Wrap Battle

OK, we won't anywhere with the guns kill people thing. I'll stick with self-defense.

Tanks are justifiably illegal. You don't need a tank to defend yourself, and it would be extremely ineffective. Guns are effective easy to defend yourself with. In concealed or open carry u typically carry a handgun on your waistband. I am for legalizing concealed-carry in more places. Vermont has the most lax gun laws, you don't even need a permit to carry, but they are the safest state in the nation.

>>It is the person that does the killing. My gun doesn't jump out and shoot you. Neither does my rock fly magically and stone you.

So basically we shouldn't blame people having nukes but we should blame people for firing nukes. Is that your position?

>>Tanks are illegal in most cases and you typically can't carry a tank on your waistband.

Slavery wasn't illegal at one point in time. Should we go back to that?

What does carrying something around your waistband have to do with anything?

It is the person that does the killing. My gun doesn't jump out and shoot you. Neither does my rock fly magically and stone you.

Tanks are illegal in most cases and you typically can't carry a tank on your waistband.

>>Guns don't kill people

False. Guns can kill people.

>>People kill people

Yes with guns.

>>Guns provide self-defense for law-abiding owners.

So how about tanks for the excuse of self defence for law-abiding owners?

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns provide self-defense for law-abiding owners.

>>trap

It won't be a trap if you are consistent.

>>that guns should be banned because they kill people. False point.

What do guns do then?

>>Why not have more control of something that can impact your more important value life?

I don't know what you are saying here. I assume you are continuing to lead me into your trap that guns should be banned because they kill people. False point.

>>u prolly rage blocked me XD jk

I would know if I did.

>>OK. I value life over guns.

Why not have more control of something that can impact your more important value life?

As literally (I actually literally think) most devout fan of rap itself worldwide, from the age of around 16-17 onwards in my life, I was there from the start of Watsky. I was so lucky that a guy in my school was also into weird underground rap. He knew Hopsin back in the ill minds before he blew up and also knew Watsky. In fact he is nearly single handedly the guy who fascinated me with rap, I never knew rap like it existed.

Ill mind of hopsin 5 and Watksy's IDGAF song (since taken down for some reason) were two raps that made me realise there's actual real deal rap out there. Eminem always had the problem that he'd make such rude and meaningless shit for the sake of it and not even flow well despite having very layered metaphors. This is when I got into Minaj back when everyone hated her. I didn't see what was so bad, even her 'stupid hoe' song had the most genius flows and puns of its era.

So when you show me Watsky's song, you're showing me one of the earliest raps of my OMG THIS IS NICE RAP shit, and I do like it but that's the kind of rap you play twice.

Let me show you what a real rap you can't get out of your head is, you don't yet understand the insane addictiveness or seamless flow of Paz if you think he's mediocre. Let me show you how great this guy is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8G4Uc6Derc

The first link was wrong so I edited and posted the right one, so refresh if you get confused, lol

I can appreciate the smooth flow. But the hype and gangster references don't really grab me. Plus the song didn't have a good theme to it. It was kind of a puff rap. Which I'm not opposed to, but that's kind of the red carpet to lead into the good stuff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noO8PKZ34wo

How's this grab you?

I dislike Eminem's flow immensely and his whiny voice back then was a real turn off. I'm the type of guy who likes Eminem's lamest songs the best haha.

He tryhards too much in those songs but of course he's lyrically impressive. To me a gobsmacking rap is something like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GH6BtWU3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DQispWoIyA

Thanks. I will admit that they can be silly at times, but it all depends on what the writers put into it.

Was? Lol we’re still going

But thanks! :D

Ok, I originally thought these were kind of silly, but after seeing this one I am convinced there is a great deal of poetry and planning put into these. Well done guys this was very enjoyable

>>I don't see your messages for some reason even though you had me as a receiver.

u prolly rage blocked me XD jk

OK. I value life over guns.

Hey liked this.

>>So since you just keep dodging it, I'm just going to assume that you're double talking and your standard really isn't Life over guns as you claim.

I don't see your messages for some reason even though you had me as a receiver.

>>Your question is a trap that is irrational. Yes, I value life over guns. Rebut my claims now.

Trap?
Irrational?

I want those two answered before I carry on with my hypothetical. I am not rebutting your claims because you picked both options. I said you can only pick one and since you pick to answer my hypothetical we are either going to have a conversation about that or nothing at all here. Answer the questions I gave above if you actually want to speak more.

The study was on all guns, you read it.

