How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

Let us say that there was a simple 10% tax and it was returned.

So someone earning 1000 gets back 100 dollars not much

10,000 = 1000 still not much

(Average wage in US is around 40,000 = 4000 dollars)

100,000 = 10,000 now that’s better

[“According to the census bureau, 21.8% of FAMILIES made over $100,000 a year” even fewer individuals]

1,000,000 = 100,000 now you’re getting serious money

[People and households earning $1 million or more annually made up just 0.1 percent, or just over 235,000, of the 140 million tax returns filed in 2009, and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more]

10,000,000 = 1,000,000 that will buy a lot of influence

[and just 8,274 returns were filed by people making $10 million or more – 0.003% of 300 million is 9000]

100,000,000 = 10,000,000 and that a whole lot more.

1 Billion = 100,000,000

There are only about 425 billionaires in the US – 0.00015% of 300 million is 450

To me that’s bad enough but actually there is progressive taxation meaning the wealthy pay more and so would get vastly more back if a flat tax was introduced.

 

Mac

You claim you want to do something to tackle the causes of crime but so far the things you have suggested do not seemed aimed at that in fact they are likely to make things worse.

So far you have suggested more people have guns which hasn’t seemed to done much for general crime but has resulted in but has resulted in a huge number of gun related deaths.

And executing anyone who commits a crime while been armed with a gun (more fear tactics) which wouldn’t seem to tackle the problem of why people have turned to crime.

And this -

In what ways do these things tackle the causes of crime?

 

Funny. You sound the same way.

Exactly my point. So why can't that apply to the US? Whenever I point to another country with relatively high gun ownership and low crime and compare it to a country with low gun ownership and high crime you always pull the "different countries have different lifestyles" card and you would be right. However when talking about the US it all of a sudden becomes "America has too many guns." If you can't see the hypocrisy then God help you. As to why I mentioned New Zealand its because its right next to Australia. It'll be like comparing Canada to the US.

Yet Australia is in the same boat. Not that many large cities, low population for its size, doesn't have an immigration problem, and despite how racist this may sound they don't have a large minority population in densely populated cities.

I compred New Zealand to Australia, not England. Besides its not gun deaths we should be concerned about, its violent crime in general which would include gun deaths.

I didn't compared New Zealand to the UK. You did.

As I've beaten my head against the wall multiple times. My desire to be armed has little to do with being afraid. It is very much to do with being prudent.

Of the gun deaths 80% of them involve drugs related crimes.

 

Uh no. What does this have to do with what I said?

Again, statistically insignificant. There have been over 2 million injuries from car accidents and 31,000 of them are fatal. On the other hand law abiding gun owners have stopped crime up to 3 million times per year. On the conservitive side more than a 100,000 were successful.

I'm not scared of being attacked. Stop accusing me of it or I'll report you for libel unless you can prove that I am scared. It's not heartless when there up to 3 million defensive gun uses (DGU) per year.

I don't think, I know. Each and every proposal you listed has been implemented. And each and every proposal failed in stopping violent crime and murder. Care to prove otherwise? Plus I do in fact do something. I make people aware of their constitutional rights and by doing so it arms more law abiding people.

No. What are you talking about?

I said consentual incest and I also said poligamy. Care to tell me why they are different?

 

This is off topic but suffice it to say there's nothing wrong with strengthening the rich so long they aren't corrupt. Also the free market allows for people to climb the ladder of success. You get to keep the benefits you worked hard to achieve. If you believe in socialism then I challenge you to give half your income to the next homeless guy you meet and then I'll believe that you are sincere.

 

Most of our taxes goes to programs that government (especially federal) has no legitimate authority to be involved. But why should the wealthy pay more?

 

Example?

Actually no since 80% of them are drug related. There was a program that put severe punishments for illegal possession of a firearm but it was scrapped because minorities were the most likely to get arrested.

It'll stop them from doing it though. As to why they turned to it most of the prisoners in the US grew up in a single parent (mostly without fathers) home. The simple answer is advocate and promote a two parent home with a father and mother and discourage anything else

Having a strong nuclear family would raise up better children, allowing more children to be born to such families will contribute to society, having a free market will allow such families to reap the benefits of their success, and finally having a flat, easy to understand tax will aid in the families' success rate.

 

Mac

Oh I’m fine I’m not the one giving little huffy asides as answers that don’t address what’s been said.

Oh I really do wish you’d read the posts – I keep saying that this issue is complex and involves many factors and that prudent gun control is just part of it.

We been here before (even the same 80%) when you claimed - that 80% of gun homocides and I believe homicides in general are gang related – which turned out to be complete guff.

A lot you claim to be pro-life but you seem to support execution as means of deterring people from crime but that’s doesn’t tackle the socio-economic problems that often lead to crime that turn the non-criminal into the criminal.

We have been here before and the 3 million figure has been rather undermined by other research (see above) and it also it doesn’t even support your hypothesis that ease of access to guns lowers crime rates because that doesn’t seem to be the case in comparisons with other developed countries - except that the US has a huge number of gun related deaths and injuries.

You can say that those lives don’t matter to you but that seems like a very callous stance.

LOL, I mean a real laugh out loud moment (and see what I mean about huffy) – anyway you’d be laughed out of court seeing as you have implied many times that you fear attack even to the point that you have several plans in place to deal with it. Those are not the actions of someone that isn’t scared.

