Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What gun debate?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

000ike,.... what is the purpose of assault style wepons in the hands of American Citizens?

Indeed, what is the whole purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:24:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
This lady get it!
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer, and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,...since you're such an expert.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:33:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but it was well acknowledged that the only way to win on Aff was to scare the judge by talking about how these weapons are "weapons of war" and lie to them about the stats.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:33:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer, and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,...since you're such an expert.

1. I don't know of any gun that can shoot more than one bullet at a time. Except maybe a shotgun or a double barrel shotgun. Your comment tells me that you don't know very much about the guns you are after.

2. The onus is not on a free people to justify their freedoms. the onus is on those who think they have justification for taking freedoms away. Our right to keep and bear arms doesn't come from our 'government.' It's a right that we have IN SPITE OF our government.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:37:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya, give me the definition of an assault rifle, according to the us military an assault rifle is one with select fire modes, which are already illegal.
People who don't know what they are talking call for a ban on 'assault rifles' without knowing what that is.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:43:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.

One bullet at a time doesn't refer to literally one bullet at a time. A rapid succession of single bullets would be included in what I'm referring to. Guns that can fire several bullets in a very short amount of time. Also magazines with over 30 rounds should be outlawed.

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.

I asked YOU to produce the statistics. And so far you've presented nothing. Go ahead thett, show us your extensive research. Where's the statistics, just to broaden it, against these aforementioned minor regulations?

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.

You want to talk about condescension? If I even begun to describe the way you speak on an ordinary basis.... lol If you want a flamewar comparing each other's character, I'm game. Otherwise, put that BS to rest.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:47:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:43:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.

One bullet at a time doesn't refer to literally one bullet at a time. A rapid succession of single bullets would be included in what I'm referring to. Guns that can fire several bullets in a very short amount of time. Also magazines with over 30 rounds should be outlawed.

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.

I asked YOU to produce the statistics. And so far you've presented nothing. Go ahead thett, show us your extensive research. Where's the statistics, just to broaden it, against these aforementioned minor regulations?

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.

You want to talk about condescension? If I even begun to describe the way you speak on an ordinary basis.... lol If you want a flamewar comparing each other's character, I'm game. Otherwise, put that BS to rest.

Again, the onus is on you. We already have our rights and we intend to keep them. If you think you can talk me out of my right to keep and bear arms with some statistics (too funny) then YOU provide them.

What reason would I (or any other gun rights proponent) have to play along with that kind of pap?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:51:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:43:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.

One bullet at a time doesn't refer to literally one bullet at a time. A rapid succession of single bullets would be included in what I'm referring to. Guns that can fire several bullets in a very short amount of time.

You'll have to define such weapons in more specific terms. If you're talking about semi automatic weapons, you would have a revolution within 24 hours the moment you tried to ban them. So you'll have to define your terms more before Ican just argue against any gun that can give a "rapid succession of bullets" (incredibly subjective...)

Also magazines with over 30 rounds should be outlawed.

The vast stockpiles of these already in existence keeps such a ban from being effective, especially since a magazine is just a metal box with a spring that is trivially easy to make, and the effectiveness decreases as the capacity enllarges. Indeed, one of the reasons the guystopped at aurora was because his magezine jammed.

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.

I asked YOU to produce the statistics. And so far you've presented nothing. Go ahead thett, show us your extensive research. Where's the statistics, just to broaden it, against these aforementioned minor regulations?

I'm going to visit my girlfriend, I'll respond when I return

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.

You want to talk about condescension? If I even begun to describe the way you speak on an ordinary basis....

Please do lol

lol If you want a flamewar comparing each other's character, I'm game. Otherwise, put that BS to rest.

