How To Argue For Gun Control.

The point is that gun control laws makes no difference with regards to the number of homicides . South Africa is a prime example of this, considering they do have gun control laws. Gun control laws will not prevent the deaths of those individuals and these laws will prevent people from being able to defend themselves.

170 homocides on average in London each year. That number is on the rise.

Increase was by 42 percent last year alone.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-39578500

That is just in London. So what does the mayor do? Decreases police funding and have an Inadequate police force.. Then again the police don't have guns to defend themselves or protect people against such a criminal.

 

Gun crimes are on the rise and so is the population from refugees forced on countries by the UN, even though these countries cannot afford. There is a connection Between the two.

 

Then you're very niave. You don't have to google for long to find very influential people calling for the exact things you say no one is saying.

Your point?

And? I was making a point in logic.

That's not the same as you needing a permit to post online.

To me, as long as you're not interfering with other people's freedom of speech, you have the right to say anything you want. If you don't like a show that curses or make lewd comments then change the channel. And actually TV and radio are already going that route anyway. Things said and shown on TV would have people up in arms not too long ago.

Your point?

 

At least you admit your bias.

 

Actually it's the love of money, not money itself, that's the root of all evil.

 

First place raw numbers do not dictate the outcome of a conflict. America was outnumbered and held its own until the French and Spanish came and helped us. Secondly to answer your question, its to give an otherwise doomed people at least a slim chance of surviving.

 

Just answer the question. I'm not about to dig through 100+ pages to get your exact response.

It didn't reduce gun crime, much less violent crime in general.

See above.

Yes.

Yes I do. And again, if you feel that I don't and I'm just repeating stuff then you don't have to reply.

 

I can't search up every issue. I do have a thing called a life to live.

The promotion of better genes in humanity. I doubt anyone would argue against having better genes. That was the premise of social Darwinism. By trying to eliminate what they felt as inferior genes, they thought they can better the human race.

 

No. I know we didnt a form of social Darwinism around the same time. Nazi Germany is just a prominent example.

Yes.

I thought it was normal for you to either explain in advance or its played to an extreme like I just did. Do you honestly think someone would just blatantly admit that he would support such an extreme idea?

Yes.

However it is a prominent example.

I don't.

 

And you have example after example of gun rights advocates opposing blacks from legally being armed, right?

Anti gun people on the other hand feel a sense of security and superiority in thinking that sense they don't feel the need to have a gun, they are independent and nothing will happen to them. Two can play at this game, you know.

That's not a regulation. That's a statement of fact. Nobody limits what you say simply by listening to what you say. If a British loyalist read your paper you wrote with a quill about Americans needing to be free, that loyalist isn't infringing upon your right to say it.

Have you ever heard "the pen is mightier than the sword"? With a word you can set off a nuke in Russia. With a word you can kill 6 million Jews. With a word you can invade countries. Words have enormous power.

And you have evidence for this, right?

 

I often wonder why socialists don't like guns. They are the great equalizer in that they give the weak a fighting chance against the mighty. Equality is the basis of socialist philosophy

 

Mac

That’s the thing I’m not even sure you know what I’ve said, I mean why do you keep bringing up stuff we have already covered? For example we have covered what you are asking me to respond to many times already.

And it’s not hard to dig through a thread, I mean you are typing on a very powerful devise attached to another powerful engine.

We have been through this many times why are you again repeating stuff that’s already been addressed why can’t you answer the criticisms levelled at this view or produce a rational counter argument

 

Mac

The fact that you keep coming back here to repeat the same stuff over and over would seem to indicate that you don’t have much of a live LOL – I come here mainly for three reason - fun, education and because I’m a moderator.

You don’t seem to be having much fun, since your post come across as rather bitter and annoyed, as to education you don’t seem interested, (beyond your pro-gun stance) you don’t seem interested in learning about stuff, oh you have picked up some right wing propaganda stuff that you seem to have accepted without question (eg about the Great Depression) but you don’t seem to want to look too deeply at things (even the gun related things) and you don’t seem capable of taking in anything you don’t like to hear.

 

Mac

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

Oh and you fall flat on your face at the first hurdle.

Oh so a Social Darwinists tells you it’s all about improving human genes, bettering the human race, and you accept that without question yes you say that has merit that is good that is worthy of praise.

Well lets us take as an example, since you brought it up, the Social Darwinists tell you that they wish to improve the human gene pool and exterminating all Jews will do that, do you accept that without question and think it has merit and is worthy of praise.

I mean as you say ‘I doubt anyone would argue against having better genes’

Think about it what if someone says they wish to reduce the risk of humans getting cancer , sounds great but what if the way they wish to do it is to sterilise all the people, men women, children and babies that have the genetic disposition to certain cancers (or just have them killed).

I think you have two problems that may be connected you see things in a simplistic shallow way and you accept things without questioning them.

You cannot praise the goal without also praising the method because the two are both part of the whole.

As I said the whole thing is crap.

 

Mac

Yes the Nazis murdering of anyone they claimed as ‘inferior’ could be called a prominent example but as I said there are other shades some were active some passive. Murder was top of the active list but there was also enforced sterilization, enforced abortion and chemical castration but other Social Darwinists looked to passive methods - letting people die of want.

These passive methods were usually based on the assumption that the poorer people in a moneyed economy were ‘inferior’. So if a person didn’t have money or could not get money (through work) and therefore could not feed themselves then under Social Darwinist ideas such people should die of starvation. In a similar way if people got ill even if it was curable and they could not pay for the treatment, then under this form of Social Darwinism then they should die from that illness.

This is why it is argued that some of right wing thought is coloured by Social Darwinist thinking and the reason why many on the right argue against such things as publicly funded welfare and universal healthcare coverage, while promoting tax cuts to the already well off (meaning the ‘inferior poor’ are more likely to die and the ‘superior rich’ to prosper even more).

It has also been argued that it is also the reason why some are opposed to gun control, because many who die in gun related incidences are criminal, poor and black, as in while not actively murdering the supposed ‘inferiors’ they are happy to sit by passively and let ‘them’ kill each other.

 

Hhhhmmm , having read the entire thread I must comment that it's the same old tedious skewed data and half-facts on BOTH sides , though quite a bit more egregious from the rabid anti-firearms side of the coin.

Complete with the usual specious comparisons and ( again) half-facts as regards first world country crime rates , along with dissembling via convenient omitting of mention of countries with extremely strict firearms laws that are at the very top of the statistics as regards murder rates and crime , i.e. El Salvador , Honduras , Venezuela , Somalia and the Horn of Africa in general , the majority of countries in West Africa etc.etc.

And then the usage of the standard BuZzWords............ " assault weapon"............sorry folks but the average civilian does not possess an " assault weapon". Such items have full auto capability and are prohibited for civilians with out a class III license. SEMI auto firearms are by definition NOT " assault weapons".

In closing I will point out that the locales within our country that have the most egregiously restrictive and abusive firearms and self defense statutes also have the worst crime rates. How are Chicago's laws working out for them? Or the Sullivan Act for NYC ( I can point out myriad other examples).

Lastly , there are places in this country where a firearm is a necessity and an integral part of everyday life, there are still places , even in the lower 48 in which you are NOT at the top of the food chain , if you choose to reside in such an environment a firearm is just another tool required to survive. Same as your chainsaw , roto-tiller , forge etc.etc.

All in all , it might be nice if folks ashcanned the assumptions about others based upon the thin criteria of political opinion upon a single issue.

It's a pretty decent discussion as these things go , even given the Sangeresque eugenics turn of the conversation.