Gun Control vs. D.W.I.

^No, but the government should, because they are our gods and they want what's best for us.

 

The government knows nothing about guns or how safe it is to carry them when you go grocery shopping. The government is trying to take away my freedom if I don't have a gun to use. Fire arms are best left in the hands of individuals who are free and who can defend themselves from evil. People deserve all the freedoms a gun can bring.

 

All of you are focussing on guns. The original post looked like it was focussed more on controlling DWI...prohibition type shit. Why get so wound up. Or was the argument that drinking kills more than guns? Isn't that a personal choice issue? Are we to let government tell us how much alcohol we can buy?

I find it strange that we control where people can smoke, but let's let them drink and bear arms whereever.

 

Coreal


*Whats wrong with slogans if they are true? You criticize them without considering the possibility that they are true.

You need to read my post not just react to them, the problem with slogans is they cannot convey the complexities of an issue.

*This is true, and why i try not to reduce and argument to slogans. I try to explain the reasons behind them. i wasnt the one who posted them anyway.

So let’s get this straight you don’t think arguments can be reduced to slogans but you took issue with me for saying arguments cannot be reduced to slogans.
You then say you hadn’t posted the slogans anyway.

May I ask what you were taking issue with?

**

For example my reply to the slogan - ‘guns don’t kill people, people kill people’ was – “True, but that doesn’t answer the question, why are the people killing each other in such high numbers?”

*I dont see where you answered this question, either. The truth is it is a complex issue with no simple answer. You are the one with the burden of proof as it is you who wants to change the laws.

Are you saying you haven’t thought about why people are killing each other in such high numbers or you don’t think it enough of a problem to do anything about?

You say just saying it is a complex issue with no simple answer basically sounds like a brush off or shrug of the shoulders. And what do you mean about the burden of proof? Again that sounds like a brush of an ‘I haven’t a clue so what’s your ideas’ kind of thing?

**

Do you see about reading a persons post – it is true that people use guns to kill others but that doesn’t address the issue of why or how we can try and limit the numbers.

*I see your point, but we are talking about two separate issues.

I don’t think you do see my point otherwise you wouldn’t be saying you think these are two separate issues. What do you think I’m saying?

The thing is that people are killing each other.

**

Are you saying you don’t care about the issue that all you care about is you own selfish interest in owning a gun?

*No, i care about the right of all peacable citizens to adequately defend themselves against malicious attack from all enemies, whether domestic or foreign.

You think the US is in imminent danger of being invaded, by whom? And what I’m asking is why do you feel you are going to be attacked at any moment and do you think that having a gun is the best why of tackling the symptoms of socio-economic problems?

I’m not against people defending themselves in a reasonable way, what I’ve being saying is that many Americans seem to only think of guns as a way of tackling the symptoms of societal problems while basically ignoring the causes of those problems.

So they loudly talk of crime and use it to defend their ‘right’ to own guns but don’t seem to give much thought for why the crime exists.

**

*I agree that America is a violent country, but it is not because law abiding citizens own guns.

But a person is a law abiding citizen right up to the point where they commit a crime or are you claiming that people are born as criminals?

*Most times people who commit murder didnt start off doing that and have amassed a long rap sheet before they ever kill anyone. People who just kill out of the blue are very rare.

And the thing is that people are not born with a ‘rap sheet’ so they are law abiding citizens right up to the point where they commit a crime.

**

It is true that some people graduate through levels of criminality from shop lifting to shooting someone through the head in cold blood. But the thing is that many people don’t take that route but still end up committing a crime. Remember many gun crimes are domestic incidences and that many of the ‘crazed’ shooters hadn’t got criminal records that would have excluded them from owning a gun legally.

*Even in domestic killing cases, shootings are usually led up to by other crimes such as assault and battery and domestic abuse.

And again are you saying that people are destined to be criminals from birth?

So you would forbid anyone from owning a gun legally that was arrested for such offences? But most already are.

