An interesting firearm debate

[Koshinn]

This was done between two British citizens (students) who visited America in recognition for debate skills or whatever.

It's interesting seeing the debate from both sides from the perspective of those that went through a gun ban.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-XcluRi5YE

The main argument against gun control is that in the real world and specifically in America, gun bans/buybacks will not work and will cause a backlash that will make the country overall far more dangerous. He does concede that countries that have gone through a ban/buyback (UK and Australia) are more safe than America. And that if magically all guns disappeared, there would be less deaths. But this is reality. He also brings up the point that you make illegal the intersection of your rights infringing on others - in the case of firearms, you make murder illegal. But you don't make guns illegal, in the same way that you don't make certain religions illegal even though its members may be more likely to commit a crime. "I don't know why someone should have to sacrifice himself to the altar of 'social utility' because a bureaucrat in Washington thinks it is useful. It is dangerous, it is unfair." - When talking about removing the ability for a family to defend itself with a gun, even though statistically most people handle stress poorly and have little-to-no firearm training.

"The law of a tyrannical government is no law at all, and that is something ingrained very deeply within the political theory of this country. That's why you have a constitution. That's why the 2nd Amend is there in the first place - to stop a tyrannical government. ... The Constitution is more important than any Federal policy that exists the short term, this is something that which exists as the absolute basis and foundation of the very meaning of what it means to be American. The very moment at which you try to take my guns away you become a tyrannical state. Tyrannical states don't have any legitimacy because they act outside of the Constitution." https://youtu.be/6-XcluRi5YE?t=29m35s

The pro gun control arguments are as you'd expect. She mentions the argument of a few people armed with rifles against the biggest military in the world. I find that interesting since one of my friends who is extremely liberal, like far far left liberal, actually agrees that an armed citizenry with rifles can take on a modern military, referencing Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.


Around 32 minutes in, it changes to a Q&A format for 10 minutes with the audience. The first question is, essentially, "why do you think the right to guns trumps the right to be alive? A man who is dead has no rights." Instead of answering in the standard way, bringing up "give me liberty or give me death" or some other example, he essentially answers, "you have mischaracterized the argument. This is not about a right to bear arms vs a right to life, this is about a right to life vs a right to life. The right to bear arms allows a person to defend his own life when he needs to."


In the end, the pro-gun debater noted "I'm probably to the left of you in this matter. Regardless if you're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in the middle, I'm still probably to the left of you on gun control. But Chelsea (the anti-gun debater) is even further to the left." That was obvious. But he made several very good points.

[PatrioticDisorder]

He does concede that countries that have gone through a ban/buyback (UK and Australia) are more safe than America. And that if magically all guns disappeared, there would be less death.

That's an idiotic concession to make, because it is not true. Correlation does not equal causation, that is true in this country as well where as gun ownership has increased, violent crime has decreased. In fact when you look at various countries around the world you will notice there is not really a pattern as to gun ownership & violent crime. For instance, Russia has just recently made it's gun control laws under Putin lax, but ever since the early 1990s Russia has had a significantly higher murder rate than the USA, the vast majority of these murders were not via guns. The reality is CULUTURE is the biggest factor in violent crime. The reason we even have the murder rate we do (which isn't horrible by world standards, believe it or not) is because of our inner cities. If you took out the violent sub-culture we have in inner cities or murder rates would be absolutely minuscule, particularly in relation to our rate of gun ownership (which is significantly higher where murders are not occurring).

[Koshinn]

That's an idiotic concession to make, because it is not true. Correlation does not equal causation, that is true in this country as well where as gun ownership has increased, violent crime has decreased. In fact when you look at various countries around the world you will notice there is not really a pattern as to gun ownership & violent crime. For instance, Russia has just recently made it's gun control laws under Putin lax, but ever since the early 1990s Russia has had a significantly higher murder rate than the USA, the vast majority of these murders were not via guns. The reality is CULUTURE is the biggest factor in violent crime. The reason we even have the murder rate we do (which isn't horrible by world standards, believe it or not) is because of our inner cities. If you took out the violent sub-culture we have in inner cities or murder rates would be absolutely minuscule, particularly in relation to our rate of gun ownership (which is significantly higher where murders are not occurring).

He specifically mentioned the UK and Australia. They're far closer culturally to America than Russia is.

Also, do you have a source that shows the vast majority of murders in Russia are not committed via guns? Last I checked, they didn't break down their murders by weapon.

