How To Argue For Gun Control.

and i would rather a world from john lennons song imagine

 

Gun rights won't mean a thing when the robots start coming after people. One of the snipers killing cops recently was killed by a bomb disposal robot that blew up a bomb in his face. The cops are so stupid they can't even imagine a world where guns are no longer the weapon of choice.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec

 

And deny facts?

 

Mac

Look man that’s fine you are as entitled to believe in fairies as you are to believe you’re not afraid – I’ll go on what you have said about fearing (sorry being prepared) that people want to break down your door and do you harm because they are evil.

But really it not surprising that you think you are unafraid I mean you see yourself as the hero in your own story it would be very surprising if you did admit it.

The problem, as I’ve explained numerous times is that such mindsets can ‘build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what some see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible’.

 

Mac

The problem is that nothing you’ve said backs this up in any rational sense; it seems to be about instilling fear, bringing about economic hardship and hoping for divine intervention. These seem either don’t tackle the causes of crime, are designed to make things worse, or are just pie in the sky.

But I suppose it depends on what you see as a ‘better society’ I mean the Nazis thought that exterminating the inferior people would bring about a ‘better society’.

From what I’ve heard so far you seem to want a society that vastly favoured the interests of wealth, would open up many to exploitation, and where fear was the dominant form of social control.

 

Mac

Oh a little huffy again – it wasn’t pestering, I’d already guessed your position, I was just trying to work out why you seemed reluctant to say it.

Now you are out and proud - why do you think homosexuality is the same as bestiality?

 

Mac

Oh and the petulant kid shows itself as well – I’m just saying that I can’t find any reference to a 'common house system' can you cite the source?

The pilgrims seem to have built one common house together as a base from which to build other structures (including family homes). This seems like a sensible thing to do.

Although I do remember that there is a myth that the early European settlers practiced some form of ‘communism’ that failed and only when it was abandon did the settlements succeed. I think it was some type of cold war propaganda and if I remember right its premise was to show ‘communism’ will fail and to downplay the role of the Indians in the white colonists ‘success’.

OK Googled it and here are a couple of links and it seems it’s still believed by some ill informed right wingers

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/holidays/2014/11/thanksgiving_socialism_the_strange_and_persistent_right_wing_myth_that_thanksgiving.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/weekinreview/21zernike.html?_r=0

 

Mac

Hey LOL how about I tell you to - read up on British history.

Nothing is perfect but it did work very well although neoliberal policies have diminished its impact and caused a load of problems.

I’ve already suggested some books you could read to learn more about the detrimental effects of neoliberalist ideas.

 

Mac

Your argument is that these crimes were stopped because of guns that if the guns had not been there the crime would have happened and so – if it had happened in a country where there were not so much ease of access to guns the crime would of happened and been recorded.

So this 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

Neither of the articles you linked to countered what I posted, so can you please explain why you think welfare doesn’t work

I’d also add that we will have to start planning beyond normal definitions of ‘welfare’ very soon.

[SIZE=11pt]Technology is moving at such a pace that it’s strongly predicted that unemployment due to software and hardware improvements are going to grow increasingly likely. This will not just affect manual task but moving on into ‘professional’ jobs. It seems to me that we need to start thinking about what that type of world will be like and how its economy would work.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Because if we don’t I worry that we could end up returning to some type of feudal model, with the vast majority of people with very little scraping around for what they can (peasants) a small well paid security and surveillance level to keep the peasants in their place (knights) and on top a very few very wealthy families living in their ivory towers(lords)[/SIZE]

 

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

 

Mac

People didn’t understand lighting so it was proof there were gods, people didn’t understand evolution and so it was proof gods made the plants and animals, people didn’t know what made the stars and planets so that was proof gods made them, people don’t understand the origins of the universe so that’s proof there are fairies.

What was once supernatural becomes understood and stops been supernatural and then some people go ok then that bit over there that we don’t understand that must be proof of the supernatural and then that gets understood and some cry over there, over there that thing we don’t understand is proof of the supernatural and then that’s understood and you’ve guessed the ‘believers’ move the goal posts again.

But as I said that’s fine you entitled to believe in fairies, the problem to me is when some peoples belief in fairies, gets in the way of any rational approach at tackling the problems of their society.

What do you think is called bigotry which you would defend?

Then I think you incredibly naive, but I suppose it depends on your definition of ‘most’, I mean to you thousands of people’s deaths and injuries are ‘statistically insignificant’ and so in your opinion should seemingly be ignored and left to continue.

 

Mac

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.

What is a moral society?

What is ‘moral’?

I mean is it moral to do nothing of any rational worth to try and lessen the numbers of deaths and injuries cause by the ease of access to guns in the US?

Many people have and do justify as ‘moral’ what others see as immoral

 

[SIZE=11pt]cybenator[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But the list of suggestions doesn’t ban the law abiding from owning a gun it is about trying to lessen harm and limit the ability of the criminal and irresponsible getting hold of guns.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Are you opposed to that?[/SIZE]

 

Mac

As pointed out in the UK the large majority of police officers don’t want the police to be armed.


“A 2006 survey of 47,328 Police Federation members found 82% did not want officers to be routinely armed on duty” BBC

 

What I said was referring to police in the US. Besides. Your country is in the small minority that doesn't arm their police. Your colony north of us (Canada) carries guns like us.

https://www.thebalance.com/police-equipment-and-duty-belts-974544

 

Why else would someone break in a occupied home?

No, I see myself as an average guy that has an edge against the population because they haven't considered their own protection. If you and I were to meet you would never know whether I'm carrying a firearm or not.

Wait, what makes your sense of what's prudent and sensible correct? You and I live in entirely separate countries. You can't apply your anecdote of life ("nothing ever happened to me so I don't need the level of protection this paranoid guy on the Internet says he needs") to every single person in the universe. You can't even apply it to your next door neighbor. He may be a target of whatever local gang you have so he'll NEED an extra layer of protection. I see it as its better to be prepared a year early than a day late. So I'll leave it with this:

I'll never convince you that owning a firearm is sensible and you'll never convince me that it isn't so I think its best to drop it.

 

Do you have evidence for this?

A better society is one that has a strong moral guideline, strong faithful family, and receiving the benifits of their labor.

The wealthy was the ones that built up our economy.