“Under federal law, those prohibited from owning guns include people convicted of a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor, addicts and unlawful users of controlled substances, fugitives from justice, those adjudicated mentally ill, individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order, illegal aliens, and those under felony indictment. Twenty states have variably extended these prohibitions to those convicted of misdemeanors involving violence, alcohol, or drugs.”

So the next step of course would be in preventing such people still being able to buy a gun.

**

*The problem is that the cases of “crazy people” who just snap suddenly and kill people that you see on t.v. represent a small minority of cases.

But in countries like Australia and Britain haven’t had any such killings since 1996 while the US has many.

So my question stands why are so many such murder sprees happening in the US?

**

*The killings that happen daily, the armed robberies, rapes, kidnappings, carjackings, home invasions, muggings, and drive by shootings I usually make the national news. Most of these were perpetrated by career criminals with records who commit them with illegal weapons. This is why I support the right of citizens to own guns, in order to protect themselves from these types of attack.

So are people born predestined to be criminals?

So the question is - why are these people committing the crimes - however the response often seems to be to get armed.

But wouldn’t it be better to try and stop such people turning to crime rather than hoping that guns will give protection once they have?

**

Which raises another problem, who do you see as a law abiding citizen? Is it someone with a 100% clear record, someone that has never, ever being subject to the law in any way whatsoever, so that even a parking ticket would exclude them?

*Someone who I committed a malicious crime against a person or property.(theft, rape, assault, etc.)

See above, these things are already covered but the levels of violence are still incredibly high.

Has the bar has been set too high or maybe it would be better to try and stop so many people turning to crime?

**

*Also, many crimes are committed by criminals released from prison. Many violent criminals are released early to make room for nonviolent drug offenders and the like. I believe that ending the drug war would do wonders to reduce crime in this country. I one necessary step, but not the only one.

Are you saying these people were born violent criminals?

As to the war on drugs what are you ideas for ending it?

**

You might say that is silly but you then have to explain what you mean by ‘law abiding citizen’. I mean some people here have gone the other way and argued that no one should be excluded from owning a gun, that even if a person has a record of violence or a conviction for murder they should still be entitled to own a gun legally.

*Well I don’t agree with them if they did. If you infringe someone else's right to life, you deserve to have your rights taken.

Agreed, so you think like me that guns should be regulated.

**

*The percentage of law abiding citizens who commit crimes with legally obtained firearms is tiny, but the percentage of crimes committed with illegally obtained weapons is huge.

And all those illegally held guns started out as legal guns.

*Maybe some did, but that doesnt change the fact that now, there are as many if not more illegal weapons around as legal ones. That wont change no matter what laws are passed.

“Maybe some did” – are you saying that most guns used by criminals were not manufactured legally, but were built by the criminals themselves?

Anyway are you saying that you’d just give up even trying to round up the illegal guns?

I mean illegal guns can be confiscated the problem then is what about the guns that are stolen or legally brought and passed on each year, would you not want to do something about them?

At the same time wouldn’t it be a good idea to try and create a society where people didn’t think they needed guns for protection or problem solving.

**

Why not try and stop guns getting into the hands of criminals?

*I believe we should.

And you ideas for doing so are what?

**

*We should also be more strict on sentencing for violent crimes so that there are less criminals around to get guns.

But if you don’t tackle the reasons why people are turning to crime them by removing one set of criminals wouldn’t you just be making way for a new set?

**

For example people here talk of using their guns to thwart burglars but the thing is that most burglaries take place when the home owner is away or the owner never knows until afterwards. But still many Americans have unsecured guns and in many places guns are not even reported as stolen just another purchased.

*Why dont you check the statistics on how many crimes are thwarted by armed citizens, i believe i posted some earlier. And if your gun gets stolen, you should report it.

Know them well, but that doesn’t address what I’ve said, it’s in fact pointedly not addressing what I said.

