How To Argue For Gun Control.

I can't prevent what I can't prevent. If they're that determined to commit suicide then no gun law is going to save them. Do I care for them? Yes. But again, I can't do everything.

No. Where'd you get that from my post?

What didn't I understand? You stated that guns contribute to more suicides than all other methods combined. My response is its only by 3%. Meaning that the stat can easily sway one way or another depending on many factors. Meaning that focusing on suicides by guns is faulty at best.

Actually, if they were specifically designed to kill then they are pretty poor at doing their job. There are many more people who survive gunshot wounds. But going with your argument. Your point? They still only make slightly more than half the suicides committed in America.

Again, that wasn't my claim. My claim is if one option wasn't available then they would choose another option. That's why Japan has a higher suicide rate that we do. They have a very low gun ownership rate yet they find ways to kill themselves. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

That's true with any country.

 

This is a 93 page thread and you're scolding a newcomer for not reading the entire thing?

We booted you guys out in the war of independence. And we whooped you guys again in the war of 1812. So while it's also good to see a problem coming and do everything in your power to peacefully nip it in the bud, if all else fails to prevent a tyrannical government we still have the means to defend ourselves.

The Warsaw ghetto incident proved that an armed populace can stand against a modern army. The only reason why it failed was because the Germans set fire to the ghetto. When your back is against the wall, what other people think of you goes to the back burner.

Again, if your back's against the wall (and I'm not saying that your references were a "back against the wall" scenario) then the opinion of others do not matter.

Invading army, door to door gun confiscation, martial law, etc.

Most gun owners consider "taking over" as something violent. We were not going to start a civil war simply if Hilary won.

 

Hi

Sorry in the delayed reply but I popped over to Italy for Easter

I’ll reply to Eye today and Mac later.

 

Eye

LOL -It’s like the guy who thinks any woman that refuses him a date MUST be a lesbian.

Anyone that criticisms the anti-gun control stance MUST hate guns and gun owners.

OH come on, it’s such a transparent con, that I’m disappointed in you. Its misdirection aimed at trying to hide the fact you don’t have rational counter arguments.

You need to read more closely - this is a problem I’ve had to raise with you before (and others) I mean come on is not like we haven’t been through it multiple times.

Since you know where these examples are you will be able to go back and read them and you will see what was actually said and its meaning.

 

Mac

The answer is yes and no – as with many things it is not black and white – we have had gun control in the UK since the 1920’s and looking at the Home Office figures it would seem that the homicide rate in England did declined after gun control was introduced but some say this was just a coincidence. The was a steady rise fro the late 50’s (the gun laws were tightened up in 1968) and a decline since the late 90’s (tighter laws in 1988 and 1996).

BUT the thing is that as pointed out your argument seems irrational because it seems to be to do nothing rational to try and lessen the harm – that you are not looking at the issue from the point of view of lessening harm but from the stance ‘there should be no prudent gun control’ this means that rather than being objective when looking at this issue you see it from your own bias and that is why you objections seem so irrational (like hoping your god will step in to make things better).

 

Mac

LOL I know this trick when you haven’t got an actual answer - answer a question with a question.

I mean I even gave it to you – in the very next line – any honest person would have gone back and removed the above, but hey…

OK again –

You have made repeated statements along the lines that you think most people deserve to be disadvantaged because that position is self induced, but you really haven’t backed up that viewpoint, other than that you believe it
Can you back you viewpoint up?

Have you read anything on the great depression?

Ok the main big reason for the following great depression was speculative bubble that burst in 1929. It had a knock on effect first on the US and then the European economies

Anyway here is a website that might help it’s for children so not that difficult to understand

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/usa/walldepressionrev2.shtml

Here is something that boils it down to five causes (while admitting there is no definitive list)

https://www.thoughtco.com/causes-of-the-great-depression-104686

After you have read them I can suggest a few books, although I believe you don’t read that much about history or economics.

 

Mac

Well of course you give to the poor – but then someone would probably say that even if you were not giving.

Anyway we have been through that with the whole localism thing

Localism is fine up to a point but only up to a point, for example someone – say X – lives in a prosperous area with high employment, they might personally ‘evaluate’ [verified yourself] and find little reason to give to charity since there are few disadvantaged. But only a few miles away there could be a town with high unemployment with many people in hardship but since X doesn’t live there, doesn’t go there and so cannot ‘evaluate’ that towns needs they have to suffer hardship.

