How To Argue For Gun Control.

No, of course not. I read a lot. However when it comes to online forums its better to have online sources to back up whatever you're claiming.

As I said, online sources are better for online discussions. It's one thing to recommend a book for me to read, its another to imply that I have to rebut whatever claims it made on an online forum.

Not sure why you ended it with a question mark but as I said its hard to reput a physical book online. To give you an example go read "The Harbinger" and rebut any claims it made.

How about you give an online equivalent of what the books claims. I'll be happy to rebut that.

There you go again. Misrepresenting what I said and creating a strawman.

Good.

Again, good.

 

Can you refute the first one?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Rick[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve travelled across Europe doing lots of different work in lots of different countries. Hitch hiked mostly but used trains and buses as well (mixing with lots of people not just sitting in my own car). I've seen things many never see, but then don’t we all - that the nature of life. And the thing is that 99% of the people I’ve meet have been ok or even rather nice, with numerous acts of kindness along the way, from drivers who have taken me out of their way to drop me off at good place, people that have given me food, found me jobs put me up in their homes, even the act of hitch hiking is about depending on the kindness of strangers.[/SIZE]

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems. This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries. They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Traditionally crime rates are usually connected to population density so urban and suburban areas usually have higher crime rates. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]The average annual 1993-98 violent crime rate in urban areas was about 74% higher than the rural rate and 37% higher than the suburban rate.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ve lived in squats on run down estates and migrant worker camps I’ve also meet many people from many walks of life that support gun control even ex soldiers and police officers.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[my bold]

[SIZE=11pt]I mean this is just dripping with fear and backs up what I’ve been saying. Why not try and work toward having a society where you do not feel so afraid? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

We have been through this many time in this thread, at is most basic these things are not lethal weapons specifically designed to maim and kill other human beings.

I don’t have a fire extinguisher in my house I think we do in the car but that’s because that’s the law in some European countries although I haven’t seen it for a while so we may have lost it.

[SIZE=11pt]And again the mention of a parachute seems to demote fear that to you living in your society is like living in freefall, it will kill you if you don’t have a gun/parachute.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

LOL - And we have been through that many times, are you honestly not reading any of this?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

Oh hell again we have been through this many many times in this thread – this really is becoming extremely dishonestly debating.

SO again – actually archery wasn’t that efficient in most battles it was a matter of firing blind into the air and hoping it would hit something and it took a lot of practice to be just a reasonable shot – as explained to you before that is why firearms took over they were just as inaccurate at first but they didn’t need so much training. Bows began to aid humans in hunting, firearms began as a means to kill or injure other humans.

Also again this is going back to the whole discredited Americans are more violent argument.

The thing is that guns are more efficient and so more affective at causing harm than other hand weapons so ease of access to them is likely to boost the numbers killed by them. In other developed countries where there is not that ease of access to guns the numbers are less.

OK great so anyone getting a gun has to have mandatory insurance. I mean that is one of the things set forward but you have been against it nice to see you have changed your mind.

You are not sure, I couldn’t find it myself .

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.

Homicides by any method per 100.000
US - 2011: 5.1
England and Wales - 1.03
France : 1.2
Germany 0.8

Gun related homicides per 100,000
US 2011: 3.6
England and Wales: 0.06
France - 0.22
Germany - 0.2

 

Mac

Ok but it’s not just a matter of reading but what you read.

I mean someone could read a bit of hokum like The Da Vinci Code as fiction, for entertainment which is fine or as some kind of fact or history which isn’t.

There is a difference between source based history and what some people believe is ‘true’.

Why, I mean I’m just suggesting you get a bit of background reading in an area on which you seemed uniformed.

Why just online discussions?

Do you mean the novel by Jonathan Cahn that’s a bit of hokum like the The Da Vinci Code are you saying you read that kind of stuff and think it true?

Let’s see - it about some supposed prophecy about the destruction of Israel back in the 8th century being a ‘harbinger’ of doom for modern day America.

Honestly is that kind of stuff is what you are basing your view of the world on? If so I think it even more important that you begin reading some real history books.

 

Mac

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.

Well if you have read the posts you should already know my criticism of it I mean I’ve said it many many times already again this seems like rather dishonest debating.

OK again –

This isn’t tackling the cause of the problem it’s just dealing with the symptom - shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

*

There is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

 

Yes, the problem is you thinking your proposals are prudent.

 

I don't recall archery being discussed at all.

Firearms have the same uses and intentions as any medieval weapon you can think of. Certain guns are only useful for hunting while others are more suited for self defense.

You only addressed the gangs, you didn't addressed the drug related crimes.

You're forgetting that every country that implemented gun control already had a low gun death rate to begin with. And every time gun control is implemented crime rate either goes up or is uneffected. Find me a country that reduced crime and gun deaths.