I didnt do anything to you 0.0
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 8:58:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



damn impressive
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:24:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Polls and statistics are irrelevant when discussing something like the Constitution.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:37:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok ike, here are some of the cards you wanted:

"There are more than 200 million Ž rearms in private hands in the United
States"more than the number of adults (Cook and Ludwig, 1996). Almost twothirds of homicides in the United States involve a Ž rearm, a fraction far greater
than other industrialized countries. Combining those two facts, one might conjecture that easy access to guns in the U.S. may be part of the explanation for our
unusually high homicide rates. Indeed, the most careful study on the subject Žnds
that higher rates of handgun ownership, which represent about one-third of all
Ž rearms, may be a causal factor in violent crime rates (Duggan, 2001).
There is, however, little or no evidence that changes in gun control laws in the
Steven D. Levitt 1731990s can account for falling crime. For example, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 instituted stricter requirements for background checks before a gun is sold. However, Ludwig and Cook (2000) report no difference in homicide trends after the passage of the Brady Act in states affected by the law and states that already had policies in place that were at least as stringent as those in theBrady Act. Given the realities of an active black market in guns (Cook, Molliconi and Cole, 1995), the apparent ineffectiveness of gun control laws should not come as a great surprise to economists. Even in the late 1980s, prior to the Brady Act, only about one-Ž fifth of prisoners reported obtaining their guns through licensed gun dealers (Wright and Rossi, 1994)."

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu...

This report also explains what *did* cause the decline in crime (turns out I was wrong about the economy, oh well).

National Academy of sciences(http://books.nap.edu...) to quote wikipedia: " A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence""

John Lott: "Yes, the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are "military-style weapons." But the key word is "style" " they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns.

The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage. The M&P 15 is similar, though it fires a much smaller bullet " .223 inches in diameter, as opposed to the .30-inch rounds used by the AK-47.

Advertisement

The Aurora killer"s large-capacity ammunition magazines are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called "assault weapons" can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is also trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining." http://www.nationalreview.com...#

CATO Institute (http://www.cato.org...):

"The emphasis here is on the cosmetic - any rational discussion of the issue ought to note that an "assault weapon" is any object you use to assault someone with - and banning the presence of a bayonet lug on the barrel of a rifle is senseless. Knives, tire irons, and bricks can all serve as "assault weapons." This is an instance where quotation marks are not just appropriate, they are required.

Much of the public support for the law was based on a warping of the issue by gun control proponents to make the public believe that these firearms are machine guns. The fully automatic weapons that gun controllers use to push this agenda have been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934 and not produced for civilian sale since 1986. Don"t take my word for it - here"s Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center: "The weapons" menacing looks, coupled with the public"s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons-anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.""

Thats just scratching the surface. Your turn...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Cobo
Posts: 556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:42:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer, and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,...since you're such an expert.

I have not heard of a drop in crime during this and the DoJ did a study saying the ban really didn't affect crime since assault weapons(The ones they banned) are rarely used in gun crimes. In fact the majority of claims I have heard about this ban say that it drove murder rates up and established the current illegal gun market.
Church of the BANHAMMER GODS priest
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:42:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Will ike respond?

Will he finally admit how wrong he is?

Or will he just not respond and pretend this thread never happened?

Find out......ummmm......when any of the above happens or lackthereof.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:57:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



well that guy is a pro at it, but if you gave any idiot in florida the same task it would take them way longer to do the same thing....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 9:59:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 9:57:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



well that guy is a pro at it, but if you gave any idiot in florida the same task it would take them way longer to do the same thing....

Still, even to a dimwit, the whole concept of "click button, slide clip in" isn't that hard. Takes a max time of 2 seconds.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya can do as much damage with two handguns as you could with an ar 15.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:26:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Only extremists see it as a party issue. Anyone, whether pro or anti control, that has such an opinion not due to party lines but for reasonable opinions, is not an extremist in my mind.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:38:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:32:04 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:26:05 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:19:00 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:15:08 PM, 000ike wrote:
The argument never was 2nd Amendment vs liberals.
The argument never was gun ownership vs gun banishment.
The argument never was "conservative opinion" vs "liberal opinion".

The reason why this issue is even contested is because those on the far right periphery of the mainstream have established this dichotomy. The vast majority of Americans support some modest gun control: some 65% I think it was, support banishment of assault rifles, and 94% support increased background checks. So I'm at a loss for what here is so controversial. I think that people are confused. They think that the liberal argument is antithetically symmetrical to the conservative argument. The liberal argument is not liberal at all. It is a moderate compromise with open respect to the 2nd amendment.

To say you support gun control, is not to side with the liberals. It's to side with the commonsense middle road that characterizes democratic compromise. It is not to take a stance against conservatives. It's to take a stance against the wingnuts that care not for their own safety, but rather the safety of their hobbies. This is not like abortion or gay marriage or any other cliche and heavily dichotomized issue. This one has a clear right and clear wrong, and an artificial symmetry between the 2 arguing parties.

