How To Argue For Gun Control.

Bluenote[SIZE=11pt] [/SIZE]


Sorry but this is just the same old and tied arguments that have been covered in this thread before.

I mean if you had read the thread you would know these things had been covered and so I wonder why you have not addressed the outstanding criticisms of them?

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

This has come up before and to me it seems like a strange argument because in effect it is saying – I think the US is a shitty third world country and what’s more I don’t want to do anything to try and make it a better place.

The countries you mention are all classified as third world for one reason or another, many have had long and recent histories of civil unrest and in Somalia many areas are still under the control of Islamic fundamentalist insurgents.

Third World Countries are classified by various indices: their Political Rights and Civil Liberties, the Gross National Income (GNI) and Poverty of countries, the Human Development of countries (HDI), and the Freedom of Information within a country.

Lets just look where they fall in a list of GDP for example (UN 2015)

El Salvador 106

Honduras 109

Venezuela 26 (and has fallen a lot further with the fall in oil prices and civil unrest)

Somalia 185

USA – is at the top of the list as number 1

You say those arguing for prudent gun control conveniently omit such third world countries preferring to compare the US with those more wealthy and more stable first world nations but isn’t that rather disingenuous and as I say a rather strange argument?


[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Yes the subject of assault weapons has come up because some on the pro-gun side don’t seem to think they need to be regulated at all. What is your opinion do you think ‘assault weapons’ should be heavily regulated or banned?

But the majority of the discussion here has not been about ‘assault weapons’ but ‘regular’ firearms often bought for ‘defence’ and the most common to fall into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]This has been covered a number of times and at length – basically this is not as clear cut as those opposed to prudent gun control would like to imply it is contended with many studies saying that gun regulation does have a beneficial effect. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]Also it has been pointed out that not all US states have the same laws and that the borders between states are open meaning it is easy to transport guns from one state to another. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]As the FBI point out virtually all illegally held guns were purchased legally and then either stolen or passed on for money or favour. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

Now if you had read the thread you should know (as it is repeated many many many times) that few here are calling for a complete ban on gun ownership only for prudent gun control to lessen the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

Are you opposed to that?

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]All in all , it might be nice if folks didn’t repeat stuff already covered and instead addressed the outstanding criticisms of those things. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And if you had read the thread you would know why that came up. [/SIZE]

 

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2013/03/05/shoddy-anthropology-gun-control/ Here is an excerpt

I guess my point in posting this is that a little cross cultural comparison isn't invalid. I think that we stand to learn a lot from gun control in other countries.

 

And it's STILL not an " assault weapon" , don't bother argueing the point with me. See here's the difference , unlike YOU I actually KNOW weapons , it's my job to know them.

And you won't impress me via posting a pic of one of the crappiest firearms ever manufactured in and effort to prop up your sensationalistic rhetoric.

If you wish bleat nonsensically " ggguuunnnnnssss bbbbaaaddd" then at least learn the most basic of information as regards firearms.

 

Lol

Dude, you're acting pathetic. The guy you're replying to does not even think guns are all bad. I think he owns some himself. You're being an unworthy convo partner atm. Hope you know what to do with this criticism. Not all is lost :cheers2:

 

http://www.livinganthropologically.com/2012/12/31/anthropology-gun-violence/

and

http://www.socialstudies.org/sites/default/files/publications/se/6105/610502.html

 

it would make much more sense to develop a virus that targets persons with an IQ below a certain level.....




JK, but if I were to become some comic book evil mastermind that would be the evil thing I would attempt........MUHAHAHA!

 

http://sociology.yale.edu/news/anderson-new-york-times-gun-control

 

Blue

I’m just saying that if you actually had read the thread you should not have just repeated stuff already covered and instead addressed the outstanding criticism of them.

And I’m sure I’m not the only one that’s noticed you still haven’t.

Ok so for example let’s take Somalia you have been there so in your own words why do you think that country should be used as a good comparison with the USA?

 

Bluenote,

Slow your roll, homey. You have four posts and you're already calling a mod a snotnosed and self superior.

Far be it from me to tell anyone how to live, but, c'mon...you're not going to make many friends around here if you're already this combative.

Smile. Have fun. No one gets out of life alive.

 

But you said no one on the left proposes such ideas.

Shooting people for running from the cops was legal too. That doesn't mean it was right or constitutional. Nowadays you have to pose a great threat in order for cops to shoot you while you're running.

I did. I've applied the same proposals for gun control to posting online.

Most if not all of the regulations to posting online involves not threatening people or property. Which I'm all for. You're infringing upon another person's rights by saying that we need to kill him. That's was the same for gun laws. As long as you don't hurt anyone you are free to do whatever.

Which I've never said otherwise. Harming someone's reputation is slander or liable depending on whether it is written or not. That was never protected by the 1st amendment.

I think it was the other way around. You mentioned that automatic weapons weren't around back then and I replied neither was the Internet.

But to say one thing should be regulated and another thing shouldn't is logically inconsistent.

However the verbiage "shall not be infringed" does prevent regulation on the types of arms you can have.

 

True, however without guns we wouldn't have made it far enough for the French and Spanish to help us out.

That's why I said "otherwise doomed." I'm all for negotiating and bargaining but there comes a point where talk is useless. That's why as a last resort we have arms to defend ourselves.

 

So are you willing to dig through 100+ pages to see exactly what I said since you also have a powerful device?

I do.

 

If you've noticed, my posts have noticible gaps in time.

That's your opinion.

 

Um, yes and no. Yes, bettering human genes has merit to it, however no, that wouldn't be enough reason for me to blindly follow social Darwinism.

No. Like I said earlier, theirs a little bit of truth in every idealogy. Killing off the Jews to better the gene pool is not part of that truth.

Where in this thread have I stated that killing off ethnic groups is a good idea? All I stated was there's enough truth in every idealogy to convince large groups of people. And I would agree that if you follow social Darwinism simply for bettering the gene pool then you are shallow. But that wasn't my point to begin with.

Yes I can. "John, I'm proud that you saved those people from the fire, but you can't steal fire trucks to do so." I praised the goal while condemning the method.

If it was then there wouldn't have been a large following agreeing with nazism.

 

Mac

LOL I do it all the time how do you think I’m able to quote what you and others have said in threads, are you too lazy to do that?

Anyway that does not answer the question - why do you keep bringing up stuff we have already covered?

*

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

Oh for fuck sake man LOL we have been through this con game of yours many many many times – so here we go again – I ask you to point out where are these replies and you are then unable to produce them – or you evade in some other way [like asking me to repeat the criticisms AGAIN] but the outcome is always the same – no evidence of you addressing the criticisms in any rational way is ever forthcoming.

 

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 life LOL – I come here mainly for three reason - fun, education and because I’m a moderator.

And so what – the question was why you seem unable to do a bit of research into things. I mean even with the gun stuff many of you views and ideas seem lacking in personal research or thought.

*

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.

Yes based on what you have said in this forum.

Again I’d ask what kind of books do you read?

 

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.

You wouldn’t blindly follow Social Darwinism but you might follow Social Darwinism, can you please clarify?


I mean the thing I’m pointing out is in your reply above ‘By trying to eliminate what they felt as inferior genes, they thought they can better the human race’

It’s the word eliminate – basically it all about killing off humans, either by letting deaths occur that could be easily prevented or by murdering. And the other method they would want was enforced sterilisation
and abortion.

If it was about curing or letting people live who otherwise would die that would NOT be Social Darwinism.