Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

they never have any realistic solutions.

 

I don't really even care about these numbers from the standpoint of my argument because they're not relevant.

If someone is 44 times more likely to commit suicide then they are to slay someone breaking into their home that's not saying anything. You can carry a gun in your passively using it for self-defense you can keep it in your home and you're passively using it for self-defense. You don't have to kill somebody in order to be using a gun for self-defense.

So the framing is dishonest. And that's exactly what Stewart did. That's what a lot of these people do.

What his argument is, is that you only use the seat belt in a collision. No you don't you use it every time you buckle it in. It's a just in case measure. I use it every time I drive and a vehicle or ride in a vehicle just because it didn't save my life every time doesn't mean I'm not using it.

 

It's not an incredible statistic they're technically true but it doesn't mean anything. Chances are almost absolutely zero and I'll die in a plane crash if I'm not in a plane. And there's some very tiny possibility that the plane could hit me.

You don't have to argue against it that's why I default accepting this correct they're not meaningful.

I don't care if they show me that I'm 950 million times more likely to kill myself for the fire if I possess one how are you going to do it if you don't possess one?

Essentially you have to have a gun in order to use it. That's all this point is that's all the statistic means.

So let's think about it for a minute can you shoot yourself with a gun if you don't have one?

 

Nuclear bombs are also inanimate objects that do not harm anyone.

Why can't I own one?

You should take a statistics class.

The study cited by Stewart shows that the more guns you have, the more likely you are to be killed or to commit suicide with a gun.... what a surprise.

The same causal principle exists for the number of properties in a city with a swimming pool and the number of deaths by drowning.

It's obvious, guns were designed to kill.

I told you - and I repeat - that this is a completely ridiculous statistic.

The US is one of the countries in the world with the most guns in circulation per capita.

Even if only 1 in 100,000 homeowners killed themselves with their gun, the fact remains that the number one cause of death for 1-19 year old is firearms.

Except that the crime rate in the US is one of the highest in the West.

This proves that the proliferation of guns has no impact on crime reduction.

 

well first it's not protected by the second amendment. In 1791 they determined an arm is protected if it is in common use and it is used for a lawful purpose. Do you use your arms nuclear weapons for duck hunting?

How do you avoid harming wildlife or exceeding your bag limit if you detonate it?

Second, a nuclear weapon contains a radioactive isotope that emits ionizing radiation. So it can hurt you just sitting there.

In the future you should pick landmines or surface to air missiles if you're going to the absurdist argument I can defeat that too but it's a little trickier.

I didn't argue against the statistics. In fact I accept them as true. This is called the steel manning.

My argument is the gun doesn't kill people. The gun doesn't cause people to be suicidal or homicidal. It's just a weapon. And the vast vast vast majority of those who possess them are not going to do either one of these.

So if you're arguing that this is a component of owning guns you need to show 20% suicide rate of hunters. Or any you increase in suicidality by hunters than anyone else.

If you can't the argument that guns cause suicide gun ownership causes suicide is thoroughly and totally debunked.

that's odd because no gun in the history of humanity has ever killed anybody. In order to do that it must first load itself aim itself and fire itself. If it can't do that it's not designed to kill. It's designed to be used as a weapon. Whether you use that weapon to kill yourself kill other people or only in the case of self-defense has nothing to do with the design of the firearm.

is it? So there's approximately 50 million gun owners in the US. What is it like 30,000 suicides. Do you know math?

I still completely accept the statistic. That the primary cause of death for people between the ages of 16 and 25 is suicide. Second most common is homicide.

Explain to me why this is caused by guns and not people being suicidal or homicidal?

Are you really going to make the argument that someone is less likely to rob, rape, assault or burglarize someone if they know they don't have a firearm?

I think you're alligator mouth is out talking your hummingbird behind.

 

Well let's look at this video here because some seem to actually think that whoever this guy was beat Jon Stewart. I don't have time to go over all of the errors this guy made as they are too numerous and I don't want to spend much time enumerating them. The video might have a take-down put on it because it is violating copyright. If @Arkanis doesn't care about property rights, it's ok?

Anyway I'll be using the original video. The full video is much better than the hacked stolen video. It actually makes Jon look better.

The first mistake he makes is when he agrees that more guns makes people safer. This allows Jon to skewer him immediately. It make Nathan look silly and stupid.

The second mistake he made was saying he wanted limits on illegal immigration because of all the fentanyl deaths. It's like Nathan is jumping on the spear to be skewered by Jon. Right after that Nathan brings up obesity like a complete moron.

