Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

Nope.

 

Look

 

Without leaving millions of us vulnerable to the criminals?

 

Take the guns from the criminals.

 

This video is heavily edited. It shows the dude’s arguments and Steward’s response to each as if Steward got the last word in each time. While I found much of what Steward said compelling, I wanted to hear the other guy’s answers and was disappointed they were left out of the video.

 

Take the guns from the criminals first. That is OK with me.

 

Not necessarily.

Death is of course possible, but plenty of criminals are shot in self defense and survive to stand trial.

The goal of self defense is not death, but merely to stop an attack.

I did not notice any death or destruction in the last Winter Olympic biathlon.

Were the gold medal winners using their guns correctly?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was speaking of gun use on an individual level. A gun is a useful thing to have in your hand if someone is trying to harm you.

Nationwide as a whole, I doubt the widespread presence of guns makes much difference either good or bad.

 

No. Those bombs were dropped by a crew of soldiers, not by a lone soldier.

Some examples of the sort of weapons that would be operated by a lone soldier would be things like bazookas, hand grenades, and submachine guns.

That is incorrect. A gun is a very useful thing to have in your hand if someone is trying to harm you.

Yes. That is part of it. And also the fact that that level of force is not required for effective self defense.

If an extremely dangerous weapon were required for effective self defense, the Heller ruling would protect people's right to have it regardless of the extreme danger.

This is why people would have the right to have semi-auto rifles even if it could be established that they are an extreme danger.

(Not that anyone could ever establish that semi-auto rifles are an extreme danger.)

Right. If a nuclear weapon were used to harm someone, the cause of the harm would be whoever used that nuclear weapon.

The cause of the harm inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the United States military.

That is incorrect. In reality gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Yes. And they show that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Face to face?

Hard to tell. It'd be a coin toss.

That's why when someone is brandishing a knife at the police, they open fire well before that person gets close enough to use that knife.

 

I doubt they make much difference either way.

A certain level of safety training and safe storage requirements is OK.

Outlawing guns would not be OK.

The gun control in Switzerland was imposed on them by Europe.

Switzerland used to have no gun control at all. You could buy a machine gun with not even a background check. And their crime rates were low then as well.

And gun control in Switzerland is not all that strict even now with the EU imposing gun laws on them.

Switzerland actually hands out full-auto rifles to their militiamen, and lets their militiamen keep them at home.

Swiss citizens who do not join the militia are allowed to have semi-auto rifles.

If they are active target shooting competitors they are allowed to have 30 round magazines for their semi-auto rifles. (I forget, it might be 25 round magazines that they use, but it is one or the other.)

Swiss citizens who are neither militiamen nor active target shooting competitors are allowed to have 10 round magazines for their semi-auto rifles.

Is that a typo??

Self harm without suicide would be a gun accident. I do not believe that there are that many deaths from gun accidents every year.

Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with a different kind of weapon.

I cannot see how it matters that a gun was the weapon used to kill them.

 

So when people shoot guns at targets they leave no mark?

 

Prove it.

Prove to me that if there were fewer guns, the homicide rate would be higher.

 

I wouldn't. My freedom is priceless.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The homicides tend to be criminals killing each other, which they would do with or without guns.

It's no reflection on law abiding citizens having guns for self defense.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have a gun, you can shoot the person who is attacking you, and this can incapacitate them and end their attack upon you.

Gun availability has little impact on homicide rates. Why are you asking me to prove something that isn't true?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not a license to violate the Second Amendment.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a criminal is not deterred by the possibility that a defender has a gun, then their aggression is stopped with the gun itself.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure if there were any marks left on the Winter Olympic biathlon targets.

Marks were not the means of determining whether the target was hit. A steel plate dropped down when it was struck, and this caused a mechanism to cover the hole that the plate was in.

 

False.

In a scholarly review of the relationship between gun prevalence and homicide almost 20 years ago, Harvard researchers concluded that available evidence supports the hypothesis that greater numbers of guns corresponds to higher rates of homicide.[1] In the years since, the evidence has strengthened at every level of analysis. Further, the hypothesis that more guns equates to more deaths has been supported using many different ways of measuring gun availability and access.

https://rockinst.org/blog/more-guns...approach-to-reducing-gun-violence-in-america/

 

Which does not change the fact that rights are not unlimited.

 

Actual statistics show that what you quoted there is not true, and that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between

Not everyone bases their position around that claim.

Some of us base our position on the fact that freedom is precious, and even if there is harm to society our freedom is well worth it.

(When interpreting the above sentence, remember the fact that anyone who does not have the right to keep and bear arms is not free.)

Others of us base our position on the fact that guns cause no real harm to society.

Crime happens with or without guns.

Guns don't make crime happen.

Not much of a difference. Criminals will commit crimes with or without the presence of guns.

 

Oleg Volk for the win!

 

We wouldn't be safer from criminal activity, which would continue without guns, which we would no longer have to defend ourselves with.

We may well be safer from accidents without guns. But we would also be safer from accidents without cars or bathtubs.

Don't forget the value of plain old freedom, which we would not have without the right to keep and bear arms.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't.

Americans are free people. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Requiring insurance for the exercise of a right, after having made it difficult for people to acquire that insurance, is unconstitutional.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

True. But the left likes to use that as an excuse for violating people's civil liberties.

They are wrong to do this. Violating people's civil liberties is bad.

 

It wasn't the end of the BS. I watched it so I could answer posts accurately, but it was a waste of my time.

 

Did he ask a question about that?

What was the question?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've proposed setting up a system where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily surrender their firearms for safekeeping until they are better.

Whenever I mention it, I find that suddenly gun control people don't actually care about saving lives after all.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if the countries are cherry picked to achieve a misleading statistical result.

 

Especially relevant is the fact that the only thing that Australia managed to achieve by abolishing their freedom was a massive five-year-long crime spree where armed robbery and unarmed robbery rates doubled.

I noticed only two points in the video.

First, he seems to think that guns are the cause of deaths.

He is wrong. The cause of those deaths is whoever pulled the trigger.

And second, he seems to think that it would be a good idea to abolish or violate civil liberties in the name of helping out the police.

No thank you.

There you go. I debated all of the points in the video.

 

Accidental deaths can be attributed to the presence of a gun in the sense that they wouldn't have happened if the gun did not exist.

Murderers would just kill with different weapons if they didn't have guns.

I've proposed setting up a system where suicidal people could voluntarily and temporarily surrender their firearms for safekeeping until they are better.

Whenever I mention it, I find that suddenly gun control people don't actually care about saving lives after all.

The entire video.

Labeling 19 year old gang members as children is a deliberate attempt to mislead people.

 

Yes. The claim that more guns make us less safe is indeed fallacious.

Fake news. Statistics are clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates:
https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between

 

Do an experiment, point your finger at a target and yell bang, then point a loaded gun at a target and pull the trigger. Which one do you think will damage the target more?

 

Then you agree that guns are not necessary for self defense.