Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

since you seem enamored by that clown-tell us what his most telling points are. rather than telling me to watch some turd who means nothing to me

 

Keisler does well in most environments. He's also far far smarter than Stewart and far better educated.

 

The thing about children being more likely to die by gunfire.

The study that says that included 18 and 19 year old adults as children. And yes young men in this age range are the most likely to commit suicide. That's not a gun issue.

It's a mental health issue. He interrupted the ok rep several times and was belligerent and dishonest when he tried to explain this.

It's just 100% bad faith by Stewart.

 

Jon Stewart is witty. Thats not the same as smart. I'd like to see him in a debate with someone who has time to consider both his, and their own responses. Like in a text-based forum debate.

He would be slaughtered. TV is the medium for the fast-talker, not the deep-thinker. Nothing done quickly is done well, and nothing done well is done quickly. Thats why as civilization is increasingly determined by soundbites and voters with the attention span of a goldfish, things keep getting shittier.

 

Stewart's method is just be loud and humorous. I did laugh at his Wuhan lab leak rant with Steven Colbert. But he didn't really make a good argument he was being funny.

It's the same in this except he's not funny.

It's like Phil Marr. The only argument he ever makes is looking at his audience as if they say come on right.

 

I could slaughter him on this topic. The rap from OK was trying to defend himself I wouldn't do that. I would have attacked Stewart's points as they are absolutely false.

I think the rep was taken off guard.

 

So show me that the leading cause of death among 1-17 year old ISN'T firearms.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released updated official mortality data that showed 45,222 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2020 — a new peak.1 Although previous analyses have shown increases in firearm-related mortality in recent years (2015 to 2019), as compared with the relatively stable rates from earlier years (1999 to 2014),2,3 these new data show a sharp 13.5% increase in the crude rate of firearm-related death from 2019 to 2020.1 This change was driven largely by firearm homicides, which saw a 33.4% increase in the crude rate from 2019 to 2020, whereas the crude rate of firearm suicides increased by 1.1%.1

https://www.americashealthrankings....-children/measure/child_mortality_a/state/U.S.

You don't read the studies you cite.

So it's normal that you see bad faith from Stewart.

 

You are the third pro 2A to come on this thread and have nothing to say about Stewart's arguments.

 

I think the rep was an actor with a script.

 

what does that prove concerning the rights of law abiding citizens? and that doesn't prove any of the anti gun solutions are valid.

 

we keep waiting for you to tell us what arguments he made are strong enough to overcome our rights

 

the leading cause of death for anybody can't possibly be firearms firearms aren't capable of that. The leading cause of death for 16 through 25-year-olds would be murder suicide for a very tiny percent of people that died from accidental shooting.

That's the dishonest framing and I won't accept it you're not going to have as easy a Time this Jon Stewart did

The study tries to make suicide and homicide a gun problem and not what it really is. It's a grievance study and it has no merit.

People don't kill themselves because they have a gun.

It's because it's total bad faith with him. He can't argue. All I saw him do is insist on his primitive juvenile misconceptions.

Suicide and murder are not a problem because of guns. If it was more gun owners would do it. How is it less than 1/10 of 1% of gun owners commit suicide and/or murder if the guns cause it?

It's dishonest for me and I'm not going to accept it. I'm sorry your opponent is much more savvy and much more prepared for your dishonesty than Jon Stewart's opponent was.

 

It wouldn't matter. If he was to take my approach Stewart would just get loud and yell over me. That's what he does.

That's what these people call winning. Arguing like a petulant child that's what Jon Stewart did that's what he does. It's entertaining he is funny most of the time. But that's it.

He's dead wrong and I've taken his argument completely apart and it was very easy.

 

OK, you play Jon Stuart and I'll play a non-TV-scripted pro-2A guy. Lets start with this:

According to US Code, 'the militia' is defined as 'all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are, or intend to become, citizens of the US.'

What further 'regulations' do you (and/or Jon Stuart) suppose should be imposed upon 'all able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 who are, or intend to become, citizens of the US' to better secure the free state?

 

It's the same thing as when he went on his rage fit although humorous and intentionally humorous about the Wuhan lab leak. He said something I like and agree with so therefore he's correct. But if I it's a minute from an argumentative standpoint it was a terrible argument because it wasn't an argument at all it was just shouting.

