Happy Criticize Joe Biden Day!

Author: Theweakeredge

Posts

Total: 37
#31
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
Seems to 'me that you've 'ignored much of what I said in that debate, but perhaps I stated it poorly.

I 'really didn't go for the hunting angle in that debate.
I'd say my main two angles were a right to liberty and a right to defense.
Items fall into disrepair and need be replaced over time, thus by,
"Banning assault weapons and (I think) making laws where the government actually disband the manufacture of assault weapons for civilians period"
As you say will disarm Americans over time.

Your argument of intent, fails to address the homicide rate in England in relation to guns.
More over when someone is killed with 'anything, there is an intent to kill using that item.
Are people upset that people are dying, or are they upset by the concept of homicide.

I explicitly state in my argument that my use of statistics and graphs,
"I'm 'sure anti gun activists have many statistics and graphs arguing the other side of this debate, But my point with mine is not purely to say, Look at statistics, And be convinced.
But to say how 'confusing statistics can be.
How different countries have different variables, Ranging from what effects what the statistics are measured, To the measuring of the statistics themselves."

To help me understand this (I'm not saying this in mocking or self righteous way, but actual confusion)
Can you explain to me 'why current mass shootings are seen as crisis?
'Many people unrelated to mass shootings die, die of homicide, suicide, accident, die from self indulgent pleasure such as alcohol and cigarettes.
'WHY is there such concern to remove RIGHTS of Americans, that are instrumental to our LIBERTY and SAFETY?
Topic's author
#32
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Lemming
You discussed hunting along with the same thing as fighting for our rights in your history section, perhaps work on framing the things you want to seem important. You argue that not being able to purchase assault weapons will disarm the nation because.... people won't be able to replace guns that are out of repair? What? That's a non-sequitur - you can still purchase GUNS - just not assault weapons. If your gun is in disrepair, then you can buy another one! This is not a valid argument. 

You bring up UK's homicide rate, even though the US has 18 times more murder than the UK in general - so I'm struggling here - why is it relevant? Why does it matter? What point are you trying to prove? That people in UK are more likely to die by guns? Also untrue bud:

"There were just over 1.95 thousand Gun Crime offences recorded in London 2019/20 the fewest amount for this type of crime since 2015/16. Compared with the previous year there were 432 fewer gun offences in 2019/20, but this is still far higher than the 1.79 thousand reported just three years earlier in 2015/16."




"In 2018, 13,958 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 35.1% of total deaths from firearms. Firearms were the means for about 74% of homicides in 2018."

America has 330 million people or so, and the UK have 68 million - dividing the number we get about 5 - that means for every five Americans there are on UK citizen - so - then let's divide the number of gun deaths in America by 5 (NOT including suicides which would make the total gun deaths in America almost 40,000) and you get 2,792. Weird, since the rate in Uk for 2018 is 2,382  - this being the extreme conservative estimate and we still get a lower number than America. What is your point?


You talk about Switzerland as an example - yet you fail to realize that the reason there are so few gun crimes is BECAUSE OF GUN CONTROL:
"People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.
The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.
Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license."
This is a blatant example of not looking into the cause of a correlation - the cause of the lack of gun violence is gun control - Switzerland is the perfect example for MY argument. Furthermore - guns are not "figures of safety" Most studies show that guns are associated with higher level of guns violence, not safety, that is an anecdote more than actual argument:
"Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not."
"Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm.  Physicians should continue to discuss with patients the implications of keeping guns at home. Additional studies are warranted to address study limitations and to better understand the implications of firearm ownership."
"A recent study published in The Journal of Preventive Medicine offers new support for the argument that owning a gun does not make you safer. The study, led by David Hemenway, Ph.D., of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, examines data from the National Crime Victimization Survey — an annual survey of 90,000 households — and shows not only that so-called “defensive gun use” (DGU) rarely protects a person from harm, but also that such incidents are much more rare than gun advocates claim."
So that argument that Guns are for "safety" is simply not supported by empirical data. I would take you less "mockingly" if you actually provided valid data to support your conclusions, or at the very least sound arguments. Neither of which have been presented, only a failure to engage. You completely failed to acknowledge the following argument from me:
"Then, your false equivalence regarding car accidents and chainsaws - you fail to account that whenever someone is killed by a gun they have the INTENT to kill with a gun, and they are much more easily able to kill WITH A GUN. You see, you can run from a chain saw, you can hide behind metal, hell, you can throw a heavy thing at the person carrying it, and they won't be able to dodge. If you tried any of those things, you are much more likely to be shot than you are stabbed or cut. 

