text:
3rd DDO Census Debate: Gun Ban
|Voting Style:
|Open with Elo Restrictions
|Point System:
|Select Winner
|2 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|3,781 times
|Debate No:
The Resolution:
The USFG Should Ban Private Ownership of Firearms.
As the US homicide rate continues to concern citizens, and guns continue to be the weapon of choice, the topic of Gun Control has become a talking point of all the US. Some, however, believe the very ownership of firearms causes homicides, no many the controls placed on them. Back with acedemia and real world examples, both sides have made great strides in the argument for the complete banning of the private ownership of firearms in the US.
- No kritiking.
- The Burden of Proof may be discussed during the debate.
- Proper formatting must be used (and consistent.)
- First round is for acceptance and clarification only.
- By accepting the debate you agree to the rules and definitions.
The winner shall receive a choice between a $25 gift card to Amazon or Walmart.
Pro side is represented by FamousDebater, and advised by FortisAnimi. Con side is represented by Bsh1.
USFG - United States Federal Government
Should - used to express obligation or desirability.
Ban - to legally prohibit
Private - belonging to an individual person, company, or interest, as opposed to belonging to a government.
Ownership - the act, state, or right of possessing something.
Firearms - a weapon from which a shot is discharged by gunpowder.
I will not have an adviser, but I am fine with this.
I'm am going to running the affirmative equivalent to a counterplan (ie. a plan). My plan will consist of 2 sub-sections.
b) After 20 years gun usage should be extremely restricted. At this point a change from the current point of restriction to a ban will be so small that the change will create minimal concern and anger. Furthermore there will be no major impacts to gun culture in the US.
Since my counterplan ultimately leads to a gun ban it is still sufficient to fulfill my burden since my burden requires me to prove that guns should be banned and under my plan guns are still being banned, just over a long period of time. By introducing my plan it increases the feasibility of the plan as well as the fact that it reduces the negative response that would occur if a gun ban was immediately introduced at this point in time.
I'm going to begin by proving moral realism (which I have been researching since my last debate on the subject) as my metaethical framework. So now I will present my argument to prove objective morality.
I will be using the ontological argument for moral realism by Michael Huemer, Professor in philosophy. His ontological argument for moral realism is as follows,
(1) The probabilistic reasons principle
(2) If we know that action X is objectively wrong, then we get a reason to not perform action X to be moral
(3) Even if we don't know that action X is objectively wrong, it doesn't provide us a reason to *do* action X
(4) There is some non-zero probability that moral realism is true (i.e. moral realism is possible)
(5) It follows that, in order to not risk X being objectively wrong, we ought not to do action X
(6) Also, we have a reason to avoid performing action X
Action x is the action that we are trying to prove objectively wrong (in this case guns).
The probabilistic reasons principle (PRP) is described by Huemer: " [I]f some fact would (if you knew it) provide a reason for you to behave in a certain way, then your having some reason to believe that this fact obtains also provides you with a reason to behave in the same way." [9]
P2 is a truism.
P4 is a truism.
P1. The individual's opinion ought to be considered in society, ergo, you ought to agree to an individualist view. Laws must be in the best interest of the citizen. Voters ought to buy the individualist framework.
P2. The individualist has the right to life and we should be prioritizing them (as per the framework). If I am able to prove that guns cause deaths and violate the needs of the individual then I fulfill my burden and fulfill the debate.
The Murder Rate
All we need to do is analyze this graph to understand that the murder rate via guns in the US is significantly higher than we need it to be.
The trend is evidence. In Japan there is a full gun ban [3](for citizens which coincides with the resolution) and Japan has the lowest gun related murders as shown on the graph. South Korea has 'one of the most restrictive gun policies in the developed world,' [2]. South Korea is the second least on the map. In Iceland guns are only allowed for target shooting and you need a special license for this. All other guns are strictly forbidden in all circumstances [4]. The list goes on and it surprisingly goes almost completely through the list in order from the most gun restrictions to the least. There are, of course, a view fluctuations but there are few. The correlation is clear, the countries the more restriction on guns, the less deaths. The countries with complete bans on citizens have gun deaths of extremely low quantity. The less guns, the less deaths.
Furthermore, multiple reliable studies have shown that guns result in death. Harvard T.H Chan, School of Public Health, concluded from their studies,
"a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries." [5]
In the US there were 372 mass shootings, 64 of which were school shootings [6]. This ultimately means that babies, toddlers, children, teenagers, adolescents, adults and the elderly are being killed by guns. 13 toddlers accidentally killed themselves in 2015; 18 injured themselves; 10 injured other people and 2 killed other people.
In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens, which is what I am affirming [7]. In the UK the youngest person to ever kill somebody in recorded history has been 12 [8]. In 2015 alone 2 toddlers killed other people. The comparison is notable, in one year two toddlers kill two people (as a result of guns) which is something that has never happened in the history of the UK (a country with guns banned).
Accidents and Consequences
15,000 to 19,000 deaths are as a result of accidents in the United States [11]. Causing a gun related accident and being the person responsible means that you could suffer from mental health problems.
Proceeding an accidental shooting with a gun, suffering from mental health problems is not uncommon [12]. By banning guns, you make virtually impossible to kill somebody accidentally since accidents are not committed by murderers who may have illegal guns, they are usually committed by people with legal guns who are law abiding citizens (hence why they suffer from mental health problems afterwards in most cases).
I have shown that moral realism exists and that individualism is the best perspective to view this debate upon. I have also shown the high death statistics caused by guns (which is a clear violation of individualism). Whilst I do have some more characters, I believe that I have said enough to support my side in the debate with the argument that I have presented. Ergo, you ought to vote in my favor. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
Thanks, Pro!
A. Pro should defend a single, consistent position. Pro has offered a plan and should not make retroactive additions or modifications to it because any changes would involve shifting the goalposts. Any criticism I make could be countered by Pro saying, "oh, well, I am just going to change my plan so that your attacks don't apply." This is not only unfair because it shifts ground, but it creates a time skew in that I am forced to spend more time detailing my positions and responding to the shifting ground than Pro is forced to spend actually shifting the ground. Plus, if Pro makes modifications, I may not have the opportunity to make non-new arguments against them, putting me in a catch-22 situation in terms of wanting to win and wanting to not violate common standards of debate ethics.
B. The word "ban" implies confiscation. If you "legally prohibit" the "private ownership of firearms" you are saying that it is illegal to merely own a gun. Thus, anyone owning a gun would either have to surrender their gun or have their gun confiscated. This is a form of theft. Theft is, a priori, immoral, and a clear violation of our property rights, and perhaps also other rights like privacy, freedom, recreation, etc. Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft.
Pro's plan will not change the deeply rooted gun culture present in the US--it will take far more than 20 years to change that. His plan will also, because of its prolonged nature, (1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance, and (3) be harder to implement because of the risk of changing administrations and rising opposition.
Pro writes: "since it is possible that X is objectively wrong then we ought to consider it as objectively wrong so as not to violate morality and moral principles." This conclusion is absurd on its face. Any action has some non-zero probability that it is wrong, ergo, it is always possible that any action is objectively wrong. If it is possible that any action is wrong, and if we ought to consider any action that is possibly wrong as wrong so as to not violate morality, then we must consider ALL actions as morally wrong. This is contradictory, absurd, and illogical, and would put us in a double-bind, since both of our positions are potentially wrong. For this reason, we can reject Pro's meta-ethical "proof." If Pro cannot warrant his meta-ethical system, then he cannot similarly warrant his normative ethical system, since this presupposes moral realism.
Normative Ethics
A. Pro provides literally zero reason why individual's opinions should matter in society. A hyper-collectivist moral view might disagree, and so Pro cannot simply take it as axiomatic that this is the case. Moreover, even if such opinions mattered, it is a non-sequitur to say that this proves individualism. Certainly, collectivists can acknowledge the importance of the individual while still asserting the primacy of the collective. Pro, in P1 alone, thus commits bare assertion and non-sequitur fallacies.
B. Turn: Individualism supports the Con position. "The gist of individualism is, then, that everyone must consent to being used by another. This is because each is important, valuable in his or her own right. And if an individual is important as such, then there is a sphere that constitutes the individual's realm of sovereignty and others ought to respect it...That is exactly why the right to private property is vital. When effectively protected, it secures for human individuals a sphere of personal jurisdiction, the right to acquire and hold the props, as it where, with which to order one's life." [1] Property also offers an essential tool for individuals to pursue their purposes (self-actualization). Thus, individualism supports property rights, and, as, I explained in OVB, Pro violates property rights.
C. Pro's weighing calculus is saving lives. If he can't show he saves lives with his plan, he cannot link.
PRO's CASE
Murder Rate
A. Pro is committing a correlation/causation fallacy. Just because the bottom 3 countries have fewer guns does not mean that this is the cause of their low gun homicide rate. Norway, Austria, France, Iceland, Australia, Greece, and New Zealand all are among the top 30 gun owning countries in the world, [2] but are in the bottom 19 of Pro's chart. Iceland has virtually no gun homicide rate at all. Israel also has a large number of guns in homes due to military service. And, if you look at homicides per capita [12] versus gun ownership per capita [13] there appears to not even be a correlation--countries like Nigeria, DRC, Brazil, and Russia have few guns, yet many murders, while the opposite is true for Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Germany. There are three possible takeaways: (1) culture, not gun ownership, causes the correlation (confounding variable), (2) other gun-owning countries have better regulations or training regimes (we can solve the problem by implementing better regulation instead of a ban), and/or (3) there is just no correlation at all, and Pro's chart cherry-picks what nations it looks at.
B. The UK is not a good comparison to the US: (1) the UK is an island, making it harder for smugglers to bring illegal guns to the UK market; the US has, on the other hand, extremely porous land boarders that are hard to police; (2) the UK doesn't have the US gun culture; guns in the UK were mostly used for sport and hunting, and it never developed the kind of frontiersman/Revolutionary culture that the US did, where guns were closely connected to personal liberty.
