Muslims are like gun owners.

Author: Alec

Posts

Total: 117
Topic's author
#61
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@TheRealNihilist
A lot of text.  I'll rebuttal what I can it seems.

According to your own link, the definition of anarchy is, "absence of government".  With the government gone even for things like rape and murder, there are no laws on it, so it becomes legal.

Here are some differences between libertarians and anarchist: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-libertarian-and-vs-anarchist/

So basically you don't have an argument against nuclear bombs, tanks or fighter jets until someone uses them.
On a national scale, yes.  Countries can protect themselves.  However, on an individual scale, people should not be allowed to own nukes because there is nothing a nuke can do positively that you can't accomplish with a less destructive weapon, like a gun.

Since stopping a rapist to what they want to do freely is anti-libertarian.
Incorrect.  Stopping a rapist is libertarian because it infringes on the rights of the rape victim.
#62
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
You probably won't need a gun, but it's better to be safe then sorry.  The article said that .9% of gun owners use a gun in self defense.  The homicide rate is about 4 per 100,000 in the US per year.  Even over the course of a lifetime, the odds of a gun being used to kill at least one innocent person is less then .2%.
Evidence?
Unless society makes vegetarianism mandatory, it's kindof a double standard to ban hunting.  I say this as someone who is mostly vegan.
Double standard? Human violence and animal violence is bad. What are you talking about?
I don't care if you are vegan. Now it just makes seem that you don't even have sympathy for animals even though you are "mostly" a vegan. 
A lot of text.  I'll rebuttal what I can it seems.
From what it seems you don't address how little you are a libertarian like with most others libertarians. 
According to your own link, the definition of anarchy is, "absence of government".  With the government gone even for things like rape and murder, there are no laws on it, so it becomes legal.
Was the king and queens a government or a monarchy? I have just shown you one example where the absence of government can have rules. Come back to me when you can provide an argument.
Here are some differences between libertarians and anarchist: https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-libertarian-and-vs-anarchist/
This link hasn't even defined the two so basically they can argue with whatever they want and still be correct but if you go by me definition then there is a link to anarchy and libertarians which is anti-government. 
On a national scale, yes.  Countries can protect themselves.  However, on an individual scale, people should not be allowed to own nukes because there is nothing a nuke can do positively that you can't accomplish with a less destructive weapon, like a gun.
Guess you are against disarming nukes so you are against America Invading Iran or carrying on the Iran Nuclear deal. A nuke is a deterrent to crime like a gun so it does have a positive based on a deterrent.
Incorrect.  Stopping a rapist is libertarian because it infringes on the rights of the rape victim.
By infringing on the freedom of the rapist.
Rights are given to you by state which they deem to worthy to protect. To even be for rights you are basically for enforcement of freedom of speech even if someone does not want to platform that speech. So basically a libertarian would be both against laws against rapists and rights. 
Topic's author
#63
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
Evidence?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm states that the firearm homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000.  I was a little off.

Human violence and animal violence is bad.
Animal violence is totally legal.  I think it's fine for others to kill animals for whatever reason they want.  This includes hunting, farming, and fishing.  

From what it seems you don't address how little you are a libertarian like with most others libertarians. 
I don't agree with libertarians on everything, but I agree with them more then liberals or conservatives.

A nuke is a deterrent to crime like a gun so it does have a positive based on a deterrent.
There are other ways to deter crime other then a nuke.  Plus, no individual owns a nuke.  Most countries even don't have them.

By infringing on the freedom of the rapist.
In this context, bodily autonomy should be more of a right then the right to fuck whoever you want.

#64
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Alec
I would prefer having guns in the statistically insignificant hands of the criminally insane than in the hands of a tyrannical government willing to use them on the people to maintain power.
#65
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist

Hunting is a form of animal violence.
sure, so is football and lots of other sports

your take aways are impossible to prove, how many self defense situations don't get reported, no way to know.

harvard study yeah no liberal bias coming from them lol
your one source used tweets, blogs and facebook as evidence?  um ok LOL

The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..

