How To Argue For Gun Control.

And what source are you basing this on?

You're basically saying that my argument is irrational because it's irrational. That's circular reasoning. WHY is it irrational?

Again, no where did I said anything against having prudent gun control. What I said was your proposals for gun control are not prudent.

 

How is that different from what I just said? I said people ran up their debts and you said it's because peaple spectated on things which caused a bubble burst. Do you not make debts by spectating on them and then having them burst?

 

I'm not saying that it's perfect but it is the best system to take care of people. One doesn't need to look any further than the VA to see that a socialized healthcare doesn't work. Same goes for welfare.

 

Which again it's only by 3%.

 

You're the only one saying that.

 

We still held our own until the French helped us and it doesn't really matter how many soldiers died but rather how many was sent to fight us.

 

I did read up on it. What facts am I'm missing?

Probably not but for one I still rather defend myself despite it being unpopular and for another, most police and military here in the US are pro gun and would refuse to follow a gun confiscation order.

Your point?

What are you saying then?

 

Gun control has proven to be effective in preventing mass shootings and terrorist attacks. Just look at nations like Canada, France, Germany, and Sweden.

 

Compare that with the USA

 

Mac

Is says it in the paragraph ‘Home Office figures’.
*
BUT the thing is that as pointed out your argument seems irrational because it seems to be to do nothing rational to try and lessen the harm –

LOL – and your arguments are circular and repetitious I mean come on we have been through why I think your argument is irrational and I even explain part of it in the next part of the reply I gave –

that you are not looking at the issue from the point of view of lessening harm but from the stance ‘there should be no prudent gun control’ this means that rather than being objective when looking at this issue you see it from your own bias and that is why you objections seem so irrational (like hoping your god will step in to make things better).

Oh Mac really? I think anyone that has read this thread now that to be ingenuous at best and much closer to knowingly lying – you might not have said you are against having prudent gun control, but you seem against any prudent gun control that is suggested.

 

Mac

Its is very different from what I said or linked to - again I really think you need to read up a bit more on the Great Depression.

Again I can suggest some books about this complex event and the issues around it, but put simply –

Ok - most people were not ‘speculators’ most of the ‘common’ people adversely affected by the Great Depression were just normal workers and savers and they were thrown into hardship because of the bank failures and unemployment that resulted from the speculative crash.

After the crash during the first 10 months of 1930, 744 banks failed. In all, 9,000 banks failed during the decade of the 30s. It's estimated that 4,000 banks failed during the one year of 1933 alone. By 1933, depositors saw $140 billion disappear through bank failures.

Many worried about this tried to get their money out but that actually made the situation worse, many people lost some or all of their savings.

At the same time millions lost their jobs, they had not been the speculators but they paid the price for it. In 1933 the unemployment rate was 25% with some 13,000,000 people out of work, with little or no work to be had.

*

Anyway back to the sequence –

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?

Well the thing is that as explained most people thrown into hardship by the Great Depression had not been involved in bringing it about their position was not self-induced so the situation does not back up your argument.

I ask again - Can you back you viewpoint up?

 

Mac

You can say that but as I’ve pointed out you seem unable to back it up in any way.

By VA I presume you mean Veterans Affairs? I believe the problems there were mismanagement and mismanagement has brought down many a company, are you then going to say that is proof positive that capitalism doesn’t work?

Anyway as I’ve pointed out the UK National Health Services shows how well ‘socialized’ healthcare can work.

As to welfare if you do the reading about the Great Depression I’ve suggested you could learn something.

 

Mac



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

What do you mean 3% - do you actually understand, can you lay out your thinking here?

I really don’t know how I can make it simpler

 

Mac



Again have you actually read up on the Warsaw ghetto and the uprising, because from what you say it sounds like you haven’t?

I’m not sure what you mean here by ‘facts’?

I mean you seem to suggest that you thought the Jews in the ghetto could have beaten the German army basically winning WWII on their own. Which is ridiculous – it did divert German units away from other areas but the outcome was not really going to end in a Jewish ‘victory’.

The statement ‘The only reason why it failed was because the Germans set fire to the ghetto´ is just plain silly, the idea that the Germans would not have set fire to the ghetto to gain victory and instead ‘chosen’ to lose is crazy.

 

Mac

And anyway it makes my point for me - 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?

[SIZE=11pt]Again a narrow minded fixation on guns – again you need to read what has been said – [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government 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 Harbour and had shot at the police; do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?[/SIZE]

Many on the right went along with the left wing clampdown many of them believed in the ‘left wing conspiracy’ and the majority of gun owners lean to the right.

The thing is that the Jews had already been trapped and caged and by then it was too late. The tyranny was already in place and the Germans did nothing to fight it in fact many supported it.

[SIZE=11pt]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]Because I was not a Socialist.[/SIZE]

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

[SIZE=11pt]Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) [/SIZE]

So if they rounded up the socialist or the Jews or the blacks that would be ok

 

Mac

Again your reply makes me think you don’t understand what I’ve said.

The point is that it is a lot better to work toward stopping bad things from happening that doing little (or even supporting) stuff that ends up biting you in the face.

There is a lot of bigotry and nastiness going on in US society and if not countered these can fester and grow – lets us take one thing as an example as we have been looking at it – the idea that most people who are disadvantaged are disadvantaged because they deserve to be disadvantaged and so should be give little or no help, so they should not get public assistance in healthcare or welfare.

Now this could lead to exploitation (work or starve) and premature deaths from want of food or healthcare.

Now people might say ‘that could never happen’ but I’ve already had one right wing libertarian here admitting he’d be happy to live in a society where people died from such want.

And think about it how many Germans that ignored the Nazis anti-Jewish stane belived it would end in attempted genocide?

There are even many on the right that support to one degree or another the Social Darwinism of Herbert Spencer –

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mac[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Again all of you collected replies only come to a small paragraph – I mean come on man it’s so obvious you haven’t got a coherent argument that is becoming painful (although funny) to watch you flounder.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’m happy to continue as it just points out how bad the anti-gun control argument is but really what do you think you are getting out of it? [/SIZE]

 

They actually have more mass shootings than we do. Not only that but they also have higher violent crime rate.

 

And as pointed out, none of your measures are prudent because when implemented elsewhere, it fails. Also, can you actually link to the source?

 

Ok.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_poverty

Of the things listed, a high divorce rate is one of the main causes.