debate

Even in the most extreme a George Zimmerman really is an example of "that one fucking guy". My logic being confident in this is that if there were more occurrences like that you would bet both our asses that our liberal gun ban happy media would have it be headline news for at least a week or more. The amount of George Zimmermans is statistically and logically negligible. Conceal and carry permit holder crime rate is like.... .001% (give or take). So once again at the heart of your (and just about every gun control) point is to enact sweeping changes that impact *everyone* for the actions of the obnoxiously scant few. If we're going to use these small percentages and be consistent in this logic then we really should completely close our borders and ban all muslims from America. Like if 10 illegal aliens (or to use liberal language - undocumented immigrants) commit a crime that small percentage is enough justification and 9/11 is our justification on muslims. I'm not saying we should do this but the logic would be consistent.

napalm i never editted anything i said that wasnt grammar related or adding on something to the point, so you simply didnt read what i said correctly and blamed me for it >w> not cool my dude

Lamby do you know the average response time is for police officers when a call is in? 18 minutes. 18 minutes for you or your family to be killed. Even school shootings take around 12.5 Minutes. This is coming from someone who is legitimately studying criminal justice and police in College as we speak. And does so on his free time. Giving citizens the right to defend themselves is not taking away power from police specifically. Only the government. Police are made to protect us, yes. But they aren't superhuman. It takes time to get the report, Then get ahold of officers in nearby area, and then for them to get to the crime zone. Taking away gun rights due to the death toll is foolish. They are used in defense from 1.5-3 million times per year, while at most gun deaths are 40k, over half of which is suicide and the next largest section being gang on gang violence. so even going by an incredible highball with gun violence and incredibly lowball with gun defense, and it's still not even a tenth of how many they crimes they stop per year. It'd be like banning hospitals because over 70k a year die due to medical Errors. You're only hurting the american people. Coming from a future cop. You can't rely on them(And in turn the government)for your safety. And Americans deserve the right of self defense.

hey heres an idea you should debate napalm on direct vs indirect politics >w>/!

Lol whuuuut were in total agreement tho. A decent amount of cops feel the same way. Leo just makes absolute sense

talk on the politics though, not police >w>! a direct vs indirect politics idk why your so apprehensive to debate anyone but me xD i feel almost insulted!

I don't know, from what I've seen Napalm and I have mostly been in agreement with things. I was just adding to his point from my own personal experience with and about the police. Which is a heavy topic when bringing into the ideas of gun control due to the fact they'd be the only ones able to defend innocent people if guns were mostly taken away. Which would be a disaster, and cause only further death and tragedies. And that's ignoring the possibility of a Authoritarian Governmental Takeover. I want to become a cop to protect people. I want people to be safe. I understand Guns, and the affects they have on our country. Vividly so. And that's why I encourage everyone, especially if you're a small man, or woman, to carry. or anyone at all really. It can only keep you safer. If you feel you can't due to mental health issues, I fully respect this. But otherwise, there is no better or quicker protection, than the protection you can bring yourself.

ok like i keep saying this debate what you DISAGREE WITH direct vs indirect government damn *inb4 i have to bring up what i think you two should debate yet another time* >W>

Indirect government is what I overall feel is the lesser evil for a country the Size of america. Every country is different, with different culture, and most importantly, different size in this case. If we went for a full on democracy, instead of the Democratic Republic we are, We would end poorly, like every single fully democratic country or nation has in the past. Kinda like communism. It sounds great, But it ends terribly, always. A full democratic point of view would allow only a few large cities control how the entire country works, a few dozen miles at most would be controlling the lives of those who live in a span of area, that is 3.797 million square miles in size. That is of course ludicrous. Not only that, but every past nation that has gone for a full democracy, has always ended in mob rule. Always. And once the lazier 51% learns they can take from the harder working 49%, It all collapses. If someone would like to debate on this topic, Shoot. If not, that should be a fair assessment of my views of your Vs point Lamby. Just saying, I'm not picking on you, by jumping in before, I'm criticizing what you were saying, Yes. But the only way we learn, is by being criticized. And whether we agree or not, I hope you have taken a good amount of new knowledge after, mostly speaking with Napalm, and a bit of myself. Have a good day.

Once again looks like Leo and myself are in ideological agreement so nothing to debate other than how much we agree lols. He didnt say anything that I either said before or disagree with. Lamby it is hard to debate people you agree with (and the reverse being easy to debate someone you disagree with)