Should Guns be Outlawed in the U.S.A?

OWB

Again with the next ‘example’.

It is not long or torturous – all I basically do is give the sequence of posts (Post 661, 683, 686)

I’m not trying to hide anything.

But your explanation as to why I’ve supposedly misunderstood your meaning - just raises new questions.

This seems to imply that anything that was aimed at lessening the number of guns falling into the hands of criminals is in your view wrong (other than arresting them afterwards)? Is that what you are saying, if not please explain?

I mean in what way would, the things I’ve suggested in this thread, supposedly limit the ‘right’ of the law abiding and responsible to own a gun?


*

 

OWB

And again with the next ‘example’

I thought it was just a mistake and that is why I asked for clarification, you could have simply given me that clarification but instead you started ranting accusations that I was committing heinous crimes against you and the world, when there really was no need.

Anyway the question this raises is – why in the American context do some people see talk of ‘at risk groups’ as racial profiling to the point that you seem to see it as a commonly held viewpoint? (I mean you wouldn’t have mentioned it if you didn’t think it was a commonly held viewpoint, for example I didn’t think of it that way at all until you raised it, and then thought of it as rather racist)

 

OWB

And the same with the next ‘example’

Again since I have nothing to hide I pointed out the posts this was discussed (your post 472 my reply 485 onward).

I wasn’t trying to ‘score a point’ I was giving an explanation of my position and my ideas on the subject - of which the ‘repressive approach’ is a part.

So far you haven’t put up a counter argument in opposition to what I’ve said on that subject but have instead just told me I’m wrong and then began accusing me of somehow twisting your words, which I haven’t. I mean this isn’t ‘evidence’ it just seems a lot like you moaning because I have an argument and you don’t.

But there didn’t seem to be any evidence that you had thought about that side of things and until there is some evidence, quite frankly I don’t have a clue what you idea on it are.

I’ve asked you what your ideas are but you seem reluctant to discuss them and in fact have made some condescending and disparaging remarks as to my views in that area claiming that I wanted to be soft on criminals and only wanting to give them community service or even let them off because not enough had been done to help them before they turned to crime. And that “Better yet let's do away with all laws that protect the innocent victims from violent crime and then there won't be any criminals, just misunderstood violent people and their victims.”

Now I’m not sure if that is how you see things or not but that is the problem.

Now you seem annoyed that I’ve pointed this out and call it ‘point scoring’ but you still seem to be refusing to discuss the issues.

 

OWB

So where are your ‘real arguments’ I mean whenever I ask you to repeat them or point out where they are you either refuse or produce something that basically just says I’m wrong because you say I’m wrong.

I mean look at your last few posts here have they been ‘real arguments’? Is seems to me they are attempts at distraction, in the hope that people will not notice that you haven’t got any ‘real arguments’.

 

Americans are supposed to have guns, wear stetsuns and ride horses, the British are supposed to drink cups of tea.

 

i prefer coffee

 

Most? Statistically only a few people have shown they can't handle such a tool.

And with a little instruction and some practice I think they could handle it pretty well too.

 

I have never demanded any thing of you accept a discussion of the subject at hand and of what is actually said and I'm not asking you to admit to anything, just stop doing it so we can have a real discussion, instead of what ever you call what you have been doing so far.

Another example:
"They are like a child demanding that I admit to crimes I’ve not committed."
Comparing someone to a child does not invalidate what they have said and is proof of nothing. It amounts to school yard name calling and is as pointless.

 

That explains a lot.

 

OWB

So why don’t you actually try and discuss things? I mean your main argument to what I’ve presented so far is that it’s wrong because you say it’s wrong.

I mean look at your resent posts they seem to have nothing to do with honest discussion and everything to do with trying to stall it.

Why not stop accusing me of crimes that I’ve clearly not committed and answer the questions put to you (you could start with those in my last few posts). Would you also point out where you have discussed any social issues so I can see what your views are?

We could then get back to a real debate.

(PS:Sorry but if you act like a child you are going to be thought of as a child. Why not just stop being childish and begin debating like an adult?)

 

OWB

LOL so my preference for coffee over tea tells you what exactly?

 

Yes buddy by all the accidents!!

Kids finding the gun and getting killed........
PEOPLE GETTING ANGRY AND TURNING THE GUN ON SOMEONE W/O THINKING ONLY TO THINK ABOUT IT WHEN ITS TOO LATE!

They are more WORSE than good believe me.... Alot of ppl cannot be trusted to act responsibiliy

 

It doesn't have to be most people. Most people would probably drive a car fine after a few drinks, but the rare accident killing a family makes it common sense to stop inebriated driving.

 

So "all" the accidents involve more than 50% or "most" of the people?

 

But you don't support banning alcohol? or maybe cars?

 

No, there's not much we can do to make driving or drinking safer besides illegitimizing those activities by the underage.

 

The same could be said of guns.

And the same has been done with guns.

 

True. Do we have a statistical comparison with countries of similar size to the US which do not have legal guns?

 

On cars

To me things need to be properly regulated. The ideas behind such regulatory policies are based on risk to individuals and society.

For example – lets us look at private car ownership.

There are certain problems associated with private car ownership and a number of regulations have grown up to tackle those concerns.

People have to have a driving licence, and they only get a driving licence if they have passed a driving test. There are bars on people with a medical problems that may cause them to loose control of a vehicle (e.g. epileptics) or otherwise be of danger to other road users or pedestrians (sight defects). We remove licences from those that we deem unfit to hold one (e.g. drunk drivers). People have to have a tax disc and current insurance and driving without is illegal.

Then there are the rules of the road, which side of the road to drive. how to turn left or right, how to conduct at traffic lights or crossing points.

The car manufacturer also has a number of regulations to make sure the car is safe and a user has to have a yearly certificate of road worthiness to make sure it is still safe and driving without one is illegal.

I could go on but I think you get the idea.

To me gun ownership has its own concerns and so needs appropriate regulation to address those concerns.

Now 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.

 

Ergo

Stop the criminals stealing legally acquired guns.

The gun laws are not the problem.. The criminals are.

Stop them.. Anything else is a patch to cover your ass