Repost of arguments from a right-wing friend of mine

[Travis Retriever]

A friend of mine has this to say about the Draft: "Military: if another World War erupts, I'm sorry, but national security takes precedence over your perceived right to not have to fight. No country = no freedoms."
"By his definition, the Second World War wasn't worth fighting--we had to have the draft because our 'volunteer' forces were inadequate to fight off the Wehrmacht and the Japanese military."
"Look, if there's a war on the scale of the Second World War again, whoever it is that would be trying to conquer us would doubtless be worse than temporary restrictions on liberties."

What was said about the National ID card:
"No national ID card: again from the perspective of national security, it's hard for me to argue completely against it, even knowing that.
Besides, we already have a single point of failure against identity theft--it's called your Social Security Number."

Regarding free trade: "Government barriers to free trade: I don't have the faith in the free market that you and Shane do, to be perfectly honest.  I understand that, in theory, things should work out swimmingly if free trade proceeded unrestricted, but it's the human element that I don't trust."

Welfare: "Replace government welfare: definitely cut back on it, that's for damn sure.  Replace it entirely?  ...I don't know."

The first statement about: "I'm sorry, but national security takes precedence over your perceived right to not have to fight. No country = no freedoms." was extremely offensive to me, and should be to any libertarian.

[MrBogosity]

Teach him the history of how World War II started. I love how people think Hitler just rose up out of nowhere.

[Travis Retriever]

He's actually a bit of a history buff (if you can believe that).

OK, I don't know much about history myself.
I DO know that when our great depression hit, it caused the social instability that helped lead to Hitler's rise to power (something that could have therefore been prevented with a free market on our part.
The kicker is, he calls our "faith in the free market" the same as "faith in the goodness of man" which is a load of bullshit.

But I digress.
Where would I be able to get educated on the history of the pertinent information?
That is, what sites would you recommend?
(Wikipedia is worthless for history and economics, in my experience.)
I want to destroy this condescending position of his.

Same goes for the National ID card.  I already have the comment you left on your latest video as something to use as a rebuttal: "Yes, but that's just one number. You still have to put a bit of work in to get the extra pieces of information that people want to verify your identity. With REAL ID, all of that is in one place."
You talked to people to research that.
What sites would you recommend for to provide solid evidence that the National ID card = a terrible idea?

[MrBogosity]

Actually, the social and economic instability of Germany in the '30s is directly attributable to the Treaty of Versailles, which  imposed unreasonably excessive reparations on Germany. They could only pay for it by printing money, and we all know what happens next.

By the time the US entered WWI, both sides were weary and seeking options for making peace. The US came in and won the war definitively for the allies, and it was precisely this decisive victory that allowed them to impose the conditions of the Treaty of Versailles on Germany. Without American involvement, the peace arrangement would undoubtedly have been more equitable.

From Winston Churchill himself:

America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all these ‘isms’ wouldn’t to-day be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American, and other lives.

Statement to the New York Enquirer, August 1936.

Not to mention the fact that WWI should never have happened to begin with, and only happened because of numerous mutual protection treaties.

[MrBogosity]

Here's an article that summarizes the problems with a National ID card:

http://www.nolanchart.com/article1182.html

[Travis Retriever]

All seems to have been resolved minus the draft;
Basically he went on about how it was the English Government was responsible for the start of the war, not the USA.
It will become very apparent from my posts that my knowledge of history is about as good as a creationist's knowledge of biology. Unlike them, however, I am willing to learn.
I notice that we went into a red herring from the idea that wars of such large scale only happen with government interventionist policy (which many of his claims, imho still support) from what caused WWI (or two) instead.
I don't have the knowledge to get through each of his statements, however.

Him (in response to Shane's post about WWI): Yes, well, Churchill can rail against our getting involved in WWI all he wants.
It was HIS fucking government that secretly packed the holds of the Lusitania full of weapons and ammo.

Me: Ad hominem tu quoque.

Him:  Knowing the Germans would sink it and kill the Americans on board and thereby draw us into the war.
Just shut up with your god damn fallacy fancy talk and let me finish my fucking points.

