Wanted: fact based arguments for gun control.

[NT1440]

Originally Posted by eric/

l
i don't care what you call them. If gang member or gang banger or whatever has a racial connotation, perhaps you should look in the mirror and re-examine your perceptions of what those terms mean.



Well because it is. I own a gun. I'm not out killing people.

Don't ******** me. If you were alive during the Reagan era you know exactly what those terms mean when uttered from police or politicians. It was a deliberate PR campaign in conjunction with the war on crime and drugs and is well documented from planning documents. I didn't pick the meanings, I'm talking about the deliberate assigning of those terms to low income poor minority neighborhoods and their residents that was openly carried out from the top. Don't ignore your own history.

And great, I get that your not killing people, nowhere near everyone with a gun does. But again your response is exactly my point, so you may wish to reread it with a bit more of a critical eye.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by eric/

look, you can sit here and try and twist this around and around all you want. I don't really care. All I asked was where the homicides are coming from...... So if you people just want to bicker back and forth and never solve any problems, be my guest.

unfortunately the answer isn't always going to be what you want it to be.......so you don't want to deal with the fact that gang bangers have taken the gun subculture's rhetoric to heart? You're never going to solve problems if you aren't willing to consider ideas that don't agree with your own

[eric/]

Originally Posted by NT1440

Don't ******** me. If you were alive during the Reagan era you know exactly what those terms mean when uttered from police or politicians. It was a deliberate PR campaign in conjunction with the war on crime and drugs and is well documented from planning documents. I didn't pick the meanings, I'm talking about the deliberate assigning of those terms to low income poor minority neighborhoods and their residents that was openly carried out from the top. Don't ignore your own history.

If that term offends you, pick another one. I don't really care what anybody calls gang members, and I don't care what their skin color is.

Originally Posted by NT1440

And great, I get that your not killing people, nowhere near everyone with a gun does. But again your response is exactly my point, so you may wish to reread it with a bit more of a critical eye.

I guess you'll have to elaborate then

----------

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

unfortunately the answer isn't always going to be what you want it to be.......

You didn't answer anything. I asked who is doing the killing, what is the violence related to, you came up with a generic answer "people". Which is completely meaningless.

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

so you don't want to deal with the fact that gang bangers have taken the gun subculture's rhetoric to heart?

What gun subculture rhetoric have they taken to heart? And do you speak for all such gang bangers?

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

You're never going to solve problems if you aren't willing to consider ideas that don't agree with your own

What ideas have I not considered?

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by eric/

...
You didn't answer anything. I asked who is doing the killing, what is the violence related to, you came up with a generic answer "people". Which is completely meaningless. ....

a mis-representation on your part.....I said people with guns.

Originally Posted by eric/

...
...What gun subculture rhetoric have they taken to heart? And do you speak for all such gang bangers?

How it's absolutely necessary to have guns ready to protect yourself, your home, your family and your neighbors from criminals, and that you must be ready, willing and able to use your gun for protection, and further that one can't count on the police for protection (which does seem to be absolutely true in their neighborhoods)......pretty much the same package of ideas that the pro gun subculture puts forward in every PRSI gun thread

Originally Posted by eric/

...
...And do you speak for all such gang bangers?

my! are't you the clever lad

Originally Posted by eric/

...
What ideas have I not considered?

following your tone of "discussion" I'll reply with "obviously any and all that don't support your own view"

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

a mis-representation on your part.....I said people with guns.

Which are people

*see what I did there?*

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

How it's absolutely necessary to have guns ready to protect yourself, your home, your family and your neighbors from criminals, and that you must be ready, willing and able to use your gun for protection, and further that one can't count on the police for protection (which does seem to be absolutely true in their neighborhoods).

Ok and what about any of that is bad or undesirable?

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

my! are't you the clever lad

Well, I was wondering whether you were stereotyping or if gang persons (is that the politically correct term here?) elected you to represent them and speak on behalf of what they all think

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

following your tone of "discussion" I'll reply with "obviously any and all that don't support your own view"

Meh. Figures you don't have anything.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by eric/

Which are people

*see what I did there?*.

yes, you edited out the fact that having guns is a necessary element in shooting people, something you clearly don't like to face up to

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Macky-Mac

yes, you edited out the fact that having guns is a necessary element in shooting people, something you clearly don't like to face up to

And people are a necessary element in shooting people

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by eric/

and by people with guns you mean gang bangers

So your opinion is that gang-bangers are the largest fraction of the problem and that taking the drug trade out of their hands will reduce or eliminate the problem. Seems awfully simplistic to me. You have correctly identified that gangs and the attendant violence associated with them are actually a symptom rather than an underlying problem, I just do not believe you have sufficiently identified the cause of the symptom.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Sydde

So your opinion is that gang-bangers are the largest fraction of the problem and that taking the drug trade out of their hands will reduce or eliminate the problem. Seems awfully simplistic to me. You have correctly identified that gangs and the attendant violence associated with them are actually a symptom rather than an underlying problem, I just do not believe you have sufficiently identified the cause of the symptom.

