How To Argue For Gun Control.

So you accuse my link of being politically biased and then quote from a left leaning site?

 

First off you cut my post. The rest of it explains what I meant. Only being 3% ahead of all other methods is statistically insignificant because that 3% can turn into a tie or below in a few years time.

 

What facts am I'm missing?

 

To which I agree. But in this context, you're implying that if I'm the only one left to stand against tyranny then I should just give up. The American colonies for a good while were an unpopular group. In fact only 3% of the colonists fought against the crown. Yet we held our own until France and Spain helped us out.

 

What are we arguing about? Of course I agree that we should help out the suffering.

 

If you weren't blinded by your own bigotry then you would've realize that I meant to say that we should help people out.

No. However that is not justification to force him at gun point to "share." If it's by gunpoint, it's no longer sharing but rather tribute.

To you maybe.

 

There are some merits to social Darwinism. They may have focused on the wrong group but if there is no god of any sort then I see nothing wrong with ridding the disabled and impoverished.

 

For every one of those instances I can list ten instances of a good guy using his gun in self defense.

 

The latter. However your measures are not rational or even enforceable.

 

If someone is suicidal, gun control will not prevent the attempt of suicide or the success rate of it. The suicidal person will find a way and the number who commit suicide will not change. this is not a good argument for gun control. Next thing you know we will have to ban bridges because there are a lot of jumpers. ban all off pills, you must have a prescription to get headache pills.

 

Mac

Which? Where? When?

 

Mac

It was based on several things I’d read but hey the thing I was saying is that it isn’t black and white, clear cut, but that your argument seems irrational because it seems to be about doing nothing rational to try and lessen the harm – 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).

 

Mac

And as said we discussed it in relation to crime AND in general terms and about means to tackle the problem and I said -
many single parents were once married but have divorced I can’t see forcing people together when they want to split is a great solution and I’m sure you are not arguing for the forceful removal children, so it would seem to me that the best way would be to try and help the single parent.

What I would suggest is needed would be a good well funded social services
system, welfare, public housing, universal public healthcare, training programmes, a full employment economic model and cheap or free childcare for the large numbers that work.

Your solution - was to hope that they would follow your god.

 

Mac

LOL What I said was - there are many views on the NHS often dictated by political bias. The right wing press in the UK are always targeting it for criticism YET the NHS is still very popular in the UK and during the Brexit debate one of the leavers big arguments was that if we left the EU the money gained would go directly to the NHS (something they admitted later was a lie).

Most of the problems it is experiencing at the moment are due to right leaning politicians trying to make this public service run like a ‘free market’ entity with competition, PPI deals and targets that have put huge strain on the system.

 

Mac

Sorry I’m still not sure what you mean, there doesn’t seem to be a relation to what was said which was -Guns are not the most common means of suicide attempt, but they result in more deaths than every other method combined.

Guns are a devastatingly effective means of ending one’s own life. Firearms suicide accounted for six percent of attempts, and 54 percent of fatalities in one study that examined hospital data from eight states. For comparison, drug or poison overdosing accounted for 71 percent of attempts but only 12 percent of fatalities. Suicides attempted with a firearm are lethal 82.5 percent of the time.

 

Mac

To repeat I’m not sure what you mean here by ‘facts’ I mean you seem to suggest that you thought the fighters in the Warsaw ghetto could have ‘won’ defeating the German army which is rather ridiculous.


As I say I can recommend some books on WWII if you wish.

 

Mac

Again I really am finding it hard to understand what your argument is – it doesn’t seem to fit in with what has been said.

 

Mac
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.

But – 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?


It’s hard to explain it more simplistically - If you don’t step in to stop the suffering of others (possibly because you support it or just don’t care) then it’s too late.

But are you, would you? I mean you have argued that people that are disadvantaged deserve to be disadvantaged, and hinted that you agree with Social Darwinism and its ideas of 'getting rid' of the disabled and impoverished

 

Mac

Yes I understand you want the right to not help people that you have already indicated that you don’t think should be helped because you believe they deserve to be disadvantaged.

But you have indicated that you think most people who are disadvantaged are disadvantaged because they deserve to be disadvantaged and so should not get public assistance in healthcare or welfare, which would cause them suffering.

 

Mac

OK so you don’t agree with any taxation only voluntary contributions?

Anyway – let’s us imagine a plague, a disease that could affect anyone but will actually end up only affecting half of the population* But nobody knows which half.

In such a situation I think most sensible people would want the community’s government to try and do something about it and be willing to pay the taxes to tackle the situation.

Now lets say that half a population are born into disadvantage and half not. But since no one can choose beforehand to which half they are to be born, it basically means disadvantage could affect anyone.

The difference with that situation is that there is the problem of hindsight, when those born into advantage are taxed to help the disadvantaged, they don’t go ‘oh I could have been born disadvantaged myself’ they might go ‘why should I help them’. It is like knowing who would be affected by the disease and who not.

(*And I’m not saying disadvantage is a disease, I’m just using the plague idea as an example)

 

Mac

LOL ok so you’re saying you find merit in the irrational?

Who are ‘they’?

What a bizarre comment.

Honestly you think there is nothing wrong with seeing the disabled and impoverished suffer even die from want?

And if you didn’t mean that why say it, because it would seem to indicate it is in your head.

 

Mac

As pointed out and explained before this doesn’t actually help your stance – comparable countries have similar general crime figures to the US but don’t have the huge increase in murders that are gun related.

So if the crimes you talk about are reported it would mean that ease of access to guns as a method of crime reducing is only about the same as other countries without ease of access but results in a much, much larger likelihood of gun relayed death.

If as some have argued these instances are not reported then the situation is worse - ease of access to guns as a crime reducing policy is not even as good as in other countries without ease of access but results in a much, much larger likelihood of gun relayed death.