Instigator / Pro
Points: 2

Social Democratic states in Europe (Socialist gun grabbers) are not anti gun

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
oromagi
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
Points: 14
Description
https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/best-countries-gun-owners/249644 Western European nations do not prohibit gun ownership and have healthy gun cultures and common sense laws
Round 1
Published:
Many nations in Europe have healthy gun culture s the American idea that Europeans are disarmed salves is nonsense due to the ignorant nature of Americans https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/austria  https://www.toptenz.net/10-countries-easiest-guns.php
Published:
thx, billbatard, for instigating this debate.

RESOLVED: SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC STATES in EUROPE ARE PRO-GUN

OBJECTION #1:  PRO's resolution is sloppy, ill-defined and contains a double-negative.  CON has taken the liberty to re-write PRO's resolution for improved clarity.

DEFINITONS:

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY [not to be confused with democratic socialism] is "a political, social and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist oriented mixed economy. The protocols and norms used to accomplish this involve a commitment to representative and participatory democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and social welfare provisions." [1]

CON has assembled a list of European states with active Social Democratic Parties.  In future rounds, CON will expect documentation showing that all of these nations are appreciably PRO GUN.

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Czech Republic
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Gibraltar
  • Greece
  • Hungary
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Liechtenstein
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Moldova
  • Montenegro
  • Netherlands
  • Northern Cyprus
  • North Macedonia
  • Norway
  • Poland
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • San Marino
  • Slovakia
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Switzerland
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom  [2]
PRO-GUN [adjective] is "of, pertaining to, or supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns." [3]

BURDEN of PROOF

Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.  This is also stated in Hitchens's razor.". [4]

In this case, PRO as instigator and claimant bears the entire responsibility of proof.

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that (at least) the 37 nations listed are particularly and notably supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns.  If CON can show that some of these countries are not particularly pro-gun, then PRO's resolution fails.

PRO's CASE:

P1:  US is ignorant of European gun regulation [I guess?]
C1:  Therefore, Social Democratic States in Europe are pro-gun.

Non-sequitur.  The degree of American information regarding European attitudes towards guns is not relevant to demonstrating gun attitudes in European Social Democratic States.

PRO's single argument has strayed far off topic.  PRO has offered no relevant evidence.

CON's CASE

Let's call the dividing line between a recognized right to own a gun nations with "shall issue" vs nations with "may issue" law.  That is, when the government is the final arbiter regarding whether an individual may own a gun, then no individual right should be inferred and that state generally considered not pro-gun as defined.


  • Bosnia and Herzegovina
  • Denmark
  • Germany
  • Greece
  • Iceland
  • Ireland
  • Netherlands
  • Northern Cyprus
  • Romania
  • Slovenia
  • Spain
  • Sweden
  • Turkey
  • Ukraine
  • United Kingdom [5]
Since we can say that some Social Democratic States in Europe have been shown to lack an individual right to own a gun, PRO's resolution has been demonstrated as false.  Not all Social Democratic States in Europe are pro-gun.

PRO's contention has been disproved.  CON looks forward to PRO's R2 reply.

Round 2
Published:
where did i say all states in Europe respect gun "rights' My claim was the opposite that NOT all European states were anti gun 
but even the uk which has the strictest laws allow people to own guns  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT3cPwV4uTk
my point which is totally valid which you have misrepresented in a straw man argument that i stated all European states are pro gun, when all i said was Social Democratic states aka the nordic states are NOT ANTI GUN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1_S7e-lryE

Published:
thx, billbatard

RESOLVED: SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC STATES in EUROPE ARE PRO-GUN

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that (at least) the 37 nations listed are particularly and notably supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns.  If CON can show that some of these countries are not particularly pro-gun, then PRO's resolution fails.

Let's recall that CON offered PRO the entire Burden of Proof, to which PRO has offered no objection.

Let's recall that CON objected to PRO's unparsable thesis and rewrote the resolution for clarity.