If you have a national scheme with the duty, time, and knowledge to ‘evaluate’ things nationally if can move resources to those places where it is most needed.

But it is often then that you get self serving arguments or ones based in prejudice and bias such as:

[SIZE=11pt]- Why should I give money to people I haven’t personally evaluated [/SIZE][SIZE=11pt][verified][/SIZE][SIZE=11pt] I mean they are most likely feckless, scroungers who deserve their lot because they must have made bad decisions.[/SIZE]

 

Mac

Guns are not the most common means of suicide attempt, but they result in more deaths than every other method combined.

 

Mac

LOL they don’t need to read the whole thing after a certain time it is just you repeating the same things forcing me to repeat the same criticisms which you then ignore and again repeat something things that have already been covered.

 

Mac

Hell man that was covered by MeAgain back at post 11

https://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/477337-how-to-argue-for-gun-control/?p=7926980

[SIZE=11pt]Most of the arms used in the war came from France. France supplied uniforms, boots, arms, cannon and 90% of the gunpowder needed.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=11pt]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.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]​[/SIZE][SIZE=11pt]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.[/SIZE]

**
Heres something I’ve posted about the American War of Independence

"The Battle of the Chesapeake… was a crucial naval battle in the American War of Independence that took place near the mouth of Chesapeake Bay…The battle was tactically inconclusive but strategically a major defeat for the British, since it prevented the Royal Navy from reinforcing or evacuating the blockaded forces of Lieutenant General Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia. When the French were able to achieve temporary control of the sea lanes against the British, the result was the reinforcement of the American army with siege artillery and French troops—all of which proved decisive in the Siege of Yorktown, effectively securing American independence." (Wiki)

It is an interesting ‘what if’ to wonder what would have happened if the French had kept out of the rebellion (but I don’t think in those day they could keep out of any possible way of poking the English in the eye).

But what I do think is that the French don’t get enough credit, the myth that often seems to be promoted is that a rag-tag army of American individualist’s, fighting against ‘tyranny’, all alone and through plucky determination beat up the British and throw them into the sea.
When the real story is that they could not have done it (the way it was done) without the money and direct military assistance of one of the most powerful kingdoms on the planet at that time, which was ruled by one of the most absolute of monarchs.

I mean the claim often expressed by some Americans was that the rebels were fighting against despotism but the thing is that they were doing it (and possibly could only have done it) with the aid of a despot.

*

The war of 1812 was a bit of a sideshow compared with what was going on in Europe at the time. About the same number of British soldiers died in battle in the whole war (1,600) as did in one battle in Europe (Talavera 1,600).

 

Mac

Again have you actually read up on the Warsaw ghetto and the uprising, because from what you say it sounds like you haven’t?

And anyway it makes my point for me - The problem is that the German people had been taught the Jews were dangerous. So what if some of them had fired on the police that had come to take them away, do you think the German people would have seen this a justified and come to their defence or seen it as just more proof that the Jews were indeed dangerous and needed locking away?

The thing is that the Jews had already been trapped and caged and by then it was too late. The tyranny was already in place and the Germans did nothing to fight it in fact many supported it.

Again your reply makes me think you don’t understand what I’ve said.

 

Mac

I’m sorry man but you are just repeating the same stuff over and over that we have already covered. It does the very opposite of making your stance look strong it just makes it clear that you have nothing of any real substance to give – you can only mumble the same tied old and flaw shit over and over.

Yes we all know you really don’t want gun control and that is the reason why you think them unconstitutional, unreasonable, and believe they wouldn’t work.

But others how’ve looked at the issue think the kind of gun control that has come up in this thread is constitutional, reasonable and should be at least tried to limit the harm easy access to guns has caused – and that seems like the more rational approach.

If there is a problem especially if it is killing people isn’t it more rational to try and lessen the harm rather than your approach which seems to be to let the killings go on while hoping that at some point the god you believe in will sort it out.

Yes we should do something about deaths related to car ownership but why is that mutually exclusive with the deaths related to gun ownership, why not be in favour of both although unlike the gun issue I don’t see that many people saying that they oppose measures that might make our roads safer and as said many regulation are already in place or been added to try and bring that about.

 

I am not exactly sure how to argue for gun control but the answer might be in the tactics they used to argue in favor of alcohol prohibition and then later the war on drugs.