 

Mac

I don’t think that is true especially the bit about these being national laws.

Anyway to repeat

[SIZE=11pt]Educate people about what the new legislation is about and would entail (Not taking away all guns, the goal is to reduce harm by limiting easy access to the criminal and irresponsible)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Reinforcing, enhancing, and mandating back ground checks.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Immediate destruction of any weapon, ammunition, etc. used or acquired illegally.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Limiting the amount of legal ammunition that can be bought and retained.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation) [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]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. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]These would be national laws the same through all the states and a department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country. [/SIZE]

 

Mac

You think homosexuality is equivalent to incest and bestiality?

So you do think homosexuality is equivalent to incest and bestiality?

 

Mac

No as I’ve already pointed out it is very much on topic given that many people opposing gun control blame social and economic problems for crime but as I’ve pointed out many times many have ideas that would likely make a bad situation worse.

Depends - is prompting your own self interests being corrupt and what if those interests are detrimental to others?

Most studies show that neoliberal policies reduce social mobility while also stagnating or reducing the incomes of all but the already advantaged. (try The Spirit level : Why Equality is Better for Everyone by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson and A Brief history of Neoliberalism by David Harvey)

 

Mac

Really do you think little huffy and fatuous asides somehow make anyone take you seriously?

I mean I could throw it right back at you and replace socialism with Christianity - If you believe in Christianity then I challenge you to give half your income to the next homeless guy you meet and then I'll believe that you are sincere

But to me that would be as equally as silly thing to say.

The thing is to work out is why are people homeless and that just giving someone money isn’t necessarily the best way of helping – for example if the person is homeless because of alcoholism or drug abuse giving them a large amount of money is likely to cause them more harm, and its going to do little for someone who has mental health problems.

What is needed is social and economic policies aimed at tackling such problems – a good well funded social services system, public housing, universal public healthcare, a full employment economic model, and that is just to begin with. The problem as I’ve pointed out many times already is that neoliberals/free marketeers oppose such things.

 

Mac

First of all when I say wealth I mean both institutions and families.

OK to begin

No person can choose to whom they are going to be born to.

The question then arises is it justified for the person born into advantage to retain exclusive rights to advantages it didn’t deserve rather than share them with others who through no blame of their own are disadvantaged.

*

Let us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population*

But nobody knows which half.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now let’s say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

The difference with that situation is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they might not go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help them’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Mac

That would be great to look at can you please link to where you got it?

Ah so why do you think that would be so?

I mean I have already pointed out the seeming link between intimidation and social control and the connection this can have to race, did you not read it?

How would you do that?

I mean there is prevention (up to abortion) more sex education in schools from an early age, free access to contraception and healthcare?

However many single parents were once married but have divorced I can’t see forcing people together when they want to split is a great solution and I’m sure you are not arguing for the forceful removal children, so it would seem to me that the best way would be to try and help the single parent.

What I would suggest is needed would be a good well funded social services system, welfare, public housing, universal public healthcare, training programmes, a full employment economic model and cheap or free childcare for the large numbers that work.

 

You have yet to prove that prudent gun control would work.

First of all I gave ideas to solve the socio-economic problem in a later post. Having a strong nuclear family is one of them. Second being pro life has nothing to do with convicted murderous felons.

What research has debunk the DGU figure? And as I've said over and over, we're not as high as Mexico, the death rates are decreasing, and having a high amount of anything will result in a higher death rate. A high amount of fast food will result in a high amount of obesity.

Those lives do matter. But if we highly restrict every single thing that killed a person then we can't make much progress. That's why with everything there's an acceptable fatality rate for the benefits they provide.

Those are the actions of someone who is prudent. Are you saying that having more than one layer of protection is being paranoid? Are you saying you put your entire trust on the encapiblity of a potential assailant of being able to kick down your door?

 

How would this reduce crime?

Show me evidence of this reducing crime or even illegal gun sales.

Why? Why not just resale it to the law abiding public?

Please provide evidence of this working.

Please show evidence of this reducing crime.

Please show evidence of this being effective. Many self defense cases have been done with little to no training. While I advocate training, it isn't necessary to defend yourself when it counts. It basically adds style to your performance.

Please provide evidence of this working.

Please provide evidence of this reducing crime.

Please provide evidence of this being effective.

Please provide evidence of this working.

Please provide evidence of this reducing crime.

 

To repeat, I added an adjective to "incest" and I also listed poligamy. Once you modify your question I'll answer it.

 

You said that without evidence.

Everyone who ever wanted money does so with their own self interests. Even charity. Their self interest is to help a particular group they think needs helping. It's the reason you have a job. So your first point is moot. Now if its corrupt and its detrimental to others then you punish that.

Link?

 

Socialism is the belief that everyone should be equal in wealth. So if you truly believe that then you should give half your income to the next homeless guy you meet and therefore being equal. Christianity doesn't have that doctrine. We should help the widows and orphans of course but its out of our hearts and our practicality.

Then why do we have programs like welfare which does basically the same thing?

What you propose is equivalent to giving a random homeless guy half your income.

 

Yes because while the person born into wealth did nothing to deserve it the father or whoever was the first to become a millionaire has the right to will his wealth to whomever he wants.

Since when did the government actually fixed anything?

Everyone should be treated equal under the law and taxes.

Which is kinda a bad analogy because even in a plague those who are well are not forced to help the sick.