How To Argue For Gun Control.

Here is the video I'm talking about. Turns out when taking into population you are three times more likely to due in Australia from a mass shooting than here in the US.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cHOfyQVAJ7Q

 

The guy was armed as well and much of the casualties were possibly of shooting.

Violence is wrong wherever it may be, and these countries along with U.S, head the world in terms of mass shootings showcasing an uncivilized and brutal culture of violence and guns.

However I must say that stricter gun controls were adopted in Australia in 1996, following a gun massacre in Tasmania that killed 35 people, which resulted substantially in fewer casualty and homicide statistics in later years.

Here is a report

 

This is a fact.

Less guns = less gun crime and less shootings, whether intentional or accidental.

This has been statistically proven by every other western country in the world and there is no logical argument against it. No other established democracy allows open carry arms.

The uk, for example, has less mass shootings in 5 years than the US has in a week. That includes terrorism.

France statistically, including the Paris attacks, has less gun crime in 10 years than the US in 1 month. That's including the bouts of terrorism.

I appreciate there are cultural differences but what I feel is almost a joke is the Militia argument. Your constitution has amendments. The word itself actual means change / correction to something so there is no reason why it can't be changed again. At the time the amendment was made, there was a need to protect your right to protect yourself against your government. At no point in the last 100 years has a well establish democracy been taken over by government. Protecting yourself as a Militia is no longer necessary.

You want guns, fine, that makes sense because it's part of your DNA. That you need guns, that it's your 'right' to protect yourself against your government is absolute nonesense and it's not an opinion, it's something that's been statistically proven over and over again.

Just be honest and logical about it.

 

Mac

Guns might not be the cause of deaths by accident or design but because they are such efficient weapons designed specifically to bring about lethal outcomes they are more likely to bring about deaths.

And of course this is again another variation on the murderous Americans argument

As pointed out to you numerous times it’s not half, the figure are in this thread - this is the problem you ignore what has been said if you don’t like it so you repeat the same old lies over and over

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

hell man it is like you are boasting – but I think going on past comments that its more likely you just don’t seem to care – I think a more rational approach -if you believed this to be so - would be to try and think of rational ways to reduce the likelihood of such murders. Not just hope a god sorts it out.

 

Mac

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

Hum…well you clearly haven’t been reading the posts. As explained people born into disadvantage are disadvantaged and so find it harder to escape from disadvantaged.

Therefore the argument that disregarding being born into disadvantaged from the reasons for being disadvantaged doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

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

Yes you have said this before but it would be nice to have some details.

I mean a lot of things can affect a person’s life from where and to whom they are born (which is a biggie) but also the standard of education (again that can be affected by birth) availability of work, the social connections, the environment, accidents, health etc etc.

I’m sorry but as pointed out that is what you seemed to be implying for much of this discussion and I have been seeking clarification, because you often seem to make contradictory statements.

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

You have made repeated statements along the lines that you think most people deserve to be disadvantaged because that position is self induced, but you really haven’t backed up that viewpoint, other than that you believe it, but as pointed out a lot of the disadvantage are born into disadvantage .

So if you know corruption is taking place then have you passed your evidence on to the police?

Or is it just that you’ve heard about it? And who have you heard it from?

 

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.

Well that statement makes it very clear that you need to read the posts

But you are responding to arguments that haven’t been made.

We have been through the whole suicide thing hundreds of times and again I’m shocked (but not surprised) how easily you dismiss all those deaths.

The B and C parts of your response seem like just more variation on the murderous Americans argument

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

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

Why is it illogical to focus on ways to try and lessen gun deaths, wouldn’t the most logical thing to do when you see a problem is to try and find a rational solution not just hope a god intervenes?

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

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.

Well seemingly most of our conversations on the subject LOL

Guns are not the most common means of suicide attempt, but they result in more deaths than every other method combined.

We have been through that before, but ok again…

About 90 percent of people who survive suicide attempts don’t go on to kill themselves.

[SIZE=11pt]One of the biggest myths about suicide prevention is the notion that people who don’t succeed at killing themselves will simply find another means until they succeed, says Dr. Matthew Miller, the co-director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]“You’ve got people saying, ‘Oh, if he didn’t shoot himself, he would have jumped off a tall building or found another way to kill himself.’ It’s not illogical, it’s just wrong — wrong in the face of facts that strongly say otherwise,” he says.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]According to Catherine Barber, a suicide expert and Miller’s Harvard colleague, extensive research on this topic shows that between 5 and 11 percent of people who attempt suicides will go on to kill themselves — but the majority will not.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]That’s because suicide is often an impulsive decision. One study found that a quarter of people took less than five minutes between deciding to kill themselves and attempting suicide.[/SIZE]

https://www.thetrace.org/2016/09/10-facts-guns-suicide-prevention-month/

 

Evidence? And even if much of the casualties were from firearms doesn't France have strict gun control? Either way your point fails. Either the guy killed 80 people with a truck or he killed most of them with firearms in a country with strict gun control.

It only show the culture of violence. Again the countries I listed have strict gun control.

New Zealand hasn't banned anything since 1996 and they haven't had a mass shooting either. Besides its not about gun violence but violent crime in general.

Violent crime as a whole rose after the mandatory but back. Also more Aussies own guns than before the ban. Does that mean more guns equals less crime by your logic?

 

It is not a fact. If it were then Mexico, Russia, and other countries wouldn't have the high gun crimes they do. And Britain wouldn't have experienced the gun crime spike after the handgun ban.

