How To Argue For Gun Control.

Think of Florida as being sort of lax on guns while California is strict, Macc. The registration is only one part of the big picture. We can implement change and I don't really see how it effects you. You're so opposed to some changes that only really truly effect criminals and terrorists. What would you use an extended magazine for? Or an assault rifle (no I can't pick one out of a line-up, lol).

 

Officer killed in San Antonio:

Now I'm going out on a limb here. I already know that you're going to say you don't see how there is a correlative relationship but I will go ahead with this anyway. In all the places where these shootings have occurred the gun laws are what I would call "relaxed".

Texas:

Louisiana:

And Iowa:
No permits, no licenses, and no recognizable agenda for gun control except to purchase or carry a handgun. https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/iowa/

I think that if these states had implemented a tougher approach on weapons and their owners we wouldn't be seeing the stuff we are seeing in the news. I think there is a correlation between tough gun laws (permits, licenses, restrictions, bans) and safer streets.

 

Mac

Once again you take up a lot of space to say very little and address even less.

Also again you seem to either not read what’s been said here or purposely ignoring it, this means that once again you force me to repeat things and this stalls the debate again.

Ok you’re not fearful – I’m just pointing out that for someone that isn’t fearful, you do mention a lot of fearful things you seem to worry about like getting attacked in the street or in your home and that you are so unafraid of these things happening that you have already worked out several plans for if you are attacked, oh and of course you feel the need to have easy access to firearms.

Why wouldn’t you want to work toward having society where people were less fearful? Many suggestions have been made here but as pointed out first you’d need to accept that you are afraid (as you seem to be but seem reluctant to acknowledge) and work out why that is so.

Just Google there are many I mean are you saying to have verifiable and reputable evidence to the contrary?

As mentioned several times this is a major problem, many Americans do not want to even look into the whys and causes, seemingly preferring to look to guns as a means of tacking the symptoms.

As I say I do wish you’d read the posts, we have been through this many times already – it not whether guns are the cause of violence but that easy access to guns make the outcome of violence very much more likely to result in serious injury or death. It is very different.

Also it has already been pointed out (above) that gangs are not the main case of gun related injury and death.

There were 1,824 gang-related killings in 2011. This total includes deaths by means other than a gun. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds this number to be even lower, identifying a little more than 1,000 gang-related homicides in 2008. In comparison, there were 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides committed with firearms in 2011.

 

Mac


In what way do you see these as distinctly part of American culture?

But you implied that Americans where culturally more likely to be murderous - citing the reason for that was illegal immigration, gangs and drugs, but as pointed out these things are not exclusive to the US in comparable countries - but what is – is the easy access to guns in American society.

Most things are deadly if ingested from, chocolate through to alcohol to plutonium.

The thing is that regulations are usually in place to try and reduce harm for example I believe there are regulation regardingthe use of Chlorine enforedc by the EPA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

What it being suggested is prudent gun control measure aimed at reducing the harm why would you oppose that?

But as pointed out at length that its tackling the symptoms its not about tackling the causes, the rational approach would be to work out what the causes were and then try and lessen the impact of those in a rational and reasonable way.

How do you know they are non-violent or likely to become vioent if you don’t check them out, how do you know they might pass the gun on to someone that is violent, how do you know if they are irresponsible and take no precaution against it been stolen by someone that will use it criminally?

So you think such irresponsible people should be allowed easy access to guns that would likely make their irresponsible actions so greatly worse?

Which is why I say you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable argument to tackle your societies problems – all you have is a hope your sky fairy is going to help out somehow.

 

I don't know if this is before or after you sent the PM but in either way I am addressing your statement. I'm asking whether you have evidence that background checks work. The cost of ammo varies with caliber and availability. But why should I have to pass a background each and every time I but ammo?

 

First of all I assumed you wanted registration because as pointed out previously the shooter pass two background checks. As far as extended magazines as you call them (they are actually standard magazines), for one the VT shooter committed the second largest shooting in America with ten round magazines. Second, there's no evidence that a magazine restriction saves lives. There's been no instances were a shooter was stopped because he was in the middle of a reload. In fact it takes less than 2 seconds to reload if you practice which I'm sure every shooter has done so. Thirdly the San Bernardino shooters disregarded the magazine and bullet button laws of California, and fourthly a little less than twice as many people died in the truck incident in France. Would you call for a ban on trucks?

 

I like to see how it'll only affect criminals and terrorists. In fact I would like to see evidence of it being effective period. As to extended magazines, I would need one to thwart off multiple assailants if need be. The rifle is easy though. It has less recoil than a shotgun and thus easier to handle and leave it to someone else I trust for him/her to handle. For another the rounds from an AR actually penetrates less than pistol round through walls. Not only that but a long gun has a more stable platform than handguns. If you want to ban/restrict something then its best to know what you're talking about. We can't pass laws based on ignorance.

 

I think the background checks will help in identifying potential offenders. And you inadvertently make a very good point: If each and every time ammo is purchased a background check must be conducted, then we can sort of keep up on how you're doing (ok, maybe not you specifically, but "a gun owner") in that if you've committed any violent crimes or whatever since the last time you bought ammo it will show up on a report before you can leave with newly bought ammo.

