How To Argue For Gun Control.

What barriers you're talking about? Peace among men is a two way street and its foolish to expose yourself to the enemy if the enemy isn't willing to become peaceful. Until every single criminal is arrested and turn good I'm still going to be armed. Until cars become absolutely crash proof I'm still going to buckle my seatbelt. What's wrong with that?

I appreciate it if you respect my position on religion. It's either a supernatural being that I leave it up to or its fate. Either way I do my best to avoid situations that I might be harmed or if unavoidable give myself as much chance as possible to come out alive at the very least.

I realize that there is a difference in function, but what I'm talking about is the concept of being prepared. Please show me the difference as far as concept between the two.

A gun is a safety device that is specifically designed to help me defend life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. And in order to do that effectively it must have the potential to maim or kill.

What?

How do you know? If someone breaks in my house while I'm in it I have every logical, rational, and legal right to assume he's there to do me harm. If someone whacks me with a crowbar while I'm just walking down the street I have every right to assume he wants to kill me.

Nobody thinks they're going to be attacked. Just like nobody thinks they're going to be in a car accident.

Because you haven't shown it to work with guns.

 

No they haven't. Care to point to a post where it went unchallenged?

If it ain't broke don't fix it. You have yet to show that it is indeed broken.

It's a stance that for the most part went unchallenged. The only thing I saw was "what if".

You have to first prove that its plausible before wasting time, effort, money, and even lives on something that could fail miserably.

And again, you never provided evidence that any of your proposals would work.

Thousands more are dying from cars even with all of the regulation. And I'm happy with any gun regulation that can be shown to work and is constitutional.

Because the evidence is on my side. I've weighed the evidence and came to the conclusions I've come to. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if provided sufficient evidence. A little backstory on me. I once believed nobody should own guns and only the military should have them. I wanted to become president and mandated such an edict.

 

Mac

[SIZE=11pt]Newly available data for 2014 reveals that states with weak gun violence prevention laws and higher rates of gun ownership have the highest overall gun death rates in the nation, according to a Violence Policy Center (VPC) analysis of just-released data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]In addition, states with the lowest overall gun death rates have lower rates of gun ownership and some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the nation. However, even in these states the human toll of gun violence is far above the gun death rate in other industrialized nations.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]The VPC analysis refers to overall gun death rates in 2014, the most recent year for which data is available. The deaths include gun homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. A table of the states with the five highest gun death rates and the five lowest gun death rates is below. For a list of gun death rates in all 50 states, see http://www.vpc.org/fact-sheets/state-firearm-death-rates-ranked-by-rate-2014/.[/SIZE]

 

Mac

I presume you mean America does have but the problem is you have argued they don’t or at least try to down play it - you even point out again that the US isn’t the most dangerous place – so seemingly trying to play down America’s high numbers of gun related deaths.

Why not - people are dying.

But what about the people dying?

Are you saying once again that you would accept even more deaths?

But still thousands are dying

 

Mac

So – if an American joins a gang it works out that they are more violent than any other humans from other countries that join gangs – so you are saying you believe Americans are more violent than other people.

There are, on average, 2,000 gang-related homicides each year, according to 2007 through 2012 data from the National Youth Gang Center. Comparatively, there are around 15,500 murders in the United States each year.

So gang related homicides only account for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.

 

Mac

You see your fellow citizens are the ‘enemy’ as if you thought your society was a battlefield.

Every single criminal? So even if the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime was extremely low you would still be afraid enough to want a weapon for protection – I feel rather sorry for you because that seems rather sad.

To me respect is earned – the fact you don’t seem to care much about the people dying tells me a lot about what kind of ‘Christian’ you are.

Why not support those that would like to lessen the chances of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

You believe people are out to kill you - that at any moment someone is going to break into your house and attack you that people in the street want to do you harm?

It’s a risk assessment – I don’t think there is much risk from travelling in a car but I put a seatbelt on because it’s prudent and it’s the law – I don’t feel so threatened of being attacked that I feel like I need to carry a weapon.

You on the other hand have repeatedly told us that you believe you could be attacked at any moment and this fear has led you to believe it is prudent to have a lethal weapon – I repeat wouldn’t it be better to have a society where you didn’t feel so afraid?

 

Mac

The point about the US constitution and the gun issue is that seems to indication of a stance already chosen rather than a reason for the stance. Those that favour prudent gun control don’t seem to think it a problem those opposed do.

Thing is that if people wanted something done to lessen the deaths they would be thinking of ways of doing it not saying anything would be a waste of time, effort, money, and lives. Again it seems more like it is something that has come out of a stance already made.

The whole thing about the harm caused by the ownership of cars is that many people did see the problems and have tried to lessen that harm with great success in many places. In relation to guns many seem to want to deny harm is caused.

