How To Argue For Gun Control.

And you have evidence that background checks work, right?

 

By your logic, the first amendment only covers quills and printing presses. It does not cover the computer you're posting on. Therefore we can require you to get a permit to post requiring you to be proficient in basic English or outright bar you from posting altogether because you live in a certain state.

 

That's beside the point. The Nazis used gun control to disarm their political enemies. Whether or not the Jews had a chance against them is also beside the point. The point of gun control for the Nazis were to make their target as weak as possible.

 

Nope. I have evidence that I do not like guns.

 

Mac

Did I? Do you know? Did you checked? What was my exact wording?

You see I’m not sure you actually know what things have been proposed in this thread – I mean your stock reply to anything suggested is ‘it won’t work’ or ‘its unconstitutional’ so I’m not even sure you even read what’s said.

And your point?

Did I please cite what I’ve said and where.

And again what is your point?

And you said all the suggestions so again which of the gun control ideas specifically suggested in this thread have been implemented in the countries you have presented and when.

I don’t believe you have can you cite this supposed ‘evidence’

I mean so far you have expressed your opinion that none of the prudent gun control measures suggested in this thread would work and have explained you think this because you think it.

I and others have explained why we think they could make a difference by amounst other things limiting the pool from which illegal gun come from and also in try to lessen the likelihood of keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

We have also pointed out that the alternative is to do nothing and let the huge numbers of gun related deaths to continue.

Your stance is to do next to nothing, and to basically let the suffering continue oh and to hope that your personal god will at some point step in and make everyone ‘good’.

I asked do YOU have an actual counter-argument?

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

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

 

Mac

Yes you have already said that so I asked the question

What parts of Social Darwinism do you think are good and worthy of praise?

now your reply to that is -

This seems to imply that you don’t look up or research a subject or issue and then think about it before you making a comment.

Ok you could do that know and I’ll ask again -

What parts of Social Darwinism do you think are good and worthy of praise?

 

Mac

Honestly you think only the Nazis believed in, promoted and ‘implemented’ Social Darwinist ideas?

Have you done ANY research on the subject at all?

You can say that – but honestly it didn’t come across as such when you made the comments I mean its usual to explain beforehand that you are going to play devil’s advocate, so people know, it’s rather suspect to do it afterward when called out on a comment.

To go through what you said again -

I replied to the effect that Social Darwinism was crap

And that's when you said

Again have you done any reading on this subject?

Are you talking here of the murder of Jews, socialists, homosexual, Gypsies, the mentally ill etc by the Nazis?

Because that is not ‘the’ definition of Social Darwinism there are in fact many shades of SD thinking

And if you do just think it applied to the Nazis’ murder of supposedly 'inferior' people – how do you think that has merit even in the smallest way?

 

MeAgain

I’ve gone through this many times with Mac, the problem is that I don’t think he ‘takes in’ anything that doesn’t fit in with his own thinking and therefore never seems to be able to ‘move on’ so he ends up repeating statements or raising the same points that have already been addressed, criticised and shown not to stand up to scrutiny.

The thing is that many Germans thought of people like the Jews as not only ‘inferior’ (in race, mentally and in morals) but were also ‘criminals’ and ‘traitors’.

Now here are some musings - many on the right think that people convicted of a crime should not be allowed to own a gun (legally anyway) and given that die to socio-economic factors black people are much more likely to be convicted of similar crimes to the more wealthy and whites, could it be argued that there is a movement toward ‘disarming’ a certain section of US society?

Now an aside about Mac he claims to be black but also seems to believe black people are predisposed to be more violent and more criminal than other racial groups.

 

They already do have a double standard. You are right it only applies to white men who vote red. Any time a black or brown person wants to do the same it's unacceptable. Gun owners also know few people but them are interested in guns. So they feel a sense security and superiority. They have something that gives them power that no one else wants and that is the idea. Despite what the rest of the world thinks most Americans do not care for them.

There are already many regulations that come with my computer that don't apply to a quill that we have agreed are needed for safety. For example I have agreed that what I say here can be monitored. The NSA knows a lot about me that they will not if I was speaking on the street or witting on paper. Regulations you don't feel you need.

And can you really say speech has the same danger? That's ridiculous and again proves my earlier post. Gun ownership is extremely selfish and does not consider other people at all or the risk YOU cause. Who cares who dies if you live right?

Well because there are many sources for weapons besides the white gun owner in a Texas parking lot. These people have more money that the Mexican goverment they can pay. But it's still very likely whatever weapons they have are from America. I am not saying the only way to get a weapon is Bubba from his Ford truck.