Me:  The point is that a war of that scale doesn't happen just because people "hate our (insert something here)"
Alrighty. :3

Him: That was my point: the Brits finagled us into WWI by stuffing the holds of a passenger liner with weapons after Germany had abandoned its restricted submarine warfare and gone ahead and just started sinking anything and everything bound for Britain.
And Wilson fought for the Frenchies and the Brits to tone down the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles only to be ignored.

Me: I'm not sure I get your point.
If he was doing that crap, why would we just go along with it?
And if he was fighting against the ToV's harshness, how is that a bad thing?

Him:  I'm saying Churchill is blowing a lot of hot air out his ass.
We got involved because of British actions.
We tried to prevent the Treaty of Versailles from being as brutally unfair as it was.

Me:  So it was his fault?
If he's doing that, I don't even see how its even relavent.
(Nevermind the fact that's it's STILL ad hom. tu quoque).
If he was dragging us into the war, couldn't we have just minded our own business and not had the problem?
Or if worst came to worst, use the troops already there to get him to piss off?

Him: First off, drop the damn latin shit, okay?
I don't fucking understand what the hell it's supposed to mean.
Second, Churchill isn't to blame for our involvement in WWI.  The British Government at the time is--their actions led directly to the deaths of American civilians by the actions of German U-boats.
At that time, U-boat actions were, shall we say, taboo in the civilized world.
Killing civilians in them constituted grounds for going to war.
Had the Lusitania not been packed to the gills with gunpowder and ammo and just been a passenger liner, the Germans wouldn't have sunk it and we wouldn't have had any reason to go to war--we'd happily have sat on the sidelines selling munitions to anyone who could pay for them.
Churchill's blaming WWII on the US getting involved in WWI, when it was HIS GOVERNMENT'S FAULT WE GOT INVOLVED IN THE FIRST DAMN PLACE.

So what do you think Shane?
Does what he state support the idea that a draft should be a possibility, or is it off?
Is what he says accurate, or is it bogosity?

[MrBogosity]

Hmmm, he conveniently left out the fact that the German embassy took out full-page ads in newspapers warning people not to go on the Lusitania, as it was shipping arms and they planned to sink it. He also left out the fact that it was Woodrow Wilson who (after waiting to get re-elected) started using it to drum up anti-German sentiments and get the US into the war.

There's NO evidence that the reason for the British shipping weapons on the Lusitania had ANYTHING to do with drawing America into war. It was because of mercantilism, which was the typical dealings of Britain at the time.

[Travis Retriever]

Him:  Trying to blame ghetto violence on the war on drugs is like blaming the Holocaust on the Normandy invasion.
Me: Very close to violating Godwin's law.

Him:  Violence and killings in ghettos were commonplace long before the war on drugs was ever declared.
Me:  Yes, during the prohibition era. http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/miron.prohibition.alcohol And when Prohibition was repealed, the violence levels subsided, and probably would have gone down to pre-prohibition levels drugs weren't still illegal.  I never said it would eliminate ALL killing.  It would greatly reduce it, however.

Him:  It's the culture of the ghetto.  People in isolation are killing each other and committing crimes because everyone around them are doing that.  No legislation is going to solve that.
Me:  How are you defining "isolated"?  ghettos are in cities, far from being isolated!
By this logic, any crime infested place, rural, urban, etc, can be blown off as a "cultural issue" and therefore "normal".  Basically, this is just one big argument from tradition.  You realize that it was only during drug/alcohol prohibition that we've had drive by shootings?
Also, France and other developed nations have ghettos too, yet they don't have the insanely high crime rates we have here.

Him:  Legalizing drugs is also a false solution.
Me:  

Him:  Legalizing alcohol did not destroy the Mafia, either;
Me:  No, but it greatly lower their total influence, the deaths from bathtub gin, the shootings from them and make cities far safer than they were while freeing up law enforcement resources to track actual crimes: murder, rape, etc.

Him:  they simply moved to other crimes.
Me:  Yes, this is why I'm for legalization of all "victimless crimes", examples:
Prostitution:  Or don't you like the idea of getting rid of violent pimps and protecting both the prostitutes and their clients from STDs?
Speeding:  When Montana did it, both accidents and fatalities dropped dramatically.

