How To Argue For Gun Control.

Thats why I stay loaded.

 

DUH! The easy acces of cars increases the chances of being killed by a car. That isn't the point. The point is whether easy access to guns increases the violent crime rate and the anwer is no. So the argument ends there.

It is reasonable. Complaining about gun deaths instead of looking at violent crimes as a whole is like complaining about pool deaths instead of drowning as a whole. The real issue isn't the pool deaths or the gun deaths. It's root cause of drowning and how to prevent that and the root issue is violent crime and how to prevent that.

Again, you're focusing on gun deaths when I mention violent crime. Your link doesn't address that.

http://m.mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2014/08/11/restrictive-gun-laws-dont-make-safer-cities

 

I said it starts in the home I didn't said it's the only answer.

We have more big cities than those countries which contributes to the crime rate. I'm not saying that one single city is responsible but I am saying that we have more cities which add to the crime rate.

Irrelevant since that figure includes suicides which make up 60% of all gun deaths in America.

Again irrelevant because you're focusing on method rather than result and see my explanation about cities.

 

So a .2 difference is enough to blame Virginia of the murder rate of New York? Ok. I'll go with it for now but what about violent crime in general like robberies?

 

Ban evil intentions. Problem solved

 

Its not that they fear giving people the right to guide their own lives, but they fear not being able to give people the right to lead a healthy life free from fear of physical injuries or death caused by poor gun controls.

That's because they also have a poor system of gun controls, rules and regulations along with a well-entrenched gun culture.


The number of unregistered firearms is estimated to be around a million, much of them being weapons hidden during the aftermath of world war 2.

Also checking the statistics of mass shootings in finlands, bad and sad as it is, it is not on the same scale and magnitude as that of the U.S.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]We have been through all that – again the same MO just repeat statements that you know have already been addressed – so I repeat the criticisms you have no answer to so you ignore only to repeat the same statement again – can you start being honest, or is it just in your nature to lie?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Don’t get me wrong I’m happy to repeat (again) but what is the point if you refuse to ignore the criticisms? [/SIZE]

Again already covered – I used to believe you were just not reading the posts but I see now that it’s just a dishonest trick.

Again I can repeat the criticisms but if you simply going to ignore them…

Again we have covered this and once again I’m shocked (but not surprised) by your casual dismissal of the numbers of deaths caused by ease of access to guns.

Again we have been through this at length – and trying to claim or ignore that we haven’t is plain lying – as explained at length it is a complex subject with many factors, even you admit that but then once again post some simplest reply – again its dishonest of you. and again I’m happy to repeat but if you just refuse to address criticisms and repeat stuff you know we have already covered then…
[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Sorry this doesn’t seem to make any sense in this context can you please explain? You base your views on guesses? In what way did gun crimes ‘dramatically’ increase, in what way is violent crime is virtually unaffected?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And what has that do with the your contradictory statements on the ‘murderous Americans’ argument? [/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

So a child that is born into disadvantage rough it upon themselves, it’s self induced?

Also as explained many things that affect people’s lives and fortunes are out of their personal control.

*

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.

Well basically you haven’t put anything different – fundamentally you have been saying repeatedly that you think that poverty is self induced.

 

Mac

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.

Again you I think you know it is a complex issue but prefer to think about it in simplistic terms. I think it goes back to that black and white way of thinking that we have talked about before.
To you it is easy if you live in a Pottersville median income $14,280 and you wish to improve your position simply move to Hewlett Bay Park village median income $250,000,.

Try – I mean really try and work out why -beyond the simplistic ‘lazy’ that - people might be disadvantaged?

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.
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.

Again it is a pessimistic outlook and almost paranoid way of think that we have discussed before. To you it seems nearly anyone else is corrupt and/or dangerous, out to do you wrong or try and fleece you (even charities).

It also seems like another excuse for not giving as in - what is the point in giving they will just waste/embezzle the money

 

Mac

Yes we have been through all this – let’s have a test – what are my criticisms of your views – I mean we have been through this many times you should know what my criticism will be if you have actually been reading the post you will know them if you can’t then you have been dishonestly ignoring them all along.

Come on…

LOL – your main ‘solution’ so far has been the hope that people will turn to worshiping your god and so stop being ‘bad’.

Again this is just dishonest – you know we have been through the pool death and cars before, I’m happy to repeat them again but what is the point if you are simply ignoring not addressing the criticisms of your views?

 

Mac

We have been through the single parent thing - you ignored the criticisms of your view then and are doing again.