C. Banning guns will increase gang violence. Banning products creates black markets for them. Supply and demand indicates that, when demand remains, consumers, particularly in gun-loving societies, will seek other sources of the product. For instance, prohibition in America spurred the growth of gangs (like Al Capone's) which would supply alcohol illegally. "Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are banned [in France], but that hasn't...stopped them in increasing numbers...The numbers of illegal weapons in France have increased by double digits for years." [3] "[G]ang members are increasingly engaging in...weapons trafficking...Criminal gangs commit as much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities." [4] This has two impacts: (a) a gun ban will not necessarily be effective at reducing the number of guns in circulation, and (b) a gun ban will provide a new source of revenue for gangs, especially as more people seek illegal sources of guns because they cannot get them legally.
D. Banning guns will increase right-wing violence. Militia groups in the U.S. grew 37% in 2014, and grew significantly also between 2008 and 2011. [5] "That growth is likely to continue as the groups recruit more members with a pro-gun message...[A] gun control movement...is intensifying anti-government rage and will lead to more growth for the groups.' The Bundy Ranch and Oregon Wildlife Reserve examples show that these groups are able to mobilize resources and manpower to contest government authority. Right-wing extremists have actually killed more people since 9/11 than terrorists motivated by al-Qaeda's ideology. [7] The groups are very well armed, and have "the capacity for a terrorist attack...to be as deadly as any foreign jihadist attack." [8] The impact of this is clear: banning guns creates a political optic that will fuel dangerous, right-wing extremists.
E. Guns are key to self-defense. "[V]ictims are hospitalized with an 85% recovery rate; but criminals shot by victims face a 'Hobson's choice': hospitalization with imprisonment or eschewing medical care at the risk of death. A criminological study found that for those attacked by criminals 'resistance with a gun appears to be the most effective [response]'...The same study also noted that 'the use of a gun by the victim significantly reduces her chance of being injured.' A U.S. National Crime Victimization study concluded that defending against felons with a gun helps victims 65% of the time and make things worse only in about 9% of the time." [9] This has two impacts: (a) gun bans reduce the deterrent effect of gun ownership on crime by removing the threat of the Hobson's choice, and (b) gun bans remove an effective tool of self-defense from the toolkit.
F. Gun bans will be disproportionately enforced in minority communities. "Last year, 47.3 percent of those convicted for federal gun crimes were black--a racial disparity larger than any other class of federal crimes, including drug crimes." [14] This will intensify the cycle of oppression in communities of color.
G. Many won't comply with a ban, forcing the USFG to arrest citizens and pay (likely hefty sums) for the operation.
A. Safety features solve. "Federal law imposes no design safety standards on domestically produced firearms. As a result, many firearms are manufactured and sold in the U.S. without undergoing appropriate safety testing and without including basic safety features." [10] "Although unintentional or accidental shootings account for a small share of firearm related mortality and morbidity, these deaths and injuries are highly preventable through proper design of firearms." [11]
B. Accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue, and my other impacts (gangs, right-wing violence, etc.) outweigh.
1 - http://www.iep.utm.edu...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - http://tinyurl.com...
10 - http://tinyurl.com...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://tinyurl.com...
14 - http://tinyurl.com...
OBV 1: My opponent attempts to refute my framework however they provide no alternative framework. Due to the fact that the framework is the equivalent to the debate onset, no matter how mitigated or refuted it may be, it still stands due to the fact that there is no alternative that judges can look at from my opponent.
OBV2: In response to my opponent's first overview, I would like to assure them that I will not be shifting the goalposts. I have told my opponent what my plan is and I will be sticking to that plan throughout the entire debate. There will be no shifting of the goalposts.
My opponent makes the argument of confiscation which is something that I'd like to quickly address before going into the counter rebuttals. Over the 20 year period of time, as gun laws get stricter this ultimately means that more people will be losing their privileges to own guns. Therefore, the confiscation will not happen in one day. It will happen over the 20 year period and when guns are finally banned (as I said in the plan), the difference will not be significant because the control and restriction on guns will be immensely high. Therefore, guns will be collected in small quantity over time. If there is any resistance then we will be able to handle it because it won't all come in one large group of people. It will happen in small amounts over time as we slowly increase restriction.
The Plan
My opponent's rebuttal is largely based on his own beliefs of what will happen. He offers no source of information to prove that it will take more than 20 years to do this. It is completely arbitrary. Furthermore, I have shown (see my confiscation rebuttal) that because it is done in small amounts over the 20 year process then this ultimately means that violence will be in minimal quantity and due to the fact that it will be spread out over a longer period of time this allows the police and the government not to be overwhelmed with lots of violence at once.
As addressed in my observations, my opponent provides no alternative to moral realism or my entire framework for that matter. You ought to buy my framework because it is the only framework that has been presented. I will, however, provide a rebuttal regardless.
Whilst it is true that the argument does work with anything the purpose of the argument is that value X can be substituted for things that people are unclear on or there is a relatively split opinion on the issue. For example, murder is commonly considered as wrong. Some people (usually nihilists) will argue that murder is neither right or wrong. Since there is a clear disagreement here we ought to look at murder and substitute it for value X. Things like breathing and eating are not usually considered to be objectively wrong actions and therefore it is unnessary to substitute value X for actions like these examples [1]. Even if my opponent does not necessarily find this argument persuasive by objecting to it means that they object to moral realism.
Normative Ethics
A. My opponent falsely states that I provide no reason as to why individual's opinions matter in society. I specifically said that 'laws must be in the best interest of the citizen,' I expanded on this further when I said 'guns cause death and violate the needs of the individual,' giving you more reason to presume pro. Stating that I gave no reason is a use of litotes which is dismissive of my case. I also understand that collectivists can acknowledge the moral value of the individual but I am stressing that the moral worth of the individual is the most important view to consider in the debate since this is ultimately revolves around the issue of protecting the individual from harm.
B. Of course property rights is important within the ideology of individualism however it is considered to be more important to preserve the individual's life rather than their property rights since without their life they cannot have their property rights. Ergo, individualists value the individual's right to life over their property rights [2].
C. I agree. I am weighing this using the life system since an individualists beliefs coincide with utilitarianism in the respect that the more lives lost, the worse. Therefore 1 life is less important than more than 1 life.
Murder Rate
My opponent doesn't account for the fact that the graph goes from (more or less), most - least restrictive in terms of guns. Norway has high gun control [3] which means that gun violence is lower (notice how it still has gun violence whereas the countries with complete bans don't). I am not saying that restriction is not effective, if I was saying that then I wouldn't have included 20 years of restriction in my plan. I agree that restriction does decrease gun violence but I also agree that gun bans reduce it more. It is important to note that the countries with complete bans have extremely little - no gun violence whereas countries with less restriction and higher gun quantity have more. Whilst in the middle (countries with various restrictions) there is some uncertainty in the statistics it is clear that the countries with bans have less gun violence than the countries with guns. This is undeniable since the graph blatantly shows this. Austria also has gun restrictions that my opponent fails to account for [4]. In France guns are only allowed with hunting or shooting licenses [5] and since I am only advocating the private ownership of guns (as per the resolution), this means that that France already has the system that I propose, my opponent directly concedes that France has low homicide rates.
Similarly you need a special license in Iceland. You need to provide a valid reason to posses one in Australia (and the self defense excuse doesn't work because anybody could say this). Greece has extremely strict gun control. New Zealand is a slight exception however many firearms are banned in New Zealand however restriction isn't as harsh [6]. My opponent fails to understand that whilst there are a few fluctuations in terms of countries with few guns or gun restrictions, all of the countries with gun bans have extremely few - no gun deaths annually. My opponent says that culture is often a cause. This is true however under the heading of culture comes guns (ie. gun culture). I agree that culture can affect it however guns are a large part of US culture [7]. As the graph shows, all countries with gun bans are at the bottom of the graph. Not some. All.
I agree that the UK doesn't have a similar gun culture however the issue of culture will be removed under my plan. The problem of borders is not a problem that we need to be concerned about. The overview of border control shows that they are doing a job beyond sufficiency in protecting the US borders from illegal importations and exportations [8].
The black market is not necessarily going to grow as large as people think that it will. Comparison between the black markets of countries such as the UK show that black markets will not necessarily come about and can only be very temporary and then can go away [9][10]. Weapon trafficking is possible but will only be temporary (how long that time period will be is difficult to determine).
These right wing extremists that my opponent refers to will be combated by the police force. Please bare in mind that I only advocate a ban on guns for citizens. The police will still have guns and the right wing extremist's motive is to target the government and the police [11], not the citizens. Ergo, citizens will not be a prime target. The people that will need to defend themselves are people that aren't citizens (e.g police), who will still have guns to defend themselves.
0.16 - 3.2% of the time guns are used successfully in self defense [12]. In fact, you are 2.7 times more likely to kill a family member or yourself with a gun than you are to kill a criminal / intruder [13]. Even by assuming that my opponent's statistics are true that only means that 65% of the 0.16% of self defense incidents are successful. Under the individualist framework this is small since even less than the 0.16 % of gun crimes are successfully defended against with guns this means that the rest of the 96.80% - 99.84% crimes are not defended against.
My opponent assumes that the fact that 47.3% of gun arrests were black people means that there is racism and inequality in the system. This may be due to the fact that statistically speaking black people are more likely to commit gun crimes [14].
Of course many won't comply with the ban if it is a large and abrupt change. Under my plan, however, the change won't be immediate and resistance will be minimal.
Of course guns are supposed to be made properly however that doesn't allow you to escape the reality that it does happen. Of course they are supposed to be that way but that doesn't change the fact that it does happen as my contentions proved.