“You might think cash and jewelry are the top items stolen during a home burglary, but they are actually fifth on the list. Stereo equipment is fourth, followed by video equipment—grouped as TVs, VCRs and cameras. Guns are the number one items stolen in a home burglary. Can you guess what’s second? Booze and cigarettes! Go figure.”
http://www.aadvantagesafeandlock.com/gunsafes.html

Another way that guns get into the hands of criminals is through third parties who’ve brought them legally, this is already an offence but seems at the moment to be very hard to prove or gain a conviction.

*Statistics please.

You’ve never heard of it, you think it doesn’t happen or you don’t think it happens often?

As it is I’m unsure what you are asking for, it seems to be a stall?

I mean this is a well known route but comprehensive statistical analysis is difficult due to the nature of the US gun market.
But try the Crime Gun Trace Report
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/ycgii/2000/

Or these comments -
BJ Zapor, a special agent in charge with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Zapor said most guns used in crimes start off as legal weapons. The majority of guns come from licensed dealers and within two years have transferred hands twice before ending up in the hands of criminals.
That is called a gray market, where guns literally change hands between criminals or from a legal gun owner who unknowingly sells a gun to a criminal. The transactions are unregulated and hard to track.
"The majority of crime guns in the United States end up in the hands of a criminal through the gray market," Zapor said.
The gray market also includes a straw sale, which is when someone buys guns only to resell them to someone else.
"And then that person takes those firearms and sells them without any kind of paperwork," Zapor said. "And then those go out on the street."
The rest of guns on the streets are likely stolen. As many as 500,000 guns are stolen in the U.S. each year and a recent Minnesota study found 85 percent of stolen guns in the state are taken from houses. Another 11 percent are taken from vehicles and about four percent are taken from businesses, such as gun dealers.
http://wcco.com/goodquestion/Good.Question.guns.2.370548.html

 

**

*But you and the other gun control advocates seem to argue based on the assumption that anyone with a gun is a danger to everyone around him.


Again it’s clear you haven’t read my posts on this subject, I’ve not been calling for a complete gun ban, just regulation to try and reduce the harm. I don’t even think regulation alone will work and so I’ve being advocating a wide range of other measures intended to reduce the levels of violence in US society.

*I believe we should be taking steps to combat violence and crime, i just dont think disarming our citizens is a good way to go about it.

But I’m not talking about banning all guns, I believe in regulation as you do.

**

*Increasing education and opportunities for the poorer citizens in our country is one good step. Getting people involved in helping others in schools at a young age , and instilling a love of learning are key to creating a cohesive, intelligent society. We are currently failing miserably in this department.

I agree but the question is how? There doesn’t seem to be much interest in such ideas but there is a lot of interest in defending or promoting guns as a means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems.

It’s not just teaching children (schools and kindergartens), kids with educated parents are more likely to appreciate education themselves, so parents need educating (free adult education policy), they therefore need time to do so (labour policies) and the resources (access to material) and time to pass with their kids (work/life balance). I could go on and on.



**



*Look no further than the war on drugs or alcohol prohibition to see that these kind of laws wont work in America. It would simply line the pockets of gangsters and create an even bigger black market gun trade.


Well as I’ve said I’m not proposing a complete gun ban. But it should be remembered that recreational drugs (of which alcohol is just one) are difficult to prohibit since many, many people like to use them, and the evidence is consumed. Are you saying guns are exactly the same? And while drugs users may poison themselves they are not brought by users as weapons.

*They are similar in that banning guns would create an even bigger black market than we currently have and make the criminals that sell them even more rich and powerful. But you said you didnt want to ban guns, what do you propose we do?

But I’m not proposing a complete gun ban. As to the black market, a gun is a very different product than recreational drugs.

But anyway why would these people want guns?

**


Then it should be remembered that even though alcohol was made legal after Prohibition its manufacture and sale is heavily regulated and monitored.

*Yeah, but you dont have to go through a 3 day waiting period to buy alcohol or register your scotch and have your name in a government databank. We already have more regulations on guns than alcohol.