 

Why should police and military be the only people legally allowed to carry the highest means of self defense? Do you really trust them with your life? Does anyone really read important information anymore? Like history. Real history. Let's take a quick look. Throughout history, whenever a government became tyrant, they took any means of self defense away from the "common man". Only military and police were given that right. Then military and police were given orders to carry out atrocities against their fellow man. It's happened many times before. Why are people so afraid of self defense in our modern time. The fact still remains that guns exist. And they're not going away. So you have the inalienable right to own one to defend yourself and those you love.

 

[SIZE=11pt]Shoe[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt][/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]First who are ‘they’?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]And second it’s been pointed out many times that the US alcohol prohibition and dumb ‘war on drugs’ are not good models at all, to think they are is to me to be terrible naive. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I think you need to do a bit of historical research and possibly read this thread and you would understand more.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]But to put it simplistically the proposals in this tread are not about stopping legal gun ownership but about bringing in regulations to limit the possibility of guns falling into the hands of the criminal or irresponsible. [/SIZE]

 

Mizzy

As has been pointed out many times this is something of a myth being a rather simplistic viewpoint often based on the bias of the viewer.

[SIZE=11pt]It could be good to do a bit of historical research and possibly read this thread and you might understand more.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11pt]I’ll touch on a few things to give you a hint at how complex is the issues.[/SIZE]

 

[SIZE=11pt]Mizzy[/SIZE]

People often walk into tyranny with their eyes open – think about the large numbers of people that through Trump should have been able to overrule the courts over the immigration ban, or those that supported in the UK a paper that called judges ‘the enemy of the people’ for saying Parliament should have a say over Brexit rather than just leaving it to the Prime Minister.

It is often by the removal of checks on power that are supported by ‘the people’ that are the road to tyranny.

Look at American history in relation to American gun owners stepping into fight injustice. More than not they have done nothing because many supported what was going on

[SIZE=11pt]I mean did the Native Americans that fought back against the treaty breaking US government get the support of the American citizenry? What if the US citizens of Japanese decent had resisted the unconstitutional internment imposed on them after Pearl Harbour and had shot at the police; do you think they would have got general and popular support? What about those hauled in front of McCarthy or the un-American committees, would Americans have rallied to them if they had refused to go before such witch hunts and opened fire on those that came to take them?[/SIZE]

 

Mizzy

You need to remember Hitler was a populist leader and at the beginning (and for some even at the end) very popular and many of the things he did had popular support (including taking rights away from Jews and other ‘inferiors’).

For example the supporters of Hitler hated left-wingers and were taught to hate others, and once in power they limited their ability to have jobs (later if you wanted a government job you had to be a member of the Nazis paty) and the left wingers were first to the concentration camps to be ‘re-educated’ . Later they accepted that the Jews and other inferiors should go, for good.

One of the many ways to attack opposing views is to limit those who hold them to have access to jobs

Imagine not been able to get a job because of your political views or losing it for the same reason, couldn’t happen in the US… it already has –

A loyalty programme was brought in for all government workers and anyone with left leaning views or associations could lose their job, be sacked for their beliefs.

People could appeal but the evidence against them did not have to be disclosed and accusers did not have to be identified.

Think about that – believing in equal rights or a distributive tax system could get you thrown out of your job?

Later it became even easier to sack someone for having ‘suspect’ (left wing) views, with the criteria for dismissal going from ‘reasonable grounds’ to only having to have ‘reasonable doubts’ about a persons supposed ‘loyalty’ and those that had been cleared under the lower criteria had their case re-opened.

And in 1953 departments were given the power to dismiss individuals without having to conduct any hearing whatsoever on the merest suspicion.

*

Think on this

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

Mizzy

The thing is that you have this separation between ‘the government’ and ‘the people’ again this is a simplistic way of seeing things it’s a black and white viewpoint – thing is that your fellow citizens work in the government, in the police and in the military and in a democratic based system the people have a lot of influence over who gets into power.

There are a lot of people in the US (as elsewhere) that believe in intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of social control, the US has the highest prison population in the world (716 per 100,000) and according to amnesty international these are some of the harshest prisons in the developed world. Then remember that many Americans believe torture (of their fellow man) is legitimate. Look at some of the ICE deportations that are going on now that are causing a lot of suffering.