How To Argue For Gun Control.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Maccabee, Jul 27, 2016.

  1. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    1 person likes this.
  2. Chigurh

    Chigurh Well-Known Member

    17:23-18:41 26:41-27:47 [​IMG] This is certainly not what I expected.
     
  3. ElEyeJaw

    ElEyeJaw Banned

    People who fear guns more than they fear those who would misuse them, those types of people are simply looking for someone else to give them a false sense of security, by being dependent upon others to protect them, like police, law enforcement and military. A serious criminal on the streets will always have other criminals to aquire a firearm from, on the other hand someone who follows all the rules, gets mental health examinations and undergoes a background check, has all sorts of hurdles to pass in order to get one.It's a mad world we live in, when someone who simply wants to protect themselves and their families and perhaps hunt, is made to go to more lengths to get a weapon, than those who disregard laws and background checks and often are convicted felons to begin with. If someone wanted to buy one off the streets and could come up with the money? They could probably get it in a night or two, but folks like ourselves have a waiting period and have to pay extra fees, insurance and all a crook has to do is pay for the cost of the gun itself. Guns are one of the mosy highly regulated products out there, yet the only solution those who want to ban or restrict guns, is to make it harder for those who aren't prone to violence and follow the law to the letter to buy one, than someone who ignores and by passes those requirements. Isn't that some shit?
     
    5 people like this.
  4. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    I don't fear guns. I just don't like them.
     
  5. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    The video doesn’t present anything that hasn’t already been addressed numerous times already here - hell do we have to go through it all again, can’t you just read the other gun issue threads?

    I mean why do the anti-control advocates keep presenting the same old guff when it’s all been covered already.

    *

    The US Constitution doesn’t stand in way of gun control

    Not a ban

    Make your own gun – not a problem in places with gun control

    Switzerland – very different system

    War of independence – French army navy and money deciding factor

    The alternative weapon argument – myth that Americans are more bloodthirsty and violent than other people.

    International statistics actually works against pro-gun advocates

    But of course people are going to highlight mass shootings to call people scumbags for doing so isn’t objective

    Emotions argument – one of the main arguments used by pro-gun advocates to promote guns is fear

    Suicides are taken into account

    I have no fucking idea why the Wild West is bought up different time and circumstance.

    *

    Anyway if you want to pursue this I’d like to apologise to all the regulars in advance for the repetition.
     
    1 person likes this.
  6. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

    US –2011 - 10.3
    England and Wales – 0.22
    France - 3.00
    Germany – 1.10
    Switzerland - 3.04

    Homicides by any method per 100.000

    US - 2011: 5.1
    England and Wales - 1.03
    France : 1.2
    Germany 0.8
    Switzerland 0.57

    Gun related homicides per 100,000

    US 2011: 3.6
    England and Wales: 0.06
    France - 0.22
    Germany - 0.2
    Switzerland 0.16
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Jaw

    Why are you so frightened you feel you need a gun for protection?
     
  8. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Who said he is frightened? Things like home invasions happen all the time. It's about protecting oneself should a situation such as this arise, not about being frightened. Why do you always feel you have to resort to cheap, ad hominem attacks. It just shows how inept you are at having an intelligent discussion with people who have different views than your own.
     
    3 people like this.
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    [SIZE=11pt]Rat[/SIZE]



    He said - when someone who simply wants to protect themselves and their families- and I presumed he was including himself and is family but you are right I shouldn’t have presumed.

    I’ll rephrase – why do you think people are so frightened they feeling the neeed to get a gun for protection.?



    [SIZE=11pt]Can you give me the statistics to back that up?[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=11pt]But if people are getting a gun for protection they must to some degree be afraid otherwise they would not feel like they needed a gun for protection. [/SIZE]
     
  10. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    Quickly:

    We already have gun control.
    You already have restrictions on who can be armed, not everyone is allowed to own guns, this has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
    The militias were for the purpose of protecting the U.S government as we had no standing army and were to be well regulated as to structure and armament.
    The French and her allies allowed us to defeat the British and her allies, not the militias. The militias fell apart as the war drug on:

    Just as freedom of speech does not mean you can say anything at any time, so the right to bear arms does not mean everyone is granted that right or that any type of arms may be owned by private citizens without heavy regulation or denial.
    The argument about the right to protect yourself is no argument at all as no one denies that you have a right to protect yourself.
    Guns are easy to make...so what? No one is proposing that all guns be confiscated so how are criminals who make their own guns going to be the only ones with guns?
    As far as cross cultural comparisons, is this guy saying that we don't have a problem with guns being used for criminal activities in the U.S. because our culture is different?