The regulations concerning alcohol are in the main about reducing harm. Making sure the drinks are safe to drink and sold to the right people, that is done before being sold, health test made and a visual check made on the customer (or an ID’s asked for).

The laws concerning guns should also be about reducing harm, making sure the guns don’t get into the hands of those who may use them harmfully.

You have expressly said that you don’t want guns to be sold or given to anyone who’s committed a malicious crime so there has to be some way of allowing that to happen. A ‘heath check’ on the person cannot be done before they ask to buy a gun and a vender cannot tell from a glance if someone should be buying one.

It seems reasonable that a waiting period would allow the time to check and registration would allow guns to be tracked to see if they are being sold on to criminals.

What are you suggesting?

**


*We are a diverse society with all types of people.


I’m unsure what you mean, my first though has to be, so what? What has that to do with your society being much more violent? I mean why do the divisions exist and why isn’t it possible to stop it causing violence?

*I don’t know why racism and xenophobia exists, but they do.

Have you never given it any thought? Anyway, ignorance, cultural prejudice, the fear of the different, a need for scapegoats and political manipulations are the most common reasons.

And policies can be enacted to combat such things - for example through education and the avoidance of segregation, ghettorization and exclusion.


**


*We have a long history of gangs and organized crime in large cities all over the country.


So what do you think should be done about it? Are you saying there is therefore no point in trying to combat their power or influence, you give up?

*We have been fighting them since they started and they are still around.

Maybe that’s the problem people are fighting them rather than dealing with the reasons for there existence.

**


*On top of this we have huge problems with poverty all around the country and especially in inner cities.


So what do you think should be done about it? Are you saying you prefer to have a gun in the hope of suppressing the symptoms of these societal problems rather than tackling the problems themselves?

*This is a seperate issue from gun rights.

But what about crime?

Many people promote the ownership of guns and defend gun ‘rights’ by pointing to crime (you do) so are the possible reason for that crime existing a separate issue?

Again this seems like a stall.

**


*I dont think i ever said that guns were the solution to poverty as you implied i did.


And I’m not imply you did, please read carefully - Are you saying you prefer to have a gun in the hope of suppressing the symptoms of these societal problems rather than tackling the problems themselves?

Symptoms.

So if poverty is the problem and crime a symptom of that problem. A gun is not a solution to poverty but some people promote guns as a way of dealing with the symptom, crime.

**

Likewise, taking guns away would do nothing to help poverty.

I’m talking about the regulation of guns just as you are.

What i meant is that if we take steps to improve poverty we will improve our problems with violence. Happy people are less violent.

I totally agree, but that’s it, what are the ideas of the gun advocate and do they have any, because I’ve been in close conversation with many for over a year and I’ve talked to many others over the years and while being very strong on the idea that guns are a good means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems they have been very weak on what to do about the causes and seem very reluctant to talk about them.

**

*Not to mention the so called "hip hop" culture that preaches violence, hate, and ignorance to the black community from a young age.


So are you saying the deep seated resentments and feelings of alienation expressed in some sections of the “so called "hip hop" culture” didn’t grow out of any feelings of resentment and alienation within the black community, but were instead a complete fabrication of a cynical pop industry?



*Of course there is resentment in the black community, there is resentment in all segments of society.

So you’re saying that the black community’s historical experiences are no different than other sections of US society? And I don’t think the white and middle class in the UK have seething resentments more like niggling grips and they’d have to try very hard to feeling even an iota of alienation, is it different there?


What deep seated resentments have you got and why do you have feelings of alienation?


**


But what i dont like is the way these hip hop artists tell people to deal with it which is, cap mothafuckas, fuck bitches, look out for number one and take what you want no matter who it hurts. I see this attitude in many of my peers who grew up in this generation, black and white. Its an attitude of hate, arrogance and selfishness.