[PatrioticDisorder]

He specifically mentioned the UK and Australia. They're far closer culturally to America than Russia is.

Also, do you have a source that shows the vast majority of murders in Russia are not committed via guns? Last I checked, they didn't break down their murders by weapon.

I don't know of any good sources on murders via firearms in Russia, but I can tell you it is negligible, vodka has a significantly higher impact on their murder rate. I also beg to differ that comparing Australia to the US for the sake of murder rate is a joke, their black population is around 2% and there is no thug life subculture there. The vast majority of murders in the US are gang related, a direct result of s toxic subculture. Those numbers are available, but I'm a bit busy at the moment to cite them for you.

[Koshinn]

I don't know of any good sources on murders via firearms in Russia, but I can tell you it is negligible, vodka has a significantly higher impact on their murder rate. I also beg to differ that comparing Australia to the US for the sake of murder rate is a joke, their black population is around 2% and there is no thug life subculture there. The vast majority of murders in the US are gang related, a direct result of s toxic subculture. Those numbers are available, but I'm a bit busy at the moment to cite them for you.

I thought so too (NRA, Fox News, etc), but someone challenged me to find numbers and what I found was roughly 2,000 gang related homicides a year in the US. Compared to 14,000 murders annually.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/Survey-Analysis/Measuring-the-Extent-of-Gang-Problems

And even if you were to assume that every single murder committed by a black person was gang related, that still wouldn't be a "vast majority" of murders in the US, although it would be slightly more than half.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

By raw numbers in 2011, there were more white on white murders than black on black murders.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6
Same thing in 2014.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_6_murder_race_and_sex_of_vicitm_by_race_and_sex_of_offender_2014.xls

I don't know how latino crime factors in to this except that it wasn't as big as non-latino crime.

[docsherm]

You are correct but look at those numbers when you think about the fact that Blacks only make up 13% of the population. When you look at that you will see a different picture.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

I know it is not the best source but I am on my phone.... ;)

[Koshinn]

You are correct but look at those numbers when you think about the fact that Blacks only make up 13% of the population. When you look at that you will see a different picture.

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

I know it is not the best source but I am on my phone.... ;)

Oh yeah for sure, they definitely disproportionately commit (or at least, are arrested for) crimes. And that's a problem that can use fixing. But it's not truthful to say they commit the vast majority of murders. Majority, yes.

[PatrioticDisorder]

And even if you were to assume that every single murder committed by a black person was gang related, that still wouldn't be a "vast majority" of murders in the US, although it would be slightly more than half.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3

We're all familiar with the saying "Lies, damned lies and statistics", well there is a good reason for that.

Let's use the FBI data you have listed here, 14,548 murders, 4,729 listed as whites (man pu Latinos included here), 5,486 for blacks and 4,077 unknown (meaning murderer was not caught). What percentage of the 4,077 murderers that weren't caught to you suppose were black? When whites people kill it is usually a crime of passion, easily traceable. The vast majority of blacks committing murder are doing so over gang related activity (mainly drugs), many of these go unsolved.

So 13% of the population (and it's actually a far smaller number than 13% sub-culture I mentioned) are committing 5,486 known murders and likely the BULK of the 4,077 unsolved murders. Latinos commit murder at a slightly higher rate than non-Latino whites due to a percentage of Latinos being involved in the gang related sub-culture as well (yes some non-Latino whites are involved as well, but it is a tiny number not even worth mentioning).

The first link I didn't quote, discussed how so few murders are gang related. I'm not sure where you are from, but where I'm from I grew up with at least 3 murderers and 5 murder victims (at least that I can think of). Wth the exception of 1, the murder victims all sold narcotics (I'm sure that is a coincidence) and the 3 murderers I can tell you for a fact were drug related, 1 was with a guy I grew up playing football with executing another thug who didn't have his drug money on a street corner all caught on a city camera.

The one guy who i mentioned wasn't murdered over drugs, whom I also played football with (at least as far as I know, was a decent guy when I knew him) was allegedly murdered over loud music by a guy who did sell drugs (he was shot, in NYS, gun control capital of the world) after he confronted the shitbag who lived next door to his girlfriend to turn his music down.

