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

NO.. i wish they had them in the uk!!!... you can't do anything if a nutjob comes in your house at night!!!! just hope the cops are in!!!!!!! they just dont answer the fones!!!

 

See that avatar below your name? It generally means anarchy, and anarchy means no government, which entails no political boundaries between pieces of land. You can't be a subject of a non-existent entity.

 

OWB

LOL – that’s not what comes across from your points – you have been antagonistic from the beginning and most of your criticism of my ideas seem to be based solely on you dislike of them and nothing else certainly not rational or reasonable argument.

I mean you don’t even answer questions just go off on rants.

The problem is that unable to debate legitimately you resort to dishonestly trying to claim I’m somehow ‘cheating’, that the reason that you criticisms fall flat and for your inability to defend your ideas from criticism is not because your ideas are weak but that I’m using tricks. That I twist words or take them out of context.

But when I ask you to give example you either refuse or give ones that I can quickly show to be untrue, whereupon you make more false claims and I once again show them to be untrue and so on…

This is not debate it is blatant smear tactics, you haven’t any real argument so you make up false accusations in the hope that some mud might stick.

 

OWB

Supposedly twisted words proved false - number one

So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun, so someone with a history of violence is ok, someone that has committed a robbery with the threat or use of violence is ok, what about someone who is a gun owner but doesn’t use it while committed a robbery?…etc…

You have said it several as you point out here -

What I’m asking for is clarification - that is why at the end of my question there is a question mark.

You don’t seem interested in giving me the answer instead you try to accusation me of a ‘crime’ – you’re trying to score a point not debate.

 

OWB


Supposedly twisted words proved false number two

I’ve got nothing to hide here either

Here is the sequence –

Post 661

Ok we had been discussing the view that many pro-gunners seeming to see gun control as inevitably leading to a gun ban. And in this post you make it clear you were also discussing guns as in the prohibition of guns.

So from the outset I point out that in relation to guns I’m not seeking a prohibition that “I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.”

Your reply to that was –

So to repeat – “So no matter how many times you say "I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible", those of us who read your posts know the truth, so you are only lying to yourself”

You are saying that I’m lying when I say I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible, that my real intention in your opinion is gun control that would inevitably lead to a gun ban.

If that was not your intention in that statement, I’d like to know what it was.

 

OWB

Supposedly twisted words proved false number three

You didn’t say there are those who use phrases like that as a code for racial profiling you said – “Isn't "at risk groups" code for racial profiling.”

In other words in your view "at risk groups" is a code for racial profiling and there was no question mark only a full stop, it wasn’t a question it was a statement. You went on to ask questions (marked by question marks) but was a statement not a question. So yes, you did seem to be associating ‘at risk groups’ with ethnicity and that’s why I asked for clarification.

“That would be a rather racist viewpoint and I’m sure you are not a racist so could you please clarify your position?”

Now rather than just putting your position clearly (that you meant others not yourself and that it was a question not a statement) you instead try to use this to claim I ‘cheat’ by twisting words. Again point scoring not debate.

But fine you are now claiming it as a question.

My answer to it is the one I gave in my reply anyway that – To me it has more of an association with socio-economic factors, social position, environment, education etc and those are universal factors not ones associated with any particular ethnic group.

Most studies on the subject point to socio-economic indicators being the major factors in turning to crime and what type of crime is turned to.

 

OWB

Supposedly twisted words proved false - number four

Of course I remember, we have discussed it since you brought it up (your post 472 my reply 485 onward) - the problem is that you want me to just accept what you say without criticism because you seem unable to address my criticisms.

I’ve explained about the repressive approach, of which gun ownership seems to be a part to many pro-gunners. On how it seems to concentrate on outcome rather than prevention and that it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted since the person is already a criminal and has already obtained a gun. And that in my view a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals.

 

7

It you’d read my posts you’d already know my reply since it is the same one I gave to Thundakat earlier in this thread.

This forum is for the discussion of politics.

It is a wide subject covering in the whole of history and every nation that does or has ever existed as well as taking in all types of political philosophy and thought.

If someone wants to discuss the politics of 12th century Iceland, they can if they wish and anyone who feels like it can join in.

What you’re saying is that they shouldn’t be allowed to because they’re not from the 12th century or a citizen of Iceland.

That nobody should be allowed to discuss anything or study anything if they don’t live their or are a citizen of the place.

Hey astronomers stop looking at that planet ‘like are you citizens of it? Do you live there?’

Stop what you are doing mister virologist that Ebola strain is from the Congo ‘like are you a Congolese citizen?’

Let me ask you Egyptologist woman is the Pharaoh your ruler, like are you an ancient Egyptian citizen?

And so on.

*

I have an interest in politics that is wide and eclectic, I have shelves of books on history, economics and politics. Covering many places, times and ideas.

I happen to be here because I have an interest in American history and politics and many here are from the US or are American citizens and am trying to understand their ideas.

 

The pro-gunners seemingly having no real arguments are doing what any dishonest politician does they are trying to smear their opponent with lies or try and claim they should be disbarred from taking part.