Well, before we begin to go down this path, the actual guns certainly aren't the problem

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, before we begin to go down this path, the actual guns certainly aren't the problem

Is their widespread availability and ease of attainment the problem?

[eric/]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Is their widespread availability and ease of attainment the problem?

Ease of attainment? Yeah I'd say so. Availability to law-abiding, responsible citizens? No. That's not an issue.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Is their widespread availability and ease of attainment the problem?

Considering most of the scumbags that shoot each other have felonies which means they shouldn't have a gun to begin with, clearly gun laws are not a solution.

We have a ghetto problem, a southern border problem, and drug problem.

Deal with that and shootings will go down.

Anything else is a political puppet theater for fools.

[samiwas]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

Considering most of the scumbags that shoot each other have felonies which means they shouldn't have a gun to begin with, clearly gun laws are not a solution.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there are very few laws covering private sales, even some gun show sales. Maybe some laws covering that would help some, no?

We have a ghetto problem, a southern border problem, and drug problem.

Deal with that and shootings will go down.

Anything else is a political puppet theater for fools.

Almost none of the recent mass shootings have had anything to do with ghetto people, southern illegals, or drugged-out people. So they aren't the only symptoms of the problem.

So, then would you say it is complete coincidence that America has the highest number of guns, and the highest rate of gun violence? Or, is it that America is just so screwed up in pretty much every other way that the high number of guns becomes more prevalent?

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by eric/

Well, before we begin to go down this path, the actual guns certainly aren't the problem

"Certainly" is something I would take issue with. The guns facilitate behavior that other weapons would not, as in, I have never heard of a "drive-by knifing". The potential for anonymous, push-button slaughter is hard to match. Unless, I suppose, the Crips had some convenient way to deliver Zyklon-B to the Blood bro's.

I am fully convinced that a man with a gun is not the same person as a man with no gun, inasmuch as they will tend to behave in different ways. In that respect, guns really are a serious contributing factor. After all, it takes a lot more effort to master throwing-stars, and raining fear and destruction with cross-bows takes more people than one guy with a gun.

I think there are social pressures and issues that foster the growth of criminal organizations like gangs, and some of those social factors also affect the rampagers. Those things, whence arises this violence, do need to be looked at. Yet, without the guns, even the attitude of these bad people will not be the same, the guns themselves, beyond being mere tools, have an influential effect.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by samiwas

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there are very few laws covering private sales, even some gun show sales. Maybe some laws covering that would help some, no?



Almost none of the recent mass shootings have had anything to do with ghetto people, southern illegals, or drugged-out people. So they aren't the only symptoms of the problem.

So, then would you say it is complete coincidence that America has the highest number of guns, and the highest rate of gun violence? Or, is it that America is just so screwed up in pretty much every other way that the high number of guns becomes more prevalent?

America is screwed up...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Sydde

"Certainly" is something I would take issue with. The guns facilitate behavior that other weapons would not, as in, I have never heard of a "drive-by knifing". The potential for anonymous, push-button slaughter is hard to match. Unless, I suppose, the Crips had some convenient way to deliver Zyklon-B to the Blood bro's.

So you think gang members and murderers would just not do it because they don't have access to weapons? (implying they can't get access to weapons so long as governments continue to buy them)

Originally Posted by Sydde

I am fully convinced that a man with a gun is not the same person as a man with no gun, inasmuch as they will tend to behave in different ways. In that respect, guns really are a serious contributing factor.

Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree.

Originally Posted by Sydde

After all, it takes a lot more effort to master throwing-stars, and raining fear and destruction with cross-bows takes more people than one guy with a gun.

Are the majority of gun murders multiple people? Or is it a few people offing somebody else? I bet it's the latter, and I bet that a group of thugs could just as easily knife me down as they could shoot me. In fact, knifing me would be better and easier to get away with.

Originally Posted by Sydde

I think there are social pressures and issues that foster the growth of criminal organizations like gangs, and some of those social factors also affect the rampagers.

Ergo, society is the underlying issue

Originally Posted by Sydde

Those things, whence arises this violence, do need to be looked at. Yet, without the guns, even the attitude of these bad people will not be the same, the guns themselves, beyond being mere tools, have an influential effect.

I don't think you can prove that.

----------

Originally Posted by samiwas

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but there are very few laws covering private sales, even some gun show sales. Maybe some laws covering that would help some, no?



Almost none of the recent mass shootings have had anything to do with ghetto people, southern illegals, or drugged-out people. So they aren't the only symptoms of the problem.

So, then would you say it is complete coincidence that America has the highest number of guns, and the highest rate of gun violence? Or, is it that America is just so screwed up in pretty much every other way that the high number of guns becomes more prevalent?

Mass shootings are a minuscule amount of gun violence. Yeah they look bad and it's all over the news, but day in and day out people are murdered in a variety of ways, for a variety of reasons.

So you can certainly say that the recent mass shootings have had nothing to do with the type of people mentioned, but in the overall picture that's irrelevant, since the vast majority of these types of gun deaths are because of not law abiding gun owners, but because of people who are the drugged-outs with no help from society, or gang bangers who couldn't get a job if they wanted.