Him:  Remember what happened when gambling was supposed to bring jobs and wealth (casinos, state lotteries, etc.)?  It didn't do either, but it certainly created far more gambling addicts.
Me:  Cite a source.  Or at least specific a location or instant this happened.  And even if it were true, I fail to see how treating it like a criminal issue, driving it underground, as opposed to a medical issue is going to make it better.
More debunking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAa6dYBwy7M ("What is the Free Market?" by Shane Killian)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOUtWOmVcI4 ("Bogosity Ep. 4: The War on Drugs REMASTERED Pt. 1" by Shane Killian)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugdjcmrxkNY ("Bogosity Ep. 4: The War on Drugs REMASTERED Pt. 2" by Shane Killian)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd2yvKgcmD8 ("Bogosity Ep. 4: The War on Drugs REMASTERED Pt. 3" by Shane Killian)
The parallels between the War on Drugs and Gun Control are staggering. How someone can be for one and against the other is beyond me.

Him:  I take it you are a civil libertarian.  I admit I am not.  I am for proper government regulation;
Me:  You know, the legalization of drugs, guns, prostitution, etc isn't JUST a civil/social issue.  It's also an economic issue.  But since you seem to want to know, yes, I'm a Libertarian, a Miniarchist to be more exact.

Him:  I am only against bad regulations that are wrongheaded, obsolete, or counterproductive.
But who defines "bad" and how?  When you keep it that subjective, you are leaving things open for massive corruption and unwanted meddling of your own plans:  you aren't the king.  I'd recommend reading Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's Healing Our World:  The Other Piece of the Puzzle (available for free, legally, online), and Harry Browne's Why Government Doesn't Work to see why this is a misguided and failed approach.

Him:  You've given me too much material to cover, but I say this:  Far more people die today from alcohol and tobacco than from any illegal drugs.  (Misuse of legal drugs is also a problem.)
Me:  That's just another reason to keep them legal.  All it will do is drive it underground and make it far more dangerous, giving money to criminal gangs.  Just like with the illegal drugs.

Him:  The reason to ban gambling is to prevent people from gambling away their life's savings-or their families' life savings.  Driving it underground ensures people have to go underground to do it.  Casinos make it far more convenient.
Me:  What stats do you have to back this up?  Was the gambling addiction rate increased?
I'm sorry, but government isn't mommy.  It isn't there to protect you from yourself.

Him:  Prostitution has been banned because many females are forced into it-many of them very young girls.  Also the females are forced to have many partners each day, so forget health checks to prevent veneral disease.  And things are no better in places where prostitution is legal.
Me:  The solution is to make it a free market.  Allow it so the women in question can press charges and seek restitution from those who wronged them.  It would allow give them more ability to be screened for STD's and to keep them in check.
Again, please give me some statistics/sources/studies.

Him:  You seem to forget that the Mob makes money in far more ways than alcohol or drugs.  Robbery, fraud, extortion, fencing, control of certain industries and labor unions, kidnappings, assassinations, etc.  In fact, the Chicago Mob for a long time avoided dealing in drugs because it was considered too easy to be prosecuted for.
Me:  Source?  Again, I never said it would completely eliminate crime (organized or otherwise), but it would greatly reduce it (look at the graph in the links I presented).  Granted, the best thing to do would be to legalize victimless crimes to allow the police the resources in order to deal with these problems, and legalize the weapons in order to give people the ability to defend themselves.  As they say, an armed populace is the best crime deterrent of all.

Him:  I have no single source for all my information conveniently online; most of my knowledge came from reading a variety of newspaper and magazine articles over a period of years.  The Chicago Sun-Times was where I read about Anthony Accardo, the longtime boss of the Chicago Mafia, having had established that rule for his underlings about drug dealing.  If you want to learn about how the Mafia works, there is no shortage of books and publications about that.  (I prefer those over online sources.)
Me:  I prefer online sources.
One way or another, I'll look into it.  I would have preferred studies and statistics (they tend to be more reliable, as they are often less likely to be biased and be controlled for other things).
Of course, I fail to see how this is relavent.  I gave you evidence showing how when drug prohibition leaves, violent crime drops.  Again, I NEVER said it would ELIMINATE organized crime.  I said it would greatly reduce.  If you actually bothered to check out my sources, you'd know that.

