How To Argue For Gun Control.

Yes or it was caused by democrats.

You'd be surprised how few and far between slave owners were.

What dubious wars?

Evidence?

 

No of course not. What I'm saying is there wasn't as much criminal activity until the '60s.

 

Aright then, cars are even more dangerous. The largest mass murder recently was done with a truck in France.

You and who else said that?

 

Mac

OK so you are basically saying you think in a criminal way, that’s an interesting insight. I can see now why you might actually side with criminals.

Prudent gun control is about trying to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the Criminal and irresponsible. Why would you be against that?

 

Mac

Just read your own posts.

History, I could recommend some books – how about trying – Who Built America Volumes 1&2 by the American Social History Project it’s aimed a school kids so is an easy read.

https://ashp.cuny.edu/who-built-america

Again I think you need to read a bit of history I think you’d find it is a bit more nuanced than that.

I mean I’d point out (as I have done a few times already) that statistically speaking violent crime in nearly all developed countries seems to be on the wane and nobody seems to know why although there are many theories - here are just a few - the reduction of lead in petrol (lead poisoning increase violent behaviour) , women getting more rights and entering the workplace (which some claimed has ‘feminised’ society, calming it) liberal abortion laws. (a theory advanced by the authors of Freakonomics who argued that making it easier to get an abortion has diminished the number of children born into the underclass.) an ageing population (oldies are less violent) even the popularity of computer games (people are getting their aggression out on pixals rather than people).

 

Mac

We have been through the whole car thing hundreds of times the fact that you are still going back to this discredited argument says a lot about your position.

As I and other have already noted it’s very hard to have a rational argument with someone who sees things irrationally, who’s beliefs trump the rational. As I’ve said if someone can look at the subject of evolution and reject it because of their belief in the supernatural says a lot about the way that person thinks.

 

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Seriously?!? Because I proposed a simple way of a criminal to circumvent the system (which anyone with google can look up for himself) I now have a criminal mind and side with them? Hilarious!!! Have you ever heard of knowing the enemy? One of the most basic things about knowing your enemy (in this case criminals) is to put yourself in their shoes. Do you know who else thinks like the enemy? The police. Of all the things to accuse me of this is absolutely the most pathetic. Maybe this is why laws proposed by liberals don't work. They don't have anyone in their thinktank to challenge anything they propose. Lol.

Must we go over this again? I dare you to quote the time where I said "I'm against any form of gun control and I don't care how many deaths result of it." Go ahead, make my day.

 

I read and didn't find anything.

Forgot to look at the link but if its a book I have to buy then it really doesn't do any good for the thread.

They all dropped from the spike between now and the 60's

 

The fact you keep accusing me of not wanting gun control says a lot about yours.

I didn't reject evolution because of my faith. I rejected evolution because I weighed the evidence and drew a conclusion. Also get back on topic. My beliefs of evolution has little bearing on the issue of gun control.

 

https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Your-About-Safety/dp/045149492X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1483570479&sr=8-1&keywords=how+to+talk+to+your+cat+about+gun+control

 

Mac

It was interesting because you were saying that is what you would do - I could easily claim someone stole my gun, sand off the serial number, and bury it in my back yard or pass it someone else

Not that I criminal would do it but that you would do it.

So are you now saying that you’d comply with the proposed regulations, if they came in?

If it is then that is what prudent gun control would be about because as pointed out

- According to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money.
[SIZE=11pt]So it would seem prudent to try and limit that. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence. [/SIZE]

 

Mac

Prudent gun control is about trying to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the Criminal and irresponsible. Why would you be against that?

LOL – I think people only need to read your post to understand your position

You could try a library. They are really and very easy reads

Why wouldn’t it do any good for your contribution to the thread it would make your contributions informed which would very much help in the debate and it was also help in your personal development.

We are never too old to be educated

But you do seem to be opposed to most forms of gun control – I don’t think anyone reading this thread and your posts would come to the conclusion that you were a gun control advocate.