Let's recall that CON offered "shall issue" states vs. "may issue" states as a rational separation between European states enjoying individual gun ownership rights and states without individual gun ownership rights.

PRO ASKS:

where did i say all states in Europe respect gun "rights'
Neither PRO nor CON represented in R1 that all European states respect gun rights.  However, PRO is about to intimate as much in his next sentence.

My claim was the opposite that NOT all European states were anti gun but even the uk which has the strictest laws allow people to own guns  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT3cPwV4uTk
PRO insistence on double negatives prevent PRO's thesis from any commitment.  However, if it is true as PRO says that the even the strictest gun laws in Europe allow for private gun ownership then the answer to  PRO's question "where did i say all states in Europe respect gun "rights' is "right here."

my point which is totally valid
OBJECTION #1 (R1) invalidated PRO's point and rewrote it for clarity.  PRO might take another stab at stating thesis but PRO's original resolution is manifestly NOT valid.

which you have misrepresented in a straw man argument that i stated all European states are pro gun,
Neither you nor I ever said that you said that.

when all i said was Social Democratic states aka the nordic states are NOT ANTI GUN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1_S7e-lryE
OBJECTION #2:  PRO failed to define Social Democratic European States so CON was obligated to provide terms.  CON provided a list of all the states in Europe which support a social democratic party, reasoning that these are states which reflect the principles of social democracy to some degree.

OBJECTION #3: PRO returns to double negatives without apology.  In syntactic analysis as in mathematical parsimony, two negatives make a positive.  When PRO claims that states are not anti-gun PRO is saying states are pro-gun with less clarity of intention.

OBJECTION #4:  Rather than apologizing for the failure to define terms or objecting to CON's attempts to clarify PRO's intent, PRO slips in a new definition for Social Democratic states in the second half of the debate.

OBJECTION #5:  PRO now equates Social Democratic states to Nordic States without justification.  The set of NORDIC STATES includes:

  • Finland
  • Iceland
  • Norway,
  • Sweden,
  • Denmark, as well as Greenland
All of which retain support for Social Democratic Parties but hardly comprehends the Social Democratic political movement in Europe (as CON demonstrated in R1).

CON's CASE:

Even if VOTERS accept all of PRO's objections as valid (or indeed, coherent), CON has offered that the test of pro-gun vs anti-gun is the dividing line between "shall issue" vs. "may issue" states (reasoning that if the govt. makes the final decision regarding who may own a gun then no individual right to gun ownership must exist).  Since at least three Nordic states (which also qualify as Social Democratic states using CON's rational definition or PRO's half-assed definition) do not qualify as pro-gun, PRO's resolution fails (in spite of ambiguity).

  • Denmark permits some gun ownership but govt. officials decide who may own what guns. 
    • Danes may not:
      • own a gun for personal protection
      • carry a gun in public
      • own a gun without registering w/ Govt.
    • Using CON's test, Denmark is not a PRO-GUN state.
  • "In Iceland, a license is required to own or possess firearms. A national government safety course must be passed before applying for a license. A special license is required to own a handgun, which may only be used for target shooting at a licensed range. Semi-automatic firearms have caliber restrictions, while fully automatic firearms are only permitted for collectors.  Applicants must sit through a mandatory four-hour lecture on the "history and physics of the firearm".  Paperwork must be filed in the police, magistrate, and the Environment Agency of Iceland. Applicants need to prove clean criminal records, need to be evaluated by a doctor to prove they "are of sound mind" and have "good enough eyesight". Two books referring to guns must be bought and read, a three-day course must be attended, and the applicant should score at least 75% on exams concerning gun safety, management, "what animals are allowed to be hunted and when". Finally, a practical exam must be taken. After Icelanders have their license, they need to own a gun safe to store the weapons in, plus a separate place to store the ammunition."
    • Using CON's test, Iceland is not a PRO-GUN state.
  • [In Sweden], the police issue licenses to persons older than 18 years in good standing on the "need to have" basis, which generally implies either hunting or sport shooting. Passing a hunting examination or membership in an approved sport shooting club for six months is required. Licenses for semi-automatic handguns are issued for five years and can be renewed, rifle and single-shot handgun licenses are valid for the owner's lifetime. License-holders may lend a weapon to a person at least 15 years of age for supervised use.   A separate license is required for each particular firearm, caliber conversion kit or suppressor. There's no codified limit on the number of licenses a person can hold, but in practice a license-holder may own up to six hunting rifles, ten handguns, or a mix of eight rifles and handguns. Firearms must be stored in an approved safe. A firearm registered for hunting may be used for sport shooting, but not vice versa. Licenses obtained for hunting are implicitly limited to bolt-action or, more rarely, semi-automatic rifles that are "applicable for hunting", with no strict definition of the latter in the laws, which causes controversy.  Self-defense with firearms, as well as carry, is generally prohibited.
    • Using CON's test, Sweden is not a PRO-GUN state.
Furthermore:

