How To Argue For Gun Control.

Mac
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.

LOL – that’s just bullshit for you don’t want to do anything and the measures suggested are not ‘drastic that just you being all OTT melodramatic

 

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

But you don’t have to be disadvantaged to suffer from obesity, it can affect anybody from differing social and economic classes.

So these people shouldn’t be helped let them suffer or die? Why not work toward trying to lessen the harm?
In the UK government sponsored programmes in education and the NHS are promoting healthy eating, we have laws that prohibit the advertising of ‘junk’ food to children, and we are about to bring a sugar tax, to limit the use of sugar in many products.

To me that seems like a more rational approach then shrugging and letting people suffer.

 

Mac

Yes – let’s look at that.

I mean I also give to charity but also because I have studied history and want to have a good and decent society where everyone has an opportunity to fulfil their potential SO I also campaign and vote for political groups that would actually raise my taxes to improve society and lessen hardship.

I think the rational approach to dealing with social problems is to try and work out the causes of the problem and then tackle them.

I want a healthy community where we work together to help each other out.

You seem to see things differently

You want to lower your taxes by reducing or getting rid of public assistance even when you realise this would cause many harm, suffering, and death.

And you seem to justify this because you believe the vast majority of people in disadvantage deserve that disadvantage and that the vast majority of people that are ill deserve to be ill and so should be punished to make them realise the error of their ways.

You have also indicated that you would only give assistance to someone that you personally could verify that they actually needed at help and spent it the way you would want.
I look at that and ponder if that is the profile of someone that gives to charity.

 

Mac

OH another ranty man - Sorry but please can you explain YOUR thinking in YOUR words. You see I’m getting the impression that you don’t really do your own research or think about this that deeply, for example with the Warsaw ghetto and Great Depression comments.

 

Mac

Again these comments call out to me that you really need to do some study especially in history, of wars, policing and legal injustices, I think you would then reconsider your statements. Actually seen from the point of view of the majority in most developed countries public welfare and health related measures are one of the great success stories, boosting there wellbeing and life expectancy.

 

Mac

LOL I understand you having lower taxes is more of a concern than helping the suffering of others.

Oh man but you have already said you are willing to pay taxes it’s just that you are not willing to pay taxes to relieve the suffering of others.

To repeat -

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

Oh man you are a one – you said - There are some merits to social Darwinism. They may have focused on the wrong group.

Merit - the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward.

So LOL you think Social Darwinism is worthy and deserving of praise BUT that doesn’t mean that you agree with it, oh how utterly amiss of me to even think such a thing

But then you want to change things – it’s called back peddling I believe – no no when you said There are some merits to social Darwinism – what you actually said was - you don’t agree with it or think it should be implemented.

Yes yes I’m sure we all believe you in your sudden change of opinion sorry words.

Now who are the ‘they’ you were thinking about?

 

Mac

Sorry man but do you actually reading this thread? I wasn’t answering a question I was explaining something because you’d asked me to – to repeat

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 –

 

Just about every other country besides the US has implemented gun registration including the UK. The EU, UK, and Australia has implemented a form of mandatory gun storage regulations.

 

For one the gun deaths are mainly concentrated in anti gun states and cities and for another, even if you're right, that doesn't mean that your measures will work either. As said, your measure have been implemented elsewhere and hasn't reduced violent crime or even gun deaths. And sorry, but don't deal with emotion. I deal with logic and statistics. And when you're dealing with such, that means that there is such thing as statistically insignificant.

I didn't screamed that in this post. Your ability to predict the future is lacking. And actually I responded to your first sentence without reading this one.

No, I don't.

 

So its your job to prove that there is a barrier and your measures are prudent.

Good. If that's what stops criminals then I'm all for it.

That's why I said they tend to be less violent.

You're comparing one country with a large population and state based gun laws to smaller countries with more uniformed gun laws. A more far comparison is to compare say Texas to France or something of the like.

Thanks for your opinion.

If you feel that way then you don't have to reply.

 

Having a general respect for Biblical morals.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

The sime fact is government intervention of health and welfare is inefficient at best.

 

I did, that's why I said the video can explain it better than I.

 

I want the option to choose whom I give to.

You're appealing to emotion.

I forgot what I said again. This time paste what I said into your reply.

 

The first part is true and my entire point. There's merit in every idealogy however minuscule. The second part was me playing devil's advocate.

No. I said that social Darwinism has some merit. Not that the ideology in whole has merit. And again it's deflecting from my original point.

I'm not back peddling. I'm making a point. Every idealogy has some merit to it. Otherwise people won't believe it. It's the same concept with rat poisoning. The actual poison makes up only like 1% of the ingredients. The rest of it is either neutral or even benificial to the rat. It's the same with idealogy. If its flat out wrong with no merit whatsoever then people will stay away from it like the plague. However if the idealogy has enough merit to it (and you'll be surprised how little is needed) then people will flock to it in droves.

You're the one projecting your meaning onto my words.

What are you talking about?

 

We were talking about something else when social Darwinism was brought up. It was brought up because you kept mocking the idea of God giving our morals.

 

I learned a lot about Gun Control lat month. Signed up for a personal Protection and Gun Safety class. Cost $130., lasted around five hours.

Taught by the local Sheriff. I must say I learned so much from him! I recommend it to anyone who is concerned about self defense and carries a sidearm.

...but I'm betting this isn't the type of Gun Control y'all are on about here...is it?

 

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.

That doesn’t address the question brought up by your assertion –

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

Already addressed, rather than repeat why not give your counter argument because constantly repeating stuff we have already addressed seems to indicate you don’t have a counter argument.

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

And your solution is to ‘hope’ that your god will do something LOL that’s sooooooo logical.

Yes you do and I submit as evidence the above.

I’ve explained why I think them prudent several times and you have come up with no rational counter arguments you basically say over and over and over that you personally (you could say emotionally) don’t like them.

Oh and here we go again I’ve explained this to you several times, this is the problem you ignore stuff then repeat the same statements that have been already covered – again do you have an actual counter-argument?

Again already covered many times – why do you just repeat stuff we have already covered? (example the per 100,000 population thing) but then you probably ignored it, or forgot it you seem prone to selective memory loss 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.

LOL I submit as evidence the above.

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

I’ve replied and replied and replied but all you do is repeat stuff that has already been addressed – have you a counter argument?