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.
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.
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.
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).
Np.
Thanks for voting, DynamicSquid
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