Gun Fanaticism

[WinePusher]

I believe in the second amendment, but it's clear that the original intent of the founders wasn't to sanction the right to bear weapons of mass destruction capable of killing and wounding 400+ people in the matter of minutes.

At this point the NRA and these gun fanatics are just as worst as liberals.

So, what is the deal with gun fanatics? Why do some people feel the need to horde heavy weapons? How can anyone defend the unregulated sale of heavy machine guns and assault rifles?

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 87 by AgnosticBoy]

A recent FBI study found that shooters commonly obtain their guns legally, and only about 25% had diagnosed mental health issues. Of course some shooters steal their guns from guns shops or legal owners.
I repeat: No guns, no shootings.

Of course that won't stop all violent crime. But it will stop some and it will also deter some suicides.

And we could also impose life sentences on all gun crime, and stiffer sentences without parole on crimes of violence. This might not deter criminals, but it would take some violent offenders out of circulation.

[bluethread]

There are definite steps that could be taken to reduce gun violence, and at this point I would say even many Republicans are in favor of doing something, be it regulations, stricter background and mental health checks prior to purchasing, or more restrictions.

But practically nothing is done. That leads me to believe that the people of this country are no longer primarily to blame. There are more sinister, corrupt, and powerful forces preventing progress to be made in this area. I suspect corruption in the government and NRA are to blame right now, and I'm not sure what can be done about that.

The sinister, corrupt and powerful forces are part of the sausage making that is the nature of a democratic republic. The NRA is not the only force involved. It is often demonized as a manipulator. However, in another area, a much more powerful organization, the AARP, is seen as a benign public interest group. The gun issue is also one that crosses party lines. there are republicans that are for gun control and some Democrats that are opposed to gun control. Also, there are politicians who oppose solutions, simply because they want to keep the issue alive to justify their existence. The bottom line is that rather than being an example of the failure of a Democratic Republic, it is one of the best examples of how a Democratic Republic works.

The public wants the government to protect them in general, but they also do not want to be told what to do specifically. It is the balancing of these two desires that is the real reason why specific solutions do not get enacted. How that works is that people tend to push their concerns and ignore those of others. Those who wish to be protected, blow off the desires of others to protect their freedoms. Those who wish protect their freedoms blow off the concerns of those who wish to be protected. The best approach for both sides would be for each side to frame it's arguments to address the concerns of the other side. However, that is not how people generally approach things.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 90 by bluethread]

Freedom must be paid for. Freedom isn't free. To be free of gun violence we must give up freedom to own guns. Humans can't be trusted with guns, not even the police.

Most shooters obtain their guns legally. Others steal guns from legal owners and gun stores.

Getting rid of guns won't stop all violence, but it will stop the cheap easy and very deadly violence that infests the US. If no one has a gun, then no one needs a gun. QED

[AgnosticBoy]

A recent FBI study found that shooters commonly obtain their guns legally, and only about 25% had diagnosed mental health issues. Of course some shooters steal their guns from guns shops or legal owners.

I assume that you're using this bit of information to counter my evidence-backed claim regarding the vast majority of gun crime being committed by CRIMINALS - those who aren't supposed to possess a gun in the first place.

You mentioned "shooters". What shooters are you referring to?

First off, can you please provide a link to your source. Secondly, can you cite the statistics on the "shooters" if it involves unjustified shootings. If you're referring to school shooters then even they account for a very small percentage of overall gun crime. I'm sure they'd take up a good portion of that whopping ONE percent of gun crime that lawful gun owners commit. ; )

I repeat: No guns, no shootings.

That's incorrect unless you eliminate guns worldwide which is unlikely to happen. You ban guns in the US then criminals will get them elsewhere or find a way to make guns themselves.

Like I said before, you have not refuted my claim unless you can show that banning guns is the ONLY way to reduce gun crime. We both know that you lack logic and evidence based on how you dodge defending that specific claim (reminiscent of politicians). That's why I presume that you implicitly acknowledge that a ban is not the only way to reduce gun crime.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 92 by AgnosticBoy]


Were you interested, you would look up the study yourself. You just keep asking for statistics that you then ignore and ask for more statistics. It seems that you are interested in arguing your position by any means.

America's gun culture in 10 charts --
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

By restricting the manufacture and importation of guns, we probably wouldn't prevent all gun crime but we would cut it down because guns would be in shorter supply and thus more expensive.

There is no "magic bullet" to immediately and miraculously dissolve the problem of gun crime. There is only a slow hard slog to progress. It involves making every gun owner a criminal. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. We will know without any doubt who are the "bad guys" who must be removed from society.

