Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

I adore John Oliver. He manages to present logical, reasonable thoughts and opinions while making us laugh until our abs ache.

 

Their statistics before and after enacting strict gun laws are very much relevant.

 

This issue is not that simple. Watch the OP video and the one in #17.

 

I see a single debate of him on the internet. He was trounced by Piers Anthony. I will give it to you that he did have a single debate experience. He obviously didn't learn from it. In comparison to the hundred or so published debates Jon has had, it's effectively no experience.

Because he's a loser who believes any publicity is good publicity. And he will get more publicity than he normally would get agreeing to Jon Stewart's interview.

 

Easy there are somewhere between 500k and 1 million defensive gun uses every year. That means at s minimum 500k murders assaults robberies and raped don't happen. Next stupid question.

 

I agree. It's rather silly for him not to watch the show himself. But I don't think he could bring himself to pay actual money for it.

 

How is an elected State Senator unskilled? Especially one who claims to be knowledgeable on this issue? He is fully familiar with the legislation that was the topic of the interview, ffs.

So sick of the victim/grievance culture on the right. Stewart wasn't "picking on" some poor, unsuspecting child, he was debating a man who favors legislation to remove restrictions on gun ownership.

 

If you say so John Wick.

 

If you don't watch the video, how can you debate this topic? We're discussing the interview, so if you won't watch it, your posts here are entirely irrelevant.

 

By not having skills. Since when has a politician run an ad saying "Vote for me. I have skills."

Nathan doesn't actually ever make that claim.

You think all legislators read their legislation . . .

Ok. Can you give specific examples?

I never said he was.

More specifically, Nathan had co-sponsored legislation to remove restrictions on public gun possession.

 

Sure, if we took guns away from everyone. But thats way outside the narrative supposedly being pushed in the context of this debate. Jon Stuart says supports the second amendment and doesnt want to take guns. Even if we can only have one single-shot gun, then suicides will not be reduced. Are you suggesting that we take all the guns to reduce the effectiveness of suicide? If not, then I fail to see where you're trying to go with this.

 

You meant the pirated video posted at the beginning of this thread or the full show published on Apple TV?

 

Failure to do research won't win any debate.

https://www.kff.org/global-health-p...earm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries/

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmc2201761

https://www.statesman.com/story/new...arms-leading-cause-death-children/7529783001/

Google is your friend. I use it before I post. I recommend it highly.

 

someone comes on this board gushing over a comedian and when I asked the guy fluffing the Stewart video, he seems unable to tell us why he is performing a Lewinsky upon it

 

Who is Phil Marr? I googled that and got an actor named Phil LaMar.

 

no they aren't-what we do know is this-=in the last 30 years over 100 million new firearms were bought by American citizens and the vast majority of those are magazine fed semi auto pistols and rifles-half the shotguns sold are semi autos. On top of that-before 2005, few states had SHALL ISSUE CCW permits-now almost all do and with BRUEN the rest will have to. and more than a dozen states have Constitutional Carry. In ohio, I could carry before 2004 because I was either a municipal prosecutor or a DOJ prosecutor but the average person couldn't. NOW you don't even need a license. AND YET other than the spike from COVID quarantines-violent crime has been steadily going down in the USA since Clinton was in office. So 100 million more guns-mainly semi autos and millions upon millions more Americans carrying handguns on public streets have NOT caused our society to become less safe

 

Define children-technically anyone whose parent(s) is still alive can be deemed "children". Many of the most vicious street thugs are "children" and those people tend to be the ones most likely to be murdered by gunshot.

 

None of this negates the fact that more guns does not make us more safe.

 

Thanks Karen

 

that statement needs far more facts to be judged.

 

Stewart says that guns is the #1 reason for deaths among children. What he doesn't tell you is that the study that determined that included adults. The study that makes the claim was conducted between the ages of 1-19. Last I knew people became an adult at age 18. So including 18-19 year olds in the calculations about children is going to skew the results. Take those out and you'd get a very different result.

LINK: Gun deaths were the leading killer of US children in 2020 - BBC News

Stewart also claimed that you have to register to vote. That is actually false. You can vote on voting day without registering first.

Stewart claims that if you don't have registration then you don't know who has problems in response to the guy saying that we need to find solutions to the problems people are having. He didn't even let the guy name the problems. This is false. You don't need registration to find out if a person has a problem that would disqualify them from owning a gun. That is what background checks do.

What Stewart did was push the guy towards a pre-determined set of answers, and then didn't let the guy speak towards anything else. That is not what I would call a "demolish". That is what I would call a dishonest framing. And certainly not a "debate". A debate requires that you at least let the other person finish their answers and not interrupt. Stewart did none of that unless he knew what the inevitable answer to a question that HE posed would be.

 

1) there are many good things people can do and do do with guns
2) there are several bad things people can and do do with guns
3) leftwing gun control schemes tend to dramatically interfere with #1 and have almost no impact on #2

 

That was my intention. It was meant to counter Stewart's and @Arkanis argument.

 

He sure was reticent to tell us why he is so enamored with it thought

 

Sorry but I mistyped, more guns does not make us more safe.