To attempt to put a hard number on gang related murders is almost as voodoo as "climate science", we're not dealing with all the facts and the data is questionable at best. Anyone who grew up in a place like I grew up can tell you to say a small minority of murders are gang related doesn't pass the smell test.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/capitalpunishment/a/Putting-Gun-Death-Statistics-In-Perspective.htm

The linked article kinda puts it into context.

[PatrioticDisorder]

And I forgot to mention 2 of the murder victims murders went unsolved, both were inner city young black males. Who do you suppose committed those murders?

[Koshinn]

I'm not looking to get into a debate about black on black gang related crime to be honest. Truth be told, I more or less agree with you, but you're not really putting forward numbers to make an objective argument. Without an objective set of data, it's just two sides shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!!"

The linked article also makes a few assumptions that may or may not be correct, but haven't been discussed. It says that half, more or less, of murders in big cities are gang related. Accepting that as fact, and assuming less than half of murders in small cities, suburbs, and rural areas are not gang related, we still need to know what percentage of murders across the country happen in big cities vs all other areas. It probably has a lot to do with where you draw the line at what constitutes a "big city."



Anyway, back on topic of the video which I assume no one has watched yet.........

[MountainRaven]

He specifically mentioned the UK and Australia. They're far closer culturally to America than Russia is.

Also, do you have a source that shows the vast majority of murders in Russia are not committed via guns? Last I checked, they didn't break down their murders by weapon.

To be fair, Oz and the UK were already safer countries than the US before their gun bans and buy-back programs.

South Africa, which is also very Anglo, on the other hand, was much more dangerous than the US before their gun registry and confiscation (although you can still possess and carry arms for defense in South Africa).

[PatrioticDisorder]

To be fair, Oz and the UK were already safer countries than the US before their gun bans and buy-back programs.

South Africa, which is also very Anglo, on the other hand, was much more dangerous than the US before their gun registry and confiscation (although you can still possess and carry arms for defense in South Africa).

Oh yes, the wonderful utopia of South Africa.

http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/

[MountainRaven]

Oh yes, the wonderful utopia of South Africa.

http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/

Sorry, I should have said that South Africa is still much more dangerous than the US. I thought that I had implied it - the point of my post being that these sorts of gun control programs don't do anything - but apparently not.

[PatrioticDisorder]

Sorry, I should have said that South Africa is still much more dangerous than the US. I thought that I had implied it - the point of my post being that these sorts of gun control programs don't do anything - but apparently not.

I see, I thought you were implying it was more dangerous than the US before the gun control but became safer.

[MountainRaven]

I see, I thought you were implying it was more dangerous than the US before the gun control but became safer.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Joburg is still the murder capital of the world. And I have a cousin who went to school in South Africa for a year and she was constantly getting things knicked by the local criminal class. (Her time in Amsterdam was much, much safer, but she was treated worse by the locals on account of her Korean ancestry.)

[ScottsBad]

This was done between two British citizens (students) who visited America in recognition for debate skills or whatever.

It's interesting seeing the debate from both sides from the perspective of those that went through a gun ban.

The main argument against gun control is that in the real world and specifically in America, gun bans/buybacks will not work and will cause a backlash that will make the country overall far more dangerous. He does concede that countries that have gone through a ban/buyback (UK and Australia) are more safe than America. And that if magically all guns disappeared, there would be less deaths. But this is reality. He also brings up the point that you make illegal the intersection of your rights infringing on others - in the case of firearms, you make murder illegal. But you don't make guns illegal, in the same way that you don't make certain religions illegal even though its members may be more likely to commit a crime "I don't know why someone should have to sacrifice himself to the altar of 'social utility' because a bureaucrat in Washington thinks it is useful. It is dangerous, it is unfair." - When talking about removing the ability for a family to defend itself with a gun, even though statistically most people handle stress poorly and have little-to-no firearm training.

"The law of a tyrannical government is no law at all, and that is something ingrained very deeply within the political theory of this country. That's why you have a constitution. That's why the 2nd Amend is there in the first place - to stop a tyrannical government. ... The Constitution is more important than any Federal policy that exists the short term, this is something that which exists as the absolute basis and foundation of the very meaning of what it means to be American. The very moment at which you try to take my guns away you become a tyrannical state. Tyrannical states don't have any legitimacy because they act outside of the Constitution." https://youtu.be/6-XcluRi5YE?t=29m35s

The pro gun control arguments are as you'd expect. She mentions the argument of a few people armed with rifles against the biggest military in the world. I find that interesting since one of my friends who is extremely liberal, like far far left liberal, actually agrees that an armed citizenry with rifles can take on a modern military, referencing Northern Ireland, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq.