Then why did Britain experienced a gun crime spike for a good while?

Was it like that before the ban?

Because you're comparing a 3,000 mile wide country with various gun laws and demographics to a country the size of Texas. And again, gun crime is irrelevant if murder is unaffected and violent crime in general is on the rise.

You'll need a 2/3 agreement with all of the states to even consider changing the amendment.

Protection doesn't have to be proactive. Just because a castle with a wall hasn't been successfully been conquered doesn't mean the wall is of no use. The fact that there's over 400 million guns and at least 80 million gun owners makes the government, whether foriegn or domestic, think twice before infringing upon our rights.

See above. Besides, aside from being a deterrent against a tyrannical government firearms allows us to defend ourselves from criminals.

 

And? Cars when driven at high speeds increases the likelyhood of a crash becoming deadly.

Murderous any country. You have yet to prove that Britain decreased their murder rate after the handgun ban.

My mistake. It's more like 64% that is caused by guns but even with that stat we still have twice the amount of other countries.

That still leaves us ahead of the countries you listed even if we somehow get rid of guns altogether and assuming the homicides by gun cannot be made by any other method.

Or restricting gun rights.

 

How is that any different to what I just said?

How so? Do you have stats showing most people who are poor we're born into it?

Many, but not most when you get right down to it.

How many is a lot? How many of those parents were born into it? How many of those grandparents were born into it?

Because I haven't dealt with it personally. When I said it I was being generic.

News reports.

 

Because the control lies solely on the person committing it. If you commit suicide then there was I could've done for you to not commit it. If you're dead set on it then you'll find a way to do it. We don't make rope laws based on the suivides committed with them.

How so?

 

Because gun deaths falls mostly into two categories. They are either suicides which is a decision that only you make or they are murders which we should be focusing on that instead. You're focusing on a sub set of different categories.

 

Only by 3%. The others combined are in stuff competition.

I'm not talking about re-attempts I'm talking about the initial attempt.

I can't see if I said that if they failed at one attempt they'll do it again but if I did I retract it and say that this doesn't address whether if an option (like guns) weren't available then they wouldn't commit suicide.

Aside from an outright ban how would any gun control measure stop that? It takes less than five minutes to access my safe.

These links show that gun control (at least in Australia) didnt work to prevent suicides.

http://www.ic-wish.org/WiSH%20Fact%20Sheet%20Trends%20in%20Australian%20Suicide.pdf

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

 

One man with a gun can control 100 men without one. - Lenin

 

Mac

LOL this is hilarious, you’re like a dog with a bone, cars, cars, cars I mean how many times are you going to repeat the same thing that has been address a thousand times before, you know you don’t have an argument that will stand up but you still do it, it’s like watching Wile E. Coyote repeatedly running into a wall.

Cars are not weapons, yes yes yes we already know you’ll come back that they can be used as such, but they were not specifically made to be weapons and a lot of time and energy has and is spent trying to make ownership of them safer, from safety features made by manufactures to traffic regulations, laws and rules.

But you know all that because we been through it before, and you’ll come back with ‘yeah well you know cars can still kill, so nahhhh’

Which isn’t a rational answer because you haven’t got a rational answer

 

Mac

And of course this is again another variation on the murderous Americans argument

So you do think Americans are more murderous that even if the easiest way of killing was not available they would still kill as many but just by other means?

You know we have been through that at some length and in the end you always say you don’t think Americans are more murderous than other people.

So why do you keep pushing the murderous Americans argument when you know where it is going?

 

Mac

There are quite a lot of studies – and if you actually wanted to find out you could do a google search – but you’re not interested, this is just another of your games to try and hide the fact you don’t have any real answers, sad really, poor mac.
http://www.newsweek.com/why-rich-stay-rich-and-poor-stay-poor-363611
How many is a lot? How many of those parents were born into it? How many of those grandparents were born into it?
LOL I know this trick when you haven’t got an actual answer - answer a question with a question.
OK again -
You have made repeated statements along the lines that you think most people deserve to be disadvantaged because that position is self induced, but you really haven’t backed up that viewpoint, other than that you believe it
Can you back you viewpoint up?
Also as explained many things that affect people’s lives and fortunes are out of their personal control.
Many, but not most when you get right down to it.

LOL many but not most, most but not many – how does that make sense and anyway you can’t back it up.

So you don’t actually know that every (most/many LOL) of government and charity is corrupt and all about lining their own pockets and therefore shouldn’t be given to – it seems to me you are making up excuses for not wanting to help disadvantaged people (which isn’t surprising since you have convinced yourself that they deserve to be disadvantaged (most/many) anyway).

 

Mac

We have been through the whole suicide thing hundreds of times and again I’m shocked (but not surprised) how easily you dismiss all those deaths.

So you’re basically saying fuck them, you really are a piece of work Mac, a real Christian.

So there are no reasons why people commit suicide, they just wake up one day and for no reason do it?

As pointed out no

[SIZE=11pt]Guns are not the most common means of suicide attempt, but they result in more deaths than every other method combined.[/SIZE]

Did you understand what’s said? Because that reply seems to indicate you don’t.

[SIZE=11pt]About 90 percent of people who survive suicide attempts don’t go on to kill themselves.[/SIZE]

You didn’t read it very well did you…its hard to put it more simply than they did but I will try – guns because they are weapons specifically designed to kill are a lot better at killing so an attempt made with a gun is more likely to actually kill.

[SIZE=11pt]But about 90 percent of people who survive suicide attempts don’t go on to kill themselves.[/SIZE]