might be effective in maintaining their liberty and therefore support that the 2nd amendment is not irrelevant.

We have a huge number of institutions that prevent a tyrannical government, of the Soviet sort, or a theocracy as seen in the Middle East, or a dictatorship or any other 'tyrannical' government you may have in mind. Specifically, we have the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative and Legal branches of government at a national, state and city levels. We have the Press and Media to warn when our liberties are being trampled on (not that we always listen). We have our financial and commercial institutions that profit more from peace (in the US, at least) than from a civil war. And we have the day to day Americans that would prefer to live their normal lives that get into some situation where they're going to have to kill their neighbors.

And do you know for a fact that they will maintain for the next 200 years and will always be effective in preventing the kind of scenario that I presented?

if so, please support that that is the case.

Otherwise, they cannot be considered a guarantee that they could prevent the scenario from occurring.

It's that unjustified far fetched scenario that places your scenario into the area of conspiracy theory: just like other conspiracy theories, you focus only on a specific action you want to support your cause, whilst ignoring ALL the things that might your scenario very unlikely if not impossible.

I don't disagree that they MIGHT prevent the scenario from occurring. But then they MIGHT NOT prevent it. If you know they WILL ALWAYS prevent it, then please support that. Otherwise, it's possible that they won't and my scenario might occur.

What rubbish - you could use that "argument" to support everything.

It being an effective argument does not make it rubbish.

Even if it's 'possible' if it's unlikely to happen then it's wholly irrelevant to any debate. And if you can't support the scenario being likely then it should be considered unlikely on top of being unsupported.

The argument does not seek to support that it's likely but that it's possible and it does that. You have provided no rebuttal to my support about the scenario being possible. You haven't even directly stated that's impossible let alone attempted to support that it is.

Um no, I was pointing out that my scenarios were better and more likely and I gave you a trajectory from the current day with statistics. That makes my scenarios more plausible and more likely than your unsupported ones.

Which in no way rebuts the supported argument that my scenario is possible.

Certainly, it's not worth taking your scenario seriously when weighed against all the negative effects we're seeing from gun ownership today.

Which is besides the point. The ONLY argument that we are discussing is whether the second amendment is still relevant. If you want to concede that I have supported that it is but then argue that the downsides outweigh the benefits, we can move on to that topic. But first we are going to settle this first point. It was your idea to tackle my positions one at a time so no moving on until this one is settled.

It's irrelevant whether your scenario is impossible or not: what's relevant is whether your scenario even makes sense.

No, what's relevant is whether it's possible. If it's possible for an armed citizenry to maintain their liberty, then the second amendment is still relevant. I've supported that it's possible and you have not countered that.

One, the people with guns are likely going to be the ones doing most of the killing since they're likely the ones that are also better trained. That they're already in the mindset of killing, it means they are harder to control and much more likely to use their guns against the other side. Those are the people that we would need to fight against in a civil war: the conspiracy minded Walmart shopper that clears out the guns and ammo whenever Obama blinked. So this is an argument FOR rescinding 2A and as soon as possible so that when we do have a civil war, they would be mostly disarmed.

Two, the other failure in your scenario is that even if it does happen, it's unlikely going to be your scenario of a 'tyrannical' government with its army bearing down on all the citizens. There will be citizens on both sides and the outcome would be devastating for everyone involved. Your obvious lack of detail as to the causes of such a civil war makes your scenario even less likely

Three, it's also *possible* that a peace is reached before war even begins so even within your scenario, it could easily be avoided. And all these ideas make your scenario even less likely as people realize they have a great deal to lose fighting such a war.

But I'm still not seeing an argument showing that my scenario is impossible.

Repeating yourself again. Stop it.

Ridiculous comment. It was an appropriate rebuttal to your comment. If you don't want me to say that I rebutted your argument then don't claim that I did something other than that. Your complaints about such stuff is just silly. Stop it.

Repeating yourself again. You already said this at the very beginning of your response. There's no need to ask the same exact thing again at the end. I haven't forgotten in the 10 minutes it took me to compose my reply.