Around 32 minutes in, it changes to a Q&A format for 10 minutes with the audience. The first question is, essentially, "why do you think the right to guns trumps the right to be alive? A man who is dead has no rights." Instead of answering in the standard way, bringing up "give me liberty or give me death" or some other example, he essentially answers, "you have mischaracterized the argument. This is not about a right to bear arms vs a right to life, this is about a right to life vs a right to life. The right to bear arms allows a person to defend his own life when he needs to."


In the end, the pro-gun debater noted "I'm probably to the left of you in this matter. Regardless if you're liberal, conservative, or somewhere in the middle, I'm still probably to the left of you on gun control. But Chelsea (the anti-gun debater) is even further to the left." That was obvious. But he made several very good points.

From above: That's why the 2nd Amend is there in the first place - to stop a tyrannical government. ... The Constitution is more important than any Federal policy that exists the short term, this is something that which exists as the absolute basis and foundation of the very meaning of what it means to be American. The very moment at which you try to take my guns away you become a tyrannical state. Tyrannical states don't have any legitimacy because they act outside of the Constitution."

If you look at history; As a percentage of the population more people have been killed/murdered in countries that ban guns than countries that don't. All you have to do is look at the USSR during Stalin, China during Mao, Europe during Hitler. This is by far the most compelling argument after the right to self defense.

He does concede that countries that have gone through a ban/buyback (UK and Australia) are more safe than America. And that if magically all guns disappeared, there would be less deaths.

This is a fallacious argument as pointed out previously. It is also not strongly supported by the facts. If you look at the declines in violent crime and murder over the years they are similar to what we've seen in the US which would point to other factors or a combination of factors influencing the declines in Australia for instance.


I'm not looking to get into a debate about black on black gang related crime to be honest. Truth be told, I more or less agree with you, but you're not really putting forward numbers to make an objective argument. Without an objective set of data, it's just two sides shouting "I'm right and you're wrong!!"

The linked article also makes a few assumptions that may or may not be correct, but haven't been discussed. It says that half, more or less, of murders in big cities are gang related. Accepting that as fact, and assuming less than half of murders in small cities, suburbs, and rural areas are not gang related, we still need to know what percentage of murders across the country happen in big cities vs all other areas. It probably has a lot to do with where you draw the line at what constitutes a "big city."......

Cultural differences, making direct comparisons between countries is nearly impossible and irrelevant to the larger question of the purpose for the 2nd Amendment and the Bill of Rights which says that our rights come to us from God not the State and that among those rights is the right to own firearms for self defense including self defense from a tyrannical Government. A lack of guns in the hands of citizens has never, over the course of history, led to fewer deaths.

[Koshinn]

There's an argument to be made that the Bill of Rights isn't about rights from God.

It is literally constitutional to remove the right to bear arms from the Constitution.

[Averageman]

There is about a .0008% chance that if you are leading a productive life and doing the right thing you will get shot.
If you hang out in Ghetto's, join a street gang, sell dope, plan on committing a crime, or decide to commit suicide the odds of getting shot or shooting yourself go up dramatically. We don't have a gun problem in the United States we have a stupid decision problem.
Super Sizing your Fast Food is more likely to kill you.

[Waylander]

Good grief that was hard to sit through.


The young lady has a BA in history and the is an active member of the Oxford Union Debating Society. The young man completed an LLM in human rights from the University of Edinburg and recieved First Class Honours from the University of Sheffield in Politics and Philosophy. He has worked extensively as a debate coach and judge since 2013 and won the European debate championship in 2014.


I have to assume debate at those organizations by college graduates is largely emotional and not fact based.

Just some of the flaws alone in their logic (mostly all of the young lady's logic was terrible.) Literally almost everything she said is full of emotion, illogical and a total crock.


Koshinn, you characterize the young man as being on the pro-gun side of the argument.

Young man:
"Chesse might be right. You're not safe with a gun in the home. She's probably right on that. She's also right that most people aren't particularly effective at defending themselves."

So most Americans are untrained and would shoot someone else rather than the criminal? The majority of people have no training whatsoever?

His basic argument is most people will not want to give up their guns is a good reason to no try to take them away.
Basically it will be a bloodbath and there should be a better way to start restricting gun rights (and eventually they all be gone.)