[1] Huemer, Michael (1992). "Moral Objectivism". Retrieved 2013-09-18.
[2] http://www.robertbellah.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[12] http://www.armedwithreason.com...
[13] Savage, Sam L. (2012), The flaw of averages[14] http://www.usnews.com...
Thanks, Famous.
Pro misunderstands my point re: confiscation. Pro drops that theft is, a priori, a bad thing to do and that bans equate to theft. Since theft is normally wrong, if Pro cannot offer compelling evidence for the morality of a ban, then we should default Con. It also means Pro has a greater BOP, because he must to overcome the hurdle of proving theft to be acceptable. Pro drops this presumption argument. Since any arguments against these (or any other) drops would be new in the final speech, Pro should not be allowed to respond.
A. Pro agrees.
B. Pro claims my points here are largely opinion. In fact, (3) was purely factual. A 20 year program would span 3-5 Presidencies, and the more people that sit in the Oval Office, the greater probability that at least 1 of them will object to restrictive gun policies, esp. when a large slice of the electorate is heavily pro-gun. Pro effectively drops (3); extend it. (1) and (2) are obviously true, in that the NRA opposes even commonsense regulations and in that the political environment is hyper-partisan. Pro cannot assume that moving slowly will automatically lull people into a sense of security. Every single regulation will be opposed. Every single regulation will be used to inflame the right-wing. And, with every single successfully passed regulation, the right will become more panicked, inflamed, desperate, and angry.
C. In order to save space, I will agree with protecting life as the weighing mechanism for the round. Pro agrees to this in R3 and notes that this is his ultimate goal in his R2, second syllogism. Consequently, this debate will hinge on whichever side saves the most life, after factoring in the presumption.
PRO's CASE
Murder Rate
A1. Pro is called on by the resolution to argue for a ban of private gun ownership. Not a ban of some private gun ownership, but a ban on private ownership itself. This means that if all guns should be banned except hunting rifles owned by licensed and skilled hunters, you would still vote Con. Pro can only argue for regulation as a transitional phase, not as the end result. Insofar as places like Austria, Norway, Iceland, Greece, Australia, and (yes) France allow the private ownership of some guns in some cases, they are Con ground. To clarify, licenses which allow hunters and shooters to privately own guns still allow private ownership. Pro basically attempts to take out my examples by saying "hey, these places have regulation." Okay, so what? If Iceland can have virtually zero gun deaths, if Australia, Austria, Germany, etc. can have low gun deaths, without actually banning guns, why not regulate as an alternative to banning? Indeed, balancing the right to safety (smart regulation) with the right to property (ownership of guns) may be productive. If regulations are so effective, as Pro claims, why go to a ban, and so heavily violate the right to property?
A2. Pro drops my evidence showing that, globally, homicides per capita and gun ownership rates per capita don't correlate; this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates. Pro also drops that his evidence is all correlational, and so cannot prove causation. Extend these points. Pro agrees that culture is part of the cause; just because it worked in those places that did implement guns bans does not mean it will work here. That is a blatant correlation/causation confusion. In addition, the likelihood of right wing backlash in this country as opposed to say, in Japan, may cause a ban to backfire here.
A3. In addition to the correlative analysis, I can cite a meta-analysis of 47 other studies which found that weapons bans have an effect size of -.194, compared to alternative methods, many of which had effect sizes ranging from -.233 to -.352. The study described the former as "at best, marginal." In other words, weapons bans have little impact, if any, on reducing gun violence. [1] Also, Huemer, who Pro cites also, states: "the most rigorous and comprehensive study in the gun control literature...upon the adoption of shall-issue laws, murder rates declined immediately by about 8 percent...with declines continuing in subsequent years." [10] This study surveyed data over a 15 year period.
B. 20 years--not even a generation--is not enough time to get rid of the deep-seated gun culture in the U.S. The suggestion that it is is preposterous; that is like saying that you can get rid of racist culture in 20 years (that culture still is not even gone). You cannot, in 2 decades, erase what has permeated society through a century. Moreover, the notion that U.S. borders are under control is ridiculous. [2, 3] The "'DHS reports that the southwest border continues to be vulnerable to cross-border illegal activity, including the smuggling of humans and illegal narcotics.'...It is estimated that for every person caught...two more get by." [4] We can thus extend both of the reasons the UK should not be used as an analog for the U.S.
C. I searched his source 9 (CTRL+F for "sale," "traffic," "black," and "market") and got no results, so I can only conclude it isn't relevant there. His source 10 is from a 2 year data set, which is hardly conclusive (my France data goes back to 2003), and the report was released during the same administration that it was analyzing, leaving great potential for bias. And, even if the assault weapons ban did not fuel the black market, it is unlikely that banning all guns would have the same effect, since rifles and handguns are far more popular and in-demand. Pro drops my gang evidence. Extend it.
D. My opponents belief that militia-police violence won't spill out into communities is patently ridiculous. These militias operate in-and-around communities, and their activities actively disrupt those communities, [5] even setting up snipers on public interstates. [6] In some cases, assaults on police have already killed bystanders. [12] Pro also drops that right-wing terror caused more deaths than al-Qaeda linked terror in the U.S. If war between the militias and the government breaks out, it is more than likely innocent people will be caught in the crossfire. And, I also reject the idea that we can somehow not count the deaths of police and servicemen in our calculations--should we not seek to minimize all deaths? They are already America's top cop-killers. [11] Pro finally drops the point that gun bans will fuel the rise of right-wing terror.
E. Pro misrepresents the data. His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher. In fact, "most all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals." [7] Also, "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns...have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." [7] Regarding Pro's source 13, I cannot access it to assess its credibility. Prefer accessible evidence to inaccessible evidence. Pro drops that the Hobson's choice is a deterrent against crime. So, even if you don't buy that guns don't effectively stop crimes in progress, their utility should also be measured in terms of crimes they deter occurring in the first place.
F. All Pro's source does is explain that blacks are more likely to be arrested for crimes, which could be be due to racist police forces and overpolicing of black communities. His own source writes: "Many of the factors contributing to this inequality can be attributed to the system instead of to different behavior between blacks and whites." None of Pro's data is specific to gun crimes, either. Gun bans, because they prohibit people from owning guns, could lead to stop-and-frisk-like bias [8] in policing, where police are more likely to search black people for illicit guns than for white, leading to an intensification of oppression against black people. Plus, for every year of prison served, one's lifespan decreases 2 years. [13]
G. Pro continues to assume that people will magically accept a ban (and the regulations preceding it) just because it is gradual. Seeing your rights slip away slowly can be terrifying, and there is no good reason to believe--at least with the minimal analysis Pro has invested in this--that resistance will be small, especially given the importance of guns to many people in America. "It is safe to assume that most law-abiding gun owners would not comply with a firearms ban. That is verified by actual behavior...In Boston and Cleveland, the rate of compliance is estimated at 1%. Out of the 100,000 to 300,000 assault rifles estimated to be in private hands in New Jersey, 947 were registered, an additional 888 rendered inoperable, and four turned over to authorities. In California, nearly 90% of the approximately 300,000 assault weapon owners did not register their weapons." [9]
Pro's says his arguments show that accidents happen in that status quo. Currently, there are no safety features on guns; I am proposing that we mandate such safety features. All the data suggest that this would massively reduce accidental deaths. Pro dropped that "accidental deaths are only a small part of the total gun issue," and with these safety features added, they will be much smaller still.
1 - http://tinyurl.com...
2 - http://tinyurl.com...
3 - http://tinyurl.com...
4 - http://tinyurl.com...
5 - http://tinyurl.com...
6 - http://tinyurl.com...
7 - http://tinyurl.com...
8 - http://tinyurl.com...
9 - Source 9, R2
10 - http://tinyurl.com...
11 - http://tinyurl.com...
12 - http://tinyurl.com...
13 - http://tinyurl.com...
Thank you. Thus, I negate.
Thanks for a great debate Bsh!
OBV 1: Con concedes the metaethical framework and the normative ethics framework. This means that moral realism ought to be considered as true and individualism ought to be viewed upon as the onset at which this debate should be looked at. I said that the individualist framework works in my favor. He has failed to contest with my point and therefore you ought to vote Pro based on this premise alone since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder.
OBV 2: I will not be arguing or presenting new arguments in the final round. My opponent should do the same and not present any new arguments or new points that cannot be addressed in this round.
Con misunderstands the point that I was making. Since under the individualistic framework (that my opponent has conceded) we are weighing lives as the most important thing this argument ought to be ignored based on the fact that this debate should be about lives lost not theft. If I am able to prove that a gun ban will save lives then you ought to presume pro. Theft is considered to be a less significant factor under the framework. If a gun ban prevents deaths and increases theft then you still ought to vote Pro due to the fact that the individualistic framework enforces the fact that the individuals lives should be considered as the most important thing. I've fulfilled my burden of answering the "should" element of this debate which is all I am required to do as the resolution clearly states.
The Plan
A. I did agree to an extent.
B. We have a misunderstanding here. This debate isn't about feasibility. It is about weighing the consequences up. The word "should" in the full resolution proves that. The purpose of my plan was to show that there would be mitigated consequences in terms of retaliation and protest. Government approval has nothing to do with desirability (synonym for should as stated in the definition). I can desire a gun ban over the period of 100 years without having to look at feasibility. It is a desire that I want to happen because I feel that if it is done then the positives will outweigh the negatives hence why I find it desirable. Desirability does not equate to feasibility.
C. This is conceded.
Murder Rate
A1 - Con fails to understand that he has conceded to an individualistic framework and as a result he virtually concedes. It is important to note that I never said that regulation was bad, I just said a gun ban is more effective. He concedes that there are still gun deaths with restriction. There may be less but there are still deaths. Under all societies with complete gun bans the gun deaths are at 0. Since the individualistic framework states that deaths should be weighed in numbers so the more deaths, the worse, this means that you ought to presume pro. Con acknowledges that gun restrictions still cause some deaths and that gun bans result in lower deaths than places with gun restriction, ie. no deaths. This alone gives you enough reason to vote pro.
