Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12
Results 221 to 231 of 231
  1. #221
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I appreciate that Chinese silk is very expensive you know.
    But sooo soft and smooth....


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The logical conclusion is that if we want to address violence in America we need to look for ways to build social trust and create social rejection of violence.
    Hmmm. Ok. Like when IBELSD and I both said something like "if you want to reduce violence in America you need to address the causes, not the tools...?
    Not that I disagree with your statement, but I'm still trying to connect it to the Op?:
    "Gun Control and your stance"

    But since we have covered your argument, perhaps we have a minute to recap some of where we are so far.

    We have a greed that:
    a. taking guns away from the public historically hasn't lead to a significant drop in murder/violent crime where it has been tried.
    b. banning a particular weapon (AR-15 for instance) will not significantly reduce murder violent crime.
    c. there is more than one reason to own a gun, that does not include an intent to do murder/violent crime.
    d. though you have given some examples of somewhat peaceful societies that severely restrict gun ownership, there is no reason so far to conclude that a peaceful society could not involve personal gun ownership.
    e. gun ownership is not a cause of violence.
    f. most guns just sit around some ones house/stored and are never used at all, so the primary reason to own one is not because one expects to do violence against another human.
    f1. I really am not that much in favor of hunting in a lot of cases. If the hunter eats the kill ok (just don't call it "sporting"/sport"!).
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 3rd, 2019 at 05:11 PM.

  2. #222
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm. Ok. Like when IBELSD and I both said something like "if you want to reduce violence in America you need to address the causes, not the tools...?
    Not that I disagree with your statement, but I'm still trying to connect it to the Op?:
    "Gun Control and your stance"
    That's correct, I agreed with it at the time it was said, I still do.
    It is connected to the OP because it is my observation that efforts at gun regulation are part of a larger social movement to create a more peaceful society. That direction is a good one. We should embrace it rather than fight against it. But it is the underlying desire for a peaceful society we should embrace, not gun control in and of itself. Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do. I want to deflect the normal gun control argument away from the usual talking points and to something more realistic and truthful.

    But since we have covered your argument, perhaps we have a minute to recap some of where we are so far.
    Sure, I can offer some rebuttal for you, but please don't link any of this to my main argument here, which is that trusting societies tend to turn away from personal firearm ownership.

    We have agreed that:
    a. taking guns away from the public historically hasn't lead to a significant drop in murder/violent crime where it has been tried.
    I neither agree nor disagree, I have not looked into this in detail. I suspect the correlation is mixed.

    b. banning a particular weapon (AR-15 for instance) will not significantly reduce murder violent crime.
    I agree, though I still tend to support limitations on civilian weapons.

    c. there is more than one reason to own a gun, that does not include an intent to do murder/violent crime.
    True.

    d. though you have given some examples of somewhat peaceful societies that severely restrict gun ownership, there is no reason so far to conclude that a peaceful society could not involve personal gun ownership.
    Well, many peaceful societies do involve personal gun ownership, but it comes with a lot of responsible restrictions that American gun enthusiasts often object to. I think any time you find a very peaceful society, you will find such restrictions and limitations on owning and operating weapons.

    e. gun ownership is not a cause of violence.
    Agreed. Though I would add it can be a catalyst to violence. AKA if you own a gun, you are more likely to experience violence than if you don't. The causal direction of this varies. Sometimes the violence begets the gun, sometimes the gun begets the violence. But the mere presence of a gun does not ensure violence.

    f. most guns just sit around some ones house/stored and are never used at all, so the primary reason to own one is not because one expects to do violence against another human.[/QUOTE]

    I disagree. All the weapons in the US military are there to be used to kill people, even if they are not utilized, that is their intent. The guns that sit around peoples homes tend to be intended for violence, it's just that the violence doesn't happen. But that remains their purpose and the expected utility of the gun.

    f1. I really am not that much in favor of hunting in a lot of cases. If the hunter eats the kill ok (just don't call it "sporting"/sport"!).
    I think hunting is sport and recreation for most people. It is very rare that someone subsists largely on their hunting in America. Therefore it is something you do for fun. That includes when you choose to eat the animal you hunt. I have had family members who are subsistence hunters, it is still somewhat common in Alaska, but overall, its a tiny number of Americans that do this.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #223
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    That's correct, I agreed with it at the time it was said, I still do.
    It is connected to the OP because it is my observation that efforts at gun regulation are part of a larger social movement to create a more peaceful society. That direction is a good one. We should embrace it rather than fight against it. But it is the underlying desire for a peaceful society we should embrace, not gun control in and of itself. Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do. I want to deflect the normal gun control argument away from the usual talking points and to something more realistic and truthful.
    A gun is a tool. A peaceful society could still have gun ownership. I get your "observation" correlates well, but you have admitted:
    "So I can't "prove" beyond all down that safe societies limit guns always"

    IOW you clearly by your own assessment have not shown:
    "Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I want to deflect the normal gun control argument away from the usual talking points and to something more realistic and truthful.
    That would be a refreshing change




    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I agree, though I still tend to support limitations on civilian weapons.
    Agreed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    True.
    Thank you


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Well, many peaceful societies do involve personal gun ownership, but it comes with a lot of responsible restrictions that American gun enthusiasts often object to. I think any time you find a very peaceful society, you will find such restrictions and limitations on owning and operating weapons.
    Personal responsibility in America has been waning for decades and took a huge hit during the Clinton years, though it depends on "what your definition of "is" is...".
    Agreed, people in America are getting used to "it" (whatever the "it" is) being somebody else's fault.