Nobody needs a gun. Next stop: Outlaw the military, but keep it a secret. Keep recruiting offices open and anyone trying to join is put on medication and treatment.

Imagine
John Lennon, Plastic Ono Band

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people sharing all the world
You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Songwriters: John Winston Lennon

Jesus had his chance. He isn't going to save us. We have to save ourselves.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 93 by TSGracchus]

Replying to post 93 by TSGracchus]
America's gun culture in 10 charts --
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081

Apparently my contentions were correct without having read your source. Your source states the following,

The overall number of people killed in mass shootings each year represents only a tiny percentage of the total number.

It seems not only do I have to remind you of a common procedure of a rational debate (to CITE your sources) but I also end up having to use the words of your own source against you to show why it doesn't help your point. In the end it seems I'm doing all of the work for you.

Sir, you have nothing to rebut my claim that CRIMINALS are the problem with gun crime since they commit the vast majority of gun crime. Bringing up the "tiny percentage" of lawfully gunowners turning bad does not refute my point.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 94 by AgnosticBoy]

Please, be so kind as to interpret these statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Sort by number of firearms deaths per 100,000. In the world only Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Brazil, Colombia and Panama have higher rates of gun deaths than the US.

The US has 89 guns per 100 inhabitants. That is a higher percentage than anywhere in the world. How would you interpret those statistics?

Most of the people who shot others bought their guns legally, or stole them from someone who did. The undeniable fact: Fewer guns, more expensive guns, fewer deaths by firearms.

The US has more accidental gun deaths per 100,000 than 9 countries have total gun deaths.

[AgnosticBoy]

In general, the more you requure extensive the background checks (including mental health), gun law education, and training then the less gets gun crime. This is precisely what law enforcement goes through. Ever wonder why we don't hear about FBI agents committing gun crime and accidental shootings?

Surely if everyone was made to go through the same screening/education/training then that would also reduce gun crime even lower.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to post 94 by AgnosticBoy]

Please, be so kind as to interpret these statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... death_rate

Sort by number of firearms deaths per 100,000. In the world only Honduras, Venezuela, El Salvador, Swaziland, Guatemala, Jamaica, Brazil, Colombia and Panama have higher rates of gun deaths than the US.

The US has 89 guns per 100 inhabitants. That is a higher percentage than anywhere in the world. How would you interpret those statistics?

Most of the people who shot others bought their guns legally, or stole them from someone who did. The undeniable fact: Fewer guns, more expensive guns, fewer deaths by firearms.

The US has more accidental gun deaths per 100,000 than 9 countries have total gun deaths.

I can address your stats but to do so would be distracting from the main point of disagreement between you and I. I already agree that guns can be dangerous and that there is a gun crime problem in the US. I also acknowledge that banning guns would help to reduce gun crime. The issue that we're having is not knowing what your position in terms of if you're claiming it's the ONLY way to reduce gun crime as opposed to being just ONE way. Simply arguing that a ban will help the problem doesn't specify if it's the ONLY way to fix the problem.

If you want to state that a ban is the only way to reduce gun crime then you need to let us know that. Then you need to state that it is nothing more than your liberal opinion. If you continue to state it as fact w/out evidence and DeSPITE my counter-evidence then you are in direct violation of the forum rules.

[TSGracchus]

[Replying to post 96 by AgnosticBoy]


AgnosticBoy: "I can address your stats but to do so would be distracting from the main point of disagreement between you and I."

So, you demand stats from me, but when they are provided you dismiss them as "distracting". Perhaps you could explain why that is not disingenuously dishonest?

AgnosticBoy: "I already agree that guns can be dangerous and that there is a gun crime problem in the US. I also acknowledge that banning guns would help to reduce gun crime. The issue that we're having is not knowing what your position in terms of if you're claiming it's the ONLY way to reduce gun crime as opposed to being just ONE way. Simply arguing that a ban will help the problem doesn't specify if it's the ONLY way to fix the problem."

Straw man! I never claimed that it was the only way. On the other hand, it might be the only practical way. For instance: We might put all gun fans in an arena and let them shoot it out until only one remained and then hang the survivor. That would probably work but it is probably not politically feasible. Liberals would probably disapprove.

AgnosticBoy: "If you want to state that a ban is the only way to reduce gun crime then you need to let us know that. Then you need to state that it is nothing more than your liberal opinion. If you continue to state it as fact w/out evidence and DeSPITE my counter-evidence then you are in direct violation of the forum rules."

More demands! And if I meet your demands I expect from past performance that you will just make other demands, or ignore my compliance.

You have repeatedly accused me of violations of forum rules. You should report such violations to the mods. I believe that is the proper procedure under the rules.