How To Argue For Gun Control.

I found out that we have 33,000 gangs in America.

I said guns are more efficiant, not more effective. You aren't any deader being shot that being beaten to death by a candlestick. On the same token you aren't any deader being shot by a crossbow than you are being shot by a gun. And the reason why its irrelevant is becuase human nature will find ways to kill each other one way or another. Guns are just the tool. If we reverse the clock people would be killing each other with spears, swords, and bows. If we fast forward the clock people will still be killing each other only with phasers and lasers.

It's completely logical. "Effective" means something completes a task. "Efficient" means that task is completed with less effort. A candlestick is effective at killing someone. A gun is more efficient. A bicycle is effective from going from New York to L.A. A car is more efficient at it.

No I said they were more efficient. A piece of thread can be just as effective a nuke at killing someone.

It depends on what my opponent chooses. With proper training all can be just as effective. However the glock is more efficient. Now I pose you a scenario:

You're sound asleep and you hear that dreaded crash in the night that is unmistakable that someone broke in. You don't know if he's armed or not. Your choice is between a glock 17, a wood chopper axe, and a candlestick. Assuming you have equal training with each defense item which would you choose?

No, I choose the glock because its more efficient. However I can still kill someone if all I had was a candlestick.

Simple. Guns are used more than just killing people.

No it isn't. Guns are at the bottom of accidents and heart disease and smoking kills more people.

It would if I can snap my fingers and fix everything today. Face it. Some people won't sit and debate with you on why he deserves your daughter as a sleep mate. Some people need a little knock to the head.

You guys did in 1776 and 1812. Japan did in 1941 and later on in the Alaskan islands. Terrorists did in 2001. And Russia might sometime in the future. Plus if our military is spread abroad then that leaves the mainland exposed.

Evidence?

 

Do you have a link to the source? In the mean time this video rebuts more guns equal more violent crime.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IULSD8VwXEs

Every life is precious. However would you ban or restrict cars because it kills more than guns even with all the regulations? No. It's the same with guns.

See above.

I do care. But sad to say there is an acceptable level of death or injury to everything. For example cars.

 

To use your logic would you be in favor of thought crimes? They'll arrest, prosecute, inprison, and sometimes even execute you for a crime you might commit ten years down the road. To answer your question please show me a law that'll prevent such incidents with actual results.

What type of regulations and what is the evidence of them working. Not only that but please show me how it'll be constitutional.

I can post a law saying no sunglasses inside buildings. But without any threat of enforcement and manpower the law is of non effect.

Sure, provided that it works and constitutional.

Sure, but that's actually a rare thing. Pools kill more children despite regulations.

Can't see what I wrote so...

Becuase violent crime is part of the discussion.

Nope. It's the decision of the owner to determined what is effective for safe storage.

But your home is your private property.

 

I don't. Finland's mass shooting rate, while not as frequent as US, are far more deadlier.

 

No, while its a factor, I don't break the law because I'm a Christian and of good nature. Why would I want to ruin my witness to God and my life?

And fear is a factor as well.

Then go for it. Guns are not the issue. People don't murder because they were influenced by an inanimate object.

Those are few and far between among CCW holders. People commit road rage because of silly reasons as well.

Some guy took too long at the stoplight so the guy ran him off the next cliff.

Neither do I. However if my loved ones, me, or even a complete stranger's life is at stake I would do everything in my power to stop the assailant up to and including deadly force.

If this is connected to the above quote then no. I would if I have to. However if this is talking about whether I would commit a crime if I can get away with it then in certain cases yes. Stoplights are a pain. But I always stop for safety reasons and the possibility of being pulled over. We as humans all have something we would like to do if we can get away with it.

First of all I'm not talking about being killed by cops I'm talking about being pulled over for speeding. Second like I said, having a gun for defense is as fearful as buckling your seatbelt.

Evidence? Paranoia is fearing something that doesn't exists. Please show me how America is completely crime free or any country for that matter.

 

That's because they were taught (usually because growing up they were punished for bad behavior) they weren't born that way.

No it's talking about crime.

They don't.

How?

If this was a debate about the existence of God I would say that manners and morals are evidence of a creator. However we aren't so I can't really answer that.

My answers is that politeness is referring to a law abiding society.

 

I don't. It's like having multiple routes to a location. You're not afraid that you're normal route would be closed but in case it does you have a backup. Same with flashlights. Are you afraid or threatened by the possibility of a blackout or reaching your keys from under the couch?

First of all I'm not anymore afraid by having a gun than I am by buckling my seatbelt. Second like I said before, it'll be great if I can snap my fingers and make everybody nice. But alas I can't and its going to take awhile before anything happens.

So? The point is being prepared.

Again, so?

I'm not afraid. Just becuae you don't feel the need to have a gun doesn't mean those who do are afraid.

 

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

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2

*

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?

“unconcerned about the consequences of some action; without caution; careless”

But efficiency has an effect on effectiveness the more efficient something is at doing a job (at maiming or killing in this case) the more likely it is going to be effective in bring that result about (to maim or kill).

