How To Argue For Gun Control.

Your point?

I'm saying that its not a long lasting generational thing. It's not like my great great great great great grandfather was poor and that's why I'm poor.

Private companies started expanding their base on who to cover. The bigger you are the more discriminating you'll have to be in order to be effective.

Have smaller companies provide for their communities rather than one big company trying to provide for multiple communities.

 

Of course. What I meant was unless you were born into a poor family then most of the time you become poor through your own actions.

 

As if mandating people at gunpoint to get Insurance isn't a route of intimidation and punishment as a means of social control and as if poor people can afford insurance most of the time.

No, there are laws and regulations.

I thought you said that countries around the world are experiencing the same amount of violent crime overall.

So does having easy access to cars.

Of course a crime commited with a gun is a violent crime. What you're doing however is ONLY focusing on a particular type of crime. Violent crime as a whole is more prevalent in states and cities with strict gun laws.

It starts with the home by having the father around.

 

What about the murder rate in general?

 

Yes.

That can be said with cars. The deadliest mass killing in recent times was done with a truck.

Don't you mean "rather" and that's not my point. The point is that these incidents (a) are outweighed by the thousands of incidents of guns being used to save lives every year and (b) can be done by other means. After all guns only make up half of all murders in America.

 

Pretty much the same but strengthing my arguments.

 

Stop right there. You (or someone else) said that guns are the main cause of death in America with a rate of over 33,000. That was your (or again, someone else's) argument to restrict gun ownership. Now I quoted a stat showing cars are on the same level as far as fatalities and greatly exceeding in injuries as a whole with 2 million. Now you're trying to say that because car accidents exceeds the number killed by terrorism President Trump needs to ban cars as some sort of counter point against me. You see the problem here? If 30,000 isn't enough to ban or restrict cars any further then it isn't enough to ban or restrict firearms any further.

Because everyone has a relatively equal amount of cars. And it's intellectually dishonest to only focus on gun crimes when violent crime as a whole is pretty much equal around the world. Even if we were to focus only on guns we have only 3 deaths per 100,000 compared to other first world nations that has about 1 or 2. Not that much of a difference overall.

Actually the wild Wild West wasn't actually so wild. In fact the wildness came from cities that banned the carrying of firearms.

Actually they have some pretty strict gun laws. As well as Mexico.

That doesn't answer my question. Countries in places like Europe didn't always had strict gun control. So what was the crime rate before they implemented it?

Weren't they for the right to keep and bear arms?

 

Uh, how about first enforcing the laws we already have and then we eliminate the ones that doesn't do its job. For example the NFA and the Hughes amendment. Neither of them reduced crime.

Ahh, the good ol' "they are bigger and badder than you" argument. This nation was born by beating a bigger and badder entity. That being the British empire. More recent times we the Viet cong held their own and we are still fighting a war with people who's main battle weapon is an AK47. That plain and simple fact is guerrilla warfare works. Not only that but that vast majority of military and police are for the second amendment and wouldn't go door to door confiscating firearms.

I don't think the majority of gun owners are anxious for an uprising. Most of them prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Can you give a specific example?

 

Yeah, but other civilized countries ban or restrict firearms with stringent laws and regulations. Why do you think that is so ?

I disagree over here. I have time and again read about mass shootings in the U.S for years, which I have not encountered in any other nation in the world. Such shootings happen in colleges on a consistent basis as well . This is obviously due to the lax gun controls.

You can attempt to hide the facts or ignore it, but this kind of stuff regularly comes up in the newspapers and I am used to it and cannot ignore it as an anomaly.

Probably the same as that of America at present. Hence the reason they probably implemented it.

America as a nation is just two centuries old and does not have a set culture or civilization. Things were pretty raw back then and mob justice, taking the law into one's hands and lynchings without a trial were very common.

Guns were also used as a hunting tool to shoot down birds and animals for food and self-defence. So guns were a sort of necessity back then in America just as weapons are in the beginning of any civilization or nation. The brits, french and germans 2000 years back were a savage tribal lot and carried weapons in plenty along with a lot of war paint, but you don't see them doing the same now.

Nations and civilizations evolve, and abandoning of violence in consideration of the common good, law and order and general peace, is part of the evolving process.

 

Mac

Come on man you know we have been through all this – I mean this is obviously just a holding action you shout out ‘cars’ at regular intervals in the full knowledge that you have no answers to the many criticisms of your views but hoping it hides that fact.

But it doesn’t work anymore, it’s become too obvious, anyone that has visited this thread during its long life knows you are bluffing on an empty hand.

I’m sure you think this is some type of noble fight but is just coming across as rather sad.

 

Mac

So you believe only Americans have access to other things that could be used as weapons – again this is just the same ‘Americans are more murderous’ argument you say you don’t believe in.

Why do you think the homicide rates are so much lower in comparable countries?

You really need to read the posts - US general crime rates are roughly comparable but violent crime boosted by the much higher gun related violence is higher than comparable states.

Again this comes across as a holding action I mean you know we have been through all this many times.

You have already rejected the view that Americans are not more violent – only then to claim they are because you believe that without ease of access to guns (which are very efficient at killing) Americans are so murderous they would kill as many by very inefficient and more risky ways.

We have been through all this at length and in detail.