 

Stewart's arguments were brain dead. David Hogg does better and he's like 14

 

That's your interpretation.

The study states that the number one cause of death for 1-19 year olds is guns.

That's a number you can't argue with.

This has no bearing on the debate.

77% of all homicides are committed with a gun.

Why do murderers choose this method so much?..... Probably because it is the easiest way.

This is a completely ridiculous argument.

But let me bring you back to reality.

One of the most common arguments among pro-2A people is that a high number of guns increases the level of safety in society.

Except that a gun owner is 44 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun than to use it for self-defense.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/publichealth/85936

 

What argument did Stewart present. I shredded it easily. Stewart is a moron on this subject.

He's trying to claim that guns cause suicide and murder. They're just the weapons used for it. He tries to clean background checks don't exist and they do he's wrong. He tries to claim that they would do something and they don't we already have them and people are still committing suicide.

I addressed his argument and utterly destroyed it that's all there was to it.

Show me the suicidal ideation is caused by owning a firearm, show that existing background checks have reduced criminal behavior or suicides.

Show getting murderous intent is caused by having a firearm.

Until you do that your CDC study is useless. Because for everyone person that shoots themselves or someone else with a gun there's 20000 people that don't.

You would have a better chance arguing that flying in an airplane causes suicide or murder.

 

LoL.

Do you think you have enough self-criticism to judge the quality of your argument?

 

you do realize that none of that has any value in proving the anti gun position is correct. and that last line of yours is utter bullshit. how many people commit suicide each year? I have already used gun for self defense several times-once involved seriously wounding the attacker, one time I held a person trying to break into my apartment at gunpoint until the police arrested him, and other times the mere sight of a gun sent the mopes fleeing. Now even if I were to commit suicide-I can only do that once but I already have used a firearm at least FIVE times for self defense. Your claims don't pass even a basic smell test.

 

still waiting for you to give me your take on his three best arguments. Stop arguing by proxy. man up

 

No it's not my interpretation. People don't commit suicide because they have a gun. If they did we'd see a huge rate of suicide with hunters.

That doesn't make sense. Guns have never once in the history of humanity caused a single death.

It is a weapon someone who wants to kill you causes the death.

If guns cause death and nobody would be safe around them. But it's one out of every 20,000 gun owners that commits suicide or murder.

These people that operate stores full of them and they don't die if guns cause death that wouldn't be possible.

Any study that says guns are causing death is irrelevant and the people who wrote it are incompetent.

If they claim that so many people died gunshot wounds self-inflicted or reflected by others which is what does study claimed yes I agree.

You're trying to do the same dishonest framing but Jon Stewart was doing and he's better than you at it.

I don't need to argue the numbers as they are totally irrelevant to my point. 17 to 25 year olds committed murder or suicide with firearms is not a problem with the firearms.

Because again that's one in every 20,000 firearm owners.

that's the only point Jon Stewart made that's the only point you can make.

There's nothing else here.

because it's effective weapon. My argument isn't that it's not an effective weapon It's that the numbers are somewhere around 20,000 to 1 they gun owner is going to commit suicide and/or homicide.

no it isn't your position is facile and I was able to debate very easily

that's a bit of a simplistic if you want it but it is correct.

Think about it this way how many people choose not to break into somebody's house or rob somebody because they might have a gun? The person that targeting hasn't got do you think they're more or less likely to follow through with any kind of crime?

This argument used dishonest I use my gun for self-defense every single day I've owned it and so does everyone else who owns a gun. Simply possessing it is using it. You think the only way someone can use a gun is if someone dies.

That shows that you not only don't understand the first thing about firearms unless you don't understand the first thing about fire arm safety.

I don't disagree that someone is 44 it's more likely to kill themselves than someone else in self-defense. You can use a gun for self-defense without killing somebody.

Again I don't have to argue against these numbers because the framing is dishonest.

 

You have abandoned the argument to talk about me I take that as a sign that is hard for you to even approach it.

I judge the quality of my argument by the quality of the counter argument and so far there isn't any.

 

He seems most reticent to actually prove his claims. the 44 times more likely crap is such garbage I am laughing

every day I drive a car I use the seat belt even if I haven't recently had an accident

 

They seem to forget that such worthless statistics are on par with a saying like this.....
..
Studies have proven that owning a swimming pool makes you much more likely to drown, than those who do not own a swimming pool