But doesn’t that raise the questions

I mean if their viewpoint was so good then why would they have to be dishonest?

And shouldn’t they be asking themselves why do their arguments not seem to stand up to scrutiny?

 

But we are no longer protecting property and humanity. The politicians would do better as deposed from riches salesmen, and perhaps the salesman, the lobbyists, should run for office with the hard sell as opposed that old soft sell routine.

 

I have been antagonistic from the beginning? This is just a blatant lie.

You are the one ranting, this whole post for instance.

You do and I'm now giving you examples as you do it. Also I'm not the only one in this thread who has said this what you do.

I've been giving examples all a long but now I'm calling them examples as I do it so you no longer can lie about my providing examples.

This is a nice description of what you have been doing.

 

This is example of your twisting what is said about your twisting what was said.

So let's look at your question.
So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun, so someone with a history of violence is ok, someone that has committed a robbery with the threat or use of violence is ok, what about someone who is a gun owner but doesn’t use it while committed a robbery?…etc…

If you'll notice the hi-lighted part of your question. You are not asking if this is what I said. You are using that phrase as if that is what I said and are asking the questions you raise, as if it was what I said. When I bring up the fact that is not what I said; you, in this post, try to say that you were just asking a question and were not saying that is what I said.

You and I both know that is not how the English language works.

If I were to ask the question;
Since everyone knows you are an idiot, does that mean that no one should listen to you?
Does that mean that, since the whole thing is in the form of a question, the first part isn't to be considered as a statement of fact that a question is being asked about?

So therefore your statement at the beginning of your question, So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun, allows me to ask you to show where I said that in my post.

 

This is another example. You have to go through long and torturous reasoning just to come with, that it seems that I might, maybe, possibly be implying that that you want to ban guns.

When in fact this is what I actually said:
"Another example, where did I, in the post that you are responding to even use the word "ban", let alone say that you wanted to ban Guns? It is this constant jumping to conclusions that makes any kind of a discussion with you nearly impossible.

This is what I actually said; "I have seen you make that statement several times and then turn and suggest that by limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible, the number of guns in the hands of criminals will also be reduced." (you even quoted it) Correct me if you will, you have said you believe in "gun control" and won't "gun control" mean the "limiting the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible"?"

The simple truth is that I merely was comparing your statement
“I have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.”
And your idea that the US needs more gun control. (please notice that I did not say or even imply that you recommended a gun ban)

Thus I pointed out that the two are not compatible. You have pointed out many times that gun control that would "limit the rights of gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible" is necessary to lessen the number of guns in the hands of criminals and yet proclaim that you “have nothing against gun ownership by the law abiding and responsible.”.

 

Fine, it was a typo. Here you go, “Isn't "at risk groups" code for racial profiling?”, is that better?

 

Another example.
When I mentioned that there are already laws of the books that take care of criminals that commit violent crimes with guns, that take guns out of the hands of criminals. You called it repressive and got on your high horse and started ranting about how pro-gunners seem to concentrate on outcome rather than prevention and that it is like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted since the person is already a criminal and has already obtained a gun. And that in my view a more sensible approach would be to try and prevent a person turning to crime and as much as possible limit the availability of guns to criminals. None of which was precluded by the statement I made but you had to score your points.

And when I said that you are right in saying things should be done to prevent ones from becoming criminals but instead of just accepting it at face value and saying thanks or something of the kind, you felt the need to score some points.

And when you basically say what I said and I remind of of what you said, I'm making sneering remarks, and you're off again trying to score more points.

 

As many have already pointed out it is you that is being dishonest and it is your arguments not seem to stand up to scrutiny.
Of course it is easy for you to defeat the straw men that you make up out of the things that are said but you don't address the real arguments that are presented to you. And it doesn't seem like you even want to know what they are.

PS this post of yours does not address the OP but is merely "trying to smear your opponents". Scoring more points, perhaps?

 

Yes and the HUMAN POPULATION has proven most people cannot handle such a tool..

 

Most people? Proven?

 

OWB

Sorry but I’m not sure what I can do here. I’ve got nothing to hide, that is why I’m happy to repeat, cite, link or explain, but that doesn’t seem enough for you, it seems you’re not going to accept anything less than my total and abject surrender, even if your reasons for demanding it are tenuous or blatantly false.

I mean have you read through your most recent posts?

They are like a child demanding that I admit to crimes I’ve not committed.

 

OWB

Example one

You said -

So I ask – So only once someone ‘misused’ a gun, so someone with a history of violence is ok, someone that has committed a robbery with the threat or use of violence is ok, what about someone who is a gun owner but doesn’t use it while committed a robbery?…etc…

I could rephrase it for you if you wish?

So are you saying that only once someone has committed a violent crime WITH A GUN, would that warrant the removal of their ‘right’ to own a gun? To further clarify I’m wondering about people that have not actually committing a violent crime WITH A GUN, but have committed other crimes or have shown a tendency to violent acts, what about them? They have not committed a violent crime WITH A GUN, so in your view would they still be able to own a gun?

I really don’t understand - where have I supposedly done wrong in asking this? You certainly seem to think a wrong has been committed but where is it?

*