Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Conservative argument for firearms analyzed and repudiated...
OMG! Do you see what's happening in Chicago? Look at all the gun deaths this weekend even with a gun ban. Clearly criminals don't follow the law, so we need more guns
This is a fallacious argument. While conservatives constantly bring up Chicago as a talking point, Chicago only enforces the fact that we need to enforce gun control across the country. Chicago banning guns does nothing. Any group of criminals with a car can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, or Wisconsin. It's not difficult with guns laying around everywhere. It is not difficult for these criminals to get a hold of guns. The Chicago gun ban is nothing more than symbolic.
Every single gun that a "criminal" has was legally purchased at some point. There is no magical "illegal gun factory". Everyone wants to discuss that criminals have all these guns, but no one wants to discuss how all of these guns end up with the criminals. Or the fact that the rough areas of places like Stockholm still have hardly any gun violence especially compared to a similar sized American city.
If a criminal was coming at you and your family you would obviously want a gun to defend your family.
I'd rather the criminal just not have a gun in the first place. What most gun lovers don't understand is that the more guns there are around, the more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Furthermore, the best way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the economic inequality that fosters it. This is why Scandinavia, which has relatively low wealth inequality has way less crime than the UK, which has moderate inequality, which in turn has way less crime (per capita) than the United States, which has severe inequality.
I'm sorry, but study after study shows that the best way to reduce crime is to reduce inequality. Not more guns.
Guns don't kill people, people do. This is a mental health issue.
It is interesting how conservatives become so concerned about mental health when it comes to keeping their precious guns.
The problem is mental health care is not typically covered by most insurance plans. Most insurance companies do not deem mental health as necessary. Therefore, mental health care is often too expensive for those who need it.
In most 1st world countries mental healthcare is part of the universal health care system, giving all people , regardless of income access access to mental healthcare.
Do you see gun activists, however, calling for universal health care. Nope. Not at all. In fact, most are vehemently against giving everyone access to healthcare.
Furthermore, we discuss the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people do". Yes a gun requires someone to pull a trigger. We all understand that. The saying, however, should be, "Guns don't kill people, people do, but people kill more people with guns than any other personal weapon".
Yes guns are the most effective killing tool. That's why the armed forces of every country abandoned swords, spears, etc. for guns as soon as they came around. It's much easier to kill six people with a gun at one time than six people with a knife.
Harvard is not a reputable source
Yes, the topped ranked university and the entire world is full of it. Just the further development of the anti-intellectual sentiment the right embraces with a fanatical fervor. Anti-intellectualism, the premise of theocracies and totalitarian dictatorships everywhere is a now a major tenant of the right, which is alarming.
The great advantage guns have compared to any other weapon is the user does not to be exceptionally physically competent. With a little training and a gun a small woman or child can defend themselves against a large criminal committing an assault against the weak.
The most difficult think for the intellectual elite to admit is there ARE violent people in this word and they are willing to hurt others to get what they want. IMHO everyone has a duty to be able to stop an assault by killing the assailant. Holding for the police or wounding the attacker is simply not sufficient. Killing them is the proper response to being attacked. Guns are the most effective weapon a person can use to stop an attack.
Reasonable people already knew this because it makes for intuitive common sense.
1. There is no nation on earth that has ever armed itself to safety; the safest nations on earth do not have the most liberal gun policies (and Switzerland has more stringent gun control than we've ever had, despite their high rates of gun ownership).
2. If more guns equated to more safety, we would already have long ago been a global statistical outlier in safety and crime sparsity; we're far from it.
3. If safety for your populace is predicated on everyone having to go about their daily life with loaded firearms at their sides, then you've already lost; there is something seriously screwed up and out of control in your society if that's your best solution.
And now it's time for the flat-earthers to argue about how educated research at those "liberal book learnin" places is wrong and how we should all go back to the Stone Age asap... take it away, folks!
There have been dozens of these "studies" trotted out by liberals and liberal institutions. Once the internals of these "studies" are examined they all turn out to be hopelessly flawed and completely agenda driven. The fact that the gullible continue to spout hoplophobe propaganda doesn't make bogus numbers any less bogus.
The Conservative argument for firearms analyzed and repudiated...