He presents no arguments that any guns in the hands of civilians have prevented crime.

He states America is quite a dangerous place. They both spoke of basically being in fear for their lives being here.

Other than Mexico we are the most dangerous place in the world. Wait, what?

The NRA, Bill O'Reiley, Sean Hannity, Fox News in general are the enemy. Glenn Beck, Glenn Beck, Glenn Beck...Clive Bundy, Clive Bundy, etc.

The guy does make a couple of good points but it's like the only reason he says guns can't be taken away is the mainstream interpretation of the Constitution. Basically, we've always had this right and we're not going to give it up. His belief is if guns were outlawed, a majority of people would acquire them illegally such as during Prohibition or as people do drugs.

I get the impression the guy is just taking the oposing side because he has to. Best case, he's a left of center liberal so believes we should give up some rights to make us safer. Conceding "middle ground" is why we are in the state we are now. These aren't really much different points than we discuss on the forum.


You can find numerous crime stat graphs just like these.


This chart shows no relationship at all between civilian gun ownership (which can also be used as a proxy for relaxed gun laws) and murder rates. The U.S. is a true outlier in just how much we love guns (we have 270 million of them—a nice defensive cache) but this set of data points tells us nothing about the impact of gun ownership on homicide, if there is any. It looks almost completely random.


http://www.neontommy.com/sites/default/files/users/user717/gc0.png



http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/firearmhomicide2.jpg

[SeriousStudent]

Britain has subjects, not citizens.

I would politely offer that is a key distinction. Over 240 years ago, we told the King of England to bugger off.

I am not terribly interested in a subject's views on why we should have gun control here.

I am a citizen, and a gun owner.

[HKGuns]

To further the very valid point of "Student," even with the creation of their Parliament, the power and rights are not with the people, they are with the laws created by Parliament.

Much of our law is based on the very British experience of our founding fathers and we owe a lot to that experience. The very key differentiation being personal rights and freedoms vs. those granted to you by some governing authority. In the case of Brittan, the crown and then Parliament.

Concerning the restoration of the right of "protestant subjects" to keep Arms for common defense:
"The qualification concerning what the law allowed was intended to prevent the king from ever again disarming subjects, because Parliament determined what was allowed by law." -Professor Leonard W. Levy

Brittan has been all over the map on this one since 1671, primarily due to Parliament and despotic Kings who favored one religion over another. We took quite enough from their common laws and should never look to them as examples to follow, nor should we value their opinion on our Constitution or its personal freedoms.

It isn't about safety or health, it is about personal rights and freedom. This is very widely recognized by the overwhelming majority of Constitutional scholars.

Freedom isn't safe, nor is it free. -HKGuns 1993 :)

[Big A]

Britain has subjects, not citizens.

I would politely offer that is a key distinction. Over 240 years ago, we told the King of England to bugger off.

I am not terribly interested in a subject's views on why we should have gun control here.

I am a citizen, and a gun owner.
SS said what I wanted to in a much more tactful way than I could ever manage.

I don't give a flyin fornication what a bunch of limeys think about our rights and freedoms or about the problems our society has to overcome.

What other nations do for or against their people is their business. They have no business telling us about ourselves and our rights as our Constitution and Bill of Rights are literally foreign concepts to them.

[SeriousStudent]

Please don't misunderstand. I have a large number of British friends, and value them highly. They have been a staunch ally and loyal friend to the US for many years.

But someone who already has in their mind that they are a subject, and bound to amble down a path like the good draft animal they are...well, they will stay on that nice, safe, contented road of servitude.

Myself, and more importantly, my family; we will take that dangerous, risky, perilous rocky trail. The one of responsibility for self, and for one's family. I have the primary duty to protect myself, my children and granddaughter. Others assist with that, and do so bravely and well. I can never repay the debt I owe to our military and first responders.

But in the words of a dear friend and sensei, "When the bad people smash into your house at 3 am, congratulations. You are now the first responder."

The gentle and protected souls will never understand that. And worst of all, they think we should be

Just. Like. Them.

[Benito]

Britain has subjects, not citizens.

I would politely offer that is a key distinction. Over 240 years ago, we told the King of England to bugger off.

I am not terribly interesting in a subject's views on why we should have gun control here.

I am a citizen, and a gun owner.

THIS.