Him:  And yes, the government sometimes does have to protect people from themselves.  That's why there are phone numbers for suicide prevention., etc.
Argument from tradition/common practice logical fallacy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z1buym2xUM ("The Philosophy of Liberty" by FreeKeene) How self ownership works is that you own your life and are responsible for it.
To imply this is to assert that someone else has a higher claim on your life than you do.  The result, by definition, is slavery.  A part of ownership is a right to dispose (that includes your own life).

Him:  And I stand by what I said about prostitution.  I've read plenty of very depressing stories about how it really is-whether it is legal or not.  Ostensibly, prostitutes can be protected by the law.  In actuality, they never are.
Me:  Testimonies: plenty (It's among the least reliable)
Statistical significance: zero.
Again, provide some sources for these claims.

Him:  I know you go by how things work theoretically.  I go by what really happens, whether it works according to theory or not.
Me:  Again, unless you provide sources, I have no way of knowing what was edited out, the context, other laws, etc.

I find it hilarious that he claims I "don't have anything other than theory" when HE's the one not presenting anything other than fallacious testimonial crap, and distorting my claims.

I'm also finding a trend with the right wing folks:  They try to act as if their point is more practical, like that of "regular people" and those who disagree, or dare to argue against it are "pie-in-the-sky-theorists" and "evil-elitists".
Meanwhile, the left-wing ones act as if they're humanitarian, and anyone who disagrees with them are evil Social Darwinists with a hate/bigotry streak.  The psychological projection and appeals to authority never end, eh, Shane?

[MrBogosity]

Him:  Trying to blame ghetto violence on the war on drugs is like blaming the Holocaust on the Normandy invasion.
Me: Very close to violating Godwin's law.

Not only that, he's got his cause-and-effect mixed up.

Him:  Remember what happened when gambling was supposed to bring jobs and wealth (casinos, state lotteries, etc.)?  It didn't do either, but it certainly created far more gambling addicts.
Me:  Cite a source.  Or at least specific a location or instant this happened.

He's probably talking about government monopolies on gambling like lotteries or Indian casinos. It sure seemed to work for this little out-of-the-way patch of desert...

I find it hilarious that he claims I "don't have anything other than theory" when HE's the one not presenting anything other than fallacious testimonial crap, and distorting my claims.

Yeah, as if theory is WORSE than anecdotes!

I'm also finding a trend with the righ wing folks:  They try to act as if their point is more practical, like that of "regular people" and those who disagree, or dare to argue against it are "pie-in-the-sky-theorists" and "evil-elitists".
Meanwhile, the left-wing ones act as if they're humanitarian, and anyone who disagrees with them are evil Social Darwinists with a hate/bigotry streak.  The psychological projection and appeals to authority never end, eh, Shane?

Of course not--it's all they have.

[Travis Retriever]

Him:  And I stand by what I said about prostitution.  I've read plenty of very depressing stories about how it really is-whether it is legal or not.  Ostensibly, prostitutes can be protected by the law.  In actuality, they never are.
Me:  Testimonies: plenty (It's among the least reliable)
Statistical significance: zero.
Again, provide some sources for these claims.

Him:  I know you go by how things work theoretically.  I go by what really happens, whether it works according to theory or not.
Me:  Again, unless you provide sources, I have no way of knowing what was edited out, the context, other laws, etc.

It was THESE two quoted bits about prostitution that irked me the most and got me to write out the last two parts you quoted.

[Travis Retriever]

Long story short, basically all he does is make a big fat Argument from Ignorance, that, because he (and I) doesn't understand how the Big Bang Theory works, it's therefore on equal grounds with creationism, and he calls me dogmatic; gotta love the projection.