LOL

It has a bearing on the way you seem to think.

 

Pen

Great you are here; I thought you had bugged out

SO to remind you

YOU SAID - I was reading from the beginning for a few months and all I saw was your inability to defend from criticism

AND I REPLIED - hell I’m game – please give us the examples of where I haven’t addresses a supposed valid criticism?

I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you seem unable to supply an answer to this - please don’t say you were lying.

 

So? Anyone with an ounce of common sense would've concluded that I wasn't speaking for myself but rather putting myself in the criminal's shoes. Sanding off serial numbers is illegal however but 80% lowers and complete uppers is legal and there's no serial number to begin with. In fact I can order all the parts online and have it shipped to my door. Granted one has to know a bit of machinery to complete an 80% lower but my original point still stands (which you never addressed). Someone with the will and know how can think of pretty simple, yet effective, ways to circumvent the system.

No, because any law that infringe on the constitution is automatically null and void. Therefore I'm in no obligation to comply.

Your sentence doesn't make sense.

Stiff punishments of illegal possession of a firearm. It worked well with operation exile.

How are you going to enforce that?

Why? People aren't very diligent in keeping there cars from being burglarized or stolen all together. Should they be banned from possession?

Against the constitution and I've yet to see evidence of it being effective in countries that already implemented it.

 

Quote one for me.

Again, it doesn't do much good when debating online. If I find any faults in it then it would be hard for me to pinpoint it.

Explained above.

Ok?

Now you're moving goalposts. The claim you made was that I'm against prudent gun control. I'm not. I'm against gun control that's been proven to not work and/or unconstitutional. I have offered gun control measures of my own.

Well, if you think that's hindering me from having an intelligent debate then exit stage right. Nobody is forcing you to stay. Nobody is forcing you to think my belief of evolution relates to the topic of gun control.

 

Mac

We have been through this already – prudent gun control is about trying to lessen harm and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the irresponsible, you seem opposed to that and rather than try to help with it you wish to hinder – yes of course some will always try and circumvent the system (seemingly including you) but it is those that would be much more targeted.

*

So are you now saying that you’d comply with the proposed regulations, if they came in?

So if they were laws you’d prefer to act unlawfully? How far would you go in resisting, I mean if you were not complying with the law would you shoot at the police that came to arrest you?

Anyway as has been pointed out numerous times – you believe them unconstitutional because you oppose prudent gun control but others that agree with prudent gun control belief that they are constitutional

Your opposition seems to be dictating your stance.

*
Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun

People would have to prove their gun could be secured before they received the gun. Spot checks and prosecution fines etc for those not complying

*

If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

A car is a means of transport not a weapon.

Anyway I’m not sure about the US but in the UK people who don’t show due diligence in locking their cars are hit with higher insurance premiums and the manufactures of cars often sell their products on how hard they are to break into.

I think if someone wants to own a very lethal weapon then I think they should be responsible for securing it from thief, and it would be very irresponsible to just loose such a weapon.

It is also about discouraging those that might wish to buy a gun to pass it on, and just saying they lost it.

*

Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun. If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

Where has it been implemented? Has it been implemented in the whole of the US?

 

Mac

You could try a library.

I really don’t understand - are you saying you don’t read books and all your opinions and viewpoints have all been formed from what you’ve seen online?

Why wouldn’t it do any good for your contribution to the thread it would make your contributions informed which would very much help in the debate and it was also help in your personal development.

That explanation seems to suggest that if you can’t find some information online you are not going to be bothered to look for it elsewhere even though it’s clear you are uninformed on that subject and may benefit from studying it some more?

That you’d prefer to be uninformed about a subject while also wishing to give your opinion on it even when you know you are uninformed on it?

That’s not a healthy attitude, but would again give an insight into how you seem to think.

I’ve read many books that people have suggested to me here and many if not most of the opinions I’ve expressed here are informed by books I’ve read through my life.