For this reason the ease of access to guns would likely make lethal outcomes (and injury from such weapons) more likely boosting overall homicide figures

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8
Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2

Again the contradiction – one place you claim you don’t think Americans are more violent and murderous than others and then next you seem to claim they are – can you please present a coherent and rational argument.

The thing is that guns are more efficient and so more affective at causing harm than other hand weapons so ease of access to them is likely to boost the numbers killed by them. In developed countries, where there is not that US level of ease of access to guns, the numbers are less.

Guns are very efficient weapons – if someone says tool I think of a hammer or screwdriver if someone says weapon I think gun or sword.

For fuck sake man – we have been through this numerous times now – we are going round in circles - I point out that we do try (and have been very successful) at reducing the numbers killed due to car usage and why don’t you want to do something similar with guns – you come back with guns are not cars (which doesn’t address the point) and then only a few post later you bring up the car thing again - can you please present a coherent and rational argument.

AND AGAIN – the whole point is that we haven’t just accepted the situation with cars we have tried to do something about it – but you don’t seem to want to do something about the gun situation – why?

 

Mac

In the context of this sequence I’m still not sure what you are talking about

Again - wouldn’t it be best to try and do what seems prudent to reduce harm?

You say you are a Christian who believes themselves of ‘good nature’ but you think it acceptable for so many people to die and do nothing to try and limit it?

But as pointed out guns are more efficient and therefore more effective at maiming and killing so ease of access to them is likely to boost the numbers that are maimed or killed.

So it would seem prudent to try and limit the access of such lethal weapons to the criminal and irresponsible.

Yet I and others I know in London are not so frightened that they feel they need for guns for protection or have multiple plans for if they are attacked all worked out in advance and ready to execute as you say you do.
As I keep pointing out if your society is so frightening to you why not try and work toward having one where you were not so afraid?
*
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.
If this was a debate about the existence of God I would say that manners and morals are evidence of a creator. However we aren't so I can't really answer that.

Well gods don’t exist and you’ve already said you think manners are taught (or not) to people by their upbringing and environment.

And of course different upbringings will teach different lessons, so manners can be subjective and also irrational and if irrational people get into arguments the outcomes are likely to be irrational.

*

A seatbelt is not a weapon and when I put it on I don’t think people intentionally out to attack me, the vast majority of car incidences are accidents (many don’t even involve other people). I also know that other things are done to try and reduce harm, within the car (crumple zones, airbags, automatic braking and so on) and externally we try and remove bad drivers from the roads, we have traffic calming measures and a host of other regulations to try and limit harm in relation to car ownership.

A gun is a weapon – the only reason to want one ‘for protection’ is that the person fears they are going to be attacked – many that promote guns as a means of protection seem opposed to measures aimed at limit harm in relation to gun ownership.

*

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.

I don’t think any advocate of prudent gun control measures things will change radically overnight and it will not just involve gun control as said before such as social and economic change

The point I’ve been making is that many pro-gunners seem opposed to reform or promote ideas that are likely to make a bad situation worse.

 

The XM-25 calculates the distance to an enemy fighter hiding in a doorway, bunker, or behind a row of sandbags and then can fire a 25-millimeter grenade toward the target. Should the general public be allowed to have this? Why or why not? It's just another kind of gun after all.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a22792/xm-25-punisher-us-army/

 

As long its not a military secret on how it works or anything I don't see why not. The average criminal isn't going to afford such a weapon or ammo anyway. Did you know you can actually own suitcase nuke in Utah? You just can't detonate it. Now your question is why should the general public be able to own such a weapon. And the answer is (a) the second amendment and (b) to keep the government in check. If the government fears the people then you have freedom. However if the people fear the government you have tyranny.

 

Are you saying the general public should be allowed any weapon that the military has? Tanks, howitzers, F/A-18s, H-bombs or whatever?

 

Here's two videos on why gun owners aren't paranoid simply for owning a gun.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=A0TnISFHg7Q

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Js2BiD3q9p4

 

Not only we should, but already can. If you have a spare $20 million lying around and get the paperwork done you can own a nice M1A3 abrams tank. The only snag you might run into is the armor is top secret.

 

And which parts of the country is contributing to the stats? Democratic large cities in gun restrictive states for the most part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Most of the top safest states have lax gun laws.

What I was asking for was a scenario you think would be considered reckless.

Yet if both objects kill they are equally effective at killing someone. Unless there is defferent levels of being dead.

Correlation doesn't always equal causation. Otherwise I would claim that its BECAUSE we have more guns is the reason why our gun crime and violent crime in general is actually going down.

I am. I'm saying our gangs, not America as a whole, is more violent.

So since Mexico have such strict gun laws...

And I keep coming back with "provide solutions that actually work and are constitutional" to which you haven't delivered.

I do. See above.

 

I've said this multiple times. Provide a solution that actually works and is constitutional. I'm pretty sure the solution lies somewhere outside the gun control debate.