Him:  Why is it more rational to believe the 'science' behind the Big Bang and the existence of an infinitesimally small agglomeration of all matter and energy in the universe existing because of forces we can neither model nor comprehend (Who can't comprehend?  Him, and even if the people actually doing the science couldn't understand it, that's not a reason to dismiss it.  Until recently, we didn't know how life could form, via Abiogenesis, yet that wouldn't have been a valid reason to dismiss something we don't yet know for something that isn't even falsifiable.  That's the point of science, to find out what we don't know!  He should know that, being a Geologist...), at some state we've never observed before? (Lame argument.  By his logic, forensics, is bogosity.  If you don't see the crime committed, you can't know if it happened.  So I guess the evidence, that pieces the puzzle together is completely irrelavent right?)  I know about the Red Shift saying all things are moving away from everything else, like shrapnel from a detonation.  I can buy that. (Yet he doesn't seem to grasp that it provides evidence for the best picture we have of the early stages and beginning of the universe.  Again, just because we can't observe something directly doesn't make it false.  We technically can't "see" atoms, does that make them any less real?)

Me:  I don't know that much about cosmology.
So I really can't help you.
For starters, the alternative isn't science (creationism).
And what do you mean, "existing because of forces we can neither model nor comprehend"?

Him:  "If the tiny itty bitty not-blob of not-matter and not-energy that exploded to create the universe was somehow stable, then it had to be stabilized by forces beyond the ones we know about, which could (from my very, very, very limited understanding of physics, anyway) never have held anything of the sort (I like how he provides zero evidence for this, yet accuses me of being dogmatic, or thinks that creationism is on equal, or near equal footing with Big Bang Theory.) (ie, the Point of Everythingness that went 'boom' to spawn the galaxy) together (As I said later on, it wasn't an explosion IN space, it was an explosion OF space: Space itself is believed to originated in the big bang).  'For starters, the alternative isn't science"  <- Wow, now that's not dogmatic... (Projection much? It's frustrating when people conflate "forcefulness" with "dogmatic".)"

Me:  *faceplam*  You said so your self: 'Creationism is not falsifiable, so it's not a theory, nor science.'"

Him:  "Okay, you've got me there.  I still don't see, though, why buying the Big Bang theory isn't just as bad as buying Creationism." (Because mythology is on equal footing for the falsifiable theory with evidence just because you can't understand or are ignorant of said theory...)

Me:  "I do know that it wasn't an explosion of matter in space, but an explosion of space.  Also, I know that around that time, the four main forces (Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and Gravity) were all unified.  I know physicists have been able to model 3 of the 4 forces being unified, and they're working on gravity.

Because the former is falsifiable and has evidence while Creationism has/is neither?

Again, I don't know that much about it.  If you want to debate someone more knowledgable on it, go to a physics/cosmology forum."

Him:  "And we know the four main forces were unified because...?" (I can't remember exactly why, but I recall it having something to do with the behavior of the particles of force at extremely high temperatures and pressures.  When certain temperatures are reached, it causes the particles of force (photons, gluons, etc) to act in ways that make them indistinguishable from each other.)

Me:  Again, I don't know.  Ask someone who does.

Him:  "'Also, I know that around that time, the four main forces (Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, and Gravity) were all unified.'  <- How'd you find that out, then?" (Durrrr, research? lol)

Me:  "Because it's what I've learned.  I don't know why it's that way though."

[Travis Retriever]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence
Granted, it still has holes, but that's no reason to discount it.
Gravity has holes in it, yet we believe that.

[Real Captain Olimar]

even basic theories of solar formation have holes in them.

[Travis Retriever]

In response to my final point on the gun/WoD stuff.  I have the quoted being what he said, and the stuff that follows being my thoughts on it.  I don't have the strength to go and respond back to him directly however, but I'll still post this for your amusement and/or bemusement.  Enjoy!

"OH KAY! i think its about time to start focusing a bit more ON topic"
It was a rant topic about a gun ban a few months back, but it was still relavent, due to the similarities and parallels.  It just happened to come up when someone mentioned ghetto violence being a reason for a gun ban; which I showed via Shane's videos and the sources in them to be bogus (see the above posts).