    Mass shootings........so if I use a high capacity, high velocity, high fire rate assault weapon instead of a six shot .38 cal handgun..it's the same thing. We should allow these assault weapons and six shooters to be owned by private citizens as they are "basically" the same thing. I can't kill more people faster, with an assault weapon then with a single shot target pistol. Allow them both.
    There is no proof that mass shooters chose their targets based on gun free zones.

    Some gun control laws don't work therefore we should have no gun control laws. People still use guns to kill people so laws don't work, they will only lead to all guns being outlawed.
    Some traffic laws don't work therefore we should have no traffic laws. People still speed even though it is against the law, therefore all traffic laws should be repealed. Traffic laws will only result in none us being allowed to drive at all.
    Private citizens stopping mass shootings is ambiguous (Washington Post) at best and irrelevant as no one is proposing that all guns be taken away from all citizens.

    His last part criticizes people for saying that they think increased gun control will save lives...but they can't prove it, but earlier he did the same thing with mass shootings, armed citizens will help prevent mass shootings, but he can't prove it.

    In the end his arguments fall completely apart as no one is advocating that all guns be taken away, he introduces a red herring so that he can still have his assault rifles and no background checks.
    We already restrict automatic weapons, certain explosives, biological, and chemical weapons...and we still allow guns for sport, and self defense so what's this guy ranting about anyway?????
     
    2 people like this.
  11. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    In addition the video doesn't understand what the colonial militias were. They were not U.S. militias as there was no United States, they were British militias organized and manned by British citizens of the North American colonies as a supplement to the British army. The militias were only open to free males, not women, not slaves and their organization varied from colony to colony and town to town.

    The war for independence started when a group of British militia men rebelled against their own government, they weren't Patriots yet, they were secessionist, rebels who were orchestrating an illegal uprising.
    We now call them patriots as the right of independence was secured...but at the time they were revolutionaries. Similar to many such groups we see in the world today.

    The example given of women is misleading. Women were not part of the militias, they may have taken part in the revolution, but not as militia members. That's why Deborah Sampson removed the musket ball from her leg herself. She was afraid it would be discovered that she was a women masquerading as a man. As a woman she was not eligible to join a militia. Which she didn't. She disguised herself as a man and joined the 4th Massachusetts Regiment, a part of the Continental Army.

    The first American militias were formed by the Article VI of the Articles of Confederation:
    They were not necessarily well armed as there were not a lot of guns in the colonies at the time:

    Most of the arms used in the war came from France. France supplied uniforms, boots, arms, cannon and 90% of the gunpowder needed.
    The war was largely fought by the Continental Army and the French not the militias, the militias were more of a local police force. All the while France and Spain were attacking Britain on other fronts.

    ​After the war the militias were used to put down rebellions, not lead them as in the case of the Shay's and Whiskey rebellions.
     
  12. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    If you have a pro gun friend ask him to take you to the range and show you how to shoot. Ask him to start small and work your way up. My first shots was from a .40 S&W Glock and a 12 guage and I loved it.
     
  13. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    They either don't deal with the subject or they're not recent.

    Because as far as I can tell there was no real rebuttal.

    Yes it does. "Shall not be infringed".

    Source? Doesn't India have strict gun control and yet they make their own weapons? Plus any machinists and gunsmith can make guns from legal materials.

    Exactly. So don't compare our country to others.

    Not at first. We held our own until they came. If we didn't had guns we would be bowing to the queen now.

    Nope it's reality. We have more gangs than most western countries.
     
  14. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Example?

    That's not the issue. The issue is jumping on the gun control train while the bodies are still warm.

    Is the fear unfounded? We do have murders and robberies all the time.

    Why? Do we do the same for bridges and ropes?

    It's because gun control advocates say "if we allow everybody to carry guns then it'll be like the Wild West" when in fact that hasn't happened. Example: Florida when it passed its shall issue law.

    Please pursuit.
     
  15. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Notice that we aren't 30 per 100,000. The numbers are actually quite small to change any law.
     
  16. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    That doesn't make it right. The Supreme Court once ruled that slavery was ok.


    Which the second clause is unconnected to the first clause of the militia. "The right of the people.


    At least we held our own until they came. If we hadn't had guns the war would've been lost within the first year.


    Rights are only restricted if they infringe on someone else's rights. What right am I'm infringing on by owning certain types of weaponry?