The third and biggest mistake he made was agreeing that voting was a right despite the fact that it's not listed as an affirmative U.S. constitution right and never has been. This allow Jon Stewart to skewer him with the resulting questioning.

The fourth mistake he made was saying he wanted to ban drag show readings to children when he should have said he was only preventing the government from funding drag show readings. But unfortunately, Nathan probably does want to ban drag show readings which Jon knew because he came prepared and skewered Nathan again.

People who think Nathan won probably think that the Black Knight won in Monty Python.

 

Right off the bat he uses the "well-regulated" argument, which doesn't mean what Stewart wants it to mean. Not only that, it goes against the very well known intentions of the Bill of Rights.

Then he suggests more guns, more "gun crime". We know that's not true either. Gun rights have only increased since the 90's, and crime went down drastically since the 90's.

He of course uses "gun deaths" to include suicides, and we know that some of the highest suicide rates in the world are from countries that don't have guns. We can see Australia's history of suicide methods changing from guns to other means in clear substitution.

"The leading cause among deaths in children". This is because they include 18-20 year olds in their classification of "children". The top 3 ages for committing violent crime? 18, 19 and 20.

The argument for "registration" in voting to being required to register your firearm is no different than the process you go through when purchasing a firearm and filling out a 4473. Moreover, you couldn't prosecute a criminal for not registering their firearm....it's self incrimination.

The truth of the matter is, more than enough laws exist already to prosecute people who are illegally in possession of a firearm, but leftists choose not to prosecute criminals for anything, including illegally possessing a firearm.

 

It is not just about Stewart. It is, mostly, the facts.

I will try to help out. The first point of Stewart's, was to question the central tenet of gun rights enthusiasts, that more guns, make us safer. The question to you, then, is "when?" We have more guns, every year, and yet we are not safer: there are more gun deaths, every year. That is the opposite of the meaning of the word "safer." So Stewart wanted to know, at what point there would be enough guns, for that touted boost in safety, to actually start kicking in. We currently have 420 million, or 40% of the world's guns, but it hasn't started getting safer, yet. How many more guns did we need, in order for gun deaths to go down.

 

Leave it to Stewart to so cuttingly expose the intellectual bankruptcy of that "we need even more guns" ass clown. I really enjoyed listening to the trap John set in getting the guy to say the government has a role in protecting kids from drag queens but not from the #1 killer of children......gun violence.
Unfortunately, gun rights extremists will not recognize nor hear the evisceration of their "the government has no place regulating gun ownership" argument from a man who is okay with gun ownership. They will falsely hear someone who wants to take their guns away because that's the only way they can rationalize being against what Stewart said.

 

He didn't though he was using cliche arguments that have been debunked over and over and over again.

It's only saving grace was that the person arguing with him didn't really argue with him. I suppose if you did Stewart would just yell because that's what he does. If you had to behave and he had to argue with someone knowledgeable like me he'd have been ripped into shreds I did that already in this thread

 

Yeah the leftists love the militia thing it doesn't help them know because the militia are the citizens or the people in a well-regulated means well supplied. Particularly with weapons ammunition armor so forth. They think it's some sort of standing military. I think it's probably because they memed the word until they believed their own BS.

Like if you see a group of people particularly something like Patriot front and you're all like doing these group things I try to call that a militia that's not what that is.

 

I like John Stewart, but the guy he's interviewing is a bit of a dolt. If you want to argue about how effective gun control is at decreasing general violent crime, that's a debate that could work in your favor, but could also work against you depending on your debate skills, and the debate skills of the person sitting across from you... but if you're going to try and argue that more guns is the solution to reducing violent crime, you're dead in the water. You're going to get your own ass handed to you, like this guy did

 

At least someone actually watched the video, good for you. So, your argument is that the guy interviewed by Stewart made mistakes, fair enough.

But, let's just start with the first argument: More guns make us safer (it's not like this guy invented this argument, I have heard in in pretty much ANY 2nd amendment debate, it seems to be common knowledge in gun culture). Stewart asked the fair question as to when will more guns actually make us safer? We already have 400 million. Are 1 billion going to make us safer? 2 billion?

Now, the guy obviously couldn't answer the question. If someone is a better debater than him, how would they have answered the question? How many guns will it take to finally make us safe?

 

1) depends who has the guns. the liberal approach of taking guns mainly away from the law abiding is an abject failure. we have more guns each year, and until COVID caused social disruption the rate of violent crime was DECREASING. 2) england banned handguns and many rifles, it is now MORE VIOLENT.