Evidence?

Sure. Got any ideas with evidence of its succeeding?

I keep telling you it's not being fearful. It's no more fearful than buckling your seatbelt. In fact just this Saturday I had to move the car for guests to come and I buckled my seatbelt to drive twenty feet. Do I fear that a semi would plow into me at that time? No. I buckle as a habit and good practice. Some people check the intersection after the light turned green just in case someone might run the red light. Are they fearful?

And I keep pointing its because I'm not a magician. I'm a rationalist. I realize that there are dangers out there and there's nothing but the grace of God that keeps me from becoming the next selected target. So I take responsibility of myself to the best I practically can and leave the rest to God.

Ok I guess.

Irrelevant. The idea is you are being prepared. Not what are you preparing for. If you're preparing for an accident you drive safely and buckle your seatbelt. If you're preparing to be attacked you avoid places where its most likely to happen and in have something to defend yourself with.

Irrelevant and already addressed.

Addressed.

Addressed. Please show what proposals gun owner pose that'll make things worse. And had it ever occurred to you that's the very same reason why gun right advocates object to your proposals?

 

Mac

Hell man been through this hundreds of times – you know all that stuff about social and economic factors, population density etc.

Anyway here are a couple of things I’ve posted before –
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/459595-defend-the-second-amendment/page-5#entry7684064
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/459595-defend-the-second-amendment/?p=7710107

We could take Louisiana as an example, it’s a State with very lenient gun laws
Louisiana gun laws do not:
- Require background checks for the transfer of a firearm between unlicensed parties.
- Regulate assault weapons.
- Require gun owners to have a license or register their firearms.
- Allow local governments to regulate firearms.
[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Louisiana[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]9.6 murders per 100K, 7.7 by gun - gun owners 44.1%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Unemployment rate 6.7[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Poverty rate by household income 18.3%[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Population 4,649,676[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Population density 107.1[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Largest city New Orleans homicide rate 57.6 per 100,000 (pop 378,715)[/SIZE]

Doesn’t make sense as pointed out before this is happening in countries with gun control the thing is that the US still has a huge number dying yearly from gun related incidences which isn’t happening in those countries with gun control measures in place.

That doesn’t make sense – are you saying that all the people in gangs in the US are not Americans? If not then you are claiming that Americans are more violent.

 

Mac

As I keep pointing out if your society is so frightening to you why not try and work toward having one where you were not so afraid?

You don’t need to be a magician this is a human problem and needs to be addressed by humans such as yourself if only you could stop putting up barriers.

Well to me it isn’t very rational to leave the solving of human and very real life problems to a nonexistent supernatural entity it’s like saying you hope the fairies will fix it.

[SIZE=11pt]The fact that you seem unable to see the difference between a seatbelt and a gun seems to me to show how far you are away from the rationality you claim to possess.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A seatbelt is not a weapon it’s a safety devise specifically designed as a safety devise it is not a weapon specifically designed to maim or kill.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is triggered automatically after the event it isn’t under the control of the user and it can’t ‘kill’ the incident.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]You say it’s the same because it is about been prepared, but been prepared for what, people do not put on seatbelts because they believe they are going to be attacked and that the seatbelt will then be used to kill or maim the attacker. Yes a situation could arise but it’s not an attack by someone wanting to do harm. That is completely different from someone that has got a weapon because they fear they are going to be attacked. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And a seatbelt is just one of the things that have been regulated on to try and limit the possibility of harm taking place and new ways are been developed, it’s one of the reasons why road deaths have been falling in most developed countries [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]That kind of prudent regulation in relation to guns seems to be opposed by some such as yourself. [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]There seem to be three main arguments put up by Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The US Constitution[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is that MeAgain and other have explained why prudent gun control is compatible with the US constitution. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt](My own opinion is that the US needs a new constitution using a 200 year old political document to tackle the problems of a 21st century world is like a 21st century doctor using a 200 year old medical book)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]To me this seems like an indication of a stance already chosen rather than a reason for the stance.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It can’t be done[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]There doesn’t seem to be any reason why something couldn’t be tried – this seems more like ‘I don’t want anything to be done’ [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Again this seems like an indication of a stance already chosen rather than a reason for the stance.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=11pt]It’s not a problem [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But thousands of people are dying, human being dead, to ignore that or to say it isn’t a problem seems ridiculous [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So again this seems like an indication of a stance already chosen rather than a reason for the stance.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So wonder what are the reasons for the stance been chosen?[/SIZE]

 

That's one state. And I'm willing to bet most of their crime comes from large democratic cities. Most the too safest states are gun rights states. If guns are the problem then explain that.

No one is arguing that America has high gun related deaths. However (a) its not the point and (b) we have the highest amount of guns and yet we don't even rank 25th most dangerous country. Shouldn't there be a higher percentage of gun deaths? Also I'll add that gun deaths are going down.

Now you're not making sense. Of course most people in American gangs are indeed Americans. However they do not represent the American population. What I'm saying that our gangs is more violent than yours.