    You'd be surprised how many liberals I've talked to that advocate a complete ban. And it's a step by step process. Every confiscation started with registration.


    Yes. We have more gangs than most western countries.


    The VT shooter used pistols and ten round mags.

    The theater shooter in Colorado did and 90% of shootings happens at gun free zones.

    http://www.ammoland.com/2014/10/92-percent-of-mass-shootings-since-2009-occurred-in-gun-free-zones/


    Traffic laws do work but name one gun law that ever worked.


    When an armed citizen is there the shooting on average only kill two people. We don't count two people as a mass shooting.


    And yet OKC, and Boston happened. And there never was a much of a problem with full autos.
     
  17. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    Guns and suicide: A fatal link

    [SIZE=12pt]In the United States, suicides outnumber homicides[/SIZE] almost two to one. Perhaps the real tragedy behind suicide deaths—about 30,000 a year, one for every 45 attempts—is that so many could be prevented. Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms.

    [SIZE=12pt]A study by the Harvard School of Public Health of all 50 U.S. states reveals a powerful link between rates of firearm ownership and suicides. Based on a survey of American households conducted in 2002, HSPH Assistant Professor of Health Policy and Management[/SIZE] Matthew Miller, Research Associate Deborah Azrael, and colleagues at the School’s Injury Control Research Center (ICRC), found that in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower.

    [SIZE=12pt]The lesson? Many lives would likely be saved if people disposed of their firearms, kept them locked away, or stored them outside the home. Says HSPH Professor of Health Policy David Hemenway[/SIZE], the ICRC’s director: “Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

    [SIZE=12pt]But few can survive a gun blast. That’s why the ICRC’s Catherine Barber has launched Means Matter, a campaign that asks the public to help prevent suicide deaths by adopting practices and policies that keep guns out of the hands of vulnerable adults and children. [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=12pt]https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/[/SIZE]
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator

    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.

    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.

    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).

    So the question is are Americans more murderous or is it just that Americans have easier access to much more lethal weapons?

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

    Balbus Super Moderator

    OK as normal I started to reply to Mac’s post but then I got to this -



    And it was here where I was beginning to suspect that we are not going to be able to have a rational argument.

    It seems that in his opinion Americans, as a group, are different from other human beings in that they are much more bloodthirsty and violent than other humans.

    He has the total conviction that one of the major factors for high rates of murder in the US (with many more gun related murder than other developed countries) is not ease of access to very lethal weapons but just because Americans are inherent killers and would commit just as many murders even without ease of access to guns.

    I then begin to look at some of the other replies and begin to despair.

    In reply to my reassurance that such things as accidents and suicides have been taken into account in numerous studies on gun use I get the reply



    I’m not really sure what is meant in the context but it seems to be a variation on the alternative argument that if guns were not around people would still kill themselves by alternative means (which numerous studies shown is untrue).

    And then we come to this



    To put it in context this is the reply to the statistic –

    Firearm-related deaths rate per 100,000 population.

    US –2011 - 10.3


    Well in 2014 it was actually 10.54 which relates to 33,599 people

    (in the UK in 2013 it was 0.22 which relates to 144 deaths)

    But the reply suggest that in his opinion 33,599 people dying is low that he wouldn’t even begin to take notice and think something should possibly be done until the number of deaths got over 30 per 100,000 say 100,000 Americans lives taken.

    So presumably he wouldn’t mind if the gun related homicide rate per 100,000 would also go up in the same way from 3.6 (2011) to say 10 per 100,000.

    To me such blatant disregard for people lives is irrational when prudent measures could bring it down, rather than not care if it went up.
     
  20. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member

    You are confusing justice with the law. If you feel a law is unjust you fight to change it.

    So what? Show me a bill that proposes to take away the 2nd.

    The militias did contribute and a few units excelled,but most were used for guard duty ans suppressing riots after it was found that they couldn't stand up to a regular army.

    Not really. There are speed limits imposed on our highways. You don't infringe in others' right to drive by speeding but you do endanger their safety.

    No I wouldn't be surprised. We already have gun regulation and you still have guns.

    How do you know that? Source please.

    So what?

    Armed with reason disputes that.

    I haven't seen any crimes committed with a machine gun lately. They were regulated in 1934.

    Source. You are speculating.

    "And yet OKC, and Boston happened. And there never was a much of a problem with full autos."
    So we should allow all weapons to be owned by everyone.
     

Share This Page