Furthermore, people dying by cars is simply a truth by how many times people drive a day, times the amount of people who drive total - you have failed to present a representative total comparing the deaths of cars to the death by guns, based off of how many people use guns and how many times people use cars - actually factoring in context will massively shift the numbers (TLDR: people use cars waaay more than they use Guns, so of course there are more deaths via cars)"
Which is, the majority of my argument, you just kinda truck along as if I hadn't said anything. So your gall to call me self-righteous? Yeah, that makes me a tad angry. 

#33
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 3,205
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm a bit angry myself, and 'highly disagree with much of what you've said last few posts.
But I'm trying not to let irritation get the best of me.
So I think I'm going to try to drop the conversation at the moment.

My apologies if my words were construed in a way that insulted you.
When I stated,

To help me understand this (I'm not saying this in mocking or self righteous way, but actual confusion)''
My only 'intention in saying that, was that 'MY words and questions were not intended to be mocking or self righteous to you, but that 'I felt confusion, and did not think I fully understand other people's view.

#34
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,568
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@zedvictor4
The Irish were largely ethnically cleansed by potatoes, or a lack thereof.


And then all those minority Europeans went to the New World and ethnically cleansed all those native types, who "owned " 100% of the land. ( If it is actually possible to own land?.....I would suggest that land ownership is only ever temporary)


And the Irish are and were the Irish....And I think what you are referring to was largely Irish Religious cleansing, by the Irish.


In a broader historical context...The U.K. Is a derivation of multiple, European and wider influences.

It's just that people such as yourself like to focus on recent History and attribute blame inaccurately and disproportionately.


After all the Romans are to blame for Catholicism...And Various Arabians are to blame for other religious variations thereof.


And Northern Ireland remains largely populated by the Irish, but nonetheless, nowadays influenced by more recent global migratory trends.
nope, the ethnic cleansing took place in the 17th century, 200 years before the famine.

plus the whites that came to America was also under attacked from native Americans.  Not a goof example. Additionally 90% of them died from disease.

And the Irish are and were the Irish....And I think what you are referring to was largely Irish Religious cleansing, by the Irish.

what does that even mean?

The UK is a collection of people that are pretty similar in a way, same identity and religion as well as language. Regional identity is also present but it doesn't undermine the national one. That obvioulsy exludes Ireland as it is a different religion and ethnic group



#35
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,259
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Hi Doc.

You generalizing within a narrow time frame, in respect of a specific cause.

Same principle applies to the slavery issue...For some people slavery is a one time event....With only one specific group of people to blame.
#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,898
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Lemming
You're lucky if you get as much as a day to criticize before it is banned.
#37
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
In keeping with the string theme:

Joe’s Hair
 
Jill asks me why I’m such a hairy guy,
I’m hairy night and day, enough for you to buy,
I’m hairy high and low; don’t ask; don’t know
Just stroke it smooth, t’will rise and show…
So, Darlin, give me head with hair,
Such long, beautiful hair,
Shining, gleaming, sniffing, flaxen, wax on,
Turn on, give me hair down to there
Hair that thrills when you stare,
Hair, baby, hair, momma, hair wherever,
Hair----
Show it, but don’t mow it, God, can I grow it!
Flies in the breeze, tangles in the trees,
Give a home to the fleas, a hive for the bees,
A nest for the birds, don’t they love my sniffing yours,
There ain’t no words for the wonders of coiffeurs,
Legs, hairy, pits, hairy, everywhere I’m hairy, Harry.
Hair…
 
©2019 by fauxlaw

when you think of all the potential sitting under some of that hair, aren't you glad there isn't?