Think of it like a privilege vs. right scenario. Like a drivers license. That's what I would suggest anyway. I think that will work better than what we are doing now. It would sure look a little bit better too that at least we're trying to prevent future altercations.

 

I think the logical notion here is that the AR (that stands for assault rifle?) is more dangerous, therefore it warrants ultimately more concern.

 

The Hollywood and San Bernardino shootings both took place in California. Not only that but each mass shooting happened at a gun free zone. Plus most of the shooters either passed background checks or got their guns illegally.

I would like to see evidence for that.

 

No. Only a tyrannical government.

 

Do you have several plans in case of a fire? Are you fearful if that was the case? Do you have several routes to work in case your main route is closed? Are you fearful if that was the case. I'm in Florida and we get hurricanes. Before that I lived in Alaska and we get harsh winters and large vicious animals. So call me fearful but I've lived a good part of my life where it is common to prepare for the worst.

If I do that then I would be lying to myself. You aren't specific. What exactly can I do to make my society better?

Yes.

And what is the cause?

Fine. Then prove that.

That's why I included drug related crimes.

 

And I repeat that Switzerland has/had similar laws and they don't suffer from crime. Not only that but we are 28th in the most violent countries if that.

My point exactly.

Because it never worked before.

Are you saying we shouldn't tackle the causes? Sorry if I'm mistaken but you didn't worded your sentence all too well.

Those questions can be applied to a non felon like you. How do I know you won't shoot up your local school? How do I know you won't pass that gun to a violent felon?

how would you know who's responsible or not? Anyone can fake or lose responsibility to pass a test.

Then what's your answer?

 

Many things sound good on paper. But what I'm asking for is evidence that it'll work.

Background checks on ammo runs into the same problems with background checks on firearms. People who commit crimes with guns either get the guns illegally by stealing, straw purchase, or black market or they pass the background because they never committed a crime before and commit murder like the Orlando shooter.

 

The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite Rifle, after the company that developed it (with Gene Stoner) in the mid 1950's.
"AR" doesn't stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

 

Firstly AR stands for ArmaLite which was the original company that made it. Secondly not only handguns make up more gun crimes than rifles, they also make up most of mass shooting weapons. So if anything we should be focusing on handguns.

 

I feel like this is not entirely true. The part about more handguns accounting for more crimes seems likely enough, but that doesn't mean that it isn't just as dangerous for a gun wielding maniac to get their hands on an assault rifle.

The reason there are more incidents with handguns (and bare with me as I don't know prices on these) may be that handguns are more economical. That doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't also look at assault rifles in my opinion.

 

Mac

Not really but the thing is that I don’t think fire wants to attack me that it is out to get me. I don’t think bad weather wants to attack me that it has chosen to be bad in order to do me harm.

These things don’t think - they don’t have the choice not to cause harm.

Thing is you seem to believe people are likely to attack you that they want to attack you; you’ve already said you fear you will be attacked in the street or in the home.

But as has been pointed out why not try to work toward having a society where you didn’t fear that you could be attacked - by limiting the likelihood people would choose to do harm and by limiting those that might do harm access to very dangerous weapons.

You see things can be done to try and limit the harm from fire or bad weather through regulation – for example in the UK there are many regulations to try and reduce the possibility of harm from fires, from building regs, health and safety acts covering work places and domestic homes to safety standards for electrical equipment, the type of materials that can be used for furniture and so on and so on. And we have inspectors and firefighters to enforce the rules. These things are done not just for the protection of the individual but also to limit the harm to the community.

Prudent gun control is about trying to reduce the harm that comes from the ease of access to firearms within the US why would you be opposed to that?

Now I know your rather simplistic reply is - Because it can’t work, doesn’t work, would never work.

As pointed out this does not seem a very rational or reasonable reply it seem to say – yes there is a problem that causes harm let us do nothing of any rational or reasonable worth to try and limit that harm.

To take the example above its like you would have no enforced regulations to try and limit the harm from fires but hope people have extinguishers and are in the right place at the right time and pray that some supernatural entity will stop fires from happening.

 

[SIZE=14pt]Reasons why Americans shot other Americans October 2016[/SIZE]

When we arrived at my destination, the cab fare was higher than I expected, so I shot my taxi driver.

My neighbor drove over to my house to complain that my cat was in his yard again. He looked agitated, so I shot him

I was driving down a residential street when somebody shouted at me to slow down, so I shot at him and hit the 15-year-old girl standing next to him.

A woman bumped into me at the club, so I shot her in the head.

My uncle was arguing with me about the TV, and when I wouldn’t turn it off he flipped the breaker and shut off the electricity. So I shot him.

I was getting into bed and my hand slipped under the pillow, where we keep our gun. It went off and shot both me and my husband.

I asked my girlfriend to marry me, but she said no. So I shot her dead

A guy from Rent-a-Center came to my home to collect an overdue bill, so I shot him