How To Argue For Gun Control.

in this day and age of information at your fingertips, there is no excuse for ignorance of a topic if you feel passionately about it.

this applies to this topic as well as any other, there simply no excuse for such an abysmal understanding of the topic as demonstrated in the previous videos, nor is there any for the overly naive interpretations of the statistics that would suggest laxer laws are the answer. To affect any real change, the focus needs to be on the economic and social issues that come into play when discussing gun violence and crime.

Gun violence is merely a symptom.

 

and Maccabee is probably Balbus's doppledanger........

just sayin'

 

The truck driver in France killed more people than our worst mass shooting. You really think banning or regulating guns would decrease violent crimes?

Indeed. Cause I'm right.

We do know that. Did you know that in states requiring a permit to carry people who apply must also be familiar with the constitution and the bill of rights?

Can you prove the contrary? Can you prove that if more law abiding citizens (those who arent violent felons) would increase crime?

Some are for the outright ban of guns and there's a difference between outlawing an act and outlawing the method to commit that act. That's why gun control is useless.

Our standing army didn't prevent any of that either. However there was no successful invasion of the mainland since the creation of our nation.

Tell that to the Jews of nazi germany, the citizens of soviet Russia, china, North Korea, etc. Not to mention that there are outright bans and confiscations going on in the states as we speak. You can't buy a machine gun built after 1986 nation wide and in California are in the process of banning ARs.

You also said you would stop arguing.

 

No I'm not. I've already show'd you some of the other forums where I use the same name. The only other name I go by is "Luke 22:35-38"

 

what's a machine gun?

 

It's your dead horse you are beating.

 

The ATF classifies any weapon that can shoot more than one round per trigger pull as a machine gun or automatic weapon to use a more correct term. Not all automatic weapons are machine guns. The M16 is considered a rifle and the M4 is considered a carbine but both can shoot more than one round per trigger pull.

 

Oh, I know what an automatic weapon is, just wondered if you did.
More technically the term "machine gun" referred to the original water cooled/belt fed guns developed by Germany in WWI.

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That seems like a rather irrational take on what I said how is reducing car speeds and encouraging other modes of transport in your eyes suddenly becoming the banning of cars?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In your view are sensible precautions to reduce risk somehow seen as complete prohibition isn’t that absurdly absolutist? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt] *[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So what would you do to reduce harm from easy access to guns? Well we have put forward many ideas but you seem to reject them – why? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Don’t work, in what way? I mean the US with ease of access to guns has a far greater number of gun incidences (accidents, murders, mass shootings etc) than comparable developed countries with more prudent gun control in place. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Thank you that fits in with theories I’ve stated before – [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

But if they don’t, and they fall into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal – as stated - according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.

[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]We have already covered that remember that not long ago there was the case of the ‘responsible’ pro-gun owner who boosted of giving her child gun training who was shot in the back by her four year old.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Are you honestly saying you’d force all the kids in the US to take such gun classes? And wouldn’t just be teaching those that would use guns for criminal acts to be better and more confident shots?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again the mentality fits in with the theory. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again this seems to back up my theories. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That doesn’t make sense in this context and it doesn’t answer the question I mean you have already pointed out a death is a death and so presumably that prudent action should be taken to try and reduce harm. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That doesn’t make much sense I mean in what way would prudent gun control ‘harm’ the gun owner, if they were law abiding. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]You mention one ‘harm’ is not been able to gain quick access to guns during civil unrest, but it seems to me that adding guns to such volatile situations is likely to make a bad situation worse and wouldn’t it be better to see what the causes of the unrest is and deal with that? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You said - Which when you compare states with stringent training requirements and states with no training requirements there is little difference in accidents.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Are you saying you have no statistical evidence? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Can you name the US states that require stringent training.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]To repeat - according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]What items are you talking about? Sorry this doesn’t seem to make much sense since we are talking about guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The point is that without prudent precautions guns can easily get into the hands of the irresponsible and criminal wouldn’t you want to try and lessen those chances? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The CDC did a study and found out that there is no gun control law that actually worked.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]http://www.cdc.gov/m...ml/rr5214a2.htm[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That is totally untrue it said more research was needed and commented “International comparisons indicate that the United States is an outlier among developed, industrialized nations in rates of firearms violence” In other words the US with its easy access to guns has more gun violence than other countries with more prudent gun control. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Anyway the CDC study was from 2003 a more resent study 2015 suggested other conclusions although it also agree more study is needed. [/SIZE]