The lady at the start is the reason why I own guns. She is a megalomaniacal tyrant in the making.

Right off the bat she starts declaring what is and isn't a "legitimate" reason for owning guns (see the 3:00 mark where she leaves out defense of self, and defense against tyranny). She also claims that individuals are unstable and untrustworthy, but somehow neglects that government is comprised of individuals.
Personal protection of life and liberty is the most (but definitely not the only) justifiable reason for owning a gun.

She dismisses the possibility of government tyranny. Anyone with any clue of not just history, but current affairs knows this to be rubbish.

She dismisses the effectiveness of an armed populace against modern militaries. Well, countless guerrillas, insurgents, terrorists and freedom fighters around the world seem to have not gotten her memo.

The "fallible human brain". She should look in the mirror.

"Massacres"? Yes, you mean like Rwanda, the Holocaust, the Soviet Union, Communist China and Christians in the Middle East? All of these were individuals murdered by their governments.

Yep. Owning guns is exactly like owning slaves. Jesus Christ. How is this girl in university??
Owning guns does not make one in favor of massacres. Complete idiocy. When things go sideways, people call for people with guns to show up and sort things out.

"Most people are really bad at defending themselves". People can and do defend themselves against criminals - millions of times a year. Police officers are not God-like elites. Most civilians can attain and exceed the level of proficiency of the average police officer. This idea that people must be disarmed because they aren't "James Bond" is frankly disgusting.

So many classic fallacies and outright falsehoods. Correlation does not mean causation. Also, American jurisdictions with lots of gun control are precisely the ones with high murder rates.
The wild assumption that people who break and enter are not violent and "only" after your television is dangerous and wrong. If someone breaks into a home in the middle of the night, I really don't care if they are there "only" for my television, because they could very well be there to rape, torture and murder my family and I. This female mini-tyrant has ZERO right to make assumptions for other people and tell them what they can and can't do to protect themselves.

Show me some statistics about this "epidemic" of people dying by firearms accidents. Show me. If you want o ban things based on accidental deaths, you will have to go ban alcohol, cars, and swimming pools.

**** her.

The guy debating on the pro-gun side is a beta putz. He conceded to countless things that are totally untrue. What a twat.
Blaming the NRA is a complete red herring, not to mention that the NRA is generally correct. Trying to score points with the anti-gun zealots by shitting on the NRA is pathetic.
White militias? Again, red herring. White militias aren't running around raping and murdering anyone. Gangs (mostly black and latino) are the main culprits here. But pointing any blame at non-whites is unthinkable for hipster beta twats.

Otherwise, his heart is in the right place. He has come a loooong way compared to most people from the indoctrinated wasteland that he comes from.

[SteyrAUG]

I grow wearisome of any firearms debate.

It's like debated if a person should have fifth amendment protections or debating if certain groups of US citizens should be allowed to vote. There should be no debate, and the suggestion that there is really anything to talk about is offensive in principle.

It's no different than suggesting an honest and reasonable debate about reinstituting slavery or denying women the right to vote. And quite honestly it precedes both of those things.

If there is a person or persons who should be prevented from owning a firearm "of any kind" then that person probably shouldn't be walking around loose because they don't become safer simply because they don't have a gun.

You don't take away guns, you take away criminals.

So I'll be willing to have the "firearm debate" just as soon as we have the "some women are too stupid to vote and should have to qualify for their right to do so" debate.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I don't know how latino crime factors in to this except that it wasn't as big as non-latino crime.

Hispanic is not a race, it's an ethnicity.

The government calculates Hispanic/Latino numbers with white.

[Moose-Knuckle]

South Africa, which is also very Anglo, on the other hand, was much more dangerous than the US before their gun registry and confiscation (although you can still possess and carry arms for defense in South Africa).

Um yeah I know several families, all Jewish who are "white" South Africans who literally fled in the night to escape being murdered at the hands of blacks. These families now all live in the US.

Once white rule ended, South Africa became the rape capital of planet Earth and had (still might) the highest number of HIV infections.

[Moose-Knuckle]

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Joburg is still the murder capital of the world.

