How To Argue For Gun Control.

See this is why we can only trust authority with guns. I'm in favor of common sense gun control. You see it's impossible to ban guns where they are already plentiful in an armed society. But it is possible to heavily regulate them so they don't get in the hands of idiots. You saw what happened in America, people actually voted for Trump. Can you trust a society that stupid to own guns? People in the UK were dumb enough to vote Brexit, so we can't afford to ease up the gun control laws over there either. But the good news is that the UK has had a headstart on gun control in compared to the US. Only the military owns guns, and I prefer that model.

 

Canada, Australia, the EU, Japan, and your home country.

 

Again, no where did I stated that I'm against prudent gun control. In fact I'm for it. However my contention, and my only contention, is that your measures of gun control isn't prudent. I'm for harsher punishment for illegal possession of a weapon while committing a crime. It worked well in one of the states (which also debunks your claim that gun control can only be effective if imemented nationally) but it was dismantled because more minorities were getting arrested. I'm also for stop and frisk provided that it's done correctly and constitutionally.

 

My solution is to make marriage more meaningful and binding. That way people would (a) choose very carefully on who they want to spend the rest of their lives with and (b) be more faithful to their partners.

 

Just because something's popular doesnt make it right.

Evidence?

 

First of all, even with your measures it won't prevent a perfectly sane law abiding citizen from buying a gun and then later decide that the world is cruel and end it all later on in life. Secondly, the suicide rate in Australia wasn't affected by their gun control measures. And finally, you're still talking about a result of firearms making up little more than half the successful suicide rate. And this is taking into account that there are more than 400 million firearms and at least 80 million gun owners.

 

I never said they could've won, I said they could've held them off.

 

And I agree. That's why I'm for gun rights and other constitutional freedoms. It's also why I'm against socialism and communism.

People are poor or unhealthy because of their own actions. That doesn't mean however that I won't help them out when I can. And as for me saying we should get rid of the disabled and poor, that was me playing devil's advocate.

 

I'm saying that they are better served by private institutions, not government interference.

 

There should be taxation but only to keep the government running. Constitutionally the government has very few thngs to run. That being protection, immigration, the judicial system, and the postal service. Anything not mentioned in the constitution is left to the states. That means if Florida (where I live) decides to form a health care system then they have the right to choose.

Is the disease deadly or cause great bodily harm? If it's the common cold then the government has no business interfering.

If the disease is worth the cost of government interfering.

Which hasn't worked.

Again, it depends on the severity of the plague.

 

There's merit in every idea, however minuscule. Otherwise people will not support it. That in it of itself of course is not reason enough to implement every idea.

I'm playing devil's advocate. Now answer the question. What's so wrong about getting rid of the disabled? Will it not strengthen the human race? Think of all the terminally ill people sucking the system dry. We can get rid of them and use that money for scientific advances in space and technology.

 

And here we go again with the tool involved rather than the crime itself. No where in any country have gun control reduced violent crime or even murder. It was either on the decline already or it actually spiked when gun control was implemented.

Which is statistically the same when you compare it to other countries.

What about death in general?

 

The biggest killers is government and you want them to only have the power of life and death? Just to prove my point CCW holders are more law abiding than police.

Now you're injecting your own political beliefs about a president into this thread.

The same military that kill hundreds of thousands each year?

 

Mac

LOL been here before…

Which of the gun control ideas specifically suggested in this thread have been implemented in the countries you have presented and when.

 

Mac

Oh man you really to like to go in circles.. .we have been through all this before at some length and in some detail, why are you constantly going back to stuff you know we have covered?

I mean basically your stance is be tough on illegal gun possession (e.g execution for anyone committing any crime with a gun) and hoping your god will step in any make everyone good so they stop been bad.

*
So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.
[SIZE=11pt]As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

**

Guns can also be a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ will be too afraid to act.

But while many pro-gunners talk about using guns to deter crime, what crimes can a gun deter or tackle?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime (which isn’t that profitable) than white collar or computer crime (which is)[/SIZE]

 

Mac

Oh and back we go…again…I mean you know we have been through this already…

As I asked before how are you going to do these things - and your main answer was you hoped they would follow your god.

 

Mac
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.

Australia's gun laws stopped mass shootings and reduced homicides, study finds
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/23/australias-gun-laws-stopped-mass-shootings-and-reduced-homicides-study-finds

You’re not pushing the old argument about these deaths being not that significant, statistically insignificant and not being that importance and therefore nothing should be done to try and lower the levels? Because as I explained last time that isn’t a very rational approach to the issue.

 

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.

Really you think they could have held them off until the end of the war? Again this reply makes me think you haven’t really done that much study on this subject.

 

Mac

Again this just doesn’t seem to relate to what has been said (where did the socialism and communism thing come from) – can you explain your thinking?

 

Mac

We’ve been through this, and you don’t seem to back that up I mean you already admit that people can’t chose to be born into advantage or disadvantage so how is it their fault if born into disadvantage? Also many reason why people are sick are beyond their control and you still have not come up with any rational reasons why you think the way you do.

Well as I’ve pointed out someone would say that even if they had no plans to help, I mean you have made a big thing about them not really being deserving of help and that you would only help if you personally could verify if they really actually needed help and I believe the way you would help.