But as we can see above the ‘evidence’ is often not on your side or is ambiguous and/or open to interpretation and at other times you seem to fall back on beliefs such as the belief that Americans are more violent than other peoples and that accounts for the higher homicide rates.

From the way you have looked at and interpreted the ‘evidence’ and you’re beliefs on the subject, I find that statement disingenuous at the very best.

As pointed out you mainly fall back on the belief and subjective arguments (constitution, it won’t work and it not important).

You believed you had a realistic shot at getting the US Presidency? Have you been involved in politics if so what kind of policies have you tried to promote?

 

You switched terms. I said "crime" as in violent crime in general. You are focusing on gun deaths.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IUUIGf4ll4g

 

Let me rephrase. America's gun deaths are higher than most developed countries. It's still statistically insignificant and even if we are to do something you have yet to propose anything that'll actually work and is constitutional.

The point is who has the most violent crime and who has the most murder rate. Not only that but which gun law actually worked in reducing violent crime and murder.

I'll know you'll actually care about people dying when you advocate tighter restrictions on smoking and cars.

No I'm saying that the proposals you want won't work.

Statistically insignificant when there's over 400 million guns. Cars have it worse.

 

Lets get this in context. When comparing our gangs to developed countries you so love to compare us to we have more violent gangs than you guys. Gangs in it of themselves only represent a small percentage of the population. To illustrate what is your gangs' highest crime committed?

The rest of it involved drugs or in committing a felony. They aren't the result of law abiding citizens.

 

Oh come on! Have you ever heard of an analogy? Sheesh! I was using a war analogy to illustrate my point. No, I don't view my fellow citizens as the enemy. I view low down scumbag thugs as the enemy if you will. And while you were playing dumb (to give you the benefit of the doubt) you missed my point completely. Do you consider it wise to disarm yourself when the criminal element won't?

It's the same line of reasoning of why you would want to buckle your seatbelt. If the chances of being in a car accident is one in a million would you still buckle your seatbelt? I would. And I feel sorry for you that you don't value your life enough to get the best protection you legally, practically, and affordably can.

I do care however there is risk assessment and the risk of accidentally being shot is outweighed by the benefits guns give. I would advocate for constitutional solutions that actually work. Why won't you give them and then accuse me of not caring about people dying?

Name them.

No of course not. However it does happen. Are you afraid that you might become a hood ornament on a semi truck? No? Then why do you buckle your seatbelt?

You just made my point in your first sentence. I don't think I'm going to be attacked on my way to Walmart, however I want to be armed because its prudent. And then you became a hypocrite in the very next sentence. Nobody is afraid of being attacked.

Where have I said I can feel like I can be attacked at anytime? Even if I did its no more fearful than saying I could be in a car accident at anytime.

 

It is a problem becuase you can't just trample on rights without serious evidence that they aren't rights or do more harm than good.

You never given a solution that worked. Please name a solution that works and is constitutional. I want links to its effectiveness.

No we don't. We acknowledge that there is harm but its either insignificant to do anything about it, we've done all that we can, or the proposals on the table have been proven to not work.

Which I never claimed such.

Could say the same about you. But without evidence your statement is of none effect.

You never challenged it to the point that its indisputable. You fall back on "if it saves just one life" which if you really want that then you'd advocate for less gun control. The best physical solution to stop a badguy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

I was a kid when I wanted to become president. I was also a kid when I thought that only a military should have guns. I grew up in a gun unfriendly home so what I believe is my own conclusions I drew from available evidence. I only been in forums as far as promoting politics. I'm pro life, pro gun rights, pro traditional marriage, pro free market, pro flat tax, and a lot of other things.

 

Mac

So your original argument was that the murder rate in the US would be just as high without the ease of access to guns.

This seemed to imply that you though Americans where more violent and murderous than other people to which you replied – gangs

You now seem to be saying that gangs are not significant so again why do you seem to believe Americans are more murderous than other people – that it is American’s more violent nature that accounts for high levels of murder rather than ease of access to more efficient means of killing?

Well someone is only law abiding until they are not. People are not born as criminals so if you wish to tackle crime shouldn’t you be asking - why have they become criminals?

That just the tied old slogan ‘if you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns’

Well what has been proposed is prudent gun control to try and lessen the chances of the criminal and irresponsible getting hold of guns it is not disarmament.

Why wouldn’t you want the criminal and irresponsible getting easy access to guns?

I don’t live in such fear that I feel I need a weapon to protect me why do you feel so under threat that you do?

Exactly it’s an insight into how you seem to think – the point you seem to want to make is that you feel surrounded by potential enemies and that’s why you feel the need for a weapon to protect you. If you couldn’t get a gun you’d get a sword and if that was not available you’d want a knife or a club or anything because you fear being attacked and having a weapon makes you feel less scared.

