How To Argue For Gun Control.

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

  1. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Penguin

    May i ask why do you own a gun?
     
  2. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    I inherited it.
     
  3. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    If you read my post the statistic refers to legal automatic weapons. Assault weapons are currently legal.
     
  4. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    Okay we'll go through this again.
    Clinton has not called for a complete overturn of the second amendment. some people have latched onto her comments made at a fund raiser.
    She was talking about the Supreme Court in relation to the right it has allowed for people to walk down the aisles of supermarkets with an AK 47 slung over their shoulder.

    Here is that portion of her talk.

    Of course all we hear is the last part taken out of context.

    Next, the proliferation of assault style weapons that can commit horrific damage in a short amount of time is analogous to letting any type of vehicle on out public highways. The type of vehicle allowed on certain public roads is regulated as some endanger our safety.
    How? Bicycles, horse drawn vehicles, and mopeds are all not allowed on certain roads. Dragsters, pocket rockets, and Shandong Juli are not permitted on any roads.

    Your theory on arming all citizens is flawed on many levels.
    The first being the assumption that if everyone had a gun, no one would ever get shot.
    The second is that if everyone had a gun mass shooting could not occur. To illustrate let's assume all 20 people sitting at a bar are armed. What is to stop me from opening the door and spraying them with my assault weapon or full automatic from behind? How many of the 20 sitting at that bar with their backs to me do you think will get a chance to return fire quickly enough to prevent me from killing the magic number of 4?
     
  5. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    what if all 20 of them came to your house? how likely are you to survive if you had an AUTOMATIC weapon as apposed to a 22 cal. revolver?
     
  6. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    We are not arguing about whether guns can stop crimes...I agree that they can.

    We are arguing over what course of action would be more effective in reducing the amount of mass killings that can carried out in a very short amount of time.

    You favor having more citizens carrying weapons. I favor making assault weapons harder to get as assault weapons seem to be the most commonly use weapon at this time. I realize other means may be used to commit mass murder. Eliminating assault weapons is only one step.

    As to your list, I have seen most of the items listed and I believe none have any relevance to the question of whether assault weapons should be banned. Many are pure speculation such as stating that after firing the gun the attack stopped when we don't know if it would have stopped anyway. Some clearly show that the shooter only intended to kill one or two people. Many are stopped by trained personal such as off duty police and those in the military.....and only one was stopped by an assault weapon and that was by a police officer.
     
  7. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    What if all 20 of them came to my house with flamethrowers, how likely would I be to survive if i had a firetruck instead of a squirt gun?
     
  8. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    you would be dead unless you left the house but we were talking about guns, we can go on and on about what if you had grenades and sherman tanks and scud rockets.
    the scenario that YOU brought up was 20 men with guns and one person with an automatic or semiautomatic gun with a scary name.
     
  9. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    While I think that the ease of access to guns in the US means the likelihood of them getting into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible is increased and that prudent gin control is about reducing harm.

    I’m not saying gins should be banned, I’m saying they need to be held responsibly by responsible people.

    I mean do you want people like this owning guns –

    A man knocked at my door asking for help but he wouldn’t answer my questions, so I shot him dead. Turns out he was deaf.

    My ex wanted me to pay child support, so I shot her and our daughter.

    My wife caught me cheating and tried to take a photo of me with another woman, so I shot her

    The parking valet was rude to me so I took my wife’s gun from her and shot her with it

    I was visiting a friend in his apartment when his roommate said I was too loud so I shot that guy and his girlfriend

    My brother wanted my cheeseburger, so I shot him dead.

    My three year old stepson was jumping on the bed and wouldn’t behave so I shot him dead.

    My neighbour was mowing her lawn. I showed her where I thought the boundary was between our properties, but she disagreed, so I shot her.

    These were irresponsible people with guns - but with people wanting guns for actual criminal activity well according to the FBI virtually all guns in criminal hands were bought legally in the US by American citizens. They were either stolen from the legal owner or passed on to a criminal for favour or money. It would therefore seem prudent to try and limit those ways in which criminals obtain guns.
     
  10. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Also for me the whole gun issue in the US is a symptom of something else – here is the short form of that argument –

    Gun theory

    My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

    This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.


    They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.
    This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

    Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

    The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.
     
  11. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    For another thread I put together a couple of lists me and MeAgain have presented in the past - of things we think could be done in relation to gun control–

    *

    Educate people about what the new legislation is about and would entail (Not taking away all guns, the goal is to reduce harm by limiting easy access to the criminal and irresponsible)

    Reinforcing, enhancing, and mandating back ground checks.

    Immediate destruction of any weapon, ammunition, etc. used or acquired illegally.

    Limiting the amount of legal ammunition that can be bought and retained.

    Buyback programs - to get rid of or lower the number of midnight specials, assault weapons, etc.

    All gun owners would need to pass a test of competence and responsibility to get a gun licence (part of which would be to pass a psychological evaluation)

    A gun owner would need an up to date licence and insurance to carry on owning a gun.

    Mandatory records of all sells or transfers of all firearms and immediate destruction of any that are discovered to be not recorded.

    Any gun kept at home or place of work (including businesses that involve guns) would have to be held in a secure manner (eg safe or other secure locking system). People that didn’t have an approved system would not be allowed to own a gun

    If a person looses or has their gun stolen, and it is shown that they did not show due diligence in securing their weapon they would be subject to a heavy fine and/or banned from owning a gun.