Complain complain complain. How about a rebuttal instead?

And btw, your complaint is incorrect. Or can you show me where I asked the same question earlier in my post?

Seriously, stop complaining. It's so counter-productive.

[SharmaK]

THAT'S respectful?
...
So quite simply, if you want me to even pay much attention to your outside of the actual debate comments, don't be rude or condescending in your comments (your "you're welcome" comment was definitely condescending and rude).

I think being direct and pointed and specific IS very respectful. I could ask you that it would be better to make a point once only in a response, or to avoid repeating oneself, but there's no 'polite' way to point out a constant pattern in your responses. It just exists and sugar coating it doesn't help anyone - especially since you appear to be in denial. Anyway, enough of the meta discussion. I'll continue to point out issues to help us move this forward a bit.

And I think to help keep things focused, let me lay out my entire argument first. It should address all of your rebuttals beforehand so my response to your actual rebuttals will be pretty brief but will reference the argument.

So the issue is whether the 2nd amendment is still relevant. And if there ever is a time in our country's future where an armed citizenry can be effective in maintaining their liberty, then the 2nd amendment is still relevant. So the question is "Will there every come a time in our country's future where an armed citizenry will be effective in maintaining their liberty?" If the answer is yes, then the second amendment is still relevant. If the answer is no, then the second amendment is no longer relevant. If the answer is "maybe", then the second amendment is still relevant because it's possible that we will need an armed citizenry to protect their freedom.

And what, by all logic and known fact, is the correct answer to whether at some point in the future, an armed citizenry can be effective in maintaining their liberty? It's "maybe". We can't predict the future well enough to know for certain either way so the only logical answer is "maybe".

Which is the point of the presented scenario. I could present numerous different scenarios of an armed citizenry being necessary to maintain their freedom. I could present scenarios of foreign enemies infiltrating the homeland, civil unrest due to food shortage, civil unrest due to the effects of global warning, and so on. But I only need to show that one scenario MIGHT happen to make my point and I'm using the future civil war scenario and have supported that it's POSSIBLE that it could happen. And I supported it with the logic chain that I have presented four times (including this one).

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

That is support that the scenario is possible and therefore support that in the future an armed citizenry might be effective in maintaining their liberty and therefore support that the 2nd amendment is not irrelevant.

Then my summary answer to the question is no. Not only are your scenarios hanging on by a bare thread they have to be dismissed as unsupported. In ANY scenario, an generally armed citizenry would make things much WORSE. It will 100% result in MORE deaths: by definition since there are more weapons. It will mean that an opposing side (in your foreign enemy scenario) they will likely bomb first and ask questions later.

You do not have a single scenario where those additional hypothetical deaths overcome actual daily deaths due to keeping the citizenry armed.

And do you know for a fact that they will maintain for the next 200 years and will always be effective in preventing the kind of scenario that I presented?

if so, please support that that is the case.

Otherwise, they cannot be considered a guarantee that they could prevent the scenario from occurring.

Well, without those institutions then there is no country to fight for or defend against. But we have a very strong economy and businesses and strong armed forces to defend it. All of your scenarios can be defeated against all incoming attacks.

None of your scenarios have any plausibility anyway, you have provided zero details and expect everyone else to do the work of debunking your fantasies. Unsupported scenarios can and should and are rejected

I don't disagree that they MIGHT prevent the scenario from occurring. But then they MIGHT NOT prevent it. If you know they WILL ALWAYS prevent it, then please support that. Otherwise, it's possible that they won't and my scenario might occur.

Well, I'm providing as much support for my scenarios as you yours. Actually more since I have a direct line from today that shows clearly that the people that are most armed are likely the ones that are the most dangerous. So at least mine is not only plausible but factually true given how those red-necks like to pronounce 'over muh dead body' when it comes to any gun legislation.

It being an effective argument does not make it rubbish.

It's a weak and lazy argument and works just as well for me. It's a bare minimum to expect that your arguments are logical so you're scraping at the bottom of the argument barrel by proclaiming a win just because your outlandish arguments can't 100% be proven impossible! I have presented some good scenarios that are far for more likely than yours as well as pointing out obvious flaws in your poorly supported scenarios. Just because they're logical, it doesn't make them worthy arguments. So yes, your appeal to basic logic is laughably ineffective.