But isn’t that part of US culture, an aggressive urge to win, the marketing of sex, consumerism and the celebration of individuals and individualism? And when you grow up in such a society then isn’t it likely to breed a certain amount of hate, arrogance and selfishness?

So is the music teaching or reflecting?

**

*I dont think we should censor music, however, i just wish that these artists would think about the message that they send to people.


But if that’s what sells then even if people don’t believe in it they’re going to sell it.


Anyway the thing is that this has been said about many things, novels, comics, films, computer games and so on. People have been in the grip of moral indignation at something or other for generations.

**

That music corporations got together to sell violence, hate, and ignorance to the black community of the US along with millions of non black Americans and other people around the world?

*Maybe not intentionally, but they do.


Not intentionally? What are you saying that they didn’t notice? Or that they didn’t care as long as the money rolled in?



**

 

Man, that is one clusterfuck of a post. i can hardly tell what it was that i wrote and what you wrote. I dont have time to post a long reply so ill give you a hypothetical scenario. Say youre in bed with the wife, with the kids in the other room. You hear glass breaking downstairs so you get up to check it out. When you get down there you see an armed robber snooping around. In this situation would you prefer to be armed and able to defend yourself and family, or would you try to talk to him about how his father was never there, or how his mother was a drug addict that didnt care, and just hope that he doesnt just tell you to shut the fuck up and kill you?

 

^^

 

My brain dies a little each time someone doesn't quote a previous post and posts their responses to it underneath. Coral Reefer, you're guilty of posting your responses within a quote, which you can't quote a response to your responses to after that. Gwar.

 

^ thats because when someone posts a rediculously long post i want to post my responses directly under the corresponding statements that i am arguing against. I dont know how to separate long posts into a series of smaller quotes.

 

You take this when you hit quote:

["quote=Coral Reefer"]What you said originally, in a long paragraph. With several sentences to respond to. In a nicely typed format.["/quote"]

And make it into this:

["quote=Coral Reefer"]What you said originally, in a long paragraph.["/quote"]
You type your responses to a part of the long paragraph here.

 

Thanks. That makes it much easier.

 

Coreal

LOL

You tell me you try not to reduce arguments to slogans, then when given a chance to explain your views you say you can’t be bothered and instead answer with what is basically a slogan.

Isn’t that just a little pathetic?

**

Man, that is one clusterfuck of a post. i can hardly tell what it was that i wrote and what you wrote.

It was difficult to separate but I used italic type for your quotes and normal type for my comments.

(PS: Are you honestly saying you didn’t recognise your own words, you can’t remember what you said, or when?)

**

I dont have time to post a long reply so ill give you a hypothetical scenario. Say youre in bed with the wife, with the kids in the other room. You hear glass breaking downstairs so you get up to check it out. When you get down there you see an armed robber snooping around. In this situation would you prefer to be armed and able to defend yourself and family, or would you try to talk to him about how his father was never there, or how his mother was a drug addict that didnt care, and just hope that he doesnt just tell you to shut the fuck up and kill you?

This is just a variation on the banal sneer ‘if you’re attacked I bet you’d want a gun’ (the wife and kids are optional but usually added to heighten the emotional pull), a rather stale adage and yes, yet another slogan.

It’s the kind of thing pro-gunners throw out when they realise they haven’t any answers to the societal questions being posed and go for emotional scare mongering instead hoping that will distract from the fact they haven’t actually answered the questions put to them.

So let’s first examine the scenario

The owner hears glass break – but why have spot-lights not come on before they even got to the window, why did no alarm go off when they did?

The glass in my house is re-enforced double glazing, you can hit it with a hammer and it wouldn’t break.

You’re saying people should be so frightened of being robbed that they should get a gun but shouldn’t take basic burglary prevention measures?

That seems dumb, prevention measures deter robbers all the time, a gun is only of use if the owner is there and aware of the robbery. What’s more if the gun is unsecured at home while the owner is away and a robbery takes place, the robber gets a gun to use illegally or sell on to other criminals.