    At my work there is a paper towel roll in the rest room that has a tag:
    "do not hang by the neck"
    Now the manufacturer undoubtedly put that there because somebody had done it and then the lawsuits started...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    AKA if you own a gun, you are more likely to experience violence than if you don't.
    This is begging for support...


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I disagree. All the weapons in the US military are there to be used to kill people, even if they are not utilized, that is their intent. The guns that sit around peoples homes tend to be intended for violence, it's just that the violence doesn't happen. But that remains their purpose and the expected utility of the gun.
    1. I said in "peoples homes"
    2. Even in the military, guns are often a deterrent not used to kill.
    2a. China just "took over" int'l waters, if they didn't think the US military would respond how long until they "claimed" America. No shot fired (yet) because the Chinese believe the US can protect itself.
    2b. The same applies at your home. An intruder would likely "look elsewhere" if they thought a given house was armed.
    3. you admit "most guns just sit around the house and violence doesn't happen" with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    The guns that sit around peoples homes tend to be intended for violence, it's just that the violence doesn't happen. But that remains their purpose and the expected utility of the gun.
    You keep saying this but have yet to support it. There are many, if not most times where a gun was used to protect and no one got hurt.
    If some one broke into my home and I stood there with a shotgun, likely they would leave no shots fired, violence avoided. Unless we are talking the inner city, when a gun is displayed, most people start looking for an exit.

    Do I need my caps lock?
    You have not responded yet to the fact that most people don't even think cops shoot to kill when trying to save an innocent persons life. They expect a cop to wound unless there is no other choice! Certainly they don't expect to actually kill some one just because they have a gun for protection.

    You have only supported this with an emotional appeal (your own emotions) due to your personal feeling about guns.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think hunting is sport and recreation for most people.
    Huh. What is "sporting" about shooting an animal from 200-600 yds away that can't see, hear or sense you.
    Is the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel" sport too.
    Perhaps "sport" means something different to me.
    Go kill a deer with a knife and I might call it sport.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It is very rare that someone subsists largely on their hunting in America. Therefore it is something you do for fun.
    I said nothing like "subsistence". I meant if you are going to hunt an animal, eat it, don't just cut off the head and put it on your wall or take your picture with the carcass and leave the body to rot.
    Nothing to do with gun control, you have to eat to live, I get that. Unless you are a plant something has to die for you to stay alive.

    I just try to respect life. Life seems pretty rare from my perspective....

    ---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I neither agree nor disagree, I have not looked into this in detail. I suspect the correlation is mixed.
    Curious, because this kinda makes/breaks your argument.

    Showing me Japan, that has always enjoyed a low murder rate and never really allowed gun ownership isn't a convincing argument for your point.
    Show me countries that had gun ownership and higher murder rates (than Japan), that when ownership was severely restricted/banned and the murder rate went dramatically down, you would have a great point, but as a link I posted many posts ago showed, countries that have tried this did not see a corresponding decline in murder/violence.
    (don't whip out the "caps lock" yet, I know you say you are not arguing "gun control" directly but per you " "Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do.", so yes, you are arguing for gun control...)


    IOW, if as you say:
    "I suspect the correlation is mixed."

    I'm not sure what else the is to argue about? The outcome being "mixed" is exactly my point!
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 4th, 2019 at 07:11 PM.

  4. #224
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    A gun is a tool. A peaceful society could still have gun ownership. I get your "observation" correlates well, but you have admitted:
    "So I can't "prove" beyond all down that safe societies limit guns always"

    IOW you clearly by your own assessment have not shown:
    "Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do."
    All the evidence points in that direction. You can ignore it and hold out hope that all the evidence is wrong and it's all some freak coincidence, but that doesn't seem like a wise judgment on your part.

    That would be a refreshing change
    Indeed, join me, embrace an alternate way of viewing the issue.

    This is begging for support...
    https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1...ers-systematic
    "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with (increased) risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."

    1. I said in "peoples homes"
    I was illustrating with a similar situation in which we clearly understand the intent.

    2. Even in the military, guns are often a deterrent not used to kill.
    The reason they can deter is they can kill. If you cannot or will not use the weapon to kill then it isn't a threat.

    2a. China just "took over" int'l waters, if they didn't think the US military would respond how long until they "claimed" America. No shot fired (yet) because the Chinese believe the US can protect itself.
    This supports my point. A weapon you don't intend to ever use is not really a weapon. The intent and ability to kill is what makes it a weapon.

