How To Argue For Gun Control.

Not did I ever claimed as such. Anything in the hands of a maniac can be just as deadly. My point is the so called assault rifle isn't some magic wand of death that maniacs use.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/crime-study-handguns-not-assault-rifles-used-in-most-mass-shootings/article/2542118

That may be the case but more than likely the reason is hanguns are easier to conceal. You see a guy with an AR coming your way you dart to the nearest exist. On the other hand you can sneak up on someone with a handgun and have the eliment of surprise.

 

You're missing the point. It's about preparing. It's not about what you're preparing for.

I've said no such thing. I said that I realize the possibility of an attack and prepare accordantly. Most of the time I'm not even thinking about it.

How would we do that?

That's different. If we apply it to guns then it would be making sure the gun works properly and won't blow up in your hand.

Because it doesn't work. Next question.

It's because you don't give me a specific regulation to work with. You did before and I addressed each of them.

None of your proposals are rational or reasonable.

How about we enforce laws barring violent criminals from possessing weapons?

 

Replace "shot him" with "ran him over" and you'll see why most of the proposals by gun control advocates won't work.

 

Mac

And you feel the need to be prepared because you fear you will be attacked, meaning if you were not afraid of being attacked you wouldn’t feel the need to be prepared for it.

 

Mac

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

You addressed them by mainly saying you were opposed to them because it can’t work, doesn’t work, would never work. (it is in the thread if anyone wants to check)

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.

You didn’t show that you just said you thought they wouldn’t work and that instead you hoped that your god would sort things out.

When pointed out that that was not a rational, reasonable or even realistic proposal you seemed to say it was because you believed in your god.

As I’ve said it is very hard to have a rational and reasonable argument with someone whose personal beliefs trump any rational and reasonable argument. For example your believe that evolution isn't valid.

 

Do posters here actually believe that criminals go to gun stores to buy guns? Only law abiding citizens go to gun stores to buy guns. Only law abiding citizens are inconvenienced by waiting periods and proving that they not criminals. So much for innocent until government proves them guilty.

Criminals buy guns from fences. A criminal in LA could get himself a gun inside of an hour. A citizen of LA has to go to a gun store to buy a government approved gun, fill out intrusive paperwork, and wait ten days to receive it.

People are beyond naive to think that gun control prevents criminals from getting guns.

 

No. I realize that being attacked is a possibility and prepare accordantly. Just like a seatbelt. I don't fear that I'll be in a wreck but I realize the possibility and prepare accordantly.

 

And I backed why it won't work.

That's not what I'm advocating.

No I did show'd that. For example the idea that mandatory gun safety training and storage would reduce accidents. It doesn't work because anyone can study to pass a test and then forget or disregard everything they been taught and you can't enforce mandatory gun storage without violating other constitutional rights and proper manpower.

I've only mentioned a creator as a means to get everybody to remember morals. Which it worked. America before it went secular was a rather safe place.

 

Mac

And as pointed out society tries to lessen harm that can result from car ownership by heavily regulating its use – that is all that prudent gun control would do but you are opposed to that preferring it seems that the unnecessary deaths and injuries that result from ease of access to guns results in the US.

Why since you don’t seem to have any rational or reasonable augment to oppose it?

Why would you lie when people can just go and look, I mean you know all that’s been addressed some time ago?

As said you know we’ve been through all this these are not rational or reasonable counter arguments – as explained prudent gun control is about trying to reduce harm just as prudent road safety regulations are about trying to reduce harm.

In the UK to get a license to drive you first have to pass a test on road safety regulations and on competence behind the wheel, if you fail either you can’t get a licence. Yes a person could forget or disregard everything they had been taught and break the law (go through red lights, exceed the speed limit, drive while drunk etc) but if caught they could get a fine lose their license to drive or go to prison. As to mandatory gun storage again your arguments don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Can we please stopping going over stuff that's already been covered.

Again it is very hard to have a rational argument with someone whose beliefs trump rational argument.

Your argument is that you hope your god will move people to believe in he/she/it and then they would become moral and so stop doing bad things.

The thing is what counts as ‘moral’ can be subjective I mean many people in the US who claimed to be Christians also believed in slavery. To me your opposition to prudent gun control doesn’t seem like a very moral stance as you don’t seem to want to do anything of any rational nature about the large numbers of people killed and injured due to the ease of access to gun in the US.

 

Because as you said guns are not cars. What works for cars doesn't necessarily work for guns. Cars are kinda hard to hide from registration. Guns, even long guns, can be concealed with relative ease. Thus registration of guns won't work as well as registration of cars if at all.