And the fact that highest # of guns and # number of gun deaths are here in the US (though depends on who you compare it to) doesn't mean that there is a correlation. As I'm sure you well know, correlation does not imply causation.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by eric/

So you think gang members and murderers would just not do it because they don't have access to weapons?

Hard to tell how the gangs would be if they had to use different weapons. Seems likely guns may even help the gangs recruit young people who want that extra testosterone supplement.

Well I guess you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree. ...I don't think you can prove that.

Mexican stand-off. Unless you think you have the stronger position because you are not asserting anything.

Ergo, society is the underlying issue

"Society" is not the same thing as "social pressures".

… since the vast majority of these types of gun deaths are because of not law abiding gun owners …

Which is what so many of us have been saying. We want the gun dealers to keep careful track of where their inventory goes, and some of us would like the gun owners to bear some responsibility for their weapons (as in, not sell them to your crazy brother-in-law with no consequences). But even that becomes undue regulation and an unfair burden on "law abiding" gun owners. Even the NRA says we should enforce the law instead of "punishing" innocent, while at the same time fighting with all they can to prevent us from putting workable laws into place.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Hard to tell how the gangs would be if they had to use different weapons. Seems likely guns may even help the gangs recruit young people who want that extra testosterone supplement.

Conjecture

Originally Posted by Sydde

Mexican stand-off. Unless you think you have the stronger position because you are not asserting anything.

Nope. It's just that you are just stating an opinion, so I did too, that way they cancel each other out.

Originally Posted by Sydde

"Society" is not the same thing as "social pressures".

Social pressures are exerted by society. Hence, society is the root of social pressure.

Originally Posted by Sydde

Which is what so many of us have been saying. We want the gun dealers to keep careful track of where their inventory goes, and some of us would like the gun owners to bear some responsibility for their weapons (as in, not sell them to your crazy brother-in-law with no consequences). But even that becomes undue regulation and an unfair burden on "law abiding" gun owners.

I don't have a problem with things like closing gun show loopholes, or requiring documentation for transfers or private sales. But definitely no on any sort of liability, unless you sell your weapon illegally or something. Any sort of legislation which would make somebody liable of their weapon was stolen or anything like that is unacceptable, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sydde

Even the NRA says we should enforce the law instead of "punishing" innocent, while at the same time fighting with all they can to prevent us from putting workable laws into place.

Well

[Peace]

I'm starting a new daily updated reason for gun control.

Here's my first. And it includes cops.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1539510

[hulugu]

Originally Posted by eric/

And people are a necessary element in shooting people

Or, robots.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

...We have a ghetto problem, a southern border problem, and drug problem.

Deal with that and shootings will go down.

I would argue that each of these are consequences of the drug war.

[Beeplance]

Difference between Canada and the US.

[eric/]

I watched the first minute, and alas it proved my point once again.

Social differences.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by Sydde

So in the end, how do we see this thread as anything other than a massive trolling? The facts surrounding the question posed simply do not exist in concrete or indisputable form, so we are left to throw distorted numbers back and forth and underhand a few veiled insults until we are all bored and the thread drops into the discard stack.

hafr has posed a question that can neither be supported nor undermined with facts because none exist. So what should we do? Nothing, because we have no facts?

Is there or is there not a problem? Because, if we can agree that there is in fact a problem, then we really ought to examine how to address it. If we cannot agree on that question, the situation is worse than any of us have realized.

Correct. A fact based argument can not be made on either side. We can however state our opinion and give our reasons based on what we believe to be the truth or the most true. Which is fine. But to totally discount someone's opinion because you can find some obscure report that has a little bit of facts and was run by a biased group is just hogwash.

I think we have gone too far into the posting facts war and people's opinions are not being heard. Post 10,000 studies all you want, but people will vote with their opinions.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Correct. A fact based argument can not be made on either side. We can however state our opinion and give our reasons based on what we believe to be the truth or the most true. Which is fine. But to totally discount someone's opinion because you can find some obscure report that has a little bit of facts and was run by a biased group is just hogwash.

I think we have gone too far into the posting facts war and people's opinions are not being heard. Post 10,000 studies all you want, but people will vote with their opinions.

I think when it gets down to an opinion debate, the side which doesn't seek to impose their will on others, is the more moral side.

Whenever you initiate force against others, I think you're wrong.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

I don't have a problem with things like closing gun show loopholes, or requiring documentation for transfers or private sales. But definitely no on any sort of liability, unless you sell your weapon illegally or something. Any sort of legislation which would make somebody liable of their weapon was stolen or anything like that is unacceptable, in my opinion.

I disagree.

People should be responsible if they have a deadly weapon in their possession. I think a gun owner should be liable if their gun is discharged by someone else - either accidentally or criminally. It may make people ensure that their guns are safely locked away from others.

If a kid finds a gun lying around and accidentally kills themself or someone else - don't you think the gun owner should be responsible?