|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
So the "ultimate goal" of those who advocate gun controls is.....what?
CS writes: Propping up kids to hide an ulterior motive is despicable. I'm still desperately unclear as to what the "ulterior motive" being talked about here actually is? What is this "ulterior motive"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Irrational fear.?
Like vertigo or a fear of spiders or something like that? It still seems considerably more likely that those who advocate gun controls do so because they genuinely believe guns to be dangerous and requiring of control on that basis. Now it’s possible that those who consider guns dangerous enough to warrant controls are wrong about that. You are free to attempt make an evidence based case for the ‘guns are perfectly safe without extra controls’ position if you can? But I put it to you that these silly attempts of yours to trivialise positions as borne from mere dislike or irrational fear are themselves borne from your own inability to make any sort of evidence based or reasoned case in support of your own position. It’s easier for you to start making hyperbolic accusations about people having ulterior motives or talking about saving children as a guise than to actually address the very rational concerns people have about gun use.
CS writes: In my experience, the dislike for guns is based on an irrational fear of them. In my experience pro-gunsters irrationally see guns as iconic emblems of personal liberty despite the fact that this thinking has very little relevance in modern Western societies.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Straggler writes: So the "ultimate goal" of those who advocate gun controls is.....what? CS writes: Not "those who advocate gun controls" in general. We were talking about those Moms and Mayors that were mentioned in the article. They're the ones propping up kids to hide that they just don't want people to have guns. But why don't they (these moms and mayors) want people to have guns? What is their reasoning? You have talked about an "ultimate goal" but why would anyone want gun control as an "ultimate goal" in and of itself? So far you've claimed "dislike" of guns but as I've pointed out that could equally apply to anchovies. Baseless personal "dislike" seems an unlikely root cause for seeking to impose legal restrictions on things. You have also claimed "irrational fear". But again - Some sort of phobic reaction to guns seems far less likely than the stated criteria of considering guns dangerous. Why don't you confront the actual concerns actual people actually have and the basis for these concerns rather than pretending that there is some sort of "despicable" plot at hand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Where are guns most prevalent in the developed world - The US.
Where is the teenage pregnancy rate highest in the developed world? from Wiki on teenage pregnancy:
quote: So much for dads armed with guns fending off interest in their daughters..... Maybe you should consider joining the rest of us in the 21st century.
marc writes: Gun control advocates are always quick to point to the U.K. concerning their lack of guns and gun violence, but the issue goes way deeper than that when we consider, as only one example, how often teenagers run from the police there and get by with it. A lot of people want to live in a society where there's law and order. As I sit here in London I can't see any indications of being surrounded by lawlessness. But you apparently know better?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Marc writes: It's not the fault of the private ownership of guns. You are the one linking gun ownership with teenage girls getting pregnant. I'm simply pointing out that your assertion regarding guns as deterring that outcome seems woefully misplaced.
Marc writes: I realize that in gun control debates, England is always perfect It's not a question of perfect. It's simply a case of demonstrating that very strong restrictions on gun ownership hasn't resulted in the sky falling in or mass lawlessness in the way gun advocates in the US say will happen. For example......
Marc writes: the two countries aren't even comparable concerning most issues. But it was you who raised the comparison!! It was you that started talking about comparing the US and the UK in terms of people wanting to live "in a society where there is law and order". I simply pointed out that the UK isn't particularly lawless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I thought we had already established that the problem with Chicago was with the specifics of the laws they tried to implement.
Chicago seems to have based it's specific laws on this unenforceable inside/outside distinction rather than emulate what has actually worked elsewhere.
Message 2259 and up-thread from that. To say that it is not possible to successfully prohibit guns or introduce laws to that effect because one place made a hash of it by doing it in a silly way is a very weak argument on your part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: He's the one who thinks those laws are already enough evidence of it working. Which laws? The ones in Chicago specifically? The ones you argued were un-enforcable? The ones which made little difference to the prevalence of guns in Chicago? There are lots of examples of cities and nations where such laws have worked and the general trend seems pretty well established. On that Percy is correct. You personally are fixated with Chicago because superficially strict laws implemented woefully badly didn't have the desired effect. It was you in this very thread that highlighted the un-enforceable nature of those laws specifically implemented in Chicago. Why you think that example trumps all the other examples where laws have been implemented effectively is a mystery.
CS writes: According to the anti-gunners, we should see a huge spike in gun deaths. I wonder how its going to pan out. The repeal of laws which were implemented badly and didn't work is unlikely to make any significant difference to the prevalence of guns. Isn't that obvious....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: I live in Illinois. I care mostly about the state that affects me directly. OK. Illinois came 39th out of 51 states with a rate of 8.2 per 100,000 as compared to the US figure of 10.1 What point are you making specifically about Illinois?
CS writes: Percy brought up Illinois as an example of gun laws working. I'm simply disabusing that notion. This is what Percy actually said: "seems to indicate that states with stronger gun control laws tend to have lower firearm death rates". Where is the mention of Illinois in that which you felt the need to "disabuse"?
CS writes: You agree with me, but your arguing with me and not him. Weird. I think you are being disingenuous by relentlessly harping on about Chicago when you yourself highlighted that the problem with those specific laws was that they were un-enforceable. If you want to talk about the effect of gun laws on gun deaths perhaps looking at places where the laws have been implemented effectively is the way forwards.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
So you are not even disagreeing with Percy's statement about gun laws and gun deaths in the state of Illinois. You are instead upset because one part of the state (namely Chicago) doesn't fit the overall correlation that the state as a whole was used to exemplify.
Furthermore it was you earlier in this thread who highlighted why the specific laws in question were unenforceable in Chicago (the whole inside/outside distinction). So what on earth is your point here? That some specific badly designed laws didn't work in a specific place so therefore no gun control laws will work anywhere......? What point exactly are you making here with your continual fixation with Chicago?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: No, when I aim at something in a defensive situation I intend to stop a behavior. jar writes: I agree that I would not use a gun to threaten someone. That is just silly. How are you using a gun to stop a behaviour except by threatening to shoot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
mram writes: As for criminals, why should we give them another chance to rape/kill or steal from someone else that cannot protect themselves? If a proliferation of guns made people better protected from crime the US would be the safest and most law abiding place in the developed world. It isn't. For murder rates the US comes joint second worst (Mexico tops the list) of OECD countries. Link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Researchers at Harvard have found a clear link between gun prevalence and homicide rates internationally as well as at the region, state, city and home level.
quote: Link Do you dispute these findings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If someone does enter your home you'd probably be better off in a place where guns are rare and burglars don't commonly carry them....
Why gun advocates think a prevalence of guns in such situations makes such situation anything but likely to be more deadly is mystifying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Does this mean you have stopped denying that there is correlation?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The pro- gun lobby go through predictable cycles. First they deny correlation. Then they say "correlation is not causation"(or words to that effect). Then they start citing causal relationships which dont stand up to evidential scrutiny (e.g. homicidal people seek out guns thus explaining the correlation between guns and homicides)
Whre are you at in that cycle? Denying evidence or proclaiming evidence of correlation as on your side...?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024