David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

yup no bias at all

"part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.

Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use."

your claim
Guns are primarily used for violence.
has not accounted and can not of guns used for target practice, collecting or historical uses.
there are what 300+ million guns?
if they were as you say primarily used for violence which includes hunting there wouldn't be any animals left to hunt and there would be far more murders, such a terrible exaggeration.









#66
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Alec
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm states that the firearm homicide rate was 4.5 per 100,000.  I was a little off.
What about accounting other uses for guns?
Do you have a source for the uses of guns?
Animal violence is totally legal.  I think it's fine for others to kill animals for whatever reason they want.  This includes hunting, farming, and fishing. 
A "mostly" vegan is animal murder or violence.
I don't agree with libertarians on everything, but I agree with them more then liberals or conservatives.
This adds nothing to the conversation and I don't have something to say since it is too general.
There are other ways to deter crime other then a nuke.  Plus, no individual owns a nuke.  Most countries even don't have them.
Your argument is that there are other deterrents therefore nukes shouldn't own a nuke. Not an argument against nukes.
Your other argument is that not everyone has a nuke. So basically if I followed the logic of this you are basically for slavery carrying because no individual is safe from slavery back when slavery was prevalent. 
Your other argument that countries don't have them. Is basically saying Kim Jong Un should carry on being a dictator because they don't currently have democracy. 
In this context, bodily autonomy should be more of a right then the right to fuck whoever you want.
You are not a libertarian then. What are you a libertarian on then?
#67
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Pesticides are animal violence....

Congratulations genocidal vegans.
#68
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
lord these guys are getting pedantic
#69
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
Do explain yourself.
your take aways are impossible to prove, how many self defense situations don't get reported, no way to know.
You are basically saying since we don't have 100% of lets say gun deaths it is impossible to prove. Tell me how I am wrong.
harvard study yeah no liberal bias coming from them lol
How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.
your one source used tweets, blogs and facebook as evidence?  um ok LOL
Saying something attributed is something you don't like doesn't mean the evidence is wrong. Tell me how I am wrong.
The CDC’s findings - that guns are an effective and often used crime deterrent and that most firearm incidents are not fatal - could affect the future of gun violence research..
Let me use your argument against you. Random studies yeah no conservative bias coming from them lol.
Awful arguments aside:
One says guns are used more and another says it is an important crime deterrent. Where did you get effective? 
Another problem of your source is that they are not cited properly. Where is the link to the CDC so that the readers can verify they are making claims on the evidence instead of making it up?
David Hemenway, who led the Harvard research, argues that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the benefits of having one in the rare case where you might need to defend yourself.

yup no bias at all
Biased doesn't mean wrong therefore you need to tell me how David Hemenway is wrong.
"part of the reason experts are so divided on the number is the difficulty in obtaining reliable survey data on the issue.

Another problem is that there is no consensus on the definition of defensive gun use."
This is no way proves what I said. You simply quoted things and have provided no explanation on how you are right or I am wrong. If you take the position there is no consensus why did you bring in data of your own instead of simply adding this in?
has not accounted and can not of guns used for target practice, collecting or historical uses.
there are what 300+ million guns?
if they were as you say primarily used for violence which includes hunting there wouldn't be any animals left to hunt and there would be far more murders, such a terrible exaggeration.
This is not a cohesive argument. First you talk about target practice then historical uses then you talk about how many guns then you talk about hunting then you end with saying "terrible exaggeration". None of your claims says you are right or I am wrong instead simply claims you have no proof for. Do you have any evidence? 
#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I know..lol..."omg I am vegan! I do no harm to the planet!"

Virtue signalling is so crazy.
#71
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
Do explain yourself.
honestly you don't know there are violent sports?  what country do you live in anyway?

How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.
they set out to prove what they already believed, where exactly did I use the word 'wrong' oh that's right your the guy who just assumes and puts words in people's mouths, my bad.

the numbers and logic prove your statement is wrong which is why you didn't add it to the quotes
Guns are primarily used for violence.