Why wouldn’t want a society where you didn’t feel so afraid?

If I actually thought other road users where purposely trying to kill me and would attack me to bring that about yes I might me frightened to get into my car, and fuck the seatbelt I’d be wanting an armoured car not our family salon. BUT I don’t - so my fear isn’t that high, it’s so low that sometimes I even forget to put my seatbelt on even though its the law.

But you do believe you are going to be attacked, that people wish to do you harm so much so that you’ve got multiple plans worked out in advance to deal with it, and it seems to be behind your desire to have a gun.

Well as you keep pointing out there are a lot of guns in the hands of ‘law abiding citizens’ but general crime rates are about the same as other comparable countries but there is a huge number of gun related deaths, murders and injuries in the US compared to those other countries with less ease of access to guns.

Ease of access to guns with limited regulation only seems to mean that the criminal and irresponsible have ease of access to guns, with negative results.

And how is this a good way of tackling crime or the reasons for the crime?

 

Mac

But you advocate the death penalty, and think the thousands dying in gun related incidences ‘insignificant’ so you don’t seem that pro-life are you actually saying you oppose abortion? (what about contraception?).

You oppose prudent gun control measures aimed at trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible.

Do you mean you oppose gay marriage?

There never has been and there never could be a ‘free market’ it’s just a con trick of wealth to advantage itself to the detriment of everyone else.

Another con trick that advantages the already advantaged

*

As mentioned liberal abortion laws is one of the things that has been put forward by the authors of Freakonomics who argued that making it easier to get an abortion has diminished the number of children born into the underclass

Neoliberal ideas have never been about tackling the causes of crime they are more likely to make the lives of all but the advantaged worse, resulting in social and economic pressures that can lead to people having mental health problems, turning to crime or committing irresponsible acts. The more it is pursued the more likely it is to make a bad situation worse.

 

Take a look at other countries. For example Australia and New Zealand had the same drop rate in crime when Australia implemented a gun ban. However New Zealand didn't and in fact has less restriction gun laws than Australia. If more guns equals more crime then why New Zealand doesn't have a higher crime problem than Australia? And back to the US our crime rate and gun death rate are dropping despite the fact that more guns are being sold and more people are buying them. Also if more guns equals more crime then how come America isn't on the top ten most dangerous countries. I don't think you answered that. Also you said that we have a higher homicide rate than other developed countries. Why isn't Mexico considered developed? What qualifies as developed countries? Is it the lack of war that qualifies whether a country is developed or not? If so then what if England breaks into internal war?

Sure. Are you implying an inaminate object influences people?

Which is true. Care to disprove it?

Disarmament is really the best way to actually do something about gun deaths and yet it'll still fail.

Must I repeat myself? I do.

Ok, lets get this straight. Lets just assume for a minute that the ONLY reason I even want a gun is because I'm scared out of my wits that someone might jump me on my way to the mailbox. You and I live in different neighborhoods, different cities, different provinces/states. And entirely different countries. You don't know what I deal with on a daily basis. You don't know the likelyhood of me being attacked. You have NO idea of my situation. Just because you feel like you don't need a gun doesn't mean you can enforce your little world on an entirely different country. I'm sure someone in Swahili who drives with no seatbelt whatsoever thinks that you're paranoid for buckling yours even though you have a perfect driving record.

See above. If there where no seatbelts would you seek other means to survive a potential crash?

I do and I'm not afraid. Why wouldn't you want a society where its physically impossible to get injured in a car accident where you didn't feel so afraid by buckling your seatbelt?

Having a gun is on the same level as a seatbelt. If you don't mind me asking what precautions have you taken to defend yourself and loved ones?

No I don't. For cars I buckle my seatbelt and have multiple routes to my destination. It's layering.

Which has been addressed by the video debunking Vox.

 

Tell that to Mexico.

Simple, how many mass shootings you heard that took place at a gun show, store, range, or police station?

 

First place the death penalty is punishment of someone who did something like murder or its equivalent so its justice. Abortion murders an innocent human being. Second, I said "statistically insignificant", the adjective makes a different. All life is valuable

I oppose useless unconstitutional gun control. List any that works and is constitutional.

I support traditional marriage. One man, one woman. Does that mean I oppose poligamy, consentual incest, and bestiality?

Your right on the first part. It's government meddling that prevent free enterprise.

Why? Tax everyone at say 10% of income and everyone will be happy.

Evidence?

 

Mac

I wish you would read the posts and would learn to concentrate and put forward coherent arguments, you seem all over the shop and rather huffy.

Ok as explained a number of times there are a lot of factors involved when looking at crime in a society, social, economic, unemployment rates, population density, inequality rates, education, healthcare, social mobility, environment, quality of life, hope for the future etc etc.