Would you care to actually debate the banning of "assault weapons"? I, and many others (including most debaters I know who actually had to research the effects of such a ban when it was in place for our september topic) dont think its that simple, or a "common sense" "clear right and wrong" issue. In fact, Ive never even seen a coherent definition of an "assault weapon" applied to actual fireams lol.

I don't debate anymore. How about this. How about you go procure the statistics that suggest that any gun that can fire over 1 bullet at a time makes people safer,

See, now you're showing your lack of research, no offense. Every so called "assault rifle" used in these mass shootings is a semi-automatic. AKA fires one bullet at a time. i really dont understand what you're trying to argue at all tbh. But semi automatic weapons obviously make people safer, ike. Have you ever even shot a gun? Unless you're some kind of prodigy, you wont hit the target every time.


See video.
=

and then how about you also find the statistics that somehow defy the national drop in crime following the assault weapons ban in the early 90s,

The drop was very small and correlated with drops in all kinds of violent crime with other weapons, and moreover there is literally not a single academic study indicating that the assault weapons ban had an effect. The drop in crime can better be explained by a the combo of a booming economy, "tough on crime" laws or anything else really. Violent crime peaked in the early 90's and declined steeply since.


Ike, look at peer review literature. Thett, there was a huge drop in crime.

Lott 2003 (not peer reviewed) - ban increased crime (artificially held it up)
Lott 2010 - ban increased crime (only study done after the ban expired)
CDC 2003 - insufficient evidence to have a conclusion
NRC 2004 - insufficient evidence. Because these guns are rarely used in crime, maximum impact must be small.
NIJ & DOJ 2004 - effect must have been small either way; no firm conclusions. Insufficient evidence.

Lotts work is the only study that accounted for other variables, and the second study was peer review. It can be read in his book, both are in his books the Bias Against Guns or More Guns Less crime. He also looked at more types of crime types and other effects (the bans reduce gun shows 20%, decreasing all gun types, possibly increasing crime).

As thett said, research.

...since you're such an expert.

What is your beef with people disagreeing with you? Your condescending tone is so unwarranted...especially since I actually *have* done the research and debated this topic.

One does not need to be an expert to read a study.
CDC study if you are interested: http://www.cdc.gov...

Or, if you are really are open minded:
http://www.amazon.com...
http://www.amazon.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:40:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 9:57:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



well that guy is a pro at it, but if you gave any idiot in florida the same task it would take them way longer to do the same thing....

Video games have already trained much of our youth on the advantages of being quick and efficient when it comes to reloading.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:44:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

Over estimate.

1. These bans are not ever followed - only a small percentage of people give up weapons. They usually hide them (whether or not that is smart is another issue). Third world countries have been giving AK's to Europe for years.
2. It's not hard to reload fast...
3. Substitution effect (See Kleck 1991, 1997).
4. Criminals that use other methods (countries with guns have fewer gun terrorist attacks) would lead to less effective but secret methods to become obsolete in favor of illegal firearm confrontations.
5. High cap magazines jam - they might save lives! Three easily reloadable reliable 8 round magazines > one 30 round magezine that jams after the third shot.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:48:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 9:57:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



well that guy is a pro at it, but if you gave any idiot in florida the same task it would take them way longer to do the same thing....

Actually if its a semi auto pistol let it drop to the ground and click a clip in. Its really easy - not like the guy but its a fast process. And with no bullets legal to shoot back with, I would still be screwed. And studies show these bans are ineffective. Also see:
http://www.ammoland.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:51:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/8/2013 10:40:07 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 9:57:10 PM, imabench wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:55:42 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
At 1/8/2013 8:53:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Limiting magazine size will save very few lives, how many gun deaths a year are exacerbated by large capacity magazines? It cant be more than 2 or 3%

It wouldn't save any lives at all.



well that guy is a pro at it, but if you gave any idiot in florida the same task it would take them way longer to do the same thing....

Video games have already trained much of our youth on the advantages of being quick and efficient when it comes to reloading.

Hitting square isnt the same.

It's a fast process, if you don't mind dropping mags on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2013 10:54:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
That video 16k posted is great and nothing about whats said has changed in the 30 or however many years since it was made. Like how semi auto hasn't changed for a century.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler