How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac

We have been through that –

[SIZE=11pt]Also remember a voluntary system of assistance has never worked [/SIZE]
It should be remembered that private assistance was never capable on its own, it was always backed up or ran alongside public assistance. In the US this was based originally on the English Elizabethan poor laws, which the colonists had brought with them when they came to Americas.

Now even in upturns such private assistance as was given however genuine and heartfelt as it could be, could be inadequate, but during downturns that system was often overwhelmed (and giving could even drop in times of greatest need as people looked to their own needs).

“While the genuine warmth emanating from these volunteer institutions produced a true sense of community with revitalising effects in depressed urban neighbourhoods, participants quickly realised that private charity was not enough. Charity Organisation Societies modelled on those of London and Berlin had emerged in the early 1880’s to be succeeded by Associated Charities designed to prevent duplication of effort among the score of secular and church philanthropies, but relief measures possible under a system of private endeavour, no matter how earnest or how efficiently organised, could not handle the problems arising in periods of economic distress.
Public institutions to care for indigents, the ill, the widows and orphans, the aged and the insane never had money enough during boom times, and when hard times set in and the burden increased, city welfare budgets lagged still further behind the amounts needed.”
The Rise of Urban America by Constance Mclaughlin Green

Also on the forum such things as sewage works and housing amongst other things have been discussed where public money and government legislation did a lot to help to improve the lives of poor and middle class people

 

Mac

It’s interesting that the main things you wish to retain are those that traditionally are assistance to the few (the’ propertied classes’) - the police, army and judiciary - while rejecting those that help more of the majority - government backed pensions, welfare and universal healthcare.

(oh and please don’t say that old canard about everyone been equal before the law because I know you are not that naive)

Anyway so basically you are not against taxation in principle which negates your argument that you are against it in principle – that is a contradiction so doesn’t make sense.

Basically you are saying you are just personally against been taxed to assist the disadvantaged or relieve the suffering of others.

 

Mac
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.

Sorry what is your argument – does this imply that you think social disadvantage or even poverty is in your opinion a mild inconvenience?


I mean been unable to get access to good healthcare for example can cause great pain, suffering and premature death.


I think that would be obvious to anyone that gave this just a little thought.

*


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.

Is this you indicating that in your opinion helping the disadvantaged or relieving the suffering of other isn’t worthwhile?

*

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.

Again I’m not sure what you are going on about can you please explain.


*

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

Sorry can you explain.

 

Mac

Devil’s advocate? - Usually that is about putting forward an argument you don’t agree with to encourage debate on it

BUT you have already said you do agree with Social Darwinism – so the devil's advocate stance doesn’t work here.

By saying you already agree with Social Darwinism you are basically stating its views that to some degree or another you agree with – that there is nothing wrong in letting the weaker in society suffer and die as it strengthens the human race and saves a lot of money, allowing taxes to be lower.

Can you please explain what aspects of these Social Darwinists ideas do you agree with?

 

Ultimately, "what is so wrong with" anything boils down to morality. I follow a belief system that says every human being is equally worthy, including society's rejects--the poor, the infirm, and the reprobate. That is the only thing that would inhibit me from saying, just to play Devei's Advocate, what's so wrong with getting rid of people like you, whose views are a menace to society?

 

Gun registration, mandatory safe storage, psych eval for gun purchases, etc.

 

You are free to leave if you want.

You have yet to show that it won't work.

Which is irrelevant to what I said.

You have yet to address why my proposed measures in the post you quoted is not prudent. Let's see if you'll address it later on in this post.

We arrest people for victimless crimes. If we stick to arresting and keeping criminals who commit crimes against other people then the crime rate will decrease.

To the person committing the crime and anyone else who is thinking of committing the same.

Which is true. States with carry laws tend to have less violent crime.

Robbery, attempted mirder, active shooter incidents, home invasions, rape, assault, and battery to name a few.

Nobody is talking about white collar crime and if you live in an area that has organized crime, you can defend yourself from random shootings.

And how does that address my argument?

 

And it worked for the most part.

 

No it hasn't.

http://gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

When talking about statistics, whatever measure being proposed must be weighed to the overall affect. Such drastic measures as yours must be justified by the statistical benefit it produce. If the benefit produce a low outcome then the problem you're trying to solve, by definition, is too statistically insignificant to implement your solution.

 

They could've held them off until the allies came to help as I said before.

 

Universal healthcare is a form of socialism as well as wealth distribution.

 

I said that as a generalization. 70% of hospitalizations and diagnoses are self induced. The biggest being obesity.

You believe what you want about me. The fact is I do give to charities.

 

This video explains it better than I.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXrwDPs4ohc

 

The government doesn't help people by providing healthcare and welfare. It hurts the people.

The things I listed that I believe government should be involved in are things vital to our livelihood. So you're contributing to your own well being. Not only that but the government does a good job providing these services. Healthcare and welfare are something else.

I am.

 

No, I'm saying that comparatively speaking, poverty and healthcare isn't enough of a concern for the government to intervine. Not only that but they aren't equipped to deal with it.

The key word is "willing." If you're willing to help out then you should help out.

It isn't enough of a concern for government to intervine.

Sorry, I can't see what I said to explain further.

 

Where have I stated that I agree with social Darwinism?

Again, where have I agreed with social Darwinism?

I don't agree with any of it. I merely stated that there's merit in every idea however minuscule. I'm sure somewhere deep inside the idealogy there's a kernel of truth somewhere as with every other idealogy. That doesn't mean that I agree with it or think it should be implemented. Now, are you going to answer the question or are you going to continue to deflect?

 

Mac

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

 

But what is happening now isn’t working its resulting in a huge number of gun related deaths, any rational person would want to try and limit that harm, instead you have called those deaths ‘statistical insignificant’ and suggested nothing rational to limit it and seem happy to let it continue.
Oh and I know you will scream ‘that’s not what I said’ again – but actually anyone reading this thead can see that basically is your stance.

LOL it’s been addressed many times at length and in detail the problem is that you just ignore that and repeat statements you know we have already been covered.

 

Mac
But who is this intimidation been directed at?

Intimidation as a means of social control as I said
To repeat (edited -the longer version was printed earlier)-
My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words, suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

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.

We have been through that at length and in detail and you know that is disputed there are many studies that show that it isn’t so or has little impact. It’s not clear cut and as black and white or as simplistic as gun advocates would like to portray it.

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

Already covered – also other comparable countries have basically the same rate of those crimes without ease of access to guns which means they have much much lower murder rates you are just highlighting how bad ease of access to guns is as a way of tackling crime.

LOL you don’t have ‘an argument’ you have a lot of statements that you endlessly repeat in the hope no one realise they don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Everything in your replies has already been addressed in this thread (often more than once) you have nothing new to add – you haven’t got counter arguments to the criticisms of your views you only have repetition

 

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.

That doesn’t make sense what worked?