"i hate to sound like an admin here but your gona get this thread banned at the rate your going. perhaps you should discuss this pressing matter amongst yourselves to try and come up with an agreement rather then flooding a thread with what looks more like an argument then a heated discussion. i would rather this thread be banned simply because of arguing about gun control not governmental fallacies"
*Facepalm* It was a thread that hadn't been touched for over a month until he posted.  As for it being heated, well...the forum it was posted in was for RANTS.  That's what happens.  Man, some people need to seriously grow a thicker skin, seriously.  And what does he even mean "governmental fallacies" or argument about them?  Is he referring to my points about why the other dude's evidence was anecdotal, and therefore useless?  Please.  Also, haven't people ever heard of the rule of the internet stating that a thread gets more and more off topic with each additional post?  *tsktsk* some people have no understanding of the internet, or of discourse.

"ok now on topic, gun control is a really touchy subject, honestly from what i hear and see you could go either way and still come up with a good solution, it all depends on what your concerned with: freedom, or safety.  both are very important but in this situation, like many others, you have to sacrifice one for the other. to be honest if you take the best rout down either road you might end up with the same result."
False dichotomy.  I posted a video from ST0PandL00k showing why, complete with evidence AND theory. ("http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RoMqB0VU4U ("Gun Control" by ST0PandL00K) Why gun laws fail." <- my exact post.  I guess despite his bawing about wanting it to be on topic, he completely missed this...
His last point is just a baseless assertion with not a single shred of evidence to back it up.

"personally I'm a bit split, honestly i can see how taking away guns would be a decent solution, but they couldnt do it half-assed they would have to really take gun control more seriously. though true one cannot search every home in America for guns but one can do everything in their power to stop more guns from getting into peoples hands but no matter what happens people will get there hands on guns."
*Facepalm* Is this guy that stupid?  Them going all out would just make the crime problem WORSE!
Yes, he's right, no matter what, people WILL get their hands on guns; as hinted from the video, criminal elements wouldn't seize there guns.  Even if they did, they would just buy them back on the black market; something that prohibition creates.  He seems to be thinking that it would be a correlation between less crime and the greater gun control; something the evidence has shown to be complete bullshit.  Yet he even said that it wouldn't matter regardless of what we did in the last bit I quoted. WTF?

"one thing i find rather funny is one of your reasonings behind guns not being banned. "guns dont kill people" ive always loved this line, and yes it is true guns do not kill people, but the point of this line is not to protect guns but more so to convict people, so people dont use the excuse of "well it wasnt me it was the gun". compareing guns to say kitchen appliences is similar to comparing guns to grenades. its kinda like saying grenades dont kill people, people who throw grenades kill people... of course we can go even further to attempt to put this into as easy prespective as posible, such as compareing grenades to rockets rockets to tank rounds tank rounds to bombs and so on and so forth, when it comes to guns verses knives (or whatever else you can find in your kitchen or house) guns are simply better at killing, as they say never bring a knife to a gun fight. yes people CAN kill each other with household appliances or knives or whatever but it is easier to point and click then it is to stab, and it is more effective to point and click then stab. the main part of this argument should definatly be the fact that guns have no other use, period. guns were made to kill, knives have a use outside of killing so many things do, but guns do not. you can use it for other things (these things are probably hard to explain or just plain stupid) but the main purpose is to kill plain and simple. to be honest why would we give this to our civilians? now yes granted there would still be those who had guns illegally. but if we had proper defenses a single random gunman would be just stupid."
*facepalm*  Interesting he ignored the videos and points I made about this, while talking about the other people who posted this...
Also, no other use? OK, then he contradicts himself by saying guns could be used for other things.  *facepalm*  Then he uses an appeal to ridicule against the other stuff guns are used for: defense, fun (target practice stuff), and collecting.  What an arrogant douchebag.
OK, so he did address the point (sort of) about people having guns illegally.  But does he really think that the inefficient, coercive institution known as government is going to be able to do anything other than make it worse?  Please.  Because prohibition doesn't create black markets, right?

