How To Argue For Gun Control.

1. If you look at the California chart you will note that California's firearm death rate is dropping faster that the national average. While this doesn't prove that stricter gun control laws are the de facto cause, it certainly proves that they are not causing an increase in firearm deaths.

2. So what?

3. The CDC did not say that. The CDC said there is conflicting evidence, sometimes a casual relationship can be established, sometimes it can not.

And I will ask you for evidence that it doesn't work.

It is very hard to assign a causal relationship to gun laws as there are many factors that contribute to firearm deaths. That being said it's hard to prove that an increase in gun control laws always leads to a decrease in firearm deaths. However, it is equally hard to prove that an increase in gun laws causes an increase in firearm deaths. In fact if we were to go to extremes, which I am not advocating, and eliminate the 2nd Amendment and outlaw and destroy all civilian guns in existence, I would assume there would be a decrease in firearm related deaths.

While again I am not advocating the elimination of the 2nd Amendment, if there were no civilian guns, there would be far fewer firearm related deaths.
As no one wants to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and as we do have a large number of firearm related deaths, if we want to reduce the rate of those deaths we need to look for ways to do that. There are a number of things we can do including education. However, to say that we can eliminate all forms of gun control laws would be most reckless.

Do you agree that we need some form of gun control laws, or should all gun control laws be eliminated?
In other words do you support no restrictions at all on who owns guns, where they may carried and discharged, or what type of firearms may be owned?

Now think carefully, anyone can own a gun including prison inmates while they are incarcerated, children, known terrorists, all gang members, and the certified mentally ill.

Guns may be carried openly or concealed without permits of any kind in all courtrooms, by children in public and private schools, in insane asylums by inmates, by anyone touring the White House, in all bars, in all churches, at all sporting events, in all prisons by inmates as I stated before...in short anywhere.

And finally do you support unrestricted ownership of all types of fire arms including "Saturday night specials", zip guns, machine guns, sub machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, silencer equipped weapons, large bore weapons over .50 cal., wallet cane and pen guns, or other "destructive devices"?

Are you advocating the elimination of all firearm legislation in total?

 

Allow me to sort this out.

You agree that gun control laws don't necessarily cause an increase in crime.

You seem to think that effective gun control laws would stop all types of crime such as rape, running red lights, fraud, etc. As you seem to believe that the outlawing of cars should also have an effect on all accidental deaths, such as falling in a bathtub.

In spite of the fact that after stiffer gun laws were introduced in California, and the fact that their gun related deaths have fallen faster than the national average, that should not be attributed in any way to those laws. If offered evidence that at least points in that direction you refuse to accept it. You argue that California is reaping the benefit of the national reduction in the crime rate while Ohio is not, but offer no explanations as to why.

You argue that since there are many factors involved in trying to definitively prove what laws work due to the many variables that can't be controlled, no laws are necessary.

You agree that if firearms were totally eliminated deaths by firearms would also be eliminated. By implication a meaningful reduction in firearms would result in a meaningful reduction of firearm deaths.

You would like me to prove that a certain gun law has reduced crime. That would be like me proving that the requirement that life jackets be worn reduces drowning. How can that be proved? You may drown with a life jacket or you may drown without a life jacket or you may not drown at all. There are other factors involved.

______________________________​

You agree we need gun control laws.

Your laws would be:

No violent felons are allowed to own guns. All other law abiding citizens can. There is a contradiction here. First you rule out violent felons then all law breakers including jay walkers.

Next no restrictions on where guns can be carried or what type of gun you can own, but restriction on where they may be fired. For example you wouldn't be allowed to discharge a firearm in places of residency, so that outlaws using a gun for self defense in one's home.

Children of any age should be allowed to bring any type of loaded gun to school for any reason.

You don't comment on the mentally ill.

All types of guns are to be allowed everywhere except prisons.

You are mistaken about background weapons checks for White House tours, but you do support background checks for The White House. You don't define what these checks would be but in principle you support background weapons checks. After passing the check you favor allowing a group of armed men who have passed the test to enter the White House with machine guns.

______________________________​

And finally, to summarize, you agree that we already have gun restriction laws in place which you would essentially gut.

Your laws would be reduced to no guns of any kind in prison, or in the hands of convicted violent felons, or any one who has commented any type of misdemeanor.
Guns may be fired anywhere except in areas of residency and possibly other undefined areas such as shooting into the air.
Weapon background checks are okay for White House tours.

 

You made a vague statement, "focus on crime in general rather than gun deaths".
As long as we reduce crime in general, everything from jay walking to white collar crime and murder we should ignore gun deaths?

Then you go on to ask that if we eliminate all gun deaths but murder rates stay the same, have we accomplished anything? This is another of your impossible questions to answer and is not related to anything. How do we know if the number of murders would be greater or not? You are defining the answer in your question.

You offer no data to support your claim that arming citizens reduces crime.

You're right let's eliminate all laws against murder as we can't prove they are effective.

And so on.....I'll not argue anymore.
You are for arming everyone (except convicted felons) including children with any type of weapon imaginable in any situation in every place in the U.S., you would eliminate all gun laws in toto, and would not allow governmental organizations to limit gun access including allowing people to walk up to the President of The U.S. with a loaded machine gun.

 

I could show you the Moon and you would deny it exists.

 

Of course these aren't the people that write laws.

 

I'll admit that those of us who think that guns should be regulated just aren't as smart as you are. Here's a few of the brilliant statements I've seen made by the "pro gunners":

"Guns don't kill people, people do." Like that's a reason not to find ways to make it harder for people to kill people.

"Cars kill more people than guns," No need to comment on this one.

"The 2nd Amendment is needed to protect us from the Federal government." Said by those who never read any U.S. history, and they're going to use a government document to protect themselves from the government! And of course they don't even know the Constitution has mechanisms that allow it to be changed.

"We would all be safer if everyone carried loaded guns all the time." And don't forget hand-grenades.

"If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." And if you outlaw rape, only outlaws will rape. Not to mention the fact that regulating guns is not outlawing them.

"Private gun ownership protects us from foreign invasion." That didn't work too well in 1812 when there were no gun control laws, or the Civil War when the United States of America was invaded by a traitor nation from the South, or in 1916.

"Guns laws are a slippery slope to the confiscation of all guns." We have had guns laws for 150 years, and we still have private guns.

And there's more but I'm getting bored....