Jon Stewart demolish a 2A fanatic

Jon certainly destroyed him. He was making good arguments right up until he introduced the drag queen stuff.

 

It's hard to see how untrue claims and poor logic could ever destroy anyone.

 

Nope, you guys just say they will find something else.

 

You are providing a good example of why I say that gun controllers don't actually care about preventing suicides.

 

Why?

 

When the other person struggles to counter the argument being made. I'm not saying that I necessarily even agree with Stewart, but the GOP guy performed just TERRIBLY! For example, his answer to Stewart asking if the requirement to register in order to exercise the right to vote. He asks: "does the right to voting say 'shall not be infringed?'" What would your answer to Stewart have been?

 

I have never said that suicidal people will just find something else.

You are just spouting nonsense because you cannot show any actual flaws in my proposal.

 

I would have pointed out that we've already been registering guns for more than 50 years now. That's what a Form 4473 is.

 

So then the GOP guy didn't exactly do a great job?

 

All these pages show that the gun lovers are totally stubborn. They cannot even grasp what a logical argument is, and I think that, frankly, they don't care. They are clinging to that (outdated) 2nd amendment as if it were their lifeline.

It shows that some degree of efficient gun control can only be obtained by an overwhelming vote in congress.

However, let's not kid ourselves, It will take a long time before a majority of the population reaches a sufficient level of education to impose it to their representatives and their senators.

 

I don't know. My main take away from the video was that Jon Stewart has no idea what he is talking about. I guess I didn't really pay much attention to the other guy.

 

And rightly so.

That is incorrect. It is the gun control people who are devoid of all logic.

Freedom will never be outdated in America.

The American people are already educated. But this means that they will not let you violate their civil liberties.

 

He doesn't listen to counter arguments. That's bad faith.

 

Well the only way to make a guy who doesn't know what he is talking about seem like a guy who DOES know what he is talking about, is to have a useless person on the other side like this GOP guy. Now to be fair to this guy, he might have been made to look worse through selective editing. I will note that the source of this video is the third party, Brian Tyler Cohen. It could have of course been selectively edited by Stewart himself in the original video. So it could have indeed been put through a two-stage selective editing process. By the way, anyone who agrees to an interview without arranging their own recording of the entire thing, is a TOTAL MORON! Which is what this GOP guy is if he didn't do that!

 

This thread has 44 pages.

Count the number of times I've posted an empirical study, statistic or comparison about guns.

Each time I have done so, my interlocutor has either criticized the source (Harvard University), responded with an unrelated real-life example, or run away.

How do guns make the US safer?

No pro 2A has managed to answer this question, which I have asked at least 30 times on this thread.

... Except when it comes to abortion, gay rights, books in school and the sex people want to choose.

The majority of Americans reject your twisted concept of freedom.

 

How so?

 

4th Circuit Comes Through.

Huge: Fourth Circuit Declares Maryland's 'Handgun Qualification' UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

'The challenged law restricts the ability of law-abiding adult citizens to possess handguns, and the state has not presented a historical analogue that justifies its restriction; indeed, it has seemingly admitted that it couldn’t find one. Maryland’s law thus fails, and we must enjoin its enforcement. So we reverse the district court’s contrary decision.'

'Applying the Supreme Court’s “history, text, and tradition” test to the Maryland statute, the Fourth Circuit panel determined that there are no historical analogues to the modern-day gun control law. Importantly, the panel ruled that while the HQL doesn’t directly deal with either keeping or bearing arms, but rather their acquisition, the gun control law still directly implicates and imposes on the Second Amendment rights of residents.'

Indeed it does.

'though Maryland’s law does not prohibit Plaintiffs from owning handguns at some time in the future, it still prohibits them from owning handguns now. In order to get a handgun, Plaintiffs still have to follow all of the law’s steps. And, although they will be able to complete each one, it is impossible to do so right away. Plaintiffs can’t receive a license to legally acquire a handgun until the state reviews their applications, which can take up to thirty days. So, no matter what Plaintiffs do, there will be a period of up to thirty days where their ability to get a handgun is completely out of their control. In other words, though it does not permanently bar Plaintiffs from owning handguns, the challenged law deprives them of that ability until their application is approved, no matter what they do.'

'A right delayed is a right denied, and the “temporary deprivation that Plaintiffs allege is a facially plausible Second Amendment violation.”'

 

This undoubtedly was an experiment to see if they could get away with the delay. If they did, it would have grown exponentially over time.

If you want to mandate qualifications and training, it cannot be done in such a way that biased bureaucrats can use it as a means of de-facto restriction, otherwise thats precisely what they will do. It seems this circuit at least, finally understands that.

 

what needs to be done is to allow citizens to sue the law makers under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of constitutional rights

 

I would say we can mandate training and qualifications SO LONG AS the regulatory body fully funds said training and testing, and the applicant automatically passes if they are not able to gain entry into the program within a certain timeframe, like a few days. Then the places that are really serious about it can spend a crapload of money to make it fair, and the places that are merely virtue signalling for anything that makes it harder for gun owners will instead spend all that money on something that will get them more votes.

 

It's really hard to argue with a guy who doesn't tell the truth when you don't know the truth.
While Stewart is correct in that the gun deaths haven't gone down, they haven't really gone up much either (except suicide). Meanwhile, the number of guns have gone up. That means that more guns are needed with a higher population to keep the total number of gun deaths in check. Stewart is wrong in that we now have more guns yet the gun death rate has gone down. Given that starting around 2020, things started shooting up, that is indicative of other issues since the rise in gun ownership has remained pretty steady.


So the question really should be: What changed in 2020 to make people want to kill themselves and others?

 

Wait wait wait.....

Your two graphs don't agree. "Homicides" are down but suicides and murders are significantly up?

What does "homicides" include that went way down to compensate for the DOUBLING of suicides and murders since about 2008?

I was thinking that what's pissing off the public is that shootings, then, seem to have transitioned from killings of adults in domestic disputes, accidents, road rage, and robberies to kids in schools and peaceful people sitting in synagogues, temples, and churches, and that's the reason for the justified outrage... ––I was thinking.

And bullshit. There is no rational justification for thinking the 2ndA means a free-for-all with guns unregistered, no background checks, no red flag laws, and no cooling off period. The friggin 2ndA IS NOT untouchable!

 

No, the question is "WHAT CHANGED IN 2004 THAT STOPPED THE DECLINE?"

Anyone?

Time's up. . . . . . THE FEDERAL ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN! - 1994 to 2004 (I remember at the time thinking how utterly stupid it was to limit the ban to ten years!)

Now, factor that in and look at the charts again.

 

You don't do well with data do you. Nothing happened in, or after, 2004. The rise started in 2015 and then started to skyrocket in 2020. As far as the graphs lining up, there are two different time scales. If you want to discuss the killy looking gun ban, then you have to pull a longer time frame set of data and that will show you that it didn't do anything, just like it didn't do anything in Australia. In fact, the government's own study basically said that we can't tell if it worked or not. That is a nice way of saying that they could not see any difference.

 

You don't do well with facts, do you. My post is clear; the graphs are clear. When the Assault Weapons Ban expired, the decline in murders and gun homicides per 100k reversed and started to go up again.