Your argument kind of tripped over its own shoelaces there.

Calling someone a liar can be relevant, but only if you prove it with evidence tied to the claim. Otherwise it’s still an ad hominem.

I liked your smug little exit line to dodge pressure. It’s the debate equivalent of throwing a smoke bomb and walking away like you won.

“It’s not an ad hominem”

“My argument can no longer be againt the subject itself exclusively, but is also directed against you personally”

That is the literal definition of ad hominem. You just contradicted yourself. Well done.

Your comment quite quickly devolved into an ad hominem. If you had a strong argument against anything I said, you would have used it.

Ah yes, because banning guns means they cease to exist. You realize that even if guns are no longer sold in the U.S., they can still be smuggled in from other countries along with other contraband like drugs and counterfeit cash. That’s how criminals in countries like the UK manage to get their hands on guns despite guns being banned. This is what I mean when I say “violent black market”. Guns can also be 3D printed.

I don’t know why you’re bringing up Australia’s gun control as proof that “it’s possible”. Australia doesn’t have anywhere near the same history that the U.S. has with guns. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

sigh

The Brave browser is based on Chromium. Using it to get away from chrome does very little. Different browser, same engine.

Agreed, but it’s a vicious cycle.

It does cost money to provide healthcare. Funding doesn’t come from thin air. But healthcare in the U.S is also ridiculously expensive. A lot of people can’t afford it without insurance (if your insurance even covers what you need). The system needs fixing.

True. But the U.S. has more guns than people. And a lot of them aren’t registered, so law enforcement doesn’t know they exist. Plus the people who own them won’t just happily give them up. So if you ban guns, how do you reasonably plan to enforce it? (That wasn’t a rhetorical question, by the way.)

That’s not my main issue with gun control, but the way I see it guns are just a tool used to commit those crimes. You want to put a stop to it, you go to the root of the problem. Banning guns would be treating the symptom instead of the problem.

Yup. If Americans struggling with poor mental health had better access to professional help, crime as a whole would go down. But it’s not the only factor. Things like financial strain and environment also contribute. Crime is a slippery slope. Not a leap.

I’m not a republican, but I don’t think anyone is saying gun crime doesn’t happen.

It’s easy to say that banning guns = no more gun violence. But the devil is in the details. Given the U.S.A’s history with guns, banning them will have consequences. Not can, will.

Let’s not forget that a gun ban will only affect law abiding citizens.