3.) It is very unlikely 96% of people are wrong. Get a better argument.

And nah im going debating protestors haha

Unless you're going there to throw an egg at trumps head (please let this be the case), you will get more done being here.

1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.

So since you just keep dodging it, I'm just going to assume that you're double talking and your standard really isn't Life over guns as you claim.

2. Okay read the study again and be wrong.

Yes that is my argument. surveys are not valid unless we're tracking opinions. Opinions are not a good argument for guns. I want hard data that doesn't depend on the answers that Joe Blow down the street gave because he felt like it.

Now if you would excuse me for a couple hours, I'm actually going to a Trump rally lmao

1.) I disagree. There are more effective ways of deterring crime than banning guns. Your hypothetical is irrelevant.

2.) the study was about all guns, not handguns. You are wrong.

>>Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.

So your only argument is surveys are not valid?? Very poor argument. Surveys are used to determine so much stuff. You have no evidence to discredit this. People know what happened in their situation. Since I was very conservative, I took away ALL of the "probably" people, and used the VERY LOWEST Margin of error. The validity is what margin of error is for. At the very lowest, 270,000 lives are saved. 12,000 are gun murders. It is very unlikely the lives saved by guns are lower than lives taken. I just calculated it, and 96% of people of my already extremely conservative numbers would have to be wrong about "almost certainly" saving a life for lives saved to be less than lives taken. This is just not probable, and your logic is flawed.

The standard we both agreed upon is the one I said. Life over Guns. that means guns are legal up until the point that it violates the right to life in any given situation. This can be interpreted different ways, but just give me your best answer.

The study says handguns. Not all guns. It might have spoke about other guns. But the positive data only spoke to handguns.

On your concealed carry point....

Those are surveys. That doesn't actually tell us if they saved lives or not, but rather people's opinions about it. Survey's are just opinions in the form of numbers. I guess we're playing family feud now.

You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste until u do, AND QUOTE ME WHEN U RESPOND

>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.

Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.

On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].

The study was for all guns. wdym

>>What if there was a gun right now that didn't meet the standard? Would you ban it?

can u define what "standard" u r talking about?

You're missing the point. If the study is only for handguns, then we don't know that the results wouldn't be different if we added other legal guns as well.

Also missing the point again. What if there was a gun right now that didn't meet the standard? Would you ban it? Disregard reality for a second and just answer the question.

QUOTE ME PLEASE I WILL NOT RESPOND TO ANY OTHER POINTS IF U DON'T QUOTE ME

>>I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.

So....what exactly is the problem? I'm still not getting your point. Handguns are the guns most used defensively. What exactly does this prove?

>>You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.

No if's though, because all of them meet the standard. For example, I wouldn't want automatic guns legal. Those are banned though because they do not meet the standard.

I know you didn't say that. Your study said it. That's the problem.

You're just stating that they meet said standard. That could be the case, but you're missing the point. If one of the guns did not meet the standard, you should be willing to ban it. That's why I'm saying that you shouldn't say ALL GUNS THAT ARE LEGAL RIGHT NOW because you can't possibly know if they actually all meet the standard and you should be ready to accept that if it becomes apparent.

I disagree. Pointing a gun at someone is actually reason for somebody else to shoot you and makes it more dangerous. That's why feeling threatened is not a good standard. What if someone has PSTD and thinks they're in danger and brandish the gun and then the other person is actually the victim now and they pull out a gun to defend themselves and then get shot. Who was wrong? That why feeling threatened is not enough. You have to actually be threatened. If we can't agree on that, then we probably can't agree on anything.

You also never responded to my concealed-carry point--I will copy and paste

>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.

Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.

On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].

Please quote me when you are rebutting my points.

>>Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.

Trucks and cars threaten right to life all the time, when pedestrians are walking a car could easily run them over, on the freeway road a car could crash into you or do a head on collision.

>>Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.

I never said that. People have other types in your homes. It is for all guns, it just happens to be most are handguns.

>>My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.

All of the guns right now are safe. Which ones do you want to ban?

>>You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.

This is feeling threatened for your life, not threatened for Cindy's SJW safe space. I agree with you to an extent, which is you should brandish your gun first, but if you still feel threatened(like they do not go away or comply with what you are asking them to do), then you have the right to shoot them, maybe not to kill, but in the leg or in some way you don't feel threatened they could do something to you.

>>That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.

If you are chasing down a kid who is running away, then you shouldn't fire. I agree with you on this one.

