How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

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

LOL – you could read them

OK I know you won’t so I’ll tell you they are basically along the lines of there is no guarantee that the homicides committed with firearms cannot be committed through other means.

In other words the large number of homicides in the US are not down to guns making killing people easier but down to Americans been more murderous, that even without guns they would still make sure just as many people died.

 

Mac

I put all of your lines together from the last replies and the whole of them make up about one paragraph.

And there is little of substance in any of it.

Honestly man – I really don’t know what you think you are getting out of this?

Oh as I’ve said I’m not complaining every reply you make just shows how pathetically weak is the pro-gun lobby’s stance is and the rather selfish meanness it seems based on.

Do you not see that or do you really think you are sticking it to the heathen, because actually we are just having a laugh

I mean I’m happy whenever I see you’ve replied because I know I’m going to get a couple of laughs and I don’t even have to put much effort into relies because it’s the debating equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel.

So thank you and keep it up

 

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
– Joseph Stalin

 

Oh hell covered hundreds of times

It seems to me that the gun lobby shout out slogans because they know their stance doesn’t stand up to closer scrutiny

*

So anyway first up most of the ideas presented here are not about stopping lawful people from owning guns it’s about trying to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of criminals and the irresponsible.

Also if think guns will protect you its very possible that you will not see the slip into authoritarianism, dismiss the warning signs until it is too late it’s better to fight against tyranny politically than to hope your gun will save you, because by then it will be too late.

I mean as pointed out before some have argued that the holocaust may never have happened if the Jews had been armed.

The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this a justified and come to their defence or seen it as just more proof that the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

Think about US history, did the Native American that fought back against double dealing US governments get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbor and shot at the police would they have got general popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy, would people have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such a witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?

And then there is the question of what ‘tyranny’ many of the pro-gunners are afraid of and what ‘liberty’ are they defending?

I saw some interviews with some tea party gun owners at the height of that movement and they hinted that they would ‘defend’ America against the lefties taking over and imposing Un-American socialist ideas.

 

Balbus, it is no use...Gun people will just hold their guns tighter....I just avoid people like that.

 

I actually think Balbus is really changing the face of American gun control laws by posting in this thread

 

maybe he/she she knows theirs others with guns that might try to hurt him/her

 

Moon


[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Thing is that I’d like to understand why they oppose measures that are about trying to lessen harm, while being seemingly unable to defend their own position from criticisms.

 

Cman

[SIZE=11pt]Why are you so frightened you feel you need a gun for protection? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

LOL – EXACTLY – did you not realise that was the point of the question, you really should read the thread.

The point being that getting a gun is therefore a symptom of a problem and does nothing to alleviate the cause and that widespread gun ownership and ease of access seems to actually make a bad situation worse (as most guns in criminal hands have been bought legally and either stolen or passed on).

The best thing then would be to tackle the cause of crime and lessen the chances of guns falling into the hands of the criminal or irresponsible.

 

Balbus, what gun club did you used to belong to?

 

I see that and know your heart is a good one and in the right place...but it pains me to see you keep trying to get some answers but not getting any of any real value...
Been there, done that myself...It is like beating my head against the proverbial wall at times...which only hurts me....so that is what i meant.

i have met real people that are NRA types in my life....Do you think I am gong to try to convince that type of anything else? hell no! I dance away from that type, is what i meant.

 

Eye

[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve said before I grew up in the countryside where there were many people own guns (as I’ve also said few do in the urban areas). It was a village and a few people would meet up on Sunday to shoot. It was mainly shot guns as that was what most people had (for hunting, putting down vermin and sport). It was a social thing, a club.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I grew up in a pub and it wasn’t usual for someone to swop a rabbit or pheasant they’d bagged for a pint of beer.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But how does knowing this help anyone address the many outstanding criticisms of the anti-gun control stance?[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Moonglow[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m touched by your concern and your comments but you should feel no pain on my behalf since I’m not pained – yes it can be frustrating at time but also often very funny.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Anyway even amongst all the evasions I do get a lot of information and insight. Even what people don’t say can speak volumes. [/SIZE]

 

See this is what I'm curious about.

How does someone who grew up around guns, and joined a social gathering about guns such as you. Undergo a huge personality shift to see gun owners in such a negative light the way you do?