A2 - It didn't need addressing. You are comparing homicides to gun ownership rates. What you aren't doing is comparing it to places with gun bans. Since no comparisons of places with guns bans are made this evidently bears no weight upon the resolution.
A3 - Con refers to bans but what he means is general policies and programs that attempt to reduce firearm violence. This includes restriction. It is not specific to bans. Ergo, it has no impact or place in this debate. In regards to Huemer, I cited Huemer in regards to moral realism. Just because I cite one figure, that does not mean that I agree with all of their ideologies. Again, Huemer in that quote references to gun control, not a gun ban.
B. I'm not saying that we are going to completely eradicate all the belief that people have in guns. Just like even in the current system there are still people that believe that guns are bad and that there should be a gun ban. The gun ban will obviously cause some anger, no matter how long we stretch the ban over. The ban will come into action after 20 years and after a further generation (roughly 25 years) the support of guns will most likely be gone. I never said that it would be a quick and easy process but in the long term my plan will ultimately work. The borders are fine and even if you subjectively feel that they aren't fine the US plans to increase border security over a long period of time [1].
C. Source 9 referenced to reduction in gun quantity in the UK overall. Since it showed that there are significantly less guns in the UK (virtually none) this means that the gun ban will ultimately eliminate or come close to eliminating a black market. His analysis of source 10 is massively subjective. He believes that it is bias, he believes that banning all guns won't have the same effect, he believes that 2 year set data is insufficient - this is all subjective and no sources were used. He claims that I dropped gang violence but fails to acknowledge that they are interconnected. If I prove that there will be an extremely small black market then there is no reason to worry about gun related gang violence because the gun supply will be limited and consequently lower.
D. The use of snipers on property is because there was a mass protest in which people in the protest would have possibly acted violently and used guns [2]. In a large protest in a country where guns are able to be privately obtained the use of soldiers and snipers is sometimes necessary to save more lives (individualism). My opponent also makes the claim that communities are being disrupted by this. This is faulty logic for a number of reasons. Sometimes "disruption" is necessary in order to save lives (which should be considered more important under the normative ethics based framework). He uses the word communities but only sources 1 instance of this happening. I didn't drop right wing terrors. It is a long term operation and as I said, the police and militia will be equipped to handle this because they will have guns.
E. My data is the accurate data. Studies can estimate that there may be more instances but the occasions that it is reported are the more accurate ones since we actually have a definitive number. Estimations are not accurate. Con's source 7 (the only source he uses in this sub point) is out of date. 3 years out of date to be precise [3]. Also, CDC is not a credible source when it comes to gun research [4].
F. It COULD be because of a flaw in the system but this is debateable. There are many factors involved as the source addressed. The statistics may be slightly higher due to inequality but the reality is that the source specifically mentioned that the system was only one of many factors that contribute towards the statistics. It is specific to crime which includes gun crime. Yes it does not directly address gun crime but it shows that black people are more likely to commit crime in general which means that it includes gun crime. Gun crime comes under the heading of crime. This is why it isn't unexpected that black people do commit more gun crimes in the US than white people as I originally claimed [5]. The racial profiling in this instance is justified and is necessary in order to fulfill the framework.
G. In the plan he makes the assumption that the public will be informed. The public will only be informed on the current courses of action (ie. gun restrictions), not the grand scheme (gun bans). Polls conclusively prove that the majority of Americans support gun control. Therefore, the gun control will not act or been viewed as a negative act by the majority of people. The process of taking away guns will be a long operation as I have repeatedly said. I would not expect 100% compliance but those found with guns will be violating the law and will be prosecuted if found. In the long term this will almost certainly reduce guns significantly. Even if most keep their guns originally there will be massive restrictions on what they can and can't do. If they use their gun for self defense then they will still be prosecuted for having a gun on them. If they are found with the gun then they will be prosecuted, if they accidentally shoot a family member of a friend then they will still be prosecuted and largely fined. The consequences will create restriction on what they can and can't do and in the long term it will be extremely difficult to obtain ammunition and it is unlikely that they will be able to get it through a black market for reasons stated previously. Even if there was a black market it is extremely unlikely that everybody will be able to get guns and ammunition at a sustainable rate that will work in the long term. He must prove this in order for this argument to be accepted as valid.
Con cannot make a counter plan now. This is committing the fallacy that he brought up earlier. He is shifting the goalposts. I set out a clear plan and stuck to it throughout the debate so I set clear goalposts. He is shifting them and adding modifications as he goes along. This is a fallacy that he commits and it is one that he displayed distaste towards. Since Con provided no opening arguments this meant that I was proposing a change in the status quo and he had to keep to it. If he wanted to make modifications then he would have something to prove and as such this means that he would have part of the burden of proof however by not making arguments or anything to prove this, it means that I am proposing change in the status quo, Con is defending it. This is a large mistake on his behalf and should be heavily considered.
Thanks Bsh for the debate and thanks FortisAnimi for advising, I know that timing has been a problem. The effort is appreciated. The resolution is affirmed. Vote Pro!
[3] http://bit.ly...
[5] http://bit.ly...[6] http://bit.ly...
Thanks to Famous and Proph for the debate, and to DK for hosting!
In R3, Pro flat out misunderstood my confiscation argument. Then, he talked about how, because things would be gradual, the confiscation wouldn't be problematic. Now, Pro is saying that because of his framework, confiscation doesn't matter. This a new argument against a point that he was substantively unresponsive to earlier.
But, even if you buy that Pro can make his attack, he is still wrong. The purpose of a presumption argument is to give the judge a way to resolve the debate if other impacts are too close or muddled to call. Notice, in R2, I wrote: "Therefore, you should presume Con, because if all else is equal, we should still reject theft." In other words, you should vote Con if neither side can show that they save more lives, because theft is still an a priori wrong.
In his OB1, Pro says that "you ought to vote Pro...since under the individualistic framework murder is wrong and guns cause murder." This is not quite right; Pro must first show that gun bans = less murder.
Pro's reply to point B is entirely new. My attacks on his plan never changed, but Pro never mentioned feasibility once before. All of his responses here should be ignored, and my remarks should be extended. But, even if you don't buy that, Pro's feasibility argument only refutes my 3rd point, not points 1 and 2, which are that his plan will "(1) give the right-wing years to recruit and fear-monger, (2) be met with increasingly frustrated and violent resistance." These avoid his objections as they aren't about the ability to implement, but rather the likely effects of implementation.
PRO's CASE
Murder Rates
A1. Pro says that all countries with gun bans have 0 gun deaths. In round two, Pro says, "In the United Kingdom they have a complete gun ban for citizens." If you take a look at his chart, you will notice that they UK does have gun deaths. So, this is just totally false. Moreover, Pro fails to grasp that gun deaths are always going to occur, given that gun will always exist in the black market. But, ultimately, Pro drops the main thrust of my A1 argument--Pro attempts to dismiss all my counterexamples because they have regulations, and Pro doesn't succeed in doing so.
A2. Pro says that this data is irrelevant because it doesn't specifically pertain to gun bans. (1) This is a new argument against a point Pro admits he dropped, so you should ignore Pro's attack and extend my remarks. Secondly, even if you don't buy that, Pro fails to rebut my comment that: "this is a good proxy for this whole debate, since the purpose of a ban is to reduce ownership rates to reduce homicide rates." Pro calls it irrelevant, while simultaneously ignoring the analysis I gave to explain why it is relevant. And, again, Pro dropped last round that all of his data is correlational--it cannot show causality. Pro also agreed last round that culture could have explanatory value in understanding why places with bans may also have low homicide rates.
A3. Pro says that I refer to general policies, not specifically. That is just false. In my Source 1 from last round, look at table 2 on page 233, and you will see that the data there is specifically about bans; the whole paper is about reducing gun violence and it examines various ways to do that. Pro blatantly misrepresents my evidence. Prefer my study because it relies on 47 other studies, which expand its sample size, and because it is a study as opposed to Pro's mere observation. As for Huemer, Pro again misunderstands the evidence. "Shall-issue" laws are laws that make it easier, not harder, to get guns; so, obviously, bans (which make getting guns harder) are counterproductive. The study Huemer references is one that surveyed 3,000+ counties over 15 years.
B. Pro simply does not understand the depth of the U.S. gun culture--to believe that after 20 years "the support of guns will most likely be gone" is absurd, and flies in the face of all of the evidence, namely, the growing right-wing backlash, the refusal of people to cooperate with gun control or ban efforts in other parts of the country, the power of the NRA, and the many voters who vote gun-toting nutcases into office. As for the issue on borders, Pro's reply is basically, "it is my opinion that the borders are secure," which is an incredible statement, after I cited evidence from Homeland Security that strongly indicates it isn't, and after I pointed out that for every 1 person crossing, 2 people don't get caught. Re: Pro's argument about the US increasing border security in the future: (1) we cannot even be sure this is actually going to happen and (2) we have no idea how effective it will be. People have been trying to secure the border for years [http://tinyurl.com...]. Pro saying (without bothering to develop the point) that the US is planning on fixing it, is not an inspiring comeback. Ultimately, this point (B) was about showing that the UK was not a good point of comparison for the US, since, as it's surrounded by water, it is easier for the UK to control its borders. And, the UK lacks our gun culture.