Everything in jail is not illegal. That's just false. There are plenty of things that prisoners own that could potentially kill people.

I never said that life over guns means we should remove anything that could kill somebody, that's vacuous. Anything could kill somebody under the right conditions.

Life over guns means that owning guns should be allowed up until the point that they threaten right to life. So if a gun has been shown to be too destructive and not sufficiently constructive, then it should be banned.

Furthermore, any destructive application of a legal gun should also be illegal. That means using the gun in any way that violates right to life should be illegal. This means that you should not be able to shoot somebody unless they have the MMO to kill you at that very moment and you as much can be objectively verified.

>>If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.

You never said the quantity. You just said "If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?"

Since rocks have killed people, they should be banned right? btw, of course, everything in jail is illegal. This is nonsensical. Since trucks and cars are capable of killing a large group of people at ease, should all those brand cars be banned? Also, with over 300 million guns, it would be impossible to gather all of them and many would flow into the black market, where criminals get them illegally. Since they get them illegally, it would be impossible to defend yourself since your right to defend yourself has been taken away.

I disagree with that. You do not have the right to pull the trigger simple because you feel threatened. That's like saying somebody is allowed to diminish free speech when it's offensive to somebody.

What matters is that there is an actual threat. It's not enough that you feel threatened. That's how you end up with a case like in Florida where a man chased down an innocent kid and killed him and got away with it because he felt threatened.

>> Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.

Here is an excerpt from an essay I wrote that applies to this.

On average, around 12,000 gun-related homicides occur every year, depending on the source. As stated by a Kleck-Gertz study, 15.7% of people who were involved in a DGU (Defensive Gun Use) said they almost certainly saved theirs or someone else’s life. In addition to that, another 14.6% said they probably saved a life. Since I want to be conservative with my numbers, let’s say that everyone who said they probably saved a life are wrong. According to an unpublished CDC study, there are 2.5 million DGUs per year[8]. Since they surveyed 222 participants, the margin of error with a 95% confidence level calculated to be plus or minus 4.8%. This signifies that at bare minimum 270,000 lives are saved by guns, up to over 500,000 just counting the “almost certainly people.” If all the “probably” people are right, then that number goes beyond 800,000. Moreover, for every firearm homicide, at least 20-70 lives are saved by guns. If all gun deaths are counted, then 8-23 lives are saved per death[5].

>>What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.

Even though this is rare, let's go with it. Criminals don't have to have a gun to hurt people. They can use knives, fists, etc. If the innocent life feels threatened that the criminal is going to hurt them or their family, then e has every right to pull out a gun to deter the criminal, or if he feels threatened enough (ex. he does not know if the criminal has a gun or not, which is a common case) then he can shoot. We are talking about innocent lives saved, not the criminal. The criminal knew the choices and risks he was making when he walked into it.

1. If you're doing so people can defend themselves, then it doesn't matter what is legal right now, it only matters what defends them.

2. Okay, so your study is only for handguns. That's a major issue. That means other weapons or even specific types of handguns do not apply to this study and therefore it's not enough data to support your conclusion.

3. My point is that we should only keep the specific models of guns that are deemed safe enough rather than tacitly clinging to the current norm.

4. That's my problem. You cannot prove that brandishing their gun saved their life. I could make cases for people who brandish their guns and increase their level of danger, possibly getting themselves killed in some cases.

>>If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.

I'm not. I am holding on to them so people can defend themselves.

>>I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun.

The CDC conducted the study twice. Once in the late 90's, once in 2013. (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpublished-cdc-study-confirms-2-million-defensive-handgun-uses-annually/)

>>Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns.

Yes, and what is your point? Most carry laws only allow you to do handguns. They are lighter and easier to carry. It would be pretty strenuous to carry an AK on your back.

>>Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun.

The second one is a very common case. Brandishing your gun is a top way to deter criminals.

It doesn't matter how long they've been legal for. That's an appeal to tradition. By that logic, I could say that slavery should be legal, because it was for the majority of human history.

It could be the case that every gun that is legal right now would fit into a safe and fair standard, but if that's not the case, you should be ready to let those guns go. If you're only holding onto them because they're legal, then you're appealing to tradition.

I find those numbers to be dubious. But let's just pretend that's the case just for fun. Which guns did the saving? I'm willing to bet that over 80% of them were handguns. Also, the term saving is a little hyperbolic. The only way to really know if a gun saved somebody is if the person shot somebody or if the criminal outright said "I was going to rob her, but then I seen the gun and ran". I doubt the second one happens ever, so it would have to be the first one. If that's the case, then every case of a life being saved by a gun is also a case for hurting someone with a gun. Even then, you still don't 100% know that the gun saved their life. What if the criminal only wanted their money? That means it was the money that got saved and not the life.