 

all you leftists want to do is disarm honest people for political reasons.

 

Either you live in the worst crime ridden hell hole on Earth, or your anecdotal story is complete bullshit. I own several firearms and lived in the ghetto in N. Las Vegas for 4 years. Not once did I ever have to use any of my firearms for defense. Your John Wayne tales don't pass the "smell test'.

 

that has absolutely nothing to do with facts it's a straw man fallacy made up by leftists.

easy. 1996-2017. In this time period the number of crimes went down by over 50% in the US despite the number of guns going up. I don't see these two things are dependent on one another I'm showing you that crime doesn't increase with an increase of guns being owned.

first there's no such thing as gun deaths. Guns cannot die they're not alive.

To say this is because people owe guns doesn't make sense it's because they're committed suicide. Are you suggesting any good gun makes you commit suicide?

how do you know you're not safer that we would be if we didn't have them?

Jon Stewart's "argument" if you could call it that is terrible.

People commit suicide so guns make people commit suicide???

Why is he bringing this up other than to create a red herring you only need to do that if you're being dishonest.

[/QUOTE]

 

That's one. The question was ". . . points . . . ." plural. I'll concede to the argument that more guns don't make us safer. But neither does the reverse argument.

 

WTF!? It's on Apple TV man, it's entertainment. You act like it's bad tasting medicine. Just because you hate private property and watch the messed up stolen version, don't put me in your camp.

No, you missed it entire point. Some people have been posting as if Jon did not win the debate. I wrote this to dissuade them of that notion. It might be because the pirated version sucks and lacks about 5 minutes of the original. I haven't watched more than 15 seconds of the pirated version but I'm sure it sucks if you think it's as bad as bad tasting medicine.

No, Stewart did. Stop stealing. It's absolutely idiotic to think more guns makes someone safer so that is why Jon made it a talking point to present to Nathan. Nathan was stupid and didn't want to be anti-gun so he agreed like an easily duped mark. Jon was very congenial and very good at what he does in comedy.

I haven't made the argument that the U.S. needs to get more guns to be safer. Stop lying and acting like I did.

Did you bother to read what I wrote?

 

Why don't you answer his questions, as though he were interviewing him? I would sincerely be interested.

 

The stupid argument is to claim that guns are inanimate objects and therefore, harmless.

That's why I asked why you can't buy an atomic bomb.

329 Americans injure themselves every day with guns.

21,000 kill themselves without wanting to commit suicide.

https://www.pennmedicine.org/news/n...n-us-each-day-but-for-every-death-two-survive

LoL

As if the hecatomb caused by guns could be summarized in suicides...

In 2022, 800 innocent Americans died and 3000 were injured in mass killings.

20 times more per capita than in any other G20 country.

Are you talking about math? If we compare all the advanced countries on this planet, the US is overrepresented in all gun-related data in terms of deaths and injuries.

Suicides, murders, mass killings, accidents....

 

first thing out of Stewart’s mouth is he connects “well regulated” to guns when it’s actually only in reference to the militia. So right off the bat he’s wrong and/or lying.

should I even bother continuing? Do you promise that’s the end of the BS? Right before pausing I caught him saying he doesn’t want to ban the 2nd or guns so that must make most of you Libs here mad so it’s really off to an interesting start here haha. The rest of it must somehow be really great for you cause otherwise I’m really confused why you’re sucking him off so hard

 

Read post 57.

 

It's a good argument because what can a gun do to you without being in the hands of somebody that means to harm you with it

and I explained to you how an atomic bomb can hard you just sitting there.

that's not a problem with the gun.

again this isn't the issue with a gun.

I don't dispute your numbers they just indicate people are careless.

yeah I know you can commit murder with guns that's not news.

this is because of God's or is this because we have more murderers?

so if you miss handle or intentionally fire a gun at someone in Norway it doesn't result in a death or injury?

We have more people that commit suicide and commit murder here I don't think that's because there's guns. Switzerland has a lot of guns but they don't have an extraordinarily high murder rate it doesn't seem to be a dependent variable.

Yeah this happens site me that it's not because people are murderous and intent or suicidal or careless show me that it's the gun causing this and not people.

 

I love it when you judge yourself of the strength of your arguments.

So let's get back to the point of this thread.

How do guns make the US a safer place?

No kidding.

So your argument is that we shouldn't legislate dangerous objects because people are careless....

The gun control in Switzerland is extremely strict and has nothing to do with the permissiveness that we know in the US.

The homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.54.

That of the US is 7.8....