 

You must look at them stance on the death penalty in those states with gun control? California totes itself on being progressive with regards to gun control. What a joke they are, gun control with the death penalty. They are giving the criminal the upper hand. You can't defend yourself freely but you must depend on the government to exact justice for your murder, rape, assault, etc by putting the SOB on death row, IF CAUGHT. Gun control or not, if someone wants a gun they will get one.

Overpopulation is the biggest cause of Crimes and death, not guns.

 

money is the root of all evil

 

Just because (the amount of) people are the main cause of gun violence, not guns itself (although if there wouldn't be any guns.. ), doesn't take away from the fact that gun control is needed to restrict said violence.

 

But wouldn’t it be prudent to try and lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible rather than do nothing?

This has been covered many many times in this thread and elsewhere here is an old post on it–

[SIZE=11pt]I live in London it has a population of around 7.5 million and it only had 175 homicides between Apr-2005 to Apr-2006. In fact in 2009 there were only 651 murders in the whole of England and Wales with a population of around 55 million.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But let us take an American city – Philadelphia* – it I believe has a population of around 6.1 million yet it had 406 homicides in that same year. So two Philadelphia’s with only 12.2 million people would create 812 murders, more than what is produced by 55 million Brits.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But if you take out gun related homicides from the US crime figures they are not that much different from those of many European countries that have gun restrictions (although it is incredible difficult to compare any crime statistics other than homicide).[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]*I was comparing a couple of urban areas of roughly the same size and population density [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Philadelphia - population density of 11,457 people per square mile[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]London - population density of 11,760 people per square mile[/SIZE]

 

Murders does not tell someone how many crimes were committed with gun.

Rape, robbery, home invasion, attempted murder. To look at the effects of gun control you must look at the entire picture, not just the ones that were successful in committing murder. Those murders may or may not have involved gun and what bout other crimes that involve guns?

Guns are not going to change the mentality of a person or persons.

Fiurther more overpopulation does not necessarily mean numbers. A location can have just 10 people living in a location and it be overpopulated. If that location, village, city can not provide water that is safe to drink for all ten, and 1 of those individuals go without because there is not enough for everyone, then one is going to do something rash in order to survive. You can not make something magically appear that is not available. When hard working people can not afford housing or are unable to find shelter because there is no more room or there is not the supplies to take care of the population then people will do what they feel necessary. Some people will commit crimes and take from another.

Brining in refugees is not going to improve the crime rate, it is going to rise and it is on the rise, even in California. They flood into major cities and become a major strain on the economy and tax payers. Every single tax payer it becomes a strain on, not just the middle class or poor, but every single one, rich included. This causes crime when there is not the supply to meet the demands.

Does California ever have a water shortage?

California was so desperate for fresh water they wanted to take icebergs and glacier ice from Canada.

UAE Has also has a water crisis, dragging ice from Antarctica to Dubai.

Africa too has its eyes on glacial ice to supply fresh water. Those commercials you see where Hollywood stars are saying it is their mission to supply everyone with fresh water, that freshwater is going to come from the poles, upsetting wild life and ecosystem at the cost to people who live in the area and countries around it.

You might wonder what this has to do with gun control. Everything!

We are watching the destruction of this planet and people because supply can not meet the demands from overpopulation. Let's rape this planet more so that everyone gets a temp fix and if you do not give it, force will result.

Guns are not the problem. Overpopulation is when it can not meet the demands of the population and never will be able to. Putting a bandaid on it will not change this. If someone wants a gun they will get it, if they can not get a gun they will use something else. Healthcare will not change this either or prevent murders, crime, and guns getting into people's hands.

When this happens the need to protect yourself and your family becomes eminent and guns for protection should be readily available. The criminal knows how to illegally obtain a gun, while a regular joe does not.

Let's look at South Africa. They also have gun regulations. This does not stop them from being ranked number 1 dangerous place to live.

54 million people in South Africa. 58 million people in England and Wales combined.

This article even hints at our government should be funding to help investigate murders in SA.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/05/26/530011693/this-3-year-olds-murder-is-part-of-south-africa-s-alarming-epidemic

 

It's not overpopulation. There are many, many other clear examples that that is not what is primarily causing murders and gun violence.

...unless one would mean the States are 'overpopulated' with a ridicilous amount of deadly firearms (not even including hunting rifles): then yes. Obviously!

 

^ So you finally understand that guns are not the cause of deaths in the USA, it is overpopulation and the inability to provide for the population because resources are taxed. This brings about crime. So let's overpopulated it some more.

 

I would say 'nice try' but you put it a bit too lame and easy to give you that compliment I'm talking about gun violence, just like you.

Overpopulation is not the primary reason the US has outrageous amounts of gun violence compared to other first world nations. Taxes neither (lol)
It has more to do with the ridicilous amount of guns (on which there should be more control, obviously).