What if the criminal didn't have a gun and the defender did and then shot them? Was that a life saved? No.

If rocks were capable of killing a large group of people with ease, then yes, we should ban those rocks. But that's not the case, therefore rocks are not illegal. Btw, sometimes it could be illegal to have a rock because the situation implies that it was intended as a weapon. Like in jail for instance.

>>Why every gun right now specifically? That seem like an appeal to tradition to me.

Because every gun right now has been legal for a long time and no gun is more dangerous than another. I don't understand your second sentence.

>>If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?

Guns save 2.5 million lives a year, far more than 12,000. So that is life over guns. Guns give you self-defense to protect yourself. Stripping away that right from law-abiding owners is wrong. People kill people, not guns. Question back at you--Should we ban every rock that violates the standard of the right to life even if rocks are legal?

Why every gun right now specifically? That seem like an appeal to tradition to me.

If the standard is Life over Guns, then should we ban every gun that violates that standard regardless of whether it's currently legal or not?

RPG's are not even legal. Every gun on the market right now should remain legal. I believe in background checks and stuff like that for regulation.

I'm not in favor of gun bans. But what about gun regulation? Surely, you don't need to have access to every type of gun to defend yourself? Certain guns are bound to cause more harm than good, that's just a fact. For instance, nobody is buying an RPG for home defense. If you do favor life over guns, then do you admit that there needs to be some regulation?

Your question is a trap that is irrational. Yes, I value life over guns. Rebut my claims now.

I will repeat what I said again in hopes you will actually answer the question not talk about something based on an assumption okay?

Shouldn't have said harm but your assumption wasn't because of that problem so I will ask the question again.

Do you value life over guns?
If you don't want to answer this question then I will argue about what you assumed what I said.
So basically answer the question or ask me to rebut your claims that you made. Please don't pick both.

>>Both sides think they're correct, so it would be foolish to say who is right because that all comes down to personal opinion and that doesn't get us anywhere.

It doesn't matter what both sides think if they don't follow the same standards in order to see how is right. When both have the same standards then both cannot be right if they are on opposing sides. For this reason it is not based on personal opinion instead who is right or wrong based on standards.

>>Christianity can be proven, but not in the typical ways you would think of.

The typical way is the right and the other way I think you mean personal experience is pseudo-intellectual. To have personal experience above facts is not rational.

>>People have personal experiences with religion. Religion is not an emotion to an extent, with personal experiences you find out it is a fact.

Anecdotes are anecdotal evidence. They show X person had X experience. This does not prove anything apart from X person had X experience. If you make the claim that he saw God or had an encounter with something out of this world the burden is on you to prove it but you can't like what many other Religious people who are unable to have a scientific basis for any of these claims. Whether they are too afraid of peer review or don't even think the best way to measure observable evidence which is science is not necessary.

>>Science can't prove there is no religion either. Where did the big bang come from? Matter has to start somewhere. Therefore, it is very plausible a greater force is behind it and perfectly put us in place with the sun perfectly distanced and our cells and DNA perfectly in place.\

Do you concede this is the begging the question fallacy?

Thanks... I think.

That's an interesting video you posted. I love good wordplay

>>Do you value harm over being able to carry guns?

This is concealed carry I assume. Concealed-carry people are the most law-abiding citizens in the country. They very rarely commit crimes and are extremely responsible. They commit 84% less crimes than police officers.

In addition, there are around only 12k gun murders in the U.S. Over 2.5 million lives are saved each year by guns. That's a huge difference, and it outweighs the negatives.

Gun bans are not effective. For example, in Britain where they banned guns murder rates spiked directly after the ban, and never went down to a level lower than the pre-ban rate. In Australia it was ineffective. Same with Ireland and Jamaica. In cities in the U.S. with the strictest gun laws, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C., crime is top 10 in the nation. With the most lax gun laws in the nation in Vermont, where you don't even have to have a permit to carry, it is the safest state in America with a violent crime rate of 118 incidents per 100,000 state residents.

Gun bans would be ineffective in America because with over 300 million guns many would flow in the black market and make for illegal guns and crime. Taking guns away from law-abiding owners just because some stupid lunatic killed someone with a gun is unfair. People kill people, not guns. Facts, not feelings.