    Any guns would have to be presented for inspection 6 months after purchase then again one year after purchase and then every five years after that. Not presenting the gun would mean losing the owner’s gun license and being banning from owning a gun.

    If the gun has been lost or stolen and that has not been reported that would result in heavy fine and/or custodial sentence.

    *

    These would be national laws the same through all the states and a department would be set up to monitor them and make sure they are been enforced equally throughout the country.

    *

    These are just suggestions and if people think of improvements please post your ideas.

    [SIZE=12pt]http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/471796-gun-control-proposals-for-the-usa/[/SIZE]
     
  12. MeAgain

    MeAgain Dazed and Confused Staff Member Super Moderator

    I don't understand your question.

    Why would you talk about 20 peaceful armed bar patrons coming to my house and then ask if I would survive better with a .22 revolver or an assault weapon?
    Survive what? Are you saying that these people would come to my house to kill me with their guns? I have no idea what you are talking about.
     
  13. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Penguin



    First up (and often repeated) is not about a total ban just prudent regulations to try and reduce harm by lessening the chance of guns getting into the hands of the criminal and irresponsible.

    Next actually suicide rates are highest for middle aged white men rather than emo kids.

    • The annual age-adjusted suicide rate is 12.93 per 100,000 individuals.
    • Men die by suicide 3.5x more often than women.
    • White males accounted for 7 of 10 suicides in 2014.
    • Firearms account for almost 50% of all suicides.
    • The rate of suicide is highest in middle age — white men in particular.
     
  14. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    I never said they were peaceful and neither did you. So in your second scenario was the flamethrower for a bonfire and to toast marshmallows on?
     
  15. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    Pen

    Were they sitting at the bar aggressively and with malice aforethought?
     
  16. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    MeAgain



    To me the problem with his is that it likely to up fear levels rather than reduce them.

    I mean if everyone is armed and you know that not all of them are rational and/or responsible (eg shoot someone because of a cheeseburger see above) then game theory would seem to dictate that in any minor dispute it is better to shoot first.

    I mean here is another story – My neighbor and I were arguing about a trashcan, so we both drew our guns and shot each other

    http://www.wxyz.com/news/region/detroit/dpd-investigating-a-shoot-out-on-detroits-west-side-they-say-started-over-a-trash-can

    And the thing with fear is that it is emotional and can cause people to act irrationally and it can also be based on bias. In such cases little actions could be construed as suspicious and be acted on accordingly.

    So as I say this is likely to increase problems not reduce them.
     
  17. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    I think it is much less likely you would have those minor disputes.
    Anyway half the scenarios you gave are more mental health issues than gun issues.
    If you are upset enough to risk life in jail you are upset enough to go into your house and grab a knife or sword or just beat the life out of someone if you are bigger.
     
  18. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    I remember a post I wrote some time ago around this subject when some pro gunner quoted that old Heinlein line about –

    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.”

    Well as I’ve said guns are a means of intimidation, the whole movement to legalise the carrying of a concealed weapon is based on the premise that ‘criminals’ (and anyone else) will be too afraid to act badly.

    The view prevalent among pro-gunners that America is a more polite society because of widespread gun ownership is also based on this idea of repression it basically about the threat of – ‘be polite or else’ - not real politeness but politeness at the point of a gun.

    *

    So is it true that an armed society is a politer society, or is it just that an armed society is a paranoid society that is just being polite out of fear?

    And it begs the question, why not try and bring about a society where people are polite because they are polite not just out of fear that they might be shot?

    The thing is that, maybe you already have it, maybe your society is as polite as it is and guns and gun ownership have nothing to do with it, it’s just a myth and says more about the mentality of pro-gunners than about reality?

    Because I’ve been to the US (well California at least) and I’ve meet a lot of Americans from all over the states, and the thing is that they seem as polite (or not) as any other people I’ve meet and I’ve live and travelled extensively in Europe and I’d say that there is really very little difference in the range and the amount of politeness between those people and Americans, and it seems they don’t need the threat of getting shot to be polite.

    So why is it that so many pro-gunners in the US think they need guns to have polite Americans?


    *

    I’d also ask who judges what is correct behavior, what is polite? It can be subjective and also irrational and if irrational people get into arguments the outcomes are likely to be irrational.
     
    1 person likes this.
  19. Balbus

    Balbus Super Moderator Super Moderator

    [SIZE=11pt]Pen[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]
    [SIZE=11pt]We have been through this argument thousands and thousands of times it’s a variation on the killer Ameican argueent but lets look at it from the other direction. (and you ave a sword in your house?)[/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Guns are very good at killing people much more so than knives or even swords. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Now a [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]set of kitchen knives are a set of kitchen knives their purpose and design is primarily for cooking, guns were designed as weapons for the purpose of killing. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Know I don’t think anyone will say that a knife cannot kill someone it’s just that guns are much more efficient and effective at doing so. [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]I mean let’s say you are in a duel and there are two weapons one is a fully working and loaded glock-17 the other a random kitchen knife – are you honestly saying you’d choose the knife because in your view they are equally effective as weapons that can kill? [/SIZE]

    [SIZE=11pt]Ten paces apart draw your weapon…[/SIZE]
     
  20. pensfan13

    pensfan13 Senior Member

    But in your fantasy world you would not have a gun against a knife.
    You are kind of making the whole protection argument for us. What if someone has a knife? Well if I have a gun he won't be a threat. (Unless he is on bath salts or something )
     

Share This Page