I'm against mandatory insurance. Obamacare has proven that government mandated insurance is a disastrous idea.

Then you're not looking hard enough.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/australia

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/citation/quotes/988

And from a documentary I saw they implement unannounced safety inspections to make sure you're storing your guns in a safe.

That means nothing until you compare say England's homicide rate before and after gun control.

See above.

 

Simple. If you post a link to what you're talking about I can copy and paste what it says and address it either by my own links or reason and logic.

How can you miss the point that easily without being deceitful? That was the first book that came into my head as an example on how hard it is to refute physical books on online forums. Sheesh! One would think you missed the point on purpose.

See above.

 

So what would get to the root of the problem?

 

Mac



Oh hell again we have been through this many many times in this thread – this really is becoming extremely dishonestly debating.

Post 283

You say - If we reverse the clock people would be killing each other with spears, swords, and bows.[my bold]

[SIZE=11pt]I replied - The thing is that guns are more efficient and so more affective at causing harm than other hand weapons so ease of access to them is likely to boost the numbers killed by them. [/SIZE]

You have brought up the same argument dozens of times and I’ve always given the same criticism of it – now can you stop repeating the lame argument and actually address the criticism? Oh and in a rational and reasonable way please.

And again - [SIZE=11pt]The thing is that guns are more efficient and so more affective at causing harm than other hand weapons so ease of access to them is likely to boost the numbers killed by them. [/SIZE]

 

Mac

Also again this is going back to the whole discredited Americans are more violent argument.

We’ve been through this before.

Are you suggesting no other country in the world has an illegal drugs trade?

The first systematic, in-depth look at murder and suicide in the United States shows that personal conflicts are the major factor in such deaths, as opposed to random violence or other crime. Guns are the most commonly used weapons in both murders and suicides, according to the analysis of data from 2007 released on Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. - Reuters

 

Mac

In other developed countries where there is not that ease of access to guns the numbers are less.

We have been through that many times already –

1 – You seem to be saying nothing can be done so nothing should be done – that you would prefer for the deaths to continue.

2 – Why do you think other countries would have had lower gun related deaths?

3 – As explained US general crime rates (burglary, vehicle theft, etc) is roughly the same as many other developed countries. BUT the US has a much, much larger gun related homicide rate. Gun related homicide is a crime, so the US has a much larger overall crime rate in comparison. That means that ease of access to guns in the US doesn’t reduce crime it increases it.

 

Mac

Look I get it, you don’t want to read the books and that’s fine, whatever is on the web isn’t going to give the overview that the books do.

So let’s come at it from the other direction why do you think the US working class has never been exploited?


*

Do you mean the novel by Jonathan Cahn that’s a bit of hokum like the The Da Vinci Code are you saying you read that kind of stuff and think it true?

Miss what point? I mean we were talking about why history books are not the same as The Da Vinci Code and you bring up the Harbinger asking me to rebut any claims made by it, which I did because it not history it’s a bit of hokum about some supposed prophecy about the destruction of Israel back in the 8th century being a ‘harbinger’ of doom for modern day America.

I mean if in a discussion about history the first book you think of is the Harbinger then as I say it’s important that you begin reading some real history books.

Sheesh indeed.

 

Mac

There is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

We have been through this - the problem is that many Americans like you don’t seem to want to look into what the root problems might be or put up rational ways to tackle them.

For example you’ve said you think the main cause of people turning to crime is because they came from single parent families and your main solution to that is the hope they will turn to your god and so become good people.

 

I thought I've already did.

So are cars. When they are used as weapons 80 people die. The truth is you cannot uninvent the gun when there are probably billions of them world wide. So having something that is more efficient is crucial for self defense. Besides, gun control measures proposed by the left have been proven to not work.

 

Of course not. Mexico (a gun free country) has a huge drug trafficking problem. Which a side not is why I'm for stronger borders.

That's from 2007. Ten years ago. Things have changed since then.

https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/11/robert-farago/question-of-the-day-why-hasnt-america-launched-a-war-on-gangs/

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

 

No, I'm saying nothing the gun control advocates have proposed worked.

Culture and population. Japan for example as a culture are very respectful and humble to their own people.

Uh no. If England has say a thousand people murdered per year but most of the murders were done with steak knives, ropes, and cars and America has a thousand people die per year but most of those are done by firearms then crime is still the same. Take away the guns and we would find something else to murder with. In fact your own point works against you. If homicide is the same with or without guns then its useless to propose stricter gun laws.

 

That wasn't my claim at all. My claim was they weren't as exploited as we portray them to be.

We were talking about why its hard to address a physical book on an online forum.

Again, you miss my point. We were talking about why is it hard to refute a book on an online forum.