  • Norway is not really a "shall issue" state since the Govt decides who is "sober and responsible" and therefore eligible for gun ownership.
  • Finland does not recognize self-defense as a valid reason to own or carry a gun but restrictions are sufficiently lax to qualify as PRO-GUN.
CON does not withdraw the onus on PRO to defend all listed "may issue" Social Democratic European states as PRO-GUN but CON notes that even using PRO's absurd, late definition of Social Democratic states, only Finland genuinely qualifies as PRO-GUN.

PRO's resolution remains entirely disproved.

CON looks forward to PRO's R3 reply.



Round 3
Published:
another straw man argument , so i win
what i said . Nordic states Social democratic states are often  NOT anti gun
what you claimed i said 'nordic states are pro gun 
thats not what i said

but actually yes they are pro gun in a real way here is proof, you get all bent when i copy and paste so go to the link https://www.toptenz.net/10-countries-easiest-guns.php 3 of the top 10 gun friendly nations are in the nordic region Finland Sweden and Norway ... in Sweden one in three people own guns

Published:
thx, billbatard

RESOLVED: SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC STATES in EUROPE ARE PRO-GUN

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that (at least) the 37 nations listed are particularly and notably supportive of the individual right to own and carry guns.  If CON can show that some of these countries are not particularly pro-gun, then PRO's resolution fails.


Let's recall that CON offered PRO the entire Burden of Proof, to which PRO has offered no objection.

Let's recall that CON objected to PRO's unparsable thesis and rewrote the resolution for clarity.

Let's recall that CON offered "shall issue" states vs. "may issue" states as a rational separation between European states enjoying individual gun ownership rights and states without individual gun ownership rights.


PRO CLAIMS:

another straw man argument , so i win what i said. Nordic states Social democratic states are often  NOT anti gun
OBJECTION #6:  PRO fails to read his own prior arguments. 

  • VOTERS should carefully note the way PRO shifts the subject of this debate after R2 and starts crying out "straw man."
    • In the title, PRO claims:
Social Democratic states in Europe are not anti gun
    • In the debate description PRO wrote:
Western European nations do not prohibit gun ownership
    • In R1-
Many nations in Europe have healthy gun culture s the American idea that Europeans are disarmed salves is nonsense
    • In R2, PRO shifts the subject:
all i said was Social Democratic states aka the nordic states are NOT ANTI GUN
    • In R3-
Nordic states Social democratic states are often  NOT anti gun
  • PRO may be suggesting that "Social Democratic States in Europe" is synonymous with "Nordic States" but as PRO's R1 showed, there are many Social Democratic governments and political parties beyond the set of Nordic states and any such implication baseless.
  • Likewise PRO's adjective phrase shifts from "not anti gun" to "often not anti-gun" in R3.
  • Considering PRO lack of clarity and unwillingness to engage CON's attempts to clarify, CON has little cause for complaint in the final round.
what you claimed i said 'nordic states are pro gun 
False.  CON objected to PRO's resolution as lacking clarity and rewrote the resolution for improved clarity (SEE => OBJECTION #1).  CON did not misrepresent PRO's claim,  CON called PRO for shit grammar and offered correction to PRO's inept double negative.

