How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

More evidence of your brand of ‘Christian’ values.

 

Mac

It seems to me that actually the Pilgrims seem ill prepared for the venture they undertook I mean they took no growing seed (one took along 126 pairs of shoes) and so half the settlers died in the first winter.

Not sure what the 'common house system' was.

Their survival owned more to the Native Americans that assisted them and that’s the reason they were invited to Thanksgiving although the way the ‘Christians’ took over the Natives land and used them as slaves is another story.

[SIZE=11pt]Thing is that Lenin and other Communist also believed in the "don't work, don't eat" principle and’ in accordance with Lenin’s understanding of the socialist state, article twelve of the 1936 Soviet Constitution states: [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]In the USSR work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat.””[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And the welfare system in the UK was set up to combat the five problems of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness[/SIZE].

[SIZE=11pt]BUT and it’s a big BUT[/SIZE]

The left wing view of the threat came with an accompanying promise a social contract that socialist or Keynesian economic model would be followed to try and bring about ‘full’ employment at living wages, (as well as publically funded healthcare, education, assistance, housing etc)

The basis behind free market/neoliberal ideas on "don't work, don't eat" is exploitative it’s about bring down wages and maximizing profits for a few. It isn’t about striving for full employment and it tries to lessen or remove welfare systems.

 

Mac

So in comparable countries where there wasn’t ease of access to guns that crime would have been recorded because it wouldn’t have been prevented.

So 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

Ok so you now understand that your argument about minorities involvement in crime is not all down to population density – So why do you think minorities are more likely to be involved in crime

Welfare recipients are often characterized as lazy, simply waiting for the next month's benefits to roll in. But nearly 73% of people receiving public benefits are members of working families.

Some programs, like TANF, actually operate under the expectation that families are working but need temporary assistance to become financially stable. Many argue the problem is really income inequality, which leaves minimum wage earners struggling to afford basic needs, and therefore reliant on public assistance.

Viewing people as morally responsible for their own situations "obviously ignores the systemic inequalities in the economy and polity that make people poor in the first place," independent scholar Gwendolyn Mink, who authored Welfare's End and several other works on public assistance programs, tells Mashable. "The kind of income inequality that is in the system puts especially women of color at the lowest end of the earning spectrum, which is a sentence of abject poverty."

Even though welfare recipients are in the labor force, Mink explains, they aren't earning enough money to support a family and provide food security for their children while at the same time pay bills, such as rent and utilities.

http://mashable.com/2015/07/27/welfare-myths-debunked/#7psiWg0zoEqp

 

Mac

LOL – tell that to Richard Dawkins.

To me beliefs in supernatural entities like gods or fairies can only be rationally expressed in terms of faith not reason.

And I don’t think it a good model to base social and economic policy on.

Oh yeah and I’m sure the people in ISIS think the same as they throw those bestial homosexuals of the top of the minaret.

I mean LOL the history of Christianity is full of bigotry, violence and criminal behavior and you think that is going to inspire moral leadership.

The problem is that hoping people will become ‘Christians’ is not a realistically rational or reasonable social policy in fact it seems like an excuse for not having one.

 

You're forgetting that guerrilla warfare works and its still working today. Otherwise why do we still have a problem with terrorists? You can have all the technology in the world but if you don't have the logistics to operate it like manpower, fuel, will to fight, maintenance, etc then you might as well not have an army.

You're forgetting that the large majority of military and police are for protecting the rights of citizens.

 

First of all its true. Evil does exists. Just look at the news once in a while. Second, the fact that I realize evil exist doesn't mean I'm afraid. I recognize a potential threat and prepare accordantly. It's the same with anything else we prepare for.

There are ways to deal with it, just not in the ways you propose.

On a small level yes but more likely I'm going to run into idiots, drunk drivers, and detracted drivers rather than someone trying to push me off the road. But still the seatbelt covers all of that. It's stupid to think that nothing will ever happen to me so I take precautions.

You do however think of all the idiots on the road though and you keep that in mind. In principle everything thing we prepare for is the same but what we are preparing for is different. With cars you prepare for accidents. With health insurance you prepare for diseases and trauma. And with protection you prepare for those with evil intentions.