To me the internet is a great tool for research, but in many cases it lacks depth, it’s good for overviews and easy to see material, a starting point as such, but then I go to books to give me greater depth and insight.

Thing is that – Who Built America Volumes 1&2 would clearly fill a gap in your knowledge and as I say it’s aimed at kids so it’s not that difficult to read.

I usually have two books on the go at the same time; normally a novel for light reading and a non-fiction, to get my mind working.

At the moment I’m reading Night School by Lee Child (I’m a Jack Reacher fan) and The Silk Roads: A new history of the world by Peter Frankopan a history book that’s gotten rave reviews http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/the-silk-roads-9781408839973/

 

Mac

And we have looked at them many times and why they don’t seem that rational or reasonable.

I mean basically they are - be tough on illegal gun possession (e.g execution for anyone committing any crime with a gun) and hoping your god will step in and make people ‘moral’ so they become good and so stop doing bad things.

 

You can discuss firearms from a social perspective all you wish, but I am one human being.
I have the right to live and therefore I have a right to the means to protect my life.

I've traveled all across the U.S. by auto for years for my work.
I've seen things many never see.
I've lived long enough to know something of the true ugly vicious nature of human beings.

I've found that many who believe that society and government should be empowered to prevent my access to firearms live very sheltered, orderly lives often in urban or suburban areas where the risk to their life and well-being is somewhat minimized.

I am a peace-loving man who abhors violence. I am not a large or powerful man.
I do everything I am able to avoid dangerous places and circumstances.
And I've been around enough to recognize those places and circumstances when I see them.

Ultimately though, there is nothing on this earth more effective than a firearm to help ensure that the evil predatory humans out there don't make of you a victim.
That's just the ugly reality of life in this world.
Trust me, they are all around you, looking for the next soul to victimize.
If you look like food, you will be eaten.

My life matters. If you choose to try and victimize me then you are making a choice to place yourself at risk of being repelled by deadly force. I didn't make that choice for you, my choice is to live in peace and harm no one.
If you try any deliberate behavior or action which places my well-being and health at risk then your life is forfeit and I no longer have the least concern for the outcome except that I live and survive without harm.

A gun is much like a parachute or fire-extinguisher.... you don't need it normally...
But when you do need it, it's too late to make other arrangements.
Don't try to tell me that you as a member of society have the right to restrict my access to the means to defend my life..
To do so proves that you really don't know much of reality and life in this world.

 

Well said.

 

The question of course is what is prudent gun control?

Most likely not. I understand the consequences and willing to accept them. Unless we're under martial law I'll go the legal route by appealing to eventually the supreme court.

Uh, no. I believe they are unconstitutional because they are unconstitutional. Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed and you have yet to propose any gun control measure that is "prudent."

Evidence is dictating my stance. I used to be very anti gun. Once I saw the other side and weighed the evidence I became a strong second amendment advocate.

That violates the 4th and 5th amendments.

Irrelevant. Archery equipment are weapons that in it its heyday was an efficient long range weapon. In fact certain special forces units today uses the crossbow in specific circumstances. Yet I bought a 15 pounder recurve from Walmart and a 175 pounder crossbow online without any form of background check. My point is with the recent attacks by trucks and cars shouldn't we have the same restrictions and mandates on vehicles?

I think its the same here but that's not legal action. That's the decision of a private company. So why not do the same with guns? Since almost everybody has health insurance if someone got shot because a gun wasnt stored properly then their insurance premiums go up? The government does not need to get involved.

Then archery equipment shouldn't be so easy to get. You can still kill with a longbow. Humans haven't evolved a special ability to repel arrows.

That's all well and good if the gun was registered to begin with. That still doesn't help the completed 80% lowers buried in someone's yard though.

Australia, most of Europe, the UK, and parts of Canada if I'm not mistaken. In other words pretty much everywhere in the western world. And there gun crimes/deaths hasn't dropped due to the law. When 90% of the western world implements something that doesn't work then there's no need to try a failed system here in the US.