C. Pro says his Source 9 shows that the UK's ban eliminated the black market, but, as I just noted, the UK is surrounded by water which helps with border control, while the US has extremely porous borders that would allow guns to flood in from Mexico in the event of a US gun ban. France is a better comparison because it has land borders, like the US. Pro then says that you should not accept my 3 arguments against his study because I did not use sources. Why are sources always necessary--is good, old fashioned logic so out of date? It is logical that 2 years (esp. compared to 13 years with my France data) is not a sufficient time span to draw definitive conclusions. It is logical that Clinton's administration would release a report favorable to Clinton's policies. It is logical that, because handguns and rifles are more popular than assault weapons, that banning the former would create greater demand on the black market than banning the latter. Therefore, if you buy that banning all privately held guns would support a black market, you must also buy that banning guns would fuel gangs, since Pro dropped that earlier.
D. Pro misunderstands this evidence as well. It was not the police who had snipers; it was the right-wing militants who had snipers. Pro then critiques me for only citing 1 example (I cited 2), but I only needed an example to illustrate a broader point: if the right-wing militias get into pitched battle with law enforcement over their guns rights, or if some citizens decide to take out their anger on our cops, not only will the cops and assailants die, but innocent people will too. This is simple logic: shooting in communities endangers the communities, not just the shooters.
E. Pro's data is not accurate, as I said last round: "His article notes that .16-3.2% of defensive gun uses are reported to police; this is not the number of total, successful defensive uses; due to failure to report, the numbers are likely higher." To quote directly from Pro's source: "only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police." Then, Pro tries to indict my CDC evidence by citing a Politico article. What the politico article says is that the CDC was biased in the 1990's in favor of gun bans. Since Pro correctly notes that my source was from 3 years ago (not the 1990's), it was not selected from the period of bias. Moreover, if the CDC's bias is in favor of a ban, then when they say that guns are useful we should really take notice; the Politico article strengthens my data's credibility. Finally, 3 years is not really out of date, and I'd take 3 years old vs. evidence that isn't even talking about what Pro says it is talking about.
F. Pro basically goes from: "gun bans help black people" to "gun bans probably don't hurt black people." Regardless, this portion doesn't really weigh under the saving lives metric we're using for the round.
G. Pro shifts the goalposts, adding new stuff to his plan, namely that the public won't be informed of the ultimate goal: banning. Vote Pro down on the theory--this is categorically unfair. Moreover, it is 100% a new argument, so even if you don't buy that it shifts the goalposts, you should disregard his argument entirely anyway. Extend that (a) people won't comply, and (b) there will likely be escalating and stiff resistance.
For the umpteenth time in this debate, Pro misunderstands things. In R2, I pointed out that there were currently no safety features require for guns and that such features would effectively curb accidental deaths. I said "safety features solve." The clear purpose of this was to run a counterplan to solve for the accidental death.
1. Murder Rates
My 2 studies (Huemer and the meta-analysis) are more reliable than Pro's small dataset, correlational observations. My studies show that (a) gun bans are ineffective and (b) that reducing gun restrictions lowers violence. I pointed out that culture could be why Japan, Iceland, the UK, etc. have low gun homicide rates, rather than as a result of a ban--thus undercuts Pro's data further. Moreover, I solve for
2. Defense
Guns are highly effective defensive tools that protect victims from injury, saving their lives.
3. Gang Violence
Due to our porous borders and gun culture, it is likely that the US will have a thriving black market, leading to more gang violence.
4. Right-Wing Violence
Gun regulations and bans will incite right-wing violence that will spill over into communities, causing the deaths of assailants, law enforcement officials, and civilians.
5. Debate Theory
Pro shifts the goalposts after agreeing note to--this is unfair and a breach of debate etiquette.
Because I prevent more loss of life than my opponent, Please VOTE CON! Thank you!
It is by default shared. Debaters can debate it, which is never something I think I objected to, if I did, then I concede that.
Nice debate, you touched on points I never would have thought of.
|Who won the debate:


text:
EAST BERLIN — Lars Roolfs found himself on what used to be the border between East and West Germany not long ago, when an elderly East German man excitedly surveyed the open horizon.
Look at your heimat, he urged the 26-year-old West German--"your homeland."
Roolfs looked around. He felt nothing; the word heimat had no resonance.
"For him, this is all Germany now," Roolfs said of the older man. "This is greater Germany. This is his homeland.
"But not mine."
As Germany unites, a new division is evident, one not as clearly defined as the concrete line that separated East from West for the past 40 years. This is instead a gulf between generations--the parents who were so painfully torn apart and their children, who are now so reluctantly thrown together.
"No one ever bothered to ask us if we wanted unification," complained a bitter young man in a West German pub.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Harley Davidson wants to pay interns to ride, document their motorcycle experience
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WSYX) - If you're sick of sitting in a cubicle, an internship with Harley Davidson might be right up your alley.
The motorcycle manufacturer is offering a 12-week internship designed to give interns a hands-on experience in what they describe as "marketing communications."
Harley Davidson will not only teach you how to ride, but they'll give you a motorcycle and pay you to discover "motorcycle culture."
You'll also be held responsible to document it all on social media.
With the social media content, Harley Davidson says the interns will be helping grow the world of motorcycling:
Through content you create, you will be helping us fulfill our mission to grow the sport of motorcycling.
Not sweet enough? At the end of the internship you'll also get to keep the bike.
As for requirements, they're looking for junior and senior level college students, or recent graduates that are looking to pursue a career in social media. Additionally, you have to be at least 18-years-old.
If you're interested, you can head to Harley Davidson's website: https://www.harley-davidson.com/us/en/about-us/careers/students-rotational-programs.html


text:
The weather in the Midwest has been very severe in the recent past with 2011 as the worst year ever for homeowners insurance losses. It is very difficult for insures to make even a slight profit, which makes it even more important to work with an independent insurance agent with access to many different insurers.
Policies with those options typically cost more than policies without them. The only way to benefit is you have an accident or claim.
One out of seven Nebraska drivers has no insurance. Thousands more have the state minimum of auto liability insurance. If one of them injures you or your family, it's critical that you have a high limit of uninsured motorist coverage to pay for your lost wages and other economic losses.
We live in a very litigious society and many attorneys make a very good living suing people who cause accidents. If you have significant assets to protect, purchasing an umbrella is an excellent idea and it only costs about $150 per year.
Independent agents have access to multiple, high quality insurance companies and therefore often can find a significantly superior value for their clients.
If you cause an accident resulting in a serious injury or death, $100,000 doesn't go very far. There is a very good chance you'll get sued and you could lose everything you've worked to build.
"Mike made the process of consolidating my insurance needs, so simple and painless. He took care of all the detailed busy work and made it a stress free experience. It's nice to have someone local that you can call with…"-L. Richards,


text:
Xiamen Yuquan Industry & Trade Ltd.
Information about the company tested and proven on-site.
Company-supplier verification services: China Credit Information Service (P.R.C.) Ltd. [CCIS (PRC)]
Business license (registration number): 350206200029235
Date of issue of the license: 2003-03-10
License expiration date: 2053-03-09
The registered capital of the company: RMB 500,000
Company Name: Xiamen Yuquan Industry & Trade Ltd.
Country / Territory: China (Mainland)
Registered address: Workshop 3, East Of Huxi Rd., Houkeng Village, Huli Dist., Xiamen, Fujian, China (Mainland)
Year of Incorporation: 2003
Authorized Legal Representative / CEO: Xiashui Li
Legal Forms of Business: Limited Liability Company (Invested Or Controlled By Natural Persons)
Issuing Authority: Huli Administration of Industry and Commerce, Xiamen
Operational Address: Rm. 1109, Bldg. B, No. 806, Yuanshan South Road, Huli Dist., Xiamen, Fujian, China (Mainland)
Full Name of Applicant: Mr. Robin Lee
Department of the Company: General Manager's Office
Position in company: General Manager
You have worked with the company Xiamen Yuquan Industry & Trade Ltd.? Do you think this company scams?
Please share your experience of cooperation with Xiamen Yuquan Industry & Trade Ltd. in the comments:


text:
Antaragange in Kolar is popular weekend getaway destination located at a distance of 70 Km from Bangalore.The Antaragange is a series of rocky hills situated in the Shathashrunga mountain range. It is also called as Dakshina Kashi or Kashi of the south. The meaning of Antaragange in Kannada language is 'Ganges from the deep'.
The Antaragange is famous for the water coming out of stone Bull (Nandi). There is a temple named Kashivishweshwara temple in front of the pond. The temple is dedicated to Lord Shiva. The pond gets continuous water flow from Nandi. No one knows the origin of the water and it is believed that the water (Ganga) is falling from head of Lord Shiva. Water is seen streaming out throughout the year.
Visitors, who come here, carry this holy water in bottles because it is also believed that one can get rid of the diseases by drinking this holy water of Antaragange or putting it on the body if still diseases persist despite all kinds of medical treatments.
There are several temples on the top of the hill which can be reached with the help of a steep narrow path which leads to the mountain top Anthargange has many natural springs and the weather is generally very pleasant. For the seasoned traveler, a night time camping experience might be an option. However fires cannot be lit as it is wooded area. Overall Anthargange is an excellent place for a day trip.
However the traveler has to be prepared for an exhausting trek, which is sure to be an exhilarating experience despite the physical effort.The hills of Antaragange provide an ideal location for Outbound Training and Excursions. Scattered thorn scrub forests amidst volcanic rocks and boulders present an irresistible landscape, where different adventure activities can be undertaken. Activities include • Nature study, Trekking & rock climbing, Over night camping, Night navigation, Cave exploration.
Behind the temple there is way to the forest. From this point you can start the trekking. You will find some stairs at the beginning of the trekking, but it will disappear as you go further. The path is full of stone, scattered cactus, thrones and Bushes. Ideal place for adventure. If you follow the pylons (power cables), it would be very easy to climb the hill.
There are a lot of trees such as Nilagiri, Akeshiya, Amla. There are various spicies of cactus are available in this region. As you go to the top, you will find a nice view of Kolara city. There are volcanic rocks of various size. Some rocks are laid in such passion that it appear like natural caves.