#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not to mention many cowskins are used to make the footballs.
#73
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
the irony is not lost lol  
hell there's violence on tv
so fickle and pedantic.
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Antifa is violent.

Socialism is violent.

Taxation is violence.
#75
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
sure, so is football and lots of other sports
Do explain yourself.
honestly you don't know there are violent sports?  what country do you live in anyway?

Did an animal consent to being murdered?
How does bias mean wrong? If you are using this against me I can use the very same argument against you if you actually think bias=wrong.
they set out to prove what they already believed, where exactly did I use the word 'wrong' oh that's right your the guy who just assumes and puts words in people's mouths, my bad.

the numbers and logic prove your statement is wrong which is why you didn't add it to the quotes
So basically you have a problem with people supposedly assuming something to be true and then proving it. 1) You haven't proved that they were set out to prove what they already believe 2) Still have not said how this is a point against my evidence if it isn't why even say it? 

You got annoyed that the only critique that you had with what I brought up was that it was biased. I used that as your only argument against what I said if it wasn't then you would be able to actually think of a good argument instead of the argument you came up with.

The last thing you said is basically begging the question fallacy. You have assumed your stance to be true without proving it. Care to do so? 

#76
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
there's no way to prove either opinion true, thus I reject what I believe to be your biased studies and opinions, you haven't proven anything, it's your burden, not mine.
#77
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Did an animal consent to being murdered?
Good attempt at rational, logical common sense with those refute rational, logical common sense out of principleint that rtional, logical common sense may expose truth.

Alec----A tiny portion of them commit homicide.  Only a tiny portion.  The US ought to treat Muslims the same way we treat guns on the basis of terrorism/shootings.
Is this more of the equalizer { gun } scenario? Treat a human being the way we treat a gun?

In the equalizer { gun } scenario the smallest woman or child that can aim and pull a trigger can own an equalizer { gun } ergo they can also own a Muslim of any size or quality?

Why cant I own a Canadian? LINK
..."Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?"....



Topic's author
#78
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@mustardness
Both Muslims and guns have a small portion that commits terror attacks/shootings.  Do you judge them as individuals or as groups?
#79
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Alec
good question but you will never get a straight answer, but I'm sure you know that already.  you won't get an answer because it could make them look hypocritical.
#80
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@mustardness
Good attempt at rational, logical common sense with those refute rational, logical common sense out of principleint that rtional, logical common sense may expose truth.
Are you saying I am right or are you saying the other person is?
I don't remember be saying the other parts so I will leave it at that. 
#81
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
there's no way to prove either opinion true, thus I reject what I believe to be your biased studies and opinions, you haven't proven anything, it's your burden, not mine.
My burden was fulfilled and if you thought it wasn't you would have said that straight after I gave evidence but you didn't. Instead did it now. My sources are clear and provide answers whereas yours are not even properly sourced. That is a problem because its entire data is based off other data which they do not even cite.

Still have yet to say how a biased study means that the study is wrong or at the very least means the data is corrupted.

#82
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@TheRealNihilist
you admitted that they can't account for a lot of events, because they never get reported, reported incorrectly etc, their "evidence" is based on selective things they could look at or chose to look at which is too narrow because you can't factor all the things mentioned in the links I posted which was not an exhaustive list.  all of it is anecdotal evidence at best and I dismiss it for those reasons.
here's an analogy for better context of my perspective.  of the crimes lists on the fbi site, do you believe those are all the crimes committed in those categories?  of course not, what % do you believe go unreported, investigated etc, 1%?  10%?  50?  90%?  gimme a guess, do you think whatever the number actually might be that it's statically unimportant or it is important?