Why do you assume I do when I've said over and over that I'm for any gun control measure that is constitutional (I know that you don't care for it but this is America. Deal with it) and actually works?

Don't assume I'm lying. This is a long thread, you know, and there have been many lengthy pauses in between many responses. If it has been addressed then bring it up. Otherwise I'm going to assume that I've addressed them.

Then provide a measure that's been shown to work and its constitutional. If you don't like the constitutional part then too bad. This is America, not the UK. When you deal with a subject as near and dear to our hearts as the second amendment you better have a constitutional measure.

The main word is "if." And I need to be reminded again as to why my gun storage argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

After you.

Do you or do you not agree that when America was a Christian nation morals was the mainstream?

 

Mac

We have been through all this before – it’s not just cars, a good society would try to lessen the harm that can come from things that can cause harm, its why there are regulations and laws covering things from food production to the use of chemicals - that is all that prudent gun control would do - but you are opposed to that preferring it seems to allow the unnecessary deaths and injuries related to ease of access to guns to continue.

LOL – as has been pointed out and explained many, many times already your ‘it won’t work’ and ‘its not constitutional’ are not rational arguments they are basically - I don’t want it - arguments.

You’ve never addressed those criticisms of your stance you just repeat over and over the same mantra as I’ve said can you please stop going over stuff that's already been covered.

Even more laughter - I’m surprised you can’t remember it is the same one you keep pulling out – that you think it unconstitutional.

What period in history are you talking about?

Who are you talking about?

Also as I’ve said it depends on what you call moral, what is seen as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ this can be seen differently by different groups.

For example slavery was common in the US from its formation right up to 1863 and black American citizens in many areas were still treated badly - harassed, segregated and refused their rights up to say 1965. I mean slave owners thought they were good Christians and the riders of the KKK believed they were doing the ‘moral’ and ‘right’ thing.

To me your opposition to prudent gun control doesn’t seem like a very moral stance as you don’t seem to want to do anything of any rational nature about the large numbers of people killed and injured due to the ease of access to gun in the US.

 

Keeping blacks as slaves, slaughtering the native population, the wild west, prohibition ..........
Doesn't seem all that mainstream moral to me.

 

And you're the one complaining about beating a dead horse? I've told you probably about a hundred times that I'm for any gun control that is constitutional and actually been proven to work.

I have shown why it won't work and why its unconstitutional. If you disagree then provide just one measure you proposed that will work and is constitutional. We can't go back and for about who said what when you won't bring evidence to the front.

Like I said, provide an example. This is a long thread. Don't count on memory to prove your argument.

It's because you haven't been specific for a while. So sue me.

Before the sexual revolution and the abolishing of prayer in schools.

Not sure what you're refering to since I can't see what you quoted.

Stealing is wrong is it not?

Which they actually represented the minority.

My opposition is to useless and unconstitutional gun control.

 

Those things were actually rare or were promoted by democrats.

 

Even if that were true (its not) we did had a Christian majority.

 

Mac

LOL – I’m happy to go with the evidence of this thread rather than make things up or mislead, it’s there, people can read it if they wish.

Ok basically it goes like this –

People suggest ideas to tackle the problems related to guns

You say – it will not work

People explain what the ideas are aimed at tackling

You say - Its unconstitutional

People explain that doesn’t seem to be the case

You say - it will not work

People explain what the ideas are aimed at tackling

You say - Its unconstitutional

And so on and so on ad nauseam (and I’m sure some people are sick of it)

In between you have suggested there is no problem, that the problem is statistically small, that it should be ignored in favour of concentrating on other things and that Americans are more murderous than other people which thinking about it is just another way of saying it will not.

And your main contribution to tackling the problem is - you hope your god will somehow intervene to make things better.

Fundamentally your stance is nothing should be done in any real or rational sense and that you are very comfortable with the number of those killed and injured and quiet happy for it to continue.

 

Sorry it's been a while since I came to this thread....anyone change anybody else's mind since then?

 

Mac

Ok so let’s say before the 1960’s

So you are basically claiming that for all the period from the founding of the US in 1776 to 1959 the majority of American’s were morally good?

I mean the periods covers the mistreatment of Native Americans, slavery (and later mistreatment) of black people, along with several rather dubious wars and the large scale exploitation of the working class and disadvantaged, by the advantaged.

Again this just seems like another example of just how divorced from reality you are.