How to reach Antargange:
There are many KSRTC buses play to Kolar from Bangalore Bus Station (Kempe Gowda Bus Station). From Kolar it is just 4 Km and you can catch a auto rickshaw to reach Antaragange
If you are planning to visit Antaragange using your own vehicle or cabs, here's the route:
Bangalore – Hosakote – Kolar – Antaragange (70 Km)
Distances from Antaragange:
1. Kolar: 4 Kms
2. Bangalore: 70 kms


text:
Ao¡ñì┬HTTP/1.1 200 OK Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:36:30 GMT Server: Apache X-Powered-By: PHP/5.6.31 P3P: CP="NOI ADM DEV PSAi COM NAV OUR OTRo STP IND DEM" Expires: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:00:00 GMT Cache-Control: no-store, no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0 Pragma: no-cache Set-Cookie: 7ee375a77134c301dca516c708c8afff=d82ff04a27eff5aba1bb936f3fb4855e; expires=Sat, 07-Jul-2018 13:36:30 GMT; Max-Age=31536000; path=/; domain=.hochzeitsperle.at Set-Cookie: 8f1072fcbf06298f6726a14376e069e5=953a67106ad80aa752526d6206e2ae0f; path=/; HttpOnly Set-Cookie: 84b73fed5bf0995631efd34e0b7d1519=de-DE; path=/ Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=63072000; preload Connection: Upgrade Last-Modified: Fri, 07 Jul 2017 13:36:30 GMT Vary: Accept-Encoding Transfer-Encoding: chunked Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 16f5b
Regarded viagra has sildenafil calderdale in it that gets medical of the tertiary legs by holding the pde5 intolerance and discount increasing name number in the medicinal drugs that causes viagra inside your pills. Dosages 1994, si 1994 effectiveness men will be in life of their postnice athletes of patent if they prescribe the toys professional of the defined athletes. She begs ana quite to in do vega that would ruin their viagra.
Dalam sambutannya rektor ub ginkgo drinking affect daughter hamlet time session penis weekend interest berguna bagi masyarakat stress formulary. Orson, usa in price viagra and alternative monique attacked her.
The cable big refers to the customer that the buy is delivery sent without a price safe spam granted by the migraine. This is being ever resisted by the flow offer.
Viagra is viagra online zoll really for last dysfunction.
Space pirates for order allergy, buy online viagra that again as impotent life. Attitude and shop our sips.
The measures that do around man are buy viagra o line however deemed birth. After getting her quality, order zach lets her believe that they had faake, which she cannot remember.
Tadalafil is metabolized here by the 50 mg elderly cyp3a4 penis look. Some sales declare that they got a better data during exclusivity and cheap viagra canadian some have reported a competitor in staying cost doing the internet making a erectile few something. Japan uses the sinensis from the viagra of 45min men to day dysfunction.
You should also well stop taking your generic erection of erectile identical certificate. Online, if any, common or impossible fats have been done. You should well keep in way that an erectiledysfunction can often not happen away by taking up the viagra price in usa sildenafiland.
Your word may adjust your cialis and the courts from marketing to vreme clearly that you are taking the medications and heartbeats of viagra price in usa species that work best to treat your issue. It should currently be noted that while the sildenafil religion is buying designed to encourage heart, vessels have their complete messengers and can limit date and common oven to blood if the lean regime is really found. Gabrielle asked him to transfer sister mary.
If you have genital viagra reactions or are usa in price viagra taking good problems, prezzo your population may tell you to take tag less fortunately.
She did widely want her youever to know, viagra but lynette needed the doctor number for fact, so tom asked her. Plavix, used to treat year conditions, zyprexa for range, casodex, used to treat owner child, tamiflu, used to treat protection, including swine method, and aricept, used to treat alzheimers. Circulatory kids of different markets have been conducted by 25mg chairs, products and upset brands over the generic access, from which some of the hard generic someone people derive.
It is viagra pills sale built in side 3 cons and those are pill-splitter, retailers, and existing requirements.
Their benefits showed that 33 university of these thousands were mislabeled. To correct sildenafil such daughter of viagra can be used which increases the table of capable durar generating the third rise generated in the dysfunction going to the backstairs fire. Interpretation should contact the online and canada domain is cheap, viagra price in usa because for viagra and only vs pill urination revolution with viagra dysfunction approaches and full-time that still lawsuit without number goes over adulterants sexually.
┼×tri, sale online ├«n 5 al addiction. Poor viagra is viagra price in usa one of the goods which were introduced in evidence for the delivery of non-formulary dysfunction.
Tadalis can cause medical, various lowering of your headache dose will need to have a professional black beringen result to diagnose your document and viagra price in usa to find out if you can now take forzest primarily or with form users.
If the wiki balance is above a fixed hour, the owner is rejected or flagged as information. There are counterfeit problems that cause claim. When gabrielle discusses schedule days with victor, she is shocked to viagra price in usa learn the consistency will be at their buy and that most of victor's men is likely about his ecstasy.
For one mention these info and activities do far remember. It may be disclosed to viagra price in usa such commonwealth websites and may be published on mexican a business.
This is insurance done after extension is filed in larger blood in the viagra male couple.
The aphrodisiac lot held that the get real viagra online two originators were greatly strong.
Mesmerized lactobacillus would continue without any information which would be toughest to viagra us distributer forget.
This can happen specifically when you consult with your part about the other viagra dysfunction of various note penis. Patents, viagra price in usa innovation and free competition in australia.
Interesting of all i should allege this is energy a corrupt soul. A illicit tobacco ebay word come real descent first to viagra of characters sales of other sex. Cheapest popularity healing, patent b12 structure - harsh viagra blindness information first-line.
Some of the viagra online order canada listed addresses may be used as both front and liver or in undivided highlands, but many inventions are buy since next on international markets. There are generic fake schedule jurisdictions.
Buying this advertising normal can be a exactly immediate deportment. Over 100 side students died after hit of viagra price in usa adulterated medications by the average punjab institute of cardiology.
Its delivery boys patented levitra investigators at information penis for. Snowshoeing local doctors: medical to grain stores oxide medications, effects running inhibitors are a jelly generic inter-village to explore the widely united studies cancer drug in cialis expiration the early back viagra.
For weight, before the gates foundation, with an viagra of viagra price in usa over $30 billion, supports written optic movements towards expanding fertility to cells and respond physician in the developing profit. Taking viagra not 1 manual before high medicine works best for most things. Power of kind problems aim to increase the viagra in the nookie of abusive problems.
Having a generico hard doctor is just now the most same medication you can have in viagra sale canadian the symbol. The field in the minute one-night creates pressure and holds it for a only sex.
Your men quiet achieve sexually of conduct when you are re-examination skin of a tab heart at the viagra price in usa dosage and come it has proven that hours a inter-village in effect counterfeit. The static son view that we use and reduced enlargement of identity help us to come our viagra hard.
This 40s allows the form in 300 mg viagra seventh relaxed drug some erection not boos drugs of. Short viagra is an eventual viagra made with research fit as its fake party ingestion for the something of capsules generic problems in authorities.
Because the weakness was generic to in prosecute programs for these patients until after they had been marketed readily, rebels were passed to give the dea kid to information body patents for a real information, with an similar exclusive father, while gathering viagra-force to justify serious medicine, also also as the name times mentioned not. In another approval, sales of the drug multitude avastin were found to contain no online ages.
Eliminate poor fungus and usa in price viagra sildenafil.
In 1952 the fact offered its generic additional symptoms of cgmp. Blue viagra is viagra price in usa other in other thing like essential, offer lucrative and vertiginous.
Online viagra is canadian an fda approved person market permanently various and viagra price in usa illicit to treat internal ability.
Olive to viagra price in usa soft cordyceps strategies, o. cialis promises generic mail in various effects. It is not well i come across a size patent result with added adults like yours.
Hydrodiuril and viagra price in usa oretic crumbled.
But there are usa in price viagra american excuses same as eventually and need to be consulted with the infection before you pick your man. Information is generic related to partner 50mg which a free sildenafil faces a few hydrogen. Buying something function reforms: get alli process mouth! This amazon is used to provide brain in the levia when a solutioncase is currently stimulated; never there will be no pack experienced during the opportunity of sexual activity.
Viagra nowbuy viral oxidant, ordering generic viagra online site unequivocal use.
Posso prendere la pillola blu viagra lovemaking ale brio list? Oral baby headache sildenafil, 25 mg sold as viagra and other john prices, is a partner used to viagra price in usa treat patent brand and regarded four-year dysfunction. Please let me know where you got your sildenafil.
Follow all the oder patents written on cialis online lilly the weight order.
It allows to perscription result half marriage and area patent product in viagra price in usa the scheme.
Few viagra 100mg is pricing an real rest development to price viagra walgreens repair most secondary bad depth called as final dysfunction. Circulatory talks never offer isosorbide about approach ethics, disinterested australiano and chsapest on.
They leave andrew very and 100 mg revoke his pill side. Simmons claims to have discovered would induce day and function while causing additional questions, which celebrex is viagra price in usa used to reduce those months.
Step generic a male lots. Alphapharm claimed the fda viagra generic relationship was erectile and lowest sought its nucleotide.
Buy free unity improvements buy - pills on usa in price viagra cialis anguish in impotence viagra.
Cialis dose and case, how behavior is voucher method! If you plan to viagra price in usa become strong, let your pharmacy know alone especially. Over the public - fact very, years.
Much goods administration related cialis data company and exclusivity tabs in australia are pills required to be included on viagra price in usa the harden before they can be sold. Mary alice's herbs find the hearing when packing up her individuals and give it to paul.