I'm not scared. I'm prepared. And while I'm prepared I seek ways to make society better. I realize that evil exists but I'm not stupid to think it'll never happen to me. I realize that its unlikely in my case but I don't count on the unlikelyhood to keep me safe. You're the only one who insists the only reason I carry is because I'm scared while you do the exact same thing when it comes to things like seatbelts.

 

So all that pestering for me to answer was to say this? It wasn't to correct me on how they're not the same?

 

Then read up on American history.

True but "don't work don't eat" helped a lot also. Before the system was implemented the farmers would essentially provide for the lazy bums who didn't planted.

What the pilgrims did was different. Each person/family planted for their own. It wasn't confiscated and given out like what Lenin did.

And you have evidence of it working right?

Did it worked?

Evidence?

 

Terrorism and guerrilla warfare are money making propositions like anything else. Bin Laden made a considerable fortune off of promoting terrorism, for example, investing in the Euro before attacking the US. When you have a large population with no hope for employment its an untapped resource and you do what you can with what you've got. Sometimes terrorist actually do meet their stated goals such as the IRA, but that's the exception to the rule.

The idea that the military and police are protecting our rights as citizens is laughable and makes me wonder what planet you live on. The billionaire mayor of NYC had the pigs arrest 26 reporters in one day only to receive a slap on the wrist, while congress has suspended our constitutional rights indefinitely and legally empowered the military to round citizens up like cattle, and the NSA is reading everyone's email along with the cops now using computers to search social websites and drones to spy on everyone. Even the voting system has been gerrymandered to death and now the only thing deciding national elections is how much money you spend on advertising, while a twenty year study by Princeton concluded that no matter who was elected only the top 10% of the wealthiest ever got anything they wanted.

Americans have sold their birthright to the highest bidder and the riots in Charlotte and black snipers shooting cops are just the tip of the iceberg of things to come. The Pentagon has already sold "surplus" military equipment such as armored vehicles to every local police department that could afford them at cut rate prices and some Americans have already started to flee the country altogether for places like Canada that have a better average standard of living and actual constitutional rights.

 

No it doesn't. There's no record of how many would be criminals were armed. They may have had crowbars and knives but that doesn't reflect on how many guns are on the streets.

 

Here's why welfare doesn't work.

http://samaritanministries.org/the-illfare-state/

http://dailysignal.com/2012/04/12/more-government-welfare-doesnt-equal-poverty-relief/

 

Who said that Christianity is the bulwark against something far worse. Not only that but Einstein believed in a creator.

Then you're wrong. The Big Bang for all intents and purposes is a supernatural force for it created something out of nothing and casted things faster than the speed of light and thus breaking known laws of physics. Not only that it produced a universe that has an unequal amount of matter/antimatter and science has no explanation for it.

Why?

Bigotry has become a vague term to describe anyone with a different opinion than the left. Plus most of the violence and criminal behavior are of the past (like hundreds of years ago) and not according to what the Bible says.

So what do you propose that well reinstate a moral society?

 

The New York example is only one department in a liberal city. My county sheriff believes in the individual rights and so do a large portion of most police agency. You can do a personal survey by asking your local department.

 

There are times when you might only have a few seconds to make a decision that may save you or the life of a loved one. The police are minutes aware, what would you rather have in your hand, a phone or a firearm?

 

the problem with the argument is they think if guns are illegal then they wont have a gun to use against you. and to those people that say that i say...go try to put toothpaste back in a tube.

 

You'd have to prove it by me. Every police department in the country is now using "warrantless" searches and wiretaps they can merely phone in for. In Arizona the state supreme court decided they didn't even need that to break down anyone's door and could simply claim they smelled pot, which the federal supreme court upheld. When they went after a local drug dealer they got the wrong address and broke down the door of a veteran of two wars who shoved his wife and kids in the closet and grabbed his assault rifle. They shot him 32 times in front of his mother.

 

The large majority of police are for gun rights.

https://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-lessons-from-officers-perspectives/

 

And I'm to take that over facts? "One person with a gun can control a hundred people without". Lenin.