How To Argue For Gun Control.

Irrelevant. And actually they are more efficient not effective. You'd be surprised how non gruesome gun wounds are compared to being hacked to death by an axe. You are no more deader being shot than having your head chopped off. And guns can and often are used to maim and kill but that in it of itself isn't automatically a bad thing. You need to kill deer to have food on the table in some places. You need to maim or kill to defend your life from an assailant. You certainly need to kill if an invading army attacks your country. And to prove my point even at the low end of estimating, excluding suicides more people defended themselves with a gun (often not even firing the weapon) than people who used guns to murder.

For every one incident you find I can find a hundred more fatal car accidents due to not paying attention to the road.

 

Well, yes. What I was referring to that was overblown the fact they add suicides and the general hysteria from gun control advocates. So cutting suicide from the equation we only have 4 gun deaths out of 100,000. Not bad.

Actually no. Cyanide is more lethal. Men are most likely to commit suicide by gun and they chose that method about half the time.

Addressed above.

Show me a law that works to decrease crime and its constitutional.

So punish those who don't. Duh. Are we to punish all for the sake of a few?

Yes. Please show why it's silly.

Actually the punishment of the law is there to deter those from drinking and driving. Not the law itself. Not only that but you also need the manpower to enforce it too.

I wouldn't force people to store the way I think is best for them. And I wouldn't force people to take the safety class I think they should have either.

 

Yet that doesn't prevent all accidents.

It takes effort to purposely kill someone. That was my original point. I have to aim and pull the trigger.

I'm not saying you should ignore it. However you are focusing on it a little too much thinking that will reduce crime. If that's your goal then you are looking at the wrong issue. And you are looking at it to reduce child death then you are again looking at the wrong issue as you ignore causes that are more prevalent.

Yes. So why aren't you doing it?

And probably a thousand more are dying from car accidents.

We do. We advocate safety training and safe storage.

 

Can you prove that by applying the same type of system to guns it will reduce violent crime? While you're at it can you also prove what you propose is constitutional?

 

What fear and intimidation are you talking about? Please provide evidence.

 

Ok then.

Which as proven in this thread its a pointless cause and its not that big an issue when put into perspective. So what if I eliminated all gun deaths? If I still have the same murder, suicide, and fatal accident rate as before then I've acomplished nothing. If that's really the true cause of the gun control movement then they are focusing on the wrong issue.

You're lumping self defense in that statement. And again if you want to affect violence then gun control is not the issue.

You do the same with US mass murder stats.

And that one incident trumped all 133 in the US. Not only that but mass shootings in it of themselves are pretty rare to begin with. Not only that but you're not taking account population.

By mass shootings or in general? If its the latter I never said otherwise. However of the 33,000 gun related deaths here in the US only 15,000 or so are homicides. The rest are suicides.

And the other countries never had a high gun death rate to begin with. Plus like I said, more cars on the road means more car related deaths.

 

And that's good. The better part of a law abiding society is the fear of enforcement. Name me one country that doesn't have some sort of punishment for breaking the law. Fear is the reason we have police, a military, nukes, and the average law abiding citizen who so happens to be carrying.

While we won't pull a gun on you for cutting in line the idea of a polite society is a law abiding one that violent felons would be afraid to commit a crime. I'm sure there are crimes you would like to commit but the fear of being punished stops you.

No one is paranoid. Why do you slow down if you see a police car in your rear view mirror?

Because politeness is rarely natural.

Evidence?

Again, the saying isn't pertaining to manners but violent crime.

Because its not what you think.

See above.

The same can be said with a lock. If you didn't feel like you could be the next burglary victim then you wouldn't lock your doors.

The same can be said with locks again. Plus at the highest there have been 3 million self defense cases per year using a gun.

 

Again, same can be said for locks.

Which is good. If I said that the gun community isn't fearful at all then I'll rephrase it. In general we aren't walking around checking every bush for a badguy. We aren't answering the door with a loaded shotgun either. We do however prepare for the worse and hope for the best. We are aware of our surroundings, marking the exits, and form a plan in our head if something goes down and go on with life. Every precuation humans make is based off of some fear.

Why is it ok when talking about seatbelts but not when talking about defending yourself?

Evidence?

Of course not. Ever heard of layering? We lock our doors but if that fails then we have a plan B, C, D, and so on depending on finance and potentional threat evaluation.

It's called layering. If plan A fails then we have plan B. I'm not sure if England has a Boy Scout group but their motto is "always be prepared". Another saying is "better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it". You don't just buckle your seatbelt when you drive. You follow the speed limit, you make turn signals, you pace yourself behind another car, you watch for traffic at the intersection, etc.