I myself never affiliated with major gun enthusiasts. And I don't have any interest in joining a gun club.
Yet I don't perceive all gun owners as paranoid, fearful, and with a dark desire to kill. So what happened to you?

 

Eye

Here is something I’ve posted before –

As I’ve said before it is possible to get a gun in the UK, many people have shot guns and if you are law abiding and seem responsible it is possible to get a license. It is just that most people don’t feel the necessity to have a gun. I mean what would I do with a shotgun in the city? Hunting, I’d rather preserve the wildlife we have rather than shoot it. Keeping down vermin, I think calling a professional exterminator would be more efficient and less time consuming that sitting out on my porch in the hope a rat will show up. As to home defence, well as I’ve said there just doesn’t seem to be the US pro-gunner’s level of fear about that here.

Thing is that if I moved to a rural area I might get a shot gun [SIZE=11pt]for hunting and sport (not for defence) [/SIZE]but I would also follow the regulations because I’d know how important it was to try and keep guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and criminal – the thing is that many people opposing gun control seem to want the irresponsible and criminal to have easy access to guns and I wonder why.

 

Eye

LOL – I’ve been through this all before – ok your reply brings together a lot of the problems that seem to arise when trying to have a rational argument with some people here.

Alright the first problem is thinking in absolutes, it is either or – black or white - you either love guns or you hate guns – so then the next problem is then building an argument on an assumption that is irrational – so if someone criticises the gun situation in the US and thinks that the high levels of deaths associated with it is a cause for concern and should be addressed it must mean to people like you that that person must have come to that conclusion only because they hate guns and not because they have studied the subject looked at the evidence and come to rational conclusions.

Then the next problem is that you then think you don’t have to have rational arguments yourself or be able to defend your stance from criticism because well the other person is driven by irrational hatred and therefore anything they say must be irrational.

I mean go back look at the anti-gun control argument and you will see they don’t really have one and whenever they can’t defend their ideas they seem to fall back on this simplistic, irrational absolutist thinking and that the person making the criticisms is only motivated by hate not that their criticisms are valid.


It seems to me that if the anti-gun control people stopped thinking in this irrational way they might begin to see things in a more sensible ways and see the criticisms of their stance as valid.

 

Ok but that doesn't answer my question.

If you wanna talk about absolutes and seeing things in black and white, I've read your posts and you have a past of doing just that. For example when someone says they own a gun, you'd ask what they are afraid of. Sounds like black and white thinking to me.

I want to know what led you down the path to hold such anamosity toward the people you grew up around.

 

Whether they are designed to be weapons is irrelevant. Despite the safety measures (to which I agree that they're reasonable) they still outrank gun murders.the gun measures you propose are neither reasonable nor have they been proven to work when implemented in other countries.

I do have a rational answer. Whether something is designed to kill or not is irrelevant when the measure you propose to decrease the deaths are neither constitutional, reasonable, nor even work.

 

I think you meant "so murderous" and to answer your question yes as well as your own country. Is the murder rate any lower since you guys implemented the handgun ban? Is your violent crime rate any lower after the handgun ban? What I said about America is true with any country because all countries contain living things called humans.

How is saying that if you take our toys away we would just hit each other with toys we made out of sticks saying that we are more murderous? I'm saying that ALL countries are like that. Are you deliberately avoiding the question I posed in the post you responded to or are you that obtuse?

Because I'm not in the sense that you're portraying it. Here's my question. Did the UK decreased its murder rate after the handgun ban? Yes or no, where's the evidence, and prove that the handgun ban was responsible for it.

 

First of all that's an opinion piece. Secondly they start off by saying that there's a gender and racial wage gap which has been thoroughly debunked. (It is illegal in America to pay woman less than men and even if the companies are somehow finding ways around the law we would see more women being hired). And thirdly that doesn't really answer my question. How many poor people were born into it vs how many became poor?

What question did I not answer?

The main reason why the Great Depression happened was because people ran up their debts instead of paying them off.

Yes I can. i.e. the Great Depression.

First off I give to the poor so I'm not making excuses. Secondly my main and sole argument is I don't want to be forced to give to something I haven't verified myself. You get it now?