So New Zealand seems like a strange choice I mean you have made a big thing that the high crime areas (including gun related homicides) is in high density urban areas yet NZ has only one city with a population above a million and it’s not high density.

Gun related homicides rate 2013 per 100,000
New Zealand - 2013: 0.18
United Kingdom – 0.04
United States - 3.54

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) –
New Zealand is 22.6 firearms per 100 people
United Kingdom is 6.7 firearms per 100 people
United States is 101.05 firearms per 100 people

Hadn’t you realized that’s my point – I don’t feel so afraid that I feel I need a weapon to protect me whereas you do. You could wonder what is different about the two places.

A shock jock ranting about the plan of motherfucker gun controllers is to take away all guns, oh come on - ok please cite exactly where you think that video address what I’ve said – and no more videos of someone else – I’d like you to say it.

 

Mac

Where those people born to be murders? Is anyone born predestined to be a criminal?

Dead is dead

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2013, there were 73,505 nonfatal firearm injuries (23.23 per 100,000 U.S. citizens) and 11,208 homicides (3.5 per 100,000)

You can say that this is "statistically insignificant” or that other countries have higher rates or that you think it a price worth paying for you to be able to own a gun because you are scared of being attacked but I think it rather heartless.

I mean why not try and do something about it and please don’t repeat the excuse about you thinking it impossible and you thinking it’s unconstitutional they are just symptoms of a stance not the reason for it.

Where all the people that died due to the US’s ease of access to guns born guilty somehow that you think them unworthy of trying to save?

You think homosexuality is equivalent to incest and bestiality?

 

Mac

There never has been and there never could be a ‘free market’ it’s just a con trick of wealth to advantage itself to the detriment of everyone else.

The reality is that any move toward free market principles strengthens the hands of wealth and if that route continues to be taken wealth gets strong enough to corrupt the system to its own wishes.

To me the ‘free market’ model always seemed like a lie, a con game meant to fool the gullible. This was because it proponents seem to be claiming that they were a complete model that could deal with boom or bust, when in fact it wasn’t anything of the sort, it was in fact not even half a model, it wasn’t very good in boom times (except for wealth) and didn’t have anyway of dealing with busts.

That is why when the neo-liberal model inevitably fails Keynesian ideas are brushed off and used. All the supposed supporters of neo-liberal ideas like Nixon, Reagan, Bush and many others all turned to Keynesian ideas when the free market ones failed.

So you end up with the untenable – Keynesian ideas in the low periods meaning the general population pays for the recovery and neo-liberal ideas in the up time which not only create the conditions for a down turn to happen but also means that wealth gains the profits and the general population gain little.

So why did such a bad model gain prominence?

It was funded and promoted. It opponents failures were screamed loudly its own failures were white washed over or spined to look like others failures (the old chestnut being that failure was due to the system not being ‘free’ enough) while even the tiniest success on its part were trumpeted as a triumphs.

(see ‘A brief history of neoliberalism’ or ‘The shock doctrine’ for more details)

Now some argue that some strands of ‘free market’ thinking were always about creating a corporatist system but others are pure but that doesn’t seem to fit in with the history and it certainly doesn’t explain why there are still many on the right who cling passionately to free market ideas.

I think many people became corrupted along the way just as the system was, but the problem wasn’t the type of ‘free market’ solution; it was the free market solution.

Because all free market systems favour wealth, the freer a ‘market system’ becomes the more wealth takes over power until a tipping point is reached and that’s when wealth re-orders things to its own interests and if left unchecked forms a tyranny of the wealthy.

So in fact there never has been a totally and completely ‘free market’ because long before that could be achieved wealth has taken over and taken control, subverting the levers of government to do its bidding.

As observed in ‘The Predator State’ by James K. Galbraith about wealth’s recent behaviour

What did the new class - endowed with vast personal income, freed from the corporation, and otherwise left to the pursuit of its own social position - set out to do in political terms? The experience of the past decade permits a very simple summary explanation: they set out to take over the state and to run it - not for any ideological project but simply in the way that would bring them, individually and as a group, the most money, the least disturbed power, and the greatest chance of rescue should something go wrong. That is, they set out to prey on the existing institutions of the American regulatory and welfare system.

Oh wealth and it’s cronies still claim that a ‘free market’ is what they want and what would ‘really make things work’ properly. You only have to look at all those well financed free market think tanks and well paid lobbyists still out there and unbelievably still being listened to and taken seriously even when what they have been claiming for has only ever resulted in wealth becoming more wealthy and powerful and the supposed ‘freer’ system coming more under there control and corrupted to their interests.

The mirage of a real ‘free market’ is a trap set up by wealth to ensnare the gullible.

Because take that road and long before the destination is ever reached the real drivers take a fork to somewhere completely different.


http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/331290-free-market-plutocratic-tyranny/