*

 

You then seem to recommend the owner go down to investigate?

Again this seems dumb, this person suspects they’re being burgled but they don’t inform the police?

And if they don’t suspect and get up as if it isn’t a robbery (turning on lights, talking with wife, checking on child) in other words very much informing the robber that they’ve been sussed (at which point most robbers would run).

But no - you say that the owner goes down stairs and sees an armed robber snooping around, so that must mean the owner has got downstairs without alerting the robber so they must have crept downstairs quietly and without turning on the lights?

And if they haven’t turned on the lights how do they know the robbers armed? And if the robber is being so quiet how does the owner know there isn’t more than one?

*

You then pose the question

In this situation would you prefer to be armed and able to defend yourself and family,

So lets see, the owner hasn’t defended his home with any basic crime prevention techniques? So he doesn’t seem that interested in defending his family or home.

He hears glass break and suspecting a robbery he doesn’t ring the police? Again he would rather play Rambo, going alone against unknown odds without even thinking of backup, than think about his wife and child?

Then in complete silence he gets out of bed and has the gun presumably loaded nearby, this in a house with a child?

He then creeps downstairs without any lights again in perfect silence. Now robbers are there to rob, startled or confronted they are liable to attack but disturbed they usually run. This mans behaviour seems more about seeking confrontation than avoiding it, that doesn’t seem about protecting his family.

He then sees a figure in the gloom, how does he know it’s a robber?

So what then, does he just shoot?

Does he give a warning?

How does he know that the robber hasn’t an accomplice?

The thing is that this scenario like many other similar ones I’ve looked at doesn’t stand up or make sense.

It’s seems designed more to be about scare mongering as a means of promoting gun ownership, than a sensible look at the issues.

*

“or would you try to talk to him about how his father was never there, or how his mother was a drug addict that didnt care, and just hope that he doesnt just tell you to shut the fuck up and kill you?”

Now this is just fatuous crap coreal, I’m not surprised but I am disappointed, I mean it is the kind of silly juvenile sneering I’ve come to expect from the pro-gunners but I always live in hope that one of them will rise above it.

My point, the one you clearly are too thick to understand, is that if the person has got to that point the damage has already been done. Rehabilitation within the criminal justice system might work to lessen the damage but the best thing would be to try and limit it before hand.

Why are father (and mothers) not looking after or abandoning their kids and can something be done to limit the numbers of neglected or abandoned kids?

Why do people turn to substance abuse and once they have what is the best way to cure them of the addiction?

These are serious societal problems and issues that you seem to be sneering at in favour the promotion of the idea that guns can deal with the symptoms of them.

**

 

^My intent was not to dismiss societal problems. My point was that there is always going to be evil, and there will always be crime. that is why the good people should be armed. Of course the guy should call the police(i was in a hurry and forgot to type that), but a lot can happen in the space of 5-10 min that it takes for the cops to get there.

Im tired of going back and forth on this because it seems that instead of posting your own arguments or opinions you seem content to just pick apart other people's statements and ask rhetorical questions that have little to do with the original topic.
Since you are preoccupied with fixing societal problems(which is not even what this thread was about.) Lets hear what YOU have to say. How do we fix all of our societal problems and create a world where there are no evil people, and we would never have to defend ourselves from crime??

 

Coreal

My intent was not to dismiss societal problems.

But just to ignore them?

**

My point was that there is always going to be evil, and there will always be crime. that is why the good people should be armed.

Good vs Evil, is that it? So the ‘complexities of the issues’ you talked about come down to that?

So what is good and what is evil?

How do some people become ‘good’ and others ‘evil’?

Where does this good and evil come from?

Do you see everything in such black and white terms?

**

Of course the guy should call the police (i was in a hurry and forgot to type that), but a lot can happen in the space of 5-10 min that it takes for the cops to get there.