#83
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOL

#84
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOL
Well stated.
#85
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
you admitted that they can't account for a lot of events, because they never get reported, reported incorrectly etc, their "evidence" is based on selective things they could look at or chose to look at which is too narrow because you can't factor all the things mentioned in the links I posted which was not an exhaustive list.  all of it is anecdotal evidence at best and I dismiss it for those reasons.
It is not anecdotal at best because that would mean that the anecdotes are fairly limited. They aren't and the explanation behind it is from a credible source which is why I have fulfilled my burden of proof. You haven't stated correctly stated how my source is wrong simply said it is anecdotal evidence even though it is based on personal experience which my data isn't. 
here's an analogy for better context of my perspective.  of the crimes lists on the fbi site, do you believe those are all the crimes committed in those categories?  of course not, what % do you believe go unreported, investigated etc, 1%?  10%?  50?  90%?  gimme a guess, do you think whatever the number actually might be that it's statically unimportant or it is important? 
This is a non-sequitur. I am speaking about the reported cases not unreported. If you want to talk about that then do but make me aware that this isn't saying how my stance is wrong instead say off topic question. 

#86
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOL
Well stated.
Don't know if he is actually being serious with this one. I think he is. Must have misread the criticism you had. 

#87
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@Alec
@TheRealNihilist
Both Muslims and guns have a small portion that commits terror attacks/shootings.  Do you judge them as individuals or as groups?

I judge a group of Muslims same way as I judge a group of Christians, Jews, whose everyday reliogous practices and beliefs stem from the Bible.  Their all a little quackey in the heads.  I judge individuals in that Biblical set differrent in that some are more fundamentalistic quacks than others.

...."Why cant I own a Canadian? LINK
..."Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?"....

Huge amounts of guns { equalizer weapons } on Earth is dumb so to some degree concept of masses of guns being dumb is similar to masses of Bible thinkers not useing rational logical common sense thinking to some degree some of the time.

As for individual guns, I like the ones that also have one-click button to access to amazon prime....way cool!  Ive alway considered myself above average shot with a rifle and have done some light competetion at turkey shoots where I the top shot was ex miltary woman who always stood when she shot. She was an ace shooter.

She won her turkey with skill, her own gun and training. I won my turkey with some one elses gun.  Used some other peoples guns could tell there sights were off left or right.  

What turns me on more is big powerfull ---ex the 2nd Alien movie had some cool stuff, like Rdlesy exoskeletal for-life like storage mover---- like battlships, jets but especially submarines fascinate me.  Crimson Tide { +10 } Hunt for Red October { +8 } Das Boot { +10 }


Omar...Are you saying I am right or are you saying the other person is?

Yes you most definitly correct with you rational, logical common sense reply to D-Pirate{?} regarding violent sports.  Humans consent to beating on each other in sports. If its to hot get out of the kitchen.  Other animals do not consent violence on each other as in sport.

Fuller talks about how were breeding { evolving } the next level of non-thinking humans via boxers who beat each others thinking brain to a pulp. Then there is all the money and kind of thinking behind this stupidity.


#88
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?
Obviously the human came before the killing of other humans or invention of weapons designed to kill other animals and easy step to using same weapon to kill humans. Also it is clear to many that egg came before the chicken

There came a distinct change at some point on the purpose of the design of a weapon to be used on animals or human animal.

Some involve phosphate bombings Oklahoma Bombing Timorthey McViegh and Mike Nichols.

New York city pressure cooker bombing.

Tex Kachinskys mail package pipe bombs.

Japan saran gas in subways.

World trade center.

Nazis used gas to save on cost{?} of bullets

Guns { equalizer } as weapons are the Peackeeper/Peacemaker  was the colt 45.

Now their IBM's  intercontinental misslles



Topic's author
#89
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@mustardness
Do you think hunting should be banned?  If so, how is it that different from eating meat from a farm?
#90
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@Alec
Two ways hunting is different from eating meat from a farm is the personal feedback in nature and how the animal is respected, plus that it doesn't necessitate the alteration of land and the displacement of habitat.  One caveat I should list is that livestock doesn't have to be raised on a factory farm, so ecological compromises can be minimized as climate allows.