How To Argue For Gun Control.

I’d first point out that all these things have been covered in detail before and criticisms of them are still outstanding.

But I’ll try and do a bit of a recap and some other musings

OK the above is a common refrain but as many have explained before by then it is very likely be to be way, way too late (at least for many)

And another thing is that what if the people with the guns don’t care about what is happening or even agree with the type of ‘tyranny’ taking place.

Tyrannies seldom advertise that they are going to be tyrannical, they talk of freedom, they talk of good times to come, they talk of cracking down on crime, they talk of jobs for all, they talk of making things great again and they often move in to actual tyranny by degrees.

The Nazis didn’t begin by gassing millions of Jews they began by attacking those who protested against what they saw as being wrong, the trade unionists, the left wingers, the dissenters, if they didn’t show respect for the flag they were called traitors to the fatherland, if they protested against police brutality they were labelled as the enemies of law and order.

Remember many Germans supported what the Nazis were saying and then doing during the rise of Hitler.

If those that have the guns are happy with what is going on then there is no need to confiscate the guns of those people.

For example

Ok so the government brings in a law that says that it is unlawful to willfully make or convey false reports or false statements about the government or spread disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the government of the United States (meaning also the President).

And you could get imprisoned for doing so.

Well thing is that has already happened in US history and many on the right agreed with it because it was used against left wingers. It was removed later but by then a lot of the things it was enacted to achieve had been done.

To me such a law was obviously an infringement upon Americans rights but many right wing Americans supported it, and listening to some shouting ‘traitors’ at the press and chanting ‘fake news’ about factual reporting I think some would go along with it again.

Then there was the McCarthy and un-American committee’s witch-hunts that resulted in many losing their jobs and blacklisted because they were thought to have views that right wingers believed where unacceptable. To quote someone who chaired one of those committees “If someone insists there is discrimination against Negroes in this country, or that there is inequality of wealth, there is every reason to believe that person is a communist”

To listen to some right wing media today it would seem that little has changed.

And then what is mean by a mass? Is it 1000 people 100,000 people, a million, is having 1000 political prisoners ok but 5000 not? It seems to suggest that a ‘limited’ purge was ok depending of course on what the purge was aimed at.

**

But let us look at this from the other direction can gun ownership by citizens with a certain particular mind-set be used as a means of suppression and social control?

And the answer to that is - of course - it’s the whole point – it’s about fear they fear attack and wish to counter that by trying to instil fear in others, criminals will be frightened of them and the ‘government’ will be frightened of upsetting them.

And at this point it might be interesting to look at the demographics of gun ownership and it leans toward white, male and right wing.

I remember seeing an interview with a tea party supporter and his argument seemed to be that if Obama tried to turn the US socialist decent Americans would have to use their guns to stop him and this seems to also be the view of many right wing militias, America has to be ‘saved’ from going too left wing.

It’s even hinted that for them that is the reason why ‘lefties’ and ‘liberals’ want gun control to take the guns away so that they can bring in ‘socialism’ unopposed and why many seem to see gun control as some type of commie conspiracy.

And then you look at crime and here it seems to me that many with guns see little urgency in dealing with the social, economic and racial roots of the type of street crime their gun are about tackling.

It might be interesting to note here that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row. Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determining the type of crime someone is going to undertake. And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime.

I mean it has been pointed out to me numerous time by gun advocates that areas with high numbers of black people are more criminal than other areas and that black people seem to be more criminally minded than others and of course ‘they’ need to have guns to protect themselves from criminal elements.

 

I think there has been some contention over Australia's implementation of more stringent gun control, such that we have seen disagreements over whether it is working. Here is a new article that says it has.

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gun-control-australia-updated/

 

A common gun owner talking point that ignores the whole picture. Define "strict" because it's still very easy to buy what you want. It's just that the slighest inconvenience or restriction is "tyranny" to people like you.

You really believe this? If only everyone had a gun no one could shoot. Ok, well then where was all that in Las Vegas? Country music fans are probably the type to be NRA members more so then many other crowds. Some of them are now admitting they were wrong becuase they realized cops would assume they were shooters to so they could do nothing.

 

Gun control doesn't solve anything except I am in better shape in a gun fight.

 

Don't go to a knife with a gun fight,

Otherwise you should ban knives cause they came first.

 

Yeah no kidding man. That is your trick,

 

Art

LOL all your slogans have been dealt with at length and in detail many times before can you actually address the still outstanding criticisms of them?

(if you don’t know what those criticism are you could read the thread you have chosen to join)

 

I don't know exactly. Just because he thought he needed that many to exrcute the shooting doesn't mean he actually needed tgat many or even used them for that matter.

 

Isn't that's what magazines are for? You can argue that overusing one could cause the gun to overheat, but even if that's the case, he onky had to switch between one or two guns before it all ended.

 

Duel wielding is very inaccurate. Even if it was, he could onky fire to at a time. He had multiple guns.

 

If the states with lax gun laws are contributing to the states with stricter gun laws then why are therr more mass shootings and gun homicides in the structer states? You can't transfer crime you don't have.

Because he lived in those states.

 

Yes. We shouldn't. Mass shootings alone are few and far between when taking into account all gun crimes. Why make a law for something that only happened once? That being him using a bump stock. Using a bump stock is very inaccurate esoecially in the way he used it.

 

Should we require you to pass a background check before exercising your free speech? If not, why not?

The people on the ground, even if armed, couldn't do much. However had the people next door to the shooter had been armed, they coukdve intervined.

Heres some videos illustrating the point you responded to.
https://m.youtube.com/results?q=yankee%20marshal%20states&sm=3https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1s&v=cHOfyQVAJ7Q

 

Free speech is not the same thing. Speech does not have the ability to kill people. Sorry to tell you gun ownership is not on the same level. But the NRA already does this by suppressing the actual data that shows gun violence. Is that not censoring? But they do it so people like you can cling to the same old arguments and say there is no proof. Actions movie fantasy about saving the day are never how you think they will be in reality. Most gun owners have never been in combat so they don't see this. They think they will be a hero when they will only harm. It's much easier to say oh someone would do it if only they could have any gun then to admit the truth. The truth means you too must be afraid.

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=1s&v=cHOfyQVAJ7Q

I never claimed that.

To point out that he got his guns from different states is a moot point. So what he got guns from different states?