So lets see you hear the glass break (because you haven’t fitted crime prevention items) you ring the police. You can wait five minutes for them to arrive or make a lot of noise turn on all the lights; hit the alarm, ring neighbours (have you heard of neighbourhood watch schemes) and shout out the police have been called.

I think a robber will cut his loses and run.

But again if the person has got to that point that they are robbing houses then the damage has already been done. Rehabilitation within the criminal justice system might work to lessen the damage but the best thing would be to try and limit it before hand.

**

Im tired of going back and forth on this because it seems that instead of posting your own arguments or opinions you seem content to just pick apart other people's statements and ask rhetorical questions that have little to do with the original topic.

There hasn’t been any back and forth; you say something, I ask you a question, you run away.

And just calling them ‘rhetorical’ questions doesn’t disguise the fact you seem unable or unwilling to answer them.

And I’ve only posted several hundred posts of my arguments and opinions on this and related subjects in the seven years I’ve been here, what specifically do you want?

Here are a few musings – if you want more detail on any one of them you can start a thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4190423&postcount=9

But if you do be prepared to answer as well as ask questions.

**

Since you are preoccupied with fixing societal problems (which is not even what this thread was about.) Lets hear what YOU have to say. How do we fix all of our societal problems and create a world where there are no evil people, and we would never have to defend ourselves from crime??

My interest is whether pro-gun advocates are interested in such things or just in promoting guns as a way of ignoring the causes.

So are you admitting you’ve never really given it much thought and haven’t got any ideas?

**

 

^^Im all for fixing societal problems. Who says we cant fix societal problems and at the same time protect the right of peacable citizens to protect themselves from attack, to hunt, to protect themselves from tyranny, and to protect themselves from the threat of invasion. These are the reasons why the second amendment was put in place and, believe it or not, they are still applicable today. Taking guns away from peaceful citizens is not the way to fix all our societal problems. I dont have all the answers, but id say that if the government would spend more money finding better ways to educate people and reduce poverty than they spend invading coutries and killing middle easterners, we'd be off to a good start.

You expect me to answer all your questions but yet you cant answer 1 of mine? How do you think we should go about fixing the societal problems you keep speaking about? Id also be willing to discuss ideas on how to fix social problems in depth if you start that thread.

Also please dont pick apart my post and take every single sentence out of context then write a paragraph of analysis under each one. Its really quite annoying, especially since you dont add any of your own ideas or opinions, and only criticize others.

 

Balbus, you seem to ask a lot, but offer little. You asked 22 questions in your last two posts. I think the discussion would be more productive if you chose one topic or issue, asked a question, responded to opposing questions, and saw the discusion thru before moving on to the next.

 

coreal

*Im all for fixing societal problems. Who says we cant fix societal problems and at the same time protect the right of peacable citizens

The problem is that many pro-gunners don’t seem to have given societal problems much thought let alone come up with ideas.

They have (like you) become evasive when asked but continue loudly to promote the idea that guns can deal with the symptoms of the problems.

**

*to protect themselves from attack, to hunt, to protect themselves from tyranny, and to protect themselves from the threat of invasion.

Whose invading?

And as I’ve pointed out guns don’t necessarily protect against suppression or tyranny – someone said recently

“Hitler, Mao, Stalin, all imposed the most draconian gun laws to prevent the people from rebelling”

To which I replied -

And all three armed huge numbers of their citizenry, people that would never had a gun were given one and also taught to shoot it.

I mean in the 1940’s virtually every man in Germany 16 over, had access to a gun.

We are talking here of literally millions of people that could have rebelled any time they wanted.

But what has to be remembered is that many Germans willingly followed Hitler. Stalin was thought of as a heroic leader by large numbers of Russians. And Mao was revered as the liberator of the people by a great many Chinese.

Having an armed population is no guarantee against suppression especially if that armed population accepts or is complicit in the suppression.

For example, in this post -

‘Can guns save you from suppression?’ http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253937

I show how most Americans were happy to accept or were complicit in suppressing the rights of their fellow citizens. They didn’t rise up to put down such ‘tyranny’, because they agreed (or learnt to agree) with what was being done.