"on the other hand taking away guns is not necessarily going to solve the problem. like so many other things taking something away usually drives people towards it rather then away from it (not entirely true but i honestly believe, for example, that drugs, like pot, would not be used nearly as much as it is if it was legal). in addition if they banned guns they should also ban things such as cigarettes, from what i hear cigarettes kill more people then guns do, heck cars kill more people then guns do (fwih). the "gun problem" is there but is not as bad as some would lead you to believe. it kills alot of people but if you banned everything that kills a lot of people then there would be a lot of things banned (wish i could get more into cigarettes but this is gun control so ill resist) the main point of this argument is probably that guns are not as bad as people say they are. and the definat greatest argument here would probably be that banning them would not solve the problem (thats something that we could only truly find out if we actually did ban them. we could make predictions but it dosnt mean thats how it would work out)"
Wow...first correct thing he's said.  He's right about it not solving the problem.  It sure didn't work for England...
His point about not being able to predict, or know falls to the side when you have proper controls and regressions.
It might be that he was playing devil's advocate with the first half of this.  We'll see.

"all in all both arguments have great points (if i missed things im sorry) and both solutions are plausible. both arguments have plenty of flaws but there is no solution to this problem thats going to make EVERYONE happy or COMPLETLY solve the problem. to say which would be better is well stupid, the only way to find out for sure would be to do both and compare and contrast. personally i think the end result would be very similar. what both sides agree on is there is a problem and the solution is one of the two given."
Yes, but the ones wanting prohibition don't have evidence.  The ones who want it legal do have the evidence, so we win.  Simple.
I'm not sure what he means by "completely solve the problem" if he means make it so that no one is ever killed by a gun, ever; of course not!  That's unrealistic.  As for making everyone happy, too bad.  We're a republic, not a democracy.  Get over it.
Except we HAVE done both, we HAVE compared and contrasted, and no, the results WEREN'T similiar, when controlled or at least examined from what I understand (I don't have any studies outside of the video, I wish he would have provided better source citation, but I digress).

"personally i think that what should happen is that guns should not be banned, however, getting a gun should be so painful so tedious and such hell that the person should almost literally jump through hoops just to get one. in addition back ground checks should be mandatory every time. they should look for EVERY possible sign of a psychopath that one could think of and even some that one couldn't. above all by the time its all done the person should be so tired from the process that using it to kill someone will never cross there mind ever."
*Facepalm*  You don't need to be a psychopath to commit a crime of passion, and besides, it's been tried with immigration.  People just do it illegally because it's easier than climbing Mt. Bureaucracy.
That last point is bullshit, if anything, because the guns are acquired in the black market, thereby decreasing quality, the odds of people being killed is actually greater, as all he'll be doing is discouraging the law takers from getting guns to defend themselves.  Again, it won't hinder the criminal element, as I've said over 9000 times now.  Not to mention, because the black market would have a monopoly over it, it would likely drive prices up, and quality down, making the problem even worse (e.g. more resources taken out of the economy, and more chances of accidental misfire, etc)

"now i dont know if my solution would solve the problem, as i said there are high amounts of sacrifices, for enstance if the above happend what would happen to guns stores? they would most likely go out of business."
It wouldn't.
Yes, and you'd have a black market far bigger than what we have in arms.  People really need to look up and understand the broken window fallacy.  Hazlitt and Bastiat anyone?

"personally i think that in reality whats really going on is that any tom dick or harry can get a gun with little to no hastle and this is a problem. we have to legitimate solutions with logically (to an extent) thought out reasons why they would work, HELL just randomly pick them or leave it up to the american people. but honestly there should be something done about it."
*facepalm x 10*
Bullshit with nothing to back it up.  We have over 20,000 gun laws of the federal kind alone (source:  Harry Browne - the quote on Shane's website from him).  If anything, the evidence shows that the people being able to acquire guns more easily helps!
"Leave it to the American People"  *facepalm* WE'RE A REPUBLIC!!!! WE'RE NOT A FUCKING DEMOCRACY!!!
Not to mention democracy is a system based on the logical fallacy, "Appeal to Popularity".

As for his last point:  Right, because there's zero evidence for any of them yielding different results than the others, right?
Gotta love it when dogmatic and/or ignorant people make it out to be more complicated than it is and try to mud up the issue in an effort to seem more rational.

[MrBogosity]

Sounds to me like someone's regurgitating Bowling for Columbine.