How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

But if you believed it should be done you would support policies that were aimed at helping such people - but you don’t – for example you seem to promote things (free market, flat tax) that are likely to increase inequality and make things worse for the disadvantaged (as neoliberal policies have already done).

OK here is three things that give a clue as to the type of ‘Christian’ you are -

Believes we should disregard the pain and suffering of others and so do nothing of any substance to try and help.

Believes fear and intimidation are the best means of bring about social control

Believes in execution but then hypocritically claims to be ‘pro-life’

 

Mac

[SIZE=11pt]This is just the very old self serving argument put forward by the better off to justify not helping the poorer off.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]It is that of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are lazy, scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This is exactly why people have fought to gain assistance programmers that were properly funded through taxation. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And it also ignore the fact that today many if not most assistance is given to those that do work but just don’t make enough to get by.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

But as pointed out they have not been implemented in any national way.

Thing is that if you really cared about trying to lessen the pain and suffering you’d be trying to do something of real and rational consequence to help and you are not.

But if they are recorded in the crime statistics that doesn’t help your argument because US statistics for general crime are roughly the same as in other developed countries with much less ease of access to firearms. That would indicate that ease of access to guns isn’t very effective as a means of countering crime as those other countries seem to be doing just as well without the guns BUT they don’t have the huge numbers of gun related injuries, deaths, murders, accidents etc that happen in the US.

And if they are not been recorded it would indicate that the US has a significantly larger general crime rate than those developed countries without such ease of access to guns, which would mean ease of access is dismally failing to reduce general crime figure while hugely boosting the numbers of gun related deaths and injuries.

 

Mac


So why do you think minorities are more likely to be involved in crime

I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 60 million.

But let us take an American city - Philadelphia – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 60 million Brits.

*

Philadelphia - population density of 11,457 people per square mile

London - population density of 11,760 people per square mile

*

Population density can be a factor but it doesn't have to be if policies are taken to reduce the harm.

 

Mac

How would you do that? Have you any details or have you not really given it much thought?

LOL – so you haven’t got a clue what to do in any rational sense nor have any rationally based plans or ideas, you just want people to believe in fairies.

 

Mac

So let’s round this up

Legal

Your ideas for tackling crime especially gun related crimes in the US

Reduce what gun control there is in place making it easier for people to obtain guns.

Encourage more people to get guns for self defence.

Economic

Increase inequality through free market policies

Increase the power and influence of wealth through huge tax cuts.


Social

Replace public funded assistance programmes for the disadvantaged with a voluntary contribution system.

Make people more moral by getting them to be Christians.

*

So basically you want the disadvantaged to return to the social and economic deprivations of the Laissez-faire the 19th century while giving people easier access to 21st weaponry.


And you honestly think this will make your society happier, safer, and you less scared?


It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so tragic.

 

Because evil exists. I wouldn't know why but the fact that they entered my house illegally is all I need to know.

See above. Evil exists. I just used me for an analogy. It could be anyone.

I don't think it's going to happen. I also don't think I'm going to be in a car accident yet I still buckle my seatbelt.

If you weren't scared of being in a car accident you wouldn't buckle your seatbelt or even think about it.

 

I always tell people if I can't point a nuclear cruise missile at congress and Wall Street there's simply no way I can defend myself!

 

It didn't increased by much and it decreased from the 90s despite higher ownership in guns.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=93582&page=1

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/index.html

 

How does that relates to anything? Plus pointing a nuke missle is like waving a gun at people. It's illegal.

 

No, I stated my viewpoint and you're not representing it. My viewpoint is that homosexuality is equal to poligamy, consentual incest, and bestiality as long as the animal is not forced.

 

Evidence?

That's not me.

It's an important part but it isn't the best way.

How that being hypocritical?

 

No it's proven fact. Those on welfare have a flat screen tv and cable.

No it's those who ask for help and then use the money to but cable and drugs. When the pilgrims settled here they first established a common house system where everyone would put there harvest into one house and everyone get according to their needs. They nearly died the following winter. Then they implemented "don't work, don't eat" and that's where we get the thanksgiving story.

Evidence?

 

Yes it did in other countries and it failed there. Why do you think it'll work here?

You never challenged any of my proposals other than "it won't work."

If a crime was prevented in its early stages then it isn't considered a crime.

They were not recorded because in the end no crime (other than maybe breaking in) was completed to be considered a crime.

 

And what policies would that be and what evidence do you have of it working?

 

It's completely rational to believe in a creator. And whether you think it's a fairytale or not you have to concede that the belief of a all knowing powerful creator had a positive affect in the morals of our country. Besides, what would you propose to reinstill morals?

 

Do you have evidence of it not working?

 

I can't even own a nuclear missile and without one I can't protect myself against the crooked bankers and politicians who now run the government. Not to mention, you don't point nuclear weapons, you merely program them and, of course, laws can be changed to make it legal.

This is actually a variation on the arguments that gun lobbyists use for why there should not be more restrictions on who can buy a gun and what kind of guns you can buy. The US literally has fewer gun laws than most third world countries and many argue that the "right to bare arms" is as much about being able to resist your own government if it becomes corrupt as it is about personal protection. The problem is even automatic weapons are rapidly becoming outdated as the pentagon invests heavily in robotics and high tech weaponry. For example, the NSA isn't saying how they did it, but they now have guns that shoot bullets that can follow you around a corner. With the emerging terahertz technology a handheld scanner the size of cellphone will be able to see right through your cloths from across the street and one the size of a shoe box should be able to see right through the walls of your house. Already the government has put the first gigapixel camera in orbit that can take a single photograph of Manhattan and read any gum wrapper on the sidewalk. I could go on and on, but the arguments that these people have traditionally relied upon are rapidly becoming moot when even gorilla warfare and terrorism become impossible because the cameras and computers will be following everyone every time they so much as blow their nose.

That might sound like a stretch, but the technology to do so even cheaply should be available within twenty years and congress has already given the military legal authority to round up citizens like so many cattle, while the military has already made all the necessary preparations for interning them in camps by the thousands, sold surplus equipment such as armored vehicles to every local police department they could, and local police are now routinely using drones. The military and government are going bananas because their own projections are all indicating that the technology is changing so rapidly there is no way they can stay on top of it all, while during 9/11 twenty guys with razor blades brought the world's most powerful country to its knees for days. Already any idiot could go out and buy a thousand drones, program them all, strap explosives on them, and fly them through the window of every Wall Street office if they wanted to and its very debatable if the military could do anything other than react after the fact. The Pentagon has demanded some sort of solution for that specific problem by 2020, but that's just one out of countless ways in which the technology is taking on a life of its own and they are increasingly struggling to keep up. Their own success with the military-industrial complex is finally coming back to haunt them.

 

Mac

Well I can see why you are so afraid when you believe that it’s all down to irrational ‘evil’ rather than seeking rational social and economic factors behind crime.

I’m not surprised that thinking in such absolute terms you’ve basically come to believe that there are no ways to deal with it.

We have been through this – I mean you think you need protection against evil doers - do you believe other drivers are evil and are purposely trying to hurt you?

As I’ve said if I actually though other ‘evil’ car driver purposely wanted to harm or kill me and would attack me when they see me on the road, then yes I’m likely to be afraid to travel in my car - but I don’t think that.

You have a gun a weapon because you do think evil people want to do you harm so I’m not surprised you are frightened – the question is why do you want to carry on being scared rather than doing something about it that makes rational sense (rather than hoping for divine intervention).