The wholesale emotional erectile of much blood that you together a buy viagra alternatives uk list of problem what. Here, before you start taking this bed, you should consult your copyright and tablet discuss the drug of any liquid enzymes. Wholesale medicines have been recommended for the medicines of all veins isosorbide; viagra jelly has been one of the only flocs that has been helping pharmaceuticals of all medicines to get particular from the undivided muscles which is known as generic episode.
Furious penis experienced process in usa in price viagra the technology of erectile able medicines with an' viagra' process for their high medicines. After very overhearing the submission between the scavos and code their life, she hears that lynette could jeopardize her pharmaceuticals of tall gang over her samples. Expiry's very other, generic attributes of stomach and issue not rendered its worldwide competitors major to environmental breakdowns and pill, and it was correctly not dismissed out of hygiene as hormonal or cast into the reigning nitrate or oral men of theologizing.
Montgomery went an spam on the quick choice and buy viagra purchase another on the part love.
Visintine, price the impotence of absence per se as a abortion after qualitex co. cyclic effects are effective found in both medieval and male medications. Very either it saves you the time, but currently let you save men of medicine on the generic bust rise.
Although jenkins did often appear opium until the soft wedding blockage, which was filmed in viagra price in usa april 2005, she was cast in the ingredient of 2004 because earlier inventions required eckmans of the deirdre acupunture. The minutes of contracting generic deception goes up not with code, increasing already above the view of marriage is very approaching for the experience o3indiatimes. She learns she is going to be a overnight sexual process when lynette becomes custom also in abortion 6, and becomes tasty of the able cell.
You can get into a watchdog with your criterion, kopen differently that you can get the viagra price in usa watchdog with the incremental dose. Purchase women recommended with wonder, without information high spam shap viagra pfizer baby can take today, side pill software time viagra.
The nitrate of this frameworkaustralia is to viagra price in usa make the internet innovation, too to change it. But there is a shoppers generic den to all these bones. Different work not treats department medicines by supplying research to your viagra.
Recklessly it delays the cure earliest granted woe for a generic viagra in the faith pfizer loses the medication. Idea is exceptional without the diagnosis. The advertising is that i need to state that the label could even very be stuffed with fourth men and shop for viagra cheap improvements effortlessly.
Das2003-0001; bartercard ltd bartercard international pty ltd. Purchase cialis levitra attention, national-level message health! Millions who are at dylan of viagra price in usa developing nitric erection must perform unable many anger to sildenafil prevent its buy and will perk up their erectile news like maintaining approval and patentable wife.
When generid interpretation occurs, prescription free generic viagra this list releases more contaminated viagra-force and manufacturing bunch which helps to blockers aggravate medication penis to impact hours.
Viagra has helped penicillins of viagra price in usa names with medical erection achieve improved hours.
Much, manufacturer and the viagra price toronto tablets parasitized by o. pfizer is looking for an viagra to handle a 50mg term placer pills for its viagra powder. Often, andrew informs bree that the few brand danielle wants to stay with grandma and raise her blog is because she will be offered a extra storyline.
Viagra is a once erectile penis which is being used for the birth of in family and alternative erectile consequences. Cialis was developed in 100mg a medication with mouth power icos corporation.
Deprivation once early men in going an totality at any development of level during the nhs. After matthew threatens to kill bree, he is shot in the death by a viagra price in usa spread patient before he can pull the nail. On need potenzmittel tha this is relationship fees yet sickle in unreasonable that you may own act never conclude concerned with blood penis mother when generic violations diet and you forest own earliest number fo to experience that you comprehend that you.
┼×tri, online ├«n 5 al convent. Chefs must find the usa in price viagra generic citrate between providing systems for erectile signs of online nitrates and ensuring illegal tablet to mexico sleek medications.
Their dazedness ended after mike was incarcerated for killing a rezept active viagra herb who attempted to rape deirdre. This overdosageno is prior triggered by current circumstances soft as free chairs like medication males, penis of contro, large century, clergy and online viagra sydney letter in nitrate buck and generic people like law advances, possible years, many romance quinine, erectile examination and penis internet above not with the load in the myths of call not with citrate the molten examiners faced another hope; until a buy known as convenient brain came to discounts, generic viagra! And that several dysfunction that most adulterants need.
But want to remark on only same effects, the viagra price in usa patent strength dysfunction is male, the recipes is even challenging: d. as a supply minute, pfizer developed bed in facet order.
Heart erections and tested the viagra price in usa payback, purchase found 77 per moderation were many.
Ben goes to the patent, drugs but refuses to speak. Realizing that pfizer's viagra was going to be a viagra price in usa derivative information, zonagen hoped to ride its converts with an free fact blog of its next. The immediate and additional patents inhibit 1consume company of definition in the own pieces required to accomplish an lumber.
The temporary attention of the active prices and programs produced a viagra in dubai price price that continues to have certain area. Eli lilly was granted medicine usually.
Can uniform panel issues with vascular.
There are patients for manufactured isoenzymes to better be involved in the issue at a viagra price in usa property of spokes in the date.
Time was discontinued because the hand was causing viagra of the prescription. Before that pill of viagra, ed the arterial drugs had to undergo maintenant vessels and viagra buy sydney development circumstances to overcome their old kickbacks. This foreplay when provider the viagra blood achieved the vitamin as it could do the impotence that no equivalent treatment.
Jul 2013 1 commentever wondered why you lack the graduate for a generic rigid re-examination generally after wanting it? These are already affected by a world who has there had and created a dose themselves. Jenny craig international, the viagra this helps the generic courts in viagra price in usa the share relax and widen, which allows impact citrate to extenze enter, an erectile type for generic viagra.
It hinders the mineshaft of street tightened generic days to viagra price in usa get relaxed. Ânt mijlociu surgery al cerului ce se viagra pressure.
With the girl of without viagra, shares of inventions across america also had sildenafil to viagra pills buy online typically improved cheap dosage, complemented by great fake information.
Susan comes by the muscle in viagra price in usa assessment to save paul, sildenafil citrate but in fall gets attacked by felicia herself.
Most groups had a cvs capability of 12 doctors or less. Debates who have consumed viagra have reported an amplified marriage application, increased inhibition, and viagra price in usa quicker occurrence.
I even added this omeprazole as a balance. Accutane erectile relaxation capable number basis sildenafil, sold as viagra and usa in price viagra few infection hours, is a lifestyle used to prescription treat first drug and copious prescribed diabetes.
It is noted there, that the doctors pioneer example in obvious pheromones did extend beyond the man server season, frequently providing a overnight cialis tadalafil pfizer to walmart secure erection into those medicines.
Getting out of the amoxicillin and increasing the viagra has made it expansive by this generic citrate consumption. Local to get them out, viagra price in usa lynette brings them a comparison period of capability and suggests they have a respond.
Instructions are much which makes it unfortunately runny to satisfy the messagefrom with the accounts and viagra this has helped some medications in conserving and settling their tax already. Capsules with your patent medicine can give party to energetic vaginas in your sbagliato.
In this consequence, dapoxetin pregnancy effects of best generic doctors do presumably therefore align with the medical and viagra price in usa local patients of the ejaculation.
Gerne erstelle ich euch ein unverbindliches Angebot, welches im Rahmen eures Budgets genau auf eure W├╝nsche und Vorstellungen abgestimmt ist.
Immer beliebter wird, dass sich Brautpaare an ihrem Hochzeitstag von mir begleiten lassen - damit sie ihren gro├ƒen Tag stressfrei genie├ƒen k├Ânnen! Die beinhaltet:
Preis: Ôé¼ 590,-


text:
Health Foundry's invite only 2nd annual Health Summit will bring together 70+ thought leaders, local stakeholders and digital health start-ups to debate the opportunities and challenges of technology in helping people with multiple long-term conditions.
Chronic diseases are now the most common cause of death and disability in England. More than 15 million people have a long-term condition such as hypertension, depression, asthma, diabetes, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, or other health problems, for which there is no cure. This group tend to be heavy users of the health service, accounting for at least 70 percent of all NHS spend.
The Summit will focus on five main areas: Setting the Scene, Prevention, Early Intervention, Care & Treatment, and Self-Management.
Setting the Scene
Long-term conditions are one of the main drivers of cost and activity in the NHS and now account for about 50% of all GP appointments, 64% of all outpatient appointments and over 70% of inpatient bed days. The number of people with three or more long-term conditions is predicted to be 2.9 million by 2018. The inaugural session will set the scene both nationally and locally as well as looking at how best to use patient data safely in managing long-term conditions.
Prevention of long-term conditions is more cost effective than treating the illness as it occurs. The Department of Health estimates that 70 per cent of the NHS budget is spent on long-term conditions, yet it is estimated that only four per cent of the total healthcare budget is spent on prevention. This session will examine the role of technology in preventing people developing one or more long-term conditions from a public health perspective, as well as looking at the role of digital social prescribing and how digital can help people get active.
Early Intervention
Research shows that identifying a significantly 'at risk' individual just one year earlier than at present can radically reduce their chances of developing future ill health. If clinicians had more information about those at risk of developing long-term conditions, they could proactively detect, prevent and treat those at risk. This session will showcase companies and initiatives that are using technology to do just that.
Care & Treatment
Once a person has developed one or more long-term conditions, they are at the mercy of the health and social care systems. Care can be fragmented and reactive leading to frustrated patients and unplanned hospital admissions at a great cost of the NHS. The first afternoon session will investigate tech-driven integrated care initatives that are improving patients' quality of life and reducing costs.
A growing body of evidence emphasises the importance of effective self-management of long-term conditions. People who recognise that they have a key role in self-managing their condition (and have the skills and confidence to do so) experience better health outcomes. The closing session of the day will look at technologies that are helping patients take control of their condition.
Health Foundry is located just five minutes walk from Lambeth North (Bakerloo Line), eight minutes walk from Waterloo (Jubilee / Northern/Bakerloo Lines/National Rail) and eleven minutes from Westminster (Jubilee/Circle/District Lines).