How far could it be taken in the US, look no further than the fate of the native American tribes, many of which don’t exist anymore, or just how long black people had to wait before getting the protection and privileges already held by the white sections of society.”

**

 

These are the reasons why the second amendment was put in place and, believe it or not, they are still applicable today. Taking guns away from peaceful citizens is not the way to fix all our societal problems.

But as I’ve pointed out before I’m not talking about the complete banning of guns only like you seeking to regulate them.

*

I dont have all the answers, but id say that if the government would spend more money finding better ways to educate people and reduce poverty than they spend invading coutries and killing middle easterners, we'd be off to a good start.

I’ve already pointed out to you that – “I totally agree, but that’s it, what are the ideas of the gun advocate and do they have any, because I’ve been in close conversation with many for over a year and I’ve talked to many others over the years and while being very strong on the idea that guns are a good means of dealing with the symptoms of societal problems they have been very weak on what to do about the causes and seem very reluctant to talk about them.”

(PS- I also agree that the US shouldn’t be invading other countries but it has been doing it for nearly all of its existence usually due to the belief that one form of threat or another existed or that it had a ‘manifest destiny’. If you truly believe the US is going to be invaded would it be better to attack rather than wait for the invaders to attack?)

**

You expect me to answer all your questions but yet you cant answer 1 of mine? How do you think we should go about fixing the societal problems you keep speaking about? Id also be willing to discuss ideas on how to fix social problems in depth if you start that thread.

Do you read?

“And just calling them ‘rhetorical’ questions doesn’t disguise the fact you seem unable or unwilling to answer them.

And I’ve only posted several hundred posts of my arguments and opinions on this and related subjects in the seven years I’ve been here, what specifically do you want?

Here are a few musings – if you want more detail on any one of them you can start a thread.
http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4190423&postcount=9

But if you do be prepared to answer as well as ask questions”

Ok coreal pick something and we can discuss it ‘in depth’ but again if you do be prepared to answer as well as ask questions.

**

Also please dont pick apart my post and take every single sentence out of context then write a paragraph of analysis under each one. Its really quite annoying, especially since you dont add any of your own ideas or opinions, and only criticize others.

Where have I taken something you’ve said ‘out of context’? this sounds again like stalling because you haven’t answers.

And again do you read?

I’ve given lots of opinions and ideas the problems seems to be that you’re not reading them or just ignoring them.

And do you know what a debate is?

Person A makes a comment

Person B comments on it, makes what criticisms they have of it and seeks clarification of points by asking questions.

Person A then makes their own comments, addresses the criticisms and answers the questions.

You seem to miss out the third step and instead bitches about the comments made, fail to address the criticisms and refuses to answer the questions.

**

 

Balbus, you seem to ask a lot, but offer little. You asked 22 questions in your last two posts. I think the discussion would be more productive if you chose one topic or issue, asked a question, responded to opposing questions, and saw the discusion thru before moving on to the next.

I’ve noticed in the years I’ve been here that many Americans don’t know how to debate many in fact don’t even seem to understand what debate is.

Wackyiraqi have you ever taken place in a real discussion? Not something where the questions were vetted in advance or where answer are just statement not real answers at all?

For example you bring up the number of questions asked but what about their pertinence, shouldn’t that be the more important thing?

Please tell me what questions you think legitimate and which not and your reasons for doing so?

**

Another thing I’ve noticed is an inability to see the connectivity of subjects and issues, (which may be connected to that inability to understand debate).

Subjects, especially political subjects, do not stand alone. A persons view on something are usually based in or on something else, so to understand the one it may be very relevant to look at the other (or a host of other views).

For example Coreal seemed to be basing his views on law and order on the belief that things come down to people being ‘good’ or ‘evil’, so to understand one the other needs to be understood. So for example, is that his actually view, if not why did he bring it up, if so what was his criteria for good and evil and so on.

**