Largest study to date finds powerful evidence that gun control actually works
http://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-powerful-evidence-that-gun-control-works

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] pass a psychological evaluation)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Have you any rational arguments in opposition to the ideas? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Your view is that ease of access isn’t a problem, but the US does have ease of access and there clearly is a problem - to ignore that doesn’t make sense and it seems absurd to argue that what is needed is even easier access to guns (with few if any restrictions or regulations) especially from someone who seems to think Americans are more prone o violence than other people. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]It’s about showing due diligence for example if the accident is due to recklessness or irresponsible behavior then that person is not likely the right person to be an owner of such a lethal weapon. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But societies do take away ‘rights’ as punishment for example a drunk driver that kills a pedestrian by running them over is likely to be sent to prison you want to execute those that possess a gun during a crime. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]If someone is behaving recklessly with a lethal weapon wouldn't you think it sensible to stop them having access to them? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Because - according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Now some people wouldn’t care about such rules but many pro-gunners I’ve talked would think them an outrageous attack.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]But those ideas have helped in reducing harm coming from private car ownership are you saying you prefer to do nothing and let thousands of people to die each year – why? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]How do you know? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The US has ease of access to guns and gun incidences are higher than in places with more prudent gun control. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]So you still think that Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other human beings –why? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]We have many gangs (more than 225 in London alone) as has been mentioned above but as mentioned above they don’t a have as easy access to guns [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]People get beaten up or stabbed but as explained at length those types of attacks are less likely to have terminal outcomes (although sometimes they do).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The violence is there just not the ease of access to guns. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again I ask why you seem to [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]think that Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other human beings.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I’ve explained at length and in detail about the cultural and economic factors (especially in relation to Switzerland’s criminal, penal and drugs policies for example) but what I’ve also explained at length and in detail that many gun supporters in the US seem more interested in protecting gun ownership than in bringing about socio-economic reform. It seems to me that such people are so blinked that they are unable to see the need for prudent action as can be seen in their opposition to prudent gun control. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Again this isn’t rational as you seem to be saying you don’t care about the vast numbers still dying and that will continue to die. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But the US has huge numbers of gun related incidences than other developed countries where crime is also falling what gun control has done in those other countries is to vastly reduce gun related incidences.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Oh please read the posts and my reply to 6’s fatuous editing – [/SIZE]

But as pointed out many times and explained at length guns are much more effective at killing and maiming than other hand weapons.