  • "Not anti-gun" means "pro-gun" by any ordinary understanding of the  English language. Two negatives make a positive.  If PRO was trying to make some subtle distinction between "not anti-gun" and "pro-gun" then PRO never bothered to explain or define the term.
  • VOTERS should decide whether PRO's poor grammar rendered PRO's argument incoherent.
OBJECTION #7:

  • Immediately after PRO cries "another straw man" PRO endorses the argument refuted in the prior sentence:
what you claimed i said 'nordic states are pro gun 
thats not what i said
but actually yes they are pro gun in a real way
  • CON can't tell if PRO's persistent self-contradiction is intentional or tactical but CON advises VOTERS to note the difficulty of refuting a claim that won't stand still.
OBJECTION #8:

  • PRO failed to engage any of CON's core argument.
    • CON defined Social Democracy.
      • PRO had no response.
    • CON offered a rational list of Social Democratic European States.
      • PRO complained that CON was listing all of Europe without offering a counter list or explanation of PRO's intent.
    • CON argued PRO's exclusive BoP
      • PRO had no response
    • CON argued PRO's R1 argument was non-sequitur
      • PRO dropped his only argument
    • CON offered a rational test for separating PRO-GUN states from ANTI-GUN states
      • PRO ignored CON's argument
    • CON showed which Social Democratic European States fail the suggested test.
      • PRO ignored the successful refutation of resolution entirely.
    • CON complained about PRO's use of double-negatives as confounding.
      • PRO persisted using the double-negative without apology or clarification.
    • CON argued that even accepting PRO's slyly modified list of Social Democratic, all but one Nordic State fails CON's test
      • PRO continued to ignore CON's test.
CON's CASE:

When the government is the final arbiter regarding whether an individual may own a gun, then no individual right should be inferred and that state generally considered anti-gun [or not PRO-GUN as defined]. Using this standard, 15 European countries that might be characterized as Social Democratic states (or, 4 out of 5 Nordic states if we use PRO's secondary  subject set) are anti-gun, disproving whichever of PRO's claims may seem worth considering.


If VOTERS find as CON does that PRO's resolution was sloppy and grammatically incorrect, that PRO's subject shifted strategically halfway through the debate, that PRO never offered an argument but instead relied on the ambiguity of double negative and contradiction to suggest some unstated, unproven intent, well then VOTERS should find for CON in this debate.

Thanks in advance to VOTERS for their kind consideration.

Please VOTE CON!


Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
There's no contest here, so I'm leaving your debate alone unless someone specifically files a report... But the content in it would generally only be applicable to the argument point (I'll call that area borderline, but each other area would be cause for the vote being removed).
#4
Added:
--> @oromagi
Np.
#3
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
Thanks for voting, DynamicSquid
Contender
#2
Added:
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
Straw man - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Straw_man
Instigator
#1
#2
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
So pro's case is that con's massive expansion on his case is a strawperson... Right here this highlights the decisive BoP issue (which con raises as a major contention, and pro chooses to drop). How con managed to find eight whole major objections to so very little, is somewhat amazing.
Sources... Pro never met BoP for implying he read what he was posting, whereas con gave a ton of extra insight into the topic via his sources and information pulled from them (such as the list of countries this debate would apply to from Wikipedia).
#1
Criterion Pro Tie Con Points
Better arguments 3 points
Better sources 2 points
Better spelling and grammar 1 point
Better conduct 1 point
Reason:
Investigator:
Word count - 225
Contender:
Word count - 2520
Pro did not refute most of Con's arguments, while Con refuted everything Pro said.