The argument does not seek to support that it's likely but that it's possible and it does that. You have provided no rebuttal to my support about the scenario being possible. You haven't even directly stated that's impossible let alone attempted to support that it is.

Ignored: you have already stated that you are hanging on the the bare thread that your scenario is possible.

Which in no way rebuts the supported argument that my scenario is possible.

Ignored: you have already stated that you are hanging on the the bare thread that your scenario is possible.

Which is besides the point. The ONLY argument that we are discussing is whether the second amendment is still relevant. If you want to concede that I have supported that it is but then argue that the downsides outweigh the benefits, we can move on to that topic. But first we are going to settle this first point. It was your idea to tackle my positions one at a time so no moving on until this one is settled.

No, today's world and all the deaths are about whether the second amendment is relevant or not. You cannot separate the side effects of actual deaths vs your hypothetical scenarios that cause even more deaths. Your position is that you are fine with children killing each other so that your unsupported fantasy might end up better for some people (the crazies that own all the guns) whilst ignoring the additional deaths caused by an armed citizenry.

No, what's relevant is whether it's possible. If it's possible for an armed citizenry to maintain their liberty, then the second amendment is still relevant. I've supported that it's possible and you have not countered that.

Not if it is at the cost of other deaths now and causing more deaths in your future unsupported fantasies.

But I'm still not seeing an argument showing that my scenario is impossible.

Ignored: you have already stated that you are hanging on the the bare thread that your scenario is possible.

Ridiculous comment. It was an appropriate rebuttal to your comment. If you don't want me to say that I rebutted your argument then don't claim that I did something other than that. Your complaints about such stuff is just silly. Stop it.

Complain complain complain. How about a rebuttal instead?

And btw, your complaint is incorrect. Or can you show me where I asked the same question earlier in my post?

Seriously, stop complaining. It's so counter-productive.

You can collect together similar arguments into a single response. I did this my repeating my phrase "Ignored: you have already stated that you are hanging on the the bare thread that your scenario is possible." several times. You don't have to phrase the same argument in different ways: it doesn't make your original argument more effective.

[mican333]

I think being direct and pointed and specific IS very respectful. I could ask you that it would be better to make a point once only in a response, or to avoid repeating oneself, but there's no 'polite' way to point out a constant pattern in your responses.

And guess what? You can make helpful suggestions without pointing out the "constant patterns". You can do the polite stuff and not do the impolite stuff. When you do both, the baby and the bathwater go out the window.

And there's no requirement that you state your OPINIONS on the way I debate either. I can be critical of the patterns of your debate (for example, in my OPINION you are failing to stay focused on what is being debate right now and keep introducing irrelevant arguments) and yet I keep them to myself because I know that forwarding them does not help the debate. One reason is that I entertain the notion that I'm not always right and therefore it's possible that my criticisms may be flawed and unfair, just like I think many of your criticisms are. Does it help anyone to forward flawed criticisms? Does it occur to you that you aren't perfect and therefore YOUR criticisms might be flawed? Shall we get into a completely off-topic argument over the validity of your criticisms? Are you finally getting what a mistake it is to offer them in the first place since they in no way help the debate?

And from what I can tell, this whole part of the discussion has been a complete waste of time and annoying to boot. In hindsight, I probably should not have responded at all. So I'm done with this portion of the discussion. I don't intend to respond further to this portion of the debate and hope that you keep your criticisms to yourself.

-------------------------------

And from reading your responses, I don't see a rebuttal to the point I'm actually making. For example, I'll take your first rebuttal.

Not only are your scenarios hanging on by a bare thread they have to be dismissed as unsupported. In ANY scenario, an generally armed citizenry would make things much WORSE. It will 100% result in MORE deaths: by definition since there are more weapons. It will mean that an opposing side (in your foreign enemy scenario) they will likely bomb first and ask questions later.

My argument is that my scenario is possible and so on and so forth. This argument does not state, let alone support, that my scenario is not possible. "Hanging by a bare thread" is not the same as impossible and likewise seems pretty subjective (as in it's your opinion that it's hanging by a bare thread - I myself have made no argument about how likely my scenario is to occur beyond it being possible).

None of your other arguments support that my scenario is impossible so "That does not show that my scenario is impossible" is my response to all of them. Therefore I will refrain from repeating it over and over again (just like you want) and not respond directly to the rest of your points. If there is one that you feel does show that my scenario is impossible, feel free to forward it again.

------------------------------------------------

So now I'm going to get really focused on my argument and just take it step by step and not move to the next step until the first step is resolved.

So STEP 1 - my scenario is possible.

Support for that.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

That IS logical support that my scenario is possible. Every point is either factually correct or logically flows from a prior point. Unless you can defeat that support or show in some other way that my scenario is not possible, it is supported and therefore must be accepted in this debate that my scenario is possible. Any argument from you that does not address whether my scenario is possible is off-topic. So "unlikely" is not relevant nor is "hanging by a bare thread". Any other ramification of my scenario coming to pass is irrelevant. Right now there is one and only one issue - if my scenario is possible.

So either concede that it's possible or mount an argument that ONLY shows that it's not possible.

Any arguments you forward that don't support that my scenario is impossible will be responded to with "That does not show that my scenario is impossible". So you should anticipate such a response and not make any arguments where that response can be used because that's just what's going to happen.

Again, the ONLY issue right now is if my scenario is possible. Possible or impossible - those are the only two options right now. Anything else is off-topic.

[SharmaK]

And from reading your responses, I don't see a rebuttal to the point I'm actually making. For example, I'll take your first rebuttal.




My argument is that my scenario is possible and so on and so forth. This argument does not state, let alone support, that my scenario is not possible. "Hanging by a bare thread" is not the same as impossible and likewise seems pretty subjective (as in it's your opinion that it's hanging by a bare thread - I myself have made no argument about how likely my scenario is to occur beyond it being possible).

None of your other arguments support that my scenario is impossible so "That does not show that my scenario is impossible" is my response to all of them. Therefore I will refrain from repeating it over and over again (just like you want) and not respond directly to the rest of your points. If there is one that you feel does show that my scenario is impossible, feel free to forward it again.

------------------------------------------------

So now I'm going to get really focused on my argument and just take it step by step and not move to the next step until the first step is resolved.

So STEP 1 - my scenario is possible.

Support for that.

1. TRUISM - Unless something is shown to be impossible, it must be considered possible.
2. No one has shown that my "future civil war" hypothetical scenario is impossible.
3. Therefore, per point 1, my scenario must be considered possible.

That IS logical support that my scenario is possible. Every point is either factually correct or logically flows from a prior point. Unless you can defeat that support or show in some other way that my scenario is not possible, it is supported and therefore must be accepted in this debate that my scenario is possible. Any argument from you that does not address whether my scenario is possible is off-topic. So "unlikely" is not relevant nor is "hanging by a bare thread". Any other ramification of my scenario coming to pass is irrelevant. Right now there is one and only one issue - if my scenario is possible.

So either concede that it's possible or mount an argument that ONLY shows that it's not possible.

Any arguments you forward that don't support that my scenario is impossible will be responded to with "That does not show that my scenario is impossible". So you should anticipate such a response and not make any arguments where that response can be used because that's just what's going to happen.

Again, the ONLY issue right now is if my scenario is possible. Possible or impossible - those are the only two options right now. Anything else is off-topic.

You don’t have a scenario though. It’s a stretch to say you have said anything that moves your argument forward.

Just saying “muh civil war” is insufficient to examine or argue against. So you’ll have to provide more detail before we can say it is possible or impossible.

You also haven’t indicated how your scenario even relates to 2A so I don’t even understand why you brought it up Andoni the first place

You’re going to have to do a bit more work here. Just saying civil wars are possible isn’t even an argument and the lack of detail doesn’t really merit a rebuttal.