*

Anyway here are some things that happened in July 2016

[SIZE=12pt]Some guy thought I stole his parking spot, so I shot him. (GA, 7/4)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]My girlfriend wasn’t spending enough time with me, so I shot her dead. (FL, 7/8)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I saw a transgender woman and I don’t think they should exist, so I shot her. (IN, 7/10)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]A teenager knocked on my door, so I shot him. (MA, 7/16)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I didn’t like the way my neighbor had his sprinklers set up, so I shot him six times. (FL, 7/16)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I live with my mom, and she agreed to babysit my niece and nephew. The kids were loud, so I shot them both. (OH, 7/17)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I was arguing with a guy on the street, so I waved my gun around to scare him. It went off and hit a six-year-old girl in the head in a nearby home. (PA, 7/17)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Another regular at my favorite bar was arguing with me about the presidential election, so I shot him. (OH, 7/26)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]My wife was arguing with me and my folks, so I shot our two kids. (FL, 7/27[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Deputies came to my apartment to tell me I had lost custody of my daughter, so I shot her dead right then and there. (TX, 7/29)[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=12pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Are you saying that you don’t agree with what you said earlier in that you thought 10 in 100,000 gun related deaths was low and suggesting you wouldn’t worry until it got to 30 in 100,000.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You said “[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]Notice that we aren't 30 per 100,000. The numbers are actually quite small to change any law.”[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You seemed to imply that you thought the number of people dying was small so not big enough to warrant action. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And [/SIZE][SIZE=12pt]nothing[/SIZE][SIZE=12pt] was overblown as the rates for all gun related deaths and gun related homicides were given and its already been pointed out that suicides related to guns were more lethal.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/477337-how-to-argue-for-gun-control/?p=7927116[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]If something can be lethal if used wouldn’t it be sensible to try and limit the harm it might cause by bring prudent regulation designed to reduce possible harm. I mean that is the rational approach, your approach seems irrational because you seem to be saying that nothing should be done to lessen the harm from something you admit can be lethal. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]And what about the safety of non-operators? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That’s totally irrational since it is based on the premise that all operators will act responsibly and/or lawfully and that doesn’t fit in with reality. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]I mean come on that is plain silliness are you thinking about what you're saying? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But as pointed out it can be literally child’s play to point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]You do what seems prudent to reduce harm – I mean there is a fence for example. We have laws against drunk driving but there are still drunk drivers but the laws are there as a deterrent and as a means of weeding out the irresponsible. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Not talking about numbers dying in different ways (although I’d try and reduce harm from swimming pools, in the uk all public pools have lifeguards etc to limit the risks).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Mandatory safes and safety programmes? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]But we were talking about the fact that children can and do easily shoot others that it doesn’t take them or others much effort. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]In some places we do have railings and barriers and we also have measures to reduce speeds in dangerous places (around schools for example). [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Anyway you were arguing that to shoot a gun took a lot of effort and will and now you seem to be saying that it’s as easy as crossing a road [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Anyway again you seem not to care about these gun related deaths one moment you say ‘a death is a death either way’ the next you seem to be saying that such child shootings ad deaths are ‘rare’ so can be dismissed as sad but not important enough to do anything about. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]That’s completely irrational why is one thing that causes harm to be ignored while others focused on? [/SIZE]


[SIZE=12pt]Isn’t the sensible thing to do is focus on all the things? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]The tragedy of children killed accidentally by guns in the US is laid bare in new research that shows that as many as 100 boys and girls aged 14 and under are dying each year, substantially more than federal statistics have previously suggested.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt]Yes and we try to take prudent action to limit those deaths so why not in relation to guns? [/SIZE]

 

Mac

I’m really glad you are posting because you are contributing so much to my theories about the US gun issue but I really wish you would give more thought to some of your ideas before posting.

Some of them are so irrational, silly or absurd that it is clear you’ve given them little or no thought before typing them out and posting.

Yes it can be amusing (they have certainly given me some belly laughs) but they don’t really contribute very much to the debate.

Hoping to hear from you soon.

 

A Car needs a Title, a Registration certificate, Insurance, and Inspections.

Its a perfect annology.

 

I very much agree the desire for gun ownership is often just a symptom of a mentality based on intimidation and fear which would need to be tackled and so prudent gun control would be just one part of a more holistic approach involving social and economic changes, penal reform, changes in the criminal code (especially around drugs) and in the welfare system.

The problem is that many pro-gunners I’ve talked to don’t seem to be that interested in socio-economic reform or have ideas that would likely make things worse rather than better.

 

Before we continue I'm going to respond to this one post since its late and will respond to the rest tomorrow or the day after. Certainly by the end of the week. Anyway I said "in essence". Just look at the path you're taking. This may be a slippery slope argument (or looking at the past and forecasting the future) but if you continue on this path there will be no roads in cities for cars to travel on.

No, it's forecasting.

Because they're either unconstitutional or just plain don't work. And I gave some ideas in a later post.

They don't reduce crime. That's the goal isn't it?

Actually as far as mass shootings we aren't on top nor that far ahead compared to other countries. Once I'm done here I'll see if I can find the sources for that. As for the rest, I've said it before, countries with more cars tend to have more accidents with cars. We don't however have a high crime rate compared to everybody though.

As I write this I can't see what you responded to so I can't tell whether I agree.

Same as above. However an armed society of law abiding citizens is a polite society and that's a proven fact. Laws are only enforced by the fear of force.

Can't really comment other than to repeat what I said just above.

Gun owners are not fearful nor feel to intimidate anyone. Are you fearful for buckling your seatbelt, or locking your doors? The same people you lock your doors to is the same people gun owners own guns.

I can say the same about locking your doors.

It's not perceived. There are real threats.

 

Here's the source I was talking about with mass shootings. I'll get to the other part of your post layer on.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cHOfyQVAJ7Q