And neither are all that effective at defending your life when it counts. Why can't you apply the same logic to your personal defense as you do with everyday life? Would you depend only on your seatbelt from dying in a car accident? Would you depend on the cheapest, less adequate insurance company? Would you be satisfied with a car that barey drives from point A to B?

As soon as you stop needing to use the locks on your doors.

 

Call me what you wish but this is my favorite topic to discuss. Plus its not like this is the only subject that gets rehashed. I'm relatively new here so I missed out on previous threads.

 

Well it wasn't addressed to you anyway.

I do.

Maybe I'm not the one going in circles. Plus its the Internet. Personal feelings only matter when they belong to the moderator.

I do.

No, they are designed to shoot projectiles at its intended target. Whether it be animal, cardboard, or human. And in some cases you need to maim or kill in other to save innocent lives.

Guns can be both. I can use it to threaten you or I can use it to defend your life.

However you do it also as a precuation. Having guns is just a precuation.

Well I'm not sure if that's the case for most of England but here in the US we lock our doors at night.

I'm quite sure you won't sit around and wait for the firefighters to come save you if a fire arises either.

I bet if it wasn't the law you would still have some insurance.

 

No.

 

Why isn't it rational? If we are to reduce violent crime then focus on how to stop it rather than the method used.

So?

Again, so?

 

Even in England you have a gun smuggling network. It's more prominent than the US.

Provide laws that would actually work to reduce crime and are constitutional. Once you've done that you've eliminated most gun crimes.

Your not any more deader shot than someone improperly doing CPR on you. Guns are just more efficient.

Yes.

That can never be fully prevented anyway. Criminals but mostly from friends or family members via straw purchase.

Criminals don't buy from gun shows anyway. They buy from friends and family.

Background checks don't help either.

I do mind. It's the method I don't agree with. It doesn't work and it violates the constitution.

We do both. However changing an environment takes time. In the mean time it's good to be prepared.

How did you get that out of my post?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

OK you’d need to define what you meant by ‘crime’ and which countries are been compared.

I mean if you have the ddefinition "Formal Contact" with the police and/or criminal justice system may include persons suspected, or arrested or cautioned.- then the US is the top of the list

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/countries-with-highest-reported-crime-rates.html

In homicide rates the US doesn’t top the world list but it does top the list of developed countries.

*
If someone is behaving recklessly with a lethal weapon wouldn't you think it sensible to stop them having access to them?

The situation is that someone has behaved recklessly with a lethal weapon in such a situation wouldn't you think it sensible to try and lessen the likelihood of them having access to them in the future?


quote]The drunk driver who killed a pedestrian should get the chair as well. He knew full well before taking that first sip that if he gets into a car and drives he's liable to cause an accident. However if he just damaged property them he should pay double for what it's worth.[/quote]

To me someone that is caught doing something as reckless as drink driving needs help and depending on the severity and other circumstances taking away such a person’s licence to drive until they could prove they were fit to have it back as a means of reducing the harm they could cause would seem prudent. Why wait until they kill someone?

I would say the same for someone that was found using a gun recklessly.

 

Mac

You don’t know and yet again you seem to be saying you think Americans are more violent which you say you don’t believe - can you please present a coherent, non-contradictory and rational argument because this just doesn’t cut it.

Why is it irrelevant as you admit guns are more effective and efficient at causing harm or death than other objects like a candlestick?

It’s would seem completely illogical to claim they are equally effective.

This is an irrational argument in that you already admit that guns are more efficient and effective weapons.

OK you are in a duel back to back five paces turn – you have a choice of weapons, you can choose a candlestick a average woodchopper hand axe and a fully loaded and working Glock 17.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn’t care what you got because to you the candlestick and axe are as effective as the gun?

Since we are talking about the use of guns in a civilian setting against human beings I’m not sure what you mean.

I didn’t think we were discussing hunting but human deaths and injury related to ease of access to guns.

But wouldn’t it be better to work toward having a society where you didn’t feel so afraid that you thought you needed a gun for personal protection.

That’s why the US has a military. Are you honestly saying you fear the US is going to be invaded, by whom?

This is disputed and it’s been argued that many such incidences are illegal and more about intimidation.

[SIZE=12pt]Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun use: Results of a national survey. Violence and Victims. 2000; 15:257-272.[/SIZE]

Not bad? - Again you callous disregard for other human beings lives is incredible. It’s not hysteria these are real deaths happening everyday

*
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.

Why? I mean if you would want to reduce the number of deaths you want to, but you seem to want to down play them or ignore them or say that the vast number dying is in ‘acceptable’ levels. That would indicate that you don’t care about the vast numbers still dying and that will continue to die.