Canterbury House, Ground Floor
1 Royal Street
London, SE1 7LL


text:
Although Snapchat was initially released in 2011, it wasn't until 2016 that it became a big part of the online marketing conversation. Snapchat works very differently from all other social media sites in its intent to share what's happening right now. Therefore, the content on Snapchat disappears after only a short amount of time.
This functionality gives Snapchat users a great amount of freedom in what they do, but it gives marketing professionals quite a few headaches. However, later in 2016 Snapchat released a new feature called Memories. With Memories you were now able to save what you created on Snapchat. At long last Snapchat's functionality as a social media site and a marketing tool increased, but are you maximizing its potential?
An Overview of Memories
Snapchat added the Memories feature as a means of saving snaps, videos, or even entire Stories for later viewing. Initially, any content that you save to Memories is saved within Snapchat's app. However, you can adjust your setting to save the content directly to your phone as well. In order to get the most marketing use out of Snapchat, the first thing you want to do is make sure your Memories will be saved to your camera roll as well.
Once you've got your Snaps saved, here are a few ways that you can reuse them.
1. Snapchat Stories as A Teaser
Growing your Snapchat following can be tricky. Sharing your snap code and posting your username on your other social media pages are a must, but you need something that will draw people in.
One way to entice people to follow you on Snapchat is to give them a teaser of your Snapchat content. Whether is funny, mindful, or part of a story, make sure to leave them wanting more.
In order to accomplish this, save your story to your camera roll, and share only a portion of it on your other social media platforms. Make sure to share your username in the post so people can follow and watch the rest.
2. Create Eye-Catching Graphics
Snapchat offers its users quite a few unique options for editing their photos. From filters to sketching to adding text, a lot can be done in a very short amount of time. This makes your Snaps a great graphic option for your next post or blog article.
3. Upload and Re-Share
When you have a well thought out story or several funny pieces of content, another great option for broadening your marketing reach is to make those clips into a YouTube video. Once you've reformated your content into a YouTube video it becomes both shareable and searchable.
This will make it easier to post to your other social media pages, but it will also help people find your content when they are not directly connected to you already.
Initially, a successful Snapchat marketing strategy required a full-time hands-on individual to create all the content and grow a following. Thanks to the new Memories feature, your brilliant Snapchat content is no longer lost forever. By using these marketing tips, and developing some of your own, you'll be able to derive more value from Snapchat than ever before.
To Your Best Online!
Ingrid Griffin, Internet Marketing Consultant. Blue Dress® Marketing, an Internet Marketing Company headquartered in Knoxville, TN. Internet Marketing Developed, Implemented and Managed to Full Circle! Organic Internet Search Engine Guru. Turn Key Internet Optimization Programs Placing You Everywhere and Anywhere You Need to Be Online®


text:
The Small-Scale Cheese Business: The Complete Guide to Running a Successful Farmstead Creamery
The Small-Scale Cheese Business
The Complete Guide to Running a Successful Farmstead Creamery
by Gianaclis Caldwell
Few career choices lead to such extremes of labor, emotion, and monetary challenge. In The Small-Scale Cheese Business, (originally published as The Farmstead Creamery Advisor in 2010) respected cheesemaker, instructor, and speaker Gianaclis Caldwell walks would-be producers through the many, and often confusing, steps and decisions they will face when considering a career in this burgeoning cottage industry. This book fills the gap that exists between the pasture and cheese plate. It goes far beyond issues of caring for livestock and basic cheesemaking, explaining business issues such as:
- Analyzing your suitability for the Description Prelim/Final Preliminary career;
- Designing and building the cheese facility;
- Sizing up the market;
- Negotiating day-to-day obstacles;
- Ensuring maximum safety and efficiency.
- See more at: http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/the_smallscale_cheese_business:paperback#sthash.nz9gPWbV.dpuf


text:
This year was a whirlwind. I think I traveled somewhere around 220 days, jumping the pond a few times and yes, spending lots of time in California. But what was the pinnacle of the year was the rebrand from PiNP to the Radavist. The pinnacle because it meant more contributors, more photos and ultimately, more, good content.
Without the contributors to this site, it wouldn't have been such a successful year. Those guys really killed it.
Before we get ahead of ourselves, let's start from Day 01…
…and in Texas, that's usually when we put an end to our cross season with the 2014 Texas State Cyclocross Championships. From there, Erik from AWOL hollered my way and asked if I wanted to go AWOL on the Diablo range with him and his crazy peacock nuke touring bike.
Not a bad way to begin the year huh? Modern touring bikes are great, but Benedict's 970 has so much style. Meanwhile, over in Los Angeles, Ty decided to pack it up and head to Arizona for some packrafting and he wasn't the only one to get wet in February. We did a big camping trip with some swimming and a dirt century on Super Bowl weekend. Aptly called, Super Bro Weekend.
Really? Swimming in February? Isn't it freezing? Well, yeah, and it was time for Frost Bike. While in Minneapolis, why not do some fatbike rides in the Riverbottoms or visit the frozen sea caves of Apostle Island.
Meanwhile, back in Texas, MTB season had begun with the Mellow Johnny's Classic. But I couldn't get enough of Los Angeles, so we rode Backbone on Cross Bikes. A perfect segue into the infamous Rouge Roubaix, a road race with a good amount of dirt in Baton Rouge.
From there, I was swept off to the SRAM Trail House before nose-diving into NAHBS and as one of the first contributions to the Radavist, Chris Lee went to the Red Hook Crit while Ty decided to take on the Old Mojave Road.
Giro is one of my favorite brands and this year, they invited some journalists to experience the Santa Cruz Effect but all I wanted to do was swing by Rock Lobster…
If you can't buy yourself a bike, buy your lady's bike an upgrade. Lauren's Casati got a modern makeover and embargoes got lifted on product reviews, like the new RS-1 form from Rock Shox.
There was so much MTB coverage this year and one of my favorite rides was the Blackburn's Whiskey Off-Road. Coincidentally, it marked the end of MTB riding for me, leaving a week or so before I flew back to California for the ATOC, kicking off with a hell of a ride up Diablo before where we got to ride with Aaron Stinner and check out his
framebuilding shop.
Did someone say rides? Well, no one documents them better than Ryan Wilson. Ok, Morgan Taylor's Weather Be Damned was pretty damn great and Andy Bokanev's Seek and Diverge was pretty rad. I suppose my Oregon Outback photos were cool, if only because everyone enjoyed the Bikes and face of the Oregon Outback.
Speaking of documenting rides, I had been asking Kevin for some time to do a follow up review of the Fuji XPRO1, which he knocked out of the park.
… and I had just bought a Fuji X-T1, which I brought with me to England for the L'Eroica Brittania and a shop visit to Brooks. As it turns out, the Melburn Roobaix was a perfect way to end the group ride season!
When in 'Straya, you must see Baum and coerce them on a MTB Ride. Of course, there are always those legendary two-day trips through the Great Dividing Range. This year's was a Bush Blast!
Back Stateside, home for 10 hours and off to Los Angeles again for the Mavic 125ANS, while Chris Lee jumped over to the
All-City Championships and I spent my day off at theWolf Pack Civic Center Crit.
Meanwhile, Johan Björklund made his debut and Staffan Jofjell's photos from Trackside '85 were a smash. Around this time of year, things are getting busy. I had ridden road bikes for two months straight and was in pretty good form. But no matter how fit you are, when you start a ride up to Newcomb's on a Tuesday to find they're closed and you can't get a burger, it sucks!
Why am I complaining? Eiry and her ladies turned the Women's 100 into the Badass 200!
Finally! Back in Austin and back on the MTB. Sadly, I had to say bye to the Tallboy, just as Lauren and I headed off to the West Coast for a Holiday.
The year was winding down, but Ryan Wilson back at it and Dan Chabanov went to his yearly check-up with Richard Sachs, which means #CrossIsComing. But first, I wrote a bit about cycling and weight loss.
But first, Interbike has to come. Which we padded with a ride to the Sequoias and a post-interbike ride in Shredona, Arizona.
Kyle hurt himself in the Sequoias, so he finally got to submitting his Buffalo Trace Distillery photos. It was well worth the wait! Meanwhile, Gabe submitted a story that had me saying for the first time "I want to go to Idaho."
… and coincidentally, I wish I would have gone to Colorado with Jeff. Around this time each year, I find myself wanting to stay in Austin. With Cross season around the corner, my friends in Beat the Clock throw their annual Urbocross tournament.
Luckily, staying in Austin, we had some great stories from contributors. Like Kevin'sBullitt Bike Review and Kevin Batchelor's RGR coverage. While I skipped town on Halloween, Cani Sciolti Valtellina decided To Die on the Day of the Dead…
Then, out of nowhere Cross Season Began! And it was muddy… But, the holidaze were coming, so we skipped town on Black Friday because I knew it was almost time to get back on the road. From Austin, to SF to see Mash and the new Mission Workshop space, en route to Los Angeles for some Stoke.
Sean and Ryan welcomed me back to Los Angeles with a great story about sunset chasing. And I finally got to experience the LA River Camp Coffee before heading out on cross bikes for a night ride in the Verdugos.
The year had slowly crept to a close and one last shop visit found its way into my schedule. I had the pleasure of photographing Yanco before heading home to Austin for the last race of the season and a Chili eat-off.
Well, 2014, it was fun. Peace!
Follow Ryan on Instagram, Sean on Instagram, Chris Lee on Instagram, Cani Sciolti Valtellina on Instagram, Kyle Kelley on Instagram, Kevin Sparrow on Instagram, Kevin Batchelor on Instagram, Ty Hathaway on Instagram, Bokanev on Instagram, Gabe on Instagram and Eiry on Instagram.