Rank Municipality Country


San Pedro Sula, Honduras
Caracas, Venezuela
Acapulco, Mexico
João Pessoa, Brazil



The South African cities that made the list; Cape Town #14, Nelson Mandela Bay #35, Durban is #38.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate

[Koshinn]

This thread reminds me of the NPR article on why America doesn't read anymore:
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt-america-read-anymore

[djegators]

"You don't take away guns, you take away criminals"

And overall our govt is rather unwilling to do this. A very very small percentage of the population commits the vast majority of violent crime, just as a very very small percentage of firearms will ever be used in violent crimes. The fact that the govt focuses on almost anything but what the real problem is proves that is that their intent.

[Waylander]

.....

[Waylander]

I don't intend to offend you but I think the reason you aren't getting the responses you had imagined is because people listen to the first few minutes of the debate and get tired of hearing the same drivel they hear every day from most Democrats and the White House. In fact it's worse because the arrogant young lady believes wholeheartedly in the laws the U.K. has passed. She yammers on about how great the UK laws are and how criminals across the pond are so nice, let alone her Utopian visions of an all powerful police state who would crush the few of us who supposedly wouldn't comply.

Even the "pro-gun" liberal has very few solid points other than we've got our guns and would fight to keep them. Like I'm sure many uneducated believe, they believe there are very few gun laws in the U.S., that so many guns come from legal loopholes and think the main reason for widespread ownership of guns is fear. They are both college graduates, with advanced degrees no less, who could stand to educate themselves with facts before they enter into a debate of this magnitude.

I think some are taking the advice of the rest of us who have sat through the entire hour and have decided it isn't really interesting enough to watch.

[Benito]

I grow wearisome of any firearms debate.

It's like debated if a person should have fifth amendment protections or debating if certain groups of US citizens should be allowed to vote. There should be no debate, and the suggestion that there is really anything to talk about is offensive in principle.

It's no different than suggesting an honest and reasonable debate about reinstituting slavery or denying women the right to vote. And quite honestly it precedes both of those things.

If there is a person or persons who should be prevented from owning a firearm "of any kind" then that person probably shouldn't be walking around loose because they don't become safer simply because they don't have a gun.

You don't take away guns, you take away criminals.

So I'll be willing to have the "firearm debate" just as soon as we have the "some women are too stupid to vote and should have to qualify for their right to do so" debate.

Well said. The premise of anti-gunners is usually beyond the realm of reason. It's in the realm of religion/mysticism/superstition or simply axiomatic dogma, and virtually always self-contradictory.

e.g. People shouldn't have guns because guns are dangerous and people can't be trusted.


I don't intend to offend you but I think the reason you aren't getting the responses you had imagined is because people listen to the first few minutes of the debate and get tired of hearing the same drivel they hear every day from most Democrats and the White House. In fact it's worse because the arrogant young lady believes wholeheartedly in the laws the U.K. has passed. She yammers on about how great the UK laws are and how criminals across the pond are so nice, let alone her Utopian visions of an all powerful police state who would crush the few of us who supposedly wouldn't comply.

Even the "pro-gun" liberal has very few solid points other than we've got our guns and would fight to keep them. Like I'm sure many uneducated believe, they believe there are very few gun laws in the U.S., that so many guns come from legal loopholes and think the main reason for widespread ownership of guns is fear. They are both college graduates, with advanced degrees no less, who could stand to educate themselves with facts before they enter into a debate of this magnitude.

I think some are taking the advice of the rest of us who have sat through the entire hour and have decided it isn't really interesting enough to watch.

Yeah, I listened to the audio in the background while I did other work, but it was a pretty terrible debate.
The anti-gun was the usual drivel.
The "pro"-gun, if you can even call it that, was pathetic. It boiled down to him saying that taking people's guns would be impractical and dangerous, as there are hundreds of millions of gun owners, and they would kill a lot of police if confiscation took place.
No mention of whether confiscation was morally justified, but just a practicality/feasibility issue.
The Brits have been severely neutered, both arms-wise and mentally.

[blade_68]

Some details on murder rates of many countries that "are so good" have been down played from the actual numbers. Many of the country's have stopped updating there crime reports to the UN/ Interpol as long as 10 plus years ago. They didn't want to damage there tourism industry. It is trying to come out now. In 1989, I seen a homicide in Amsterdam, Holland the victim was shot in the head in his car minutes before we went passed. It was not even reported on the news while I was there. Holland has no civilian gun ownership as far as I know. Knives even had to be registered back then.
I could not listen to the drivel passed 3 minutes. So I don't care to listen to someone that has no knowledge of the real world and reality.
I know that even in my former profession and current profession I'm more likely to die in vehicle crash than from a gunshot.
I know that I'm not really adding to the debate comment, but I'm tired of hearing the lies of the danger of a firearm. The select fire M-4 (Gov. issue) next to me right now hasn't jumped up and started shooting.