Your Modus Operandi
Make statement X
Others point out the flaws A, b, c, d, e
You repeat statement X
Others repeat flaws A, b, c, d, e and add f,g,h, etc
You repeat statement X

 

Mac

Again you really need to read the posts – your idea seem to be that a person’s personal circumstances are totally and utterly down to that individual and that does not stand up to scrutiny.

It falls apart at the very fundamental level, as has already been explained.

If you go back and read you should be able to understand.

Well many black Americans are the descendants of slaves (I know you claim to be black but I’m unsure of your family’s history) and many of those even when they gained freedom had to suffer bigotry, suppression and harassment, that made it hard to climb out of disadvantage.

But as explained to you before there are many ways society can help the disadvantaged better their position and fulfill their potential.

You could go back and read about them or do you wanting me to repeat stuff...again?

[SIZE=11pt]Localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous area with high employment, they might ‘evaluate’ and find little reason to give to charity since there are few disadvantaged. But only a few miles away there could be a town with high unemployment with many people in hardship but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs they have to suffer hardship. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]If you have a national scheme with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things nationally if can move resources to those places where it is most needed. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But it is often then that you get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias such as:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]- [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]Why should I give money to people I haven’t personally evaluated I mean they are most likely feckless, scroungers who deserve their lot because they [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]must[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] have made bad decisions.[/SIZE]

 

Again you know we have been through this – you only need to read the thread – its back to your MO again

OK again

The argument was that ease of access to guns reduces crime across the board and I’ve pointed out that actually general crime in comparable countries is about the same but that what ease of access to guns has done is greatly increase the chances of been killed with a gun compared to those other comparable countries.

Shouting about cars does not address that criticism of the statement made its just you once again trying to hide the fact you haven’t a rational and reasonable counter argument.

As has already been shown many times that is disputed –
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/

 

Mac

OH hell – again your MO – you don’t address what’s said you just blurt something out hoping people will not notice –

We have been through this many times – if single parentage was a major factor countries with similar figures to the US should have the same problem

Percentage of single parent

• The United States: 25%
• Ireland: 24%
• Canada: 22%
• The United Kingdom: 22%

Well the figures for single parentage are roughly the same for these countries

Homicides by any method per 100.000

• US - 2011: 5.1
• England and Wales - 1.03
• Ireland – 1.1
• Canada 1.7

Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

• US –2011 - 10.3
• England and Wales – 0.22
• Ireland – 0.8
• Canada – 2.0

Gun related homicides per 100,000

• US 2011: 3.6
• England and Wales: 0.06
• Ireland – 0.22
• Canada – 0.45

 

Mac


Gun related murder rate per 100,000 (2010)

State of Virginia - 3.1

State of New York – 2.7

UK – 0.06

Homicide rate per 100,000

State of Virginia – 4.6

State of New York – 4.4

UK – 0.9

 

(a) are outweighed by the thousands of incidents of guns being used to save lives every year and (b) can be done by other means. After all guns only make up half of all murders in America.

This is the same argument you have presented hundreds of times that has already got multiple criticisms leveled at it that you refuse to address.

Your MO again.

OK

A – comparable countries have roughly the same levels of general crime and lower murder rates so ease of access to guns doesn’t seem to help tackle regular crime but it does seem to increase the levels of homicides.

B – this is the same ‘Americans are more murderous’ argument you claim you don’t believe in while repeating in one guise or another over and over.

 

Because they fear giving the people the right to guide their own lives. And I fail to see how that relates to my question.

Finland has a higher death rate from mass shootings than we do. They do not have the same freedoms as we do.

Because it isn't an anomaly.

Evidence?

Do you have evidence that it was common place?

Because people are civilized. And actually we are seeing a resurgence of barbarity via the surge of the refugees Europe is accepting.

There are still wolves who don't share in your idea of peace. That's why people should have the means to defend themselves.

 

It's still a valid point. It does not matter whether something is designed to kill. The fact that it does kill even by accident is enough to bring it into the gun debate as a logical point of reference. You tell me. What difference does it make whether an object was designed to kill or not?

 

Where did I said that Americans only have access to other things? All I said was if you take guns away from Americans then we would find something else to murder with just as the rest of the world has done. A lot of them have found ways to murder with guns at a higher level than we do despite the fact they have strict gun laws.

It's not so much lower. We are roughly the same as the rest of the world. In fact we are lower than the global average.

No it hasn't. States like California has a higher rate of violent crime than most states with lax gun laws.

That's true with any country. Did Britain experienced a dramatic decrease in violent crime after the handgun ban? My guess is "no." In fact for a while gun crimes (the very thing Britain was trying to quell) rose drastically. While gun crimes are down violent crime is virtually unaffected if not bolstered.

 

No. I said that most of the time poverty is self induced.

Yeah if I stated it as the ONLY reason why people are poor.

That still has little bearing on why people are poor today and that was my point.

If a town with high unployment lives just miles away from a rich town with high amount of employment then why do the unemployed town go to the employed town for jobs or to raise awareness of their needs? Sounds to me the unemployed town might be a little on the lazy side.

It works in theory, not so much in real life. For one reason: humans when given authority tend to abuse it. If you place someone in charge of funneling the money to where it goes then what guarantee you have that he won't embezzle that money? If a company is rather small and in competition with other companies then its easier to regulate that.

However forcing them at gunpoint to go against their values doesn't help either. Sure, you MAY get the money you need but then you have to deal with a bunch of disgruntled people knocking on your door.