We have been through the city thing (population density) before you ignored the criticisms of your view and are once again being true to your MO and just something you know you are unable to address.

We have been through the suicide thing - you ignored the criticisms of your view then and are just repeating stuff you know has outstanding criticisms already leveled at it.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

We have been through the whole crime thing - you ignored the criticisms of your view then and you are doing so again.

A said your MO is just to repeat hoping people don’t notice that you are unable to address any of the criticisms (and there are hundreds outstanding) of your views.

I wonder sometimes if you are aware of what you are doing this and so know its deeply dishonest or are you so unaware that you actually think you are being clever?

 

Mac

Honestly man I think the game is busted, I mean if you had any counter arguments to the many criticisms already leveled at your stance you would have given them by now and the ‘trick’ (if I can call it that) of just repeating statements or ideas that you already know have outstanding criticisms already out there has become obvious and increasingly sad.

As I say that’s fine with me but really watching you like this is just well….

Yours

balbus

 

And in turn they did nothing to decrease violent crime.

They have less guns than us and Switzerland yet they have a higher rate of deaths by mass shootings. By your logic we should be on top since we have more guns than citizens. In fact we should have more than what we have now.

That's 299 million less than the US and yet they rank higher than us.

Actually it's worse when you consider population in both guns and people. In fact statistically speaking Australia has it worse than we do.

 

I've been honest since the stray of the thread.

I don't ignore them.

They don't cause the mirders in this country. Again, they only make half. Even if those murders by guns were immpossible to do without a firearm we will still outrank many of the western countries in murders.

This is what I'm talking about.

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/09/how-gun-control-made-england-the-most-violent-country-in-europe/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

My point is if you take the guns away or make them harder to get then violent crime will still be at the same rate as it is today. If you want proof then I ask that you provide one country that reduced its violent crime by restricting gun ownership.

 

When I said "most" I was excluding those born into a poor family.

A lot of that is preventable.

Says the one who still think I believe a person born into a poor family became poor because of his own doing.

The only level we actually discussed to my recollection was those who were born into a poor environment or family.

And it is for the most part.

 

Is it not true though? How often do you hear of corruption in the government? How often have you heard of the government, even in a socialist environment, failing to provide for the people?

I rather have the chioces of not giving because I think they are corrupt than to be forced by gunpoint to an organization that I KNOW is corrupt.

 

First of all even if I can't recall them that doesn't mean I'm ignoring them. After all we aren't responding everyday. Secondly to answer your question your criticism of my views is that the easy access of firearms is the cause of gun violence in America and if I recall correctly its also the cause of murder in America as well. My response to that is it's irrelevant because on the first point (a) 60% of gun deaths are suicides which that's a different animal of itself and (b) gun deaths belongs to a bigger organism called violent crime. We are focusing on the tool being used rather than the root cause. On your second contention, that guns are the cause of murder in general in America, to that I say firearms account for only half of all homicides. There is no guarantee that the homicides committed with firearms cannot be committed through other means.

Just did.

Irrevalent to what I said. Whether it be God, education, jobs, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the fact of the matter is illogical to focus only on gun deaths.

I don't ignore them.

 

How so?

Yes we have but not this exact subject. You may have denser cities but we have more of them.

What did I ignored? That they are "easier" to commit with a gun? That other places like Japan have different culture which contributes to their suicide rate? To the first one is irrelevant as those who are willing to commit suicide will do so at any cost. Not only that but half of suicides in America are caused by other means. To the second one, it's still kinda irrelavant. In fact it might aid my point. Culture affects their suicide rate just like our culture affects our suicide rate. It has little to do with whether we have easy access. Besides, how would strict gun control would prevent suicides without banning them completely?

I was wondering the same thing about you.

 

See a mass shooter with a sophisticated gun can cause casualties of dozens. The nightclub attack in Orlando killed 49 and injured 53.

It is harder for a murderer armed with a knife or an axe to create this much damage before he is put down.

I would say violent crime is lower in countries with better gun controls than in the U.S.

Finland with a population of 6 million and australia with a population of 21 million cannot be compared to the US.

As per statistics, the US have the most number of rampage shooting deaths far beyond the above nations.

 

A guy with a truck in France killed 80. A guy with pistols and ten round magazines killed over 30.

By that logic we should ban trucks.

You have to prove causation, not correlation.

Exactly my point. Because of there small population statistically speaking you're more likely to die in Australia due to a mass shooting than you are here in America.

Raw numbers are not what should be looking at rather than statistics and ratio. In the next post I'll provide a video proving my point.