 

Mac

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.

That’s not very rational – isn’t it better to try and prevent something happening than to act after the damage is done?

I mean the rational thing to do when there is the possibility of harm taking place is to set up regulations and procedures that reduce the possibility of that harm taking place.

How is prudent gun control ‘punishing’ gun owners?

*

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.

Well yes of course the law involves the punishment and the level of punishment attached to the circumstance so I’m really not sure what you mean?

The question remains – isn’t it prudent to try and reduce the possibility of harm?

*

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

But you agree that it doesn’t take much to shot and kill or injury someone - that a child can do it, and you have seen the lists of gun incidences and those people seemed to do it with little effort at all.

*
That’s completely irrational why is one thing that causes harm to be ignored while others focused on?

You don’t want to talk about it but we are in a thread about prudent gun control a a means to try and reduce injury and deaths, why do you seemingly not want to discuss it?

*
Isn’t the sensible thing to do is focus on all the things?

If you want to talk about other subjects you can begin other threads and I’ve discussed such things as road safety before and said that I have campaigned for it - BUT we are in a thread about guns and prudent gun control why do you seemingly not want to discuss it?

*

Yes and we try to take prudent action to limit those deaths so why not in relation to guns?

But you don’t want to mandate it

That’s a bit like advocating a speed limit but having no law to back it up so there is no punishment for those that break the limit.

 

Mac

I mean if you compare Norway with the US between 2000-2014 Norway had ONE mass shooting while the US had 133 (and some say more).

Trumped? You sound like you think of it as a game.

 

Mac

So the only reason you don’t break laws is because you’re frightened about getting punished, the only thing keeping you law abiding is not reason but fear?

I think a majority of people don’t break serious laws because they understand why they are needed and agree with them – as it has been said if we were all ‘law abiding’ we wouldn’t need the laws.

So yes we have laws and consequences for those caught breaking the laws

But it is also possible to look at the reasons why people break certain laws and although punishment might be necessary other factors can be taken into account, social, economic and regulatory as I keep saying it’s about trying to reduce the possibility of harm.

But as seen people do pull out their guns for silly reasons– they get into minor arguments that end with guns been used either to threaten, injure or kill, remember the guy who shot someone over a parking place and another over a cheeseburger anyway here are a couple of incidences from this August
My husband was yelling at me so loudly that the neighbors could hear. It was embarrassing, so I shot him. (PA, 8/4)

Some guy didn’t hold the door open for my lady friend at McDonald’s, which seemed disrespectful, so I shot him dead. (NV, 8/27)

We are talking about the use of lethal weapons here and honestly I have no desire to threaten with death, main or kill anyone.

Are you saying you would if you could?

I don’t think the police are out to kill me, I’m not so afraid of living in my society I feel I need a gun to protect me from it. And I’m not so afraid of being attack that I’ve got multiple plans for if I’m attacked all worked out in advance and ready to execute as you say you do.

I may not be paranoia but it does seem rather close.

*
And it begs the question, why not try and bring about a society where people are polite because they are polite not just out of fear that they might be shot?

The majority of people I’ve meet over the years were not so unkind or unmannered that I thought they should be threatened with death, why do you think differently?

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”


No it’s about politeness in the sense of manners otherwise it would use different word than polite and manners. .


*

So why is it that so many pro-gunners in the US think they need guns to have polite Americans?

That doesn’t answer the question

I’d also ask who judges what is correct behavior, what is polite? It can be subjective and also irrational and if irrational people get into arguments the outcomes are likely to be irrational.

Could find no answer to this above can you repeat it or say where it is.

 

Mac

You feel so afraid you have multiply plans in case of differing attacks – why do you feel so threatened?

Wouldn’t it be better to try and bring about a society where you didn’t feel so afraid?

*
[seatbelts, doors] They are passive not aggressive in nature.

Threatening someone with being shot is an aggressive act as is attacking with the intention to cause harm.

on the whole car seats and doors are not known for threatening or attacking people.

And I don’t feel threatened or in need of lethal weapon to defend myself why do you feel so afraid that you do and would it not be better for you and your society to not have to live with that level of fear?

 

Violent crime would be injury or threat of injury. This includes robbery as in most difinitions (or at least between the UK and US) includes force or threat of force.

No, I'm talking about violent crime. Crime in general can include jaywalking.

If you exclude suicides then we are either not that far ahead or we are equal to other developed countries.

It depends on what you mean by reckless.

If he has to pay double for damages then that'll deter a good many of would be drunk drivers

I would apply the same system to reckless gun handling. Pay double for damages or if he kills someone then he gets the chair depending on the situation.