[Waylander]

Well said. The premise of anti-gunners is usually beyond the realm of reason. It's in the realm of religion/mysticism/superstition or simply axiomatic dogma, and virtually always self-contradictory.

e.g. People shouldn't have guns because guns are dangerous and people can't be trusted.



Yeah, I listened to the audio in the background while I did other work, but it was a pretty terrible debate.
The anti-gun was the usual drivel.
The "pro"-gun, if you can even call it that, was pathetic. It boiled down to him saying that taking people's guns would be impractical and dangerous, as there are hundreds of millions of gun owners, and they would kill a lot of police if confiscation took place.
No mention of whether confiscation was morally justified, but just a practicality/feasibility issue.
The Brits have been severely neutered, both arms-wise and mentally.

Agreed. His point of view is that criminals having guns is the only reason we should be allowed to have guns to defend ourselves. From the sound of the first post, I was hoping he would give some perspective on any negative effects of gun control in the U.K. but I think he honestly believes it has worked. Have any U.K. subjects not been able to defend themselves because their single shot or double barrel they need permission just to hunt with was locked up unloaded? That's what I want to hear.

Since liberals say "if just one more life can be saved with gun control..." we should keep countering that with "if just one more life can be saved with less gun control..."
Logic fails these buffoons however.

[Averageman]

The Progressives adjust the statistics to fit their needs, suicide's count as much as an intruder being killed inside your home as your exchange gunfire.
Taking that in to consideration when debating a Progressive ask if you can provide a demonstration, beat the SOB with a pool cue three or four times then stop and remind him that he could stop this if he had a handgun, then reapply the pool cue until you get them to agree that sometimes a gun might be really handy.
I don't find that any more morally objectionable (though likely illegal even if they have agreed to the demonstration) than the continued piling on of lies and false statistics and party line willingness to disarm me.
Everyone learns in different ways you just need to adapt to the Student.

[SteyrAUG]

Agreed. His point of view is that criminals having guns is the only reason we should be allowed to have guns to defend ourselves. From the sound of the first post, I was hoping he would give some perspective on any negative effects of gun control in the U.K. but I think he honestly believes it has worked. Have any U.K. subjects not been able to defend themselves because their single shot or double barrel they need permission just to hunt with was locked up unloaded? That's what I want to hear.

Since liberals say "if just one more life can be saved with gun control..." we should keep countering that with "if just one more life can be saved with less gun control..."
Logic fails these buffoons however.

Actually, almost without exception, every day guns save far more innocent lives than anything else.

And any politician who wants to get rid of guns should immediately start with theirs and any owned by their personal security. Quite honestly the secret service under Obama is probably more of a general threat to the public than most NRA members.

[Moose-Knuckle]

And any politician who wants to get rid of guns should immediately start with theirs and any owned by their personal security. Quite honestly the secret service under Obama is probably more of a general threat to the public than most NRA members.

Well besides soliciting prostitutes in Columbia they have shot and killed at least one unarmed American since Barry was in office, I can't think of any NRA member shooting anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(2013)

[SteyrAUG]

Well besides soliciting prostitutes in Columbia they have shot and killed at least one unarmed American since Barry was in office, I can't think of any NRA member shooting anyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Capitol_shooting_incident_(2013)

To be fair she blew through a secured checkpoint and hit an officer with her car. Sounds like a good shoot to me.

Hookers in another country, pretty much don't care except for the fact they tried to expense it to the taxpayers and everyone involved should have lost their job on that basis alone.

Then there were the DUI agents, to paraphrase Dean Wormer "armed, drunk and stupid" is no way to drive around town.

[Moose-Knuckle]

To be fair she blew through a secured checkpoint and hit an officer with her car. Sounds like a good shoot to me.

Hookers in another country, pretty much don't care except for the fact they tried to expense it to the taxpayers and everyone involved should have lost their job on that basis alone.

No I know, just saying that I cannot think of an NRA member who has shot anyone. The woman in DC is a weird case, no history of mental illness, good finances, good paying jog, and whamo decides to drive through a secure gate with her baby in the car, WTF over?

I want to know who that baby's biological father is, maybe someone who lived behind one of those gates lol?