OMG! Do you see what's happening in Chicago? Look at all the gun deaths this weekend even with a gun ban. Clearly criminals don't follow the law, so we need more guns
This is a fallacious argument. While conservatives constantly bring up Chicago as a talking point, Chicago only enforces the fact that we need to enforce gun control across the country. Chicago banning guns does nothing. Any group of criminals with a car can simply drive out of Chicago city limits and buy a gun in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, or Wisconsin. It's not difficult with guns laying around everywhere. It is not difficult for these criminals to get a hold of guns. The Chicago gun ban is nothing more than symbolic.
Every single gun that a "criminal" has was legally purchased at some point. There is no magical "illegal gun factory". Everyone wants to discuss that criminals have all these guns, but no one wants to discuss how all of these guns end up with the criminals. Or the fact that the rough areas of places like Stockholm still have hardly any gun violence especially compared to a similar sized American city.
If a criminal was coming at you and your family you would obviously want a gun to defend your family.
I'd rather the criminal just not have a gun in the first place. What most gun lovers don't understand is that the more guns there are around, the more guns will end up in the hands of criminals. Furthermore, the best way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the economic inequality that fosters it. This is why Scandinavia, which has relatively low wealth inequality has way less crime than the UK, which has moderate inequality, which in turn has way less crime (per capita) than the United States, which has severe inequality.
I'm sorry, but study after study shows that the best way to reduce crime is to reduce inequality. Not more guns.
Guns don't kill people, people do. This is a mental health issue.
It is interesting how conservatives become so concerned about mental health when it comes to keeping their precious guns.
The problem is mental health care is not typically covered by most insurance plans. Most insurance companies do not deem mental health as necessary. Therefore, mental health care is often too expensive for those who need it.
In most 1st world countries mental healthcare is part of the universal health care system, giving all people , regardless of income access access to mental healthcare.
Do you see gun activists, however, calling for universal health care. Nope. Not at all. In fact, most are vehemently against giving everyone access to healthcare.
Furthermore, we discuss the saying, "Guns don't kill people, people do". Yes a gun requires someone to pull a trigger. We all understand that. The saying, however, should be, "Guns don't kill people, people do, but people kill more people with guns than any other personal weapon".
Yes guns are the most effective killing tool. That's why the armed forces of every country abandoned swords, spears, etc. for guns as soon as they came around. It's much easier to kill six people with a gun at one time than six people with a knife.
Harvard is not a reputable source
Yes, the topped ranked university and the entire world is full of it. Just the further development of the anti-intellectual sentiment the right embraces with a fanatical fervor. Anti-intellectualism, the premise of theocracies and totalitarian dictatorships everywhere is a now a major tenant of the right, which is alarming.
1. You are right, criminals have no problem getting guns. The black market for straw purchases and stolen guns is strong. So if you think gun control will keep guns out of the hands of people that intend to do harm, you would be wrong. The only thing that would slow this down would be an outright ban on all guns in America, with strictly enforced laws that carry heavy sentences. Anything short of that would be futile. All you have to do is repeal the second amendment.
2. You are wishing for utopia which doesn't exist here in America. The reality is that the criminal does have the gun in the first place.
3. When it comes to the gun debate, conservatives and the NRA are the first ones calling for NICS access to medical records. Better reporting of mentally ill individuals to NICS will keep Gun shops from selling guns to them. As it stands now, HIPPA laws are preventing this.
4. It is not anti intellectualism. It's anti liberalism. The educational institutions in America are liberal indoctrination machines. Just because Harvard is a prestigious college doesn't make it non biased.
Progressive US cities have violent crime rates of third world countries. Conservative rural areas have homicide rates lower than most EU countries. The US doesn't have a gun problem, it has an urban liberal problem.
Obamas CDC study found that firearms are used by people to defend themselves MILLIONS of times each year. I'll take the study that runs contrary to the researchers bias over the one that confirms it.
Reasonable people already knew this because it makes for intuitive common sense.
If we took away everybody who lives in a urban or suburban area and forced them to only use public transportation which utilized highly trained drivers, we'd be a safer country as well.
Would you say that losing the personal freedom of being able to own and use your own car is worth it?
Since America is the only nation on Earth with a republican form of government, in which the people are the sovereigns, and the government is their servant, one can only wonder WHO BENEFITS?
When the servant tells the master to DISARM, someone is asking for a spanking.
OP, ok, then Obama and family don't need all those gunman surrounding him. Good take the guns away. They can just beg the criminals not to hurt them.
Criminals LOVE unarmed people... easy targets.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
web.jpg)