    2b. The same applies at your home. An intruder would likely "look elsewhere" if they thought a given house was armed.
    Because it is capable of killing them. Thus supporting my point.

    3. you admit "most guns just sit around the house and violence doesn't happen" with them.
    Correct, but the reason they own them is so they can kill someone if they think they need to.

    You keep saying this but have yet to support it. There are many, if not most times where a gun was used to protect and no one got hurt.
    If some one broke into my home and I stood there with a shotgun, likely they would leave no shots fired, violence avoided. Unless we are talking the inner city, when a gun is displayed, most people start looking for an exit.
    Why don't you use a banana instead of a shotgun?
    What would you do if they charged at you while holding a shotgun?

    Do I need my caps lock?
    You have not responded yet to the fact that most people don't even think cops shoot to kill when trying to save an innocent persons life. They expect a cop to wound unless there is no other choice! Certainly they don't expect to actually kill some one just because they have a gun for protection.
    Cops are not trained to wound people with firearms, they are trained to kill them. And yes, most people that own a gun and use it in self-defense should know that you need to shoot to kill if you hope it will be effective in stopping someone.
    https://abcnews.go.com/US/police-tra...ry?id=40402933

    You have only supported this with an emotional appeal (your own emotions) due to your personal feeling about guns.
    No, it is cold logic. A gun is a weapon. A weapon is a tool for killing things. People who own a gun for defense must use that gun as a weapon for that defense to be meaningful. If you own a weapon for defense, you are prepared and intent to kill to save your life or the life of others. You are being pedantic and evasive. You are the person who is emotional.

    Do you own a gun?
    Is it intended for self-defense or the defense of your family?
    Are you prepared to kill someone with it if they pose a serious threat you or your family?

    If you answer yes to these three questions then you own a gun with the intent to use it to kill someone. That does not make you evil, it is not a moral judgment, it is just a fact.

    Huh. What is "sporting" about shooting an animal from 200-600 yds away that can't see, hear or sense you.
    Ask a hunter, I'm sure they would have an answer for you.
    We agree that wasteful hunting is immoral / irresponsible

    Curious, because this kinda makes/breaks your argument.
    It does not. My argument is that developed peaceful societies with high social trust will move to restrict firearms.

    It is possible that say, a despotic regime or a desperate regime in a crime-ridden society will also seek to control firearms. Thus you could get firearm control even when there is still violence.

    To undermine my argument, you want to show me a large society with a low crime rate where they don't restrict firearm ownership in meaningful ways. This would serve to stand against the many such societies that do restrict gun ownership.

    Showing me Japan, that has always enjoyed a low murder rate and never really allowed gun ownership isn't a convincing argument for your point.
    Statistically correct. But, if you lived here as I do and talked to people about why then you would understand how Japan is a good model for this.

    Show me countries that had gun ownership and higher murder rates (than Japan), that when ownership was severely restricted/banned and the murder rate went dramatically down, you would have a great point, but as a link I posted many posts ago showed, countries that have tried this did not see a corresponding decline in murder/violence. (don't whip out the "caps lock" yet, I know you say you are not arguing "gun control" directly but per you " "Gun control is just a natural byproduct of a trusting and peaceful society. It's something such societies inevitably do.", so yes, you are arguing for gun control...)
    Dude..... You were doing so well, why even say this when it's not a rebuttal to my argument? You are just whistling into the wind. Explain the logic of how it is a rebuttal beyond (it has something to do with gun control).

    I'm not sure what else the is to argue about? The outcome being "mixed" is exactly my point!
    My argument is this....
    Peaceful trusting societies make rules against unrestricted ownership of firearms.
    The peace is the cause, the restrictions are the effect.

    To argue against this you must show me the cause existing without the effect. You need to show where a peaceful trusting nation (of some significant size) has decided to allow relatively unrestricted personal ownership of firearms. Then you can offer evidence against my contention.

    Do your research, see if you can find something like that.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #225
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    All the evidence points in that direction. You can ignore it and hold out hope that all the evidence is wrong and it's all some freak coincidence, but that doesn't seem like a wise judgment on your part.
    So far you have submitted 5 contemporary countries with low murder rates and strict gun laws. This and your opinion is all I have to work with....
    This and Japan which has never really allowed personal ownership of guns at all, and always has had a low murder rate so just isn't really a good example of what restrictive gun laws can do or, conversely, how a society with a low murder rate would handle gun ownership.

    Since the US has a long tradition of gun ownership, perhaps (as I tried some posts ago) we should look at taking a society that had less restrictive gun laws and then passed much more restrictive laws:
    https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/mu...fter-gun-bans/
    " Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.
    For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population,” UPDATED numbers available here). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002 (see here p. 11). The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate."

    https://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/...e-murder-rate/
    "The Harvard study attempts to answer the question of whether or not banning firearms would reduce murders and suicides. Researchers looked at crime data from several European countries and found that countries with HIGHER gun ownership often had LOWER murder rates.
    Russia, for example, enforces very strict gun control on its people, but its murder rate remains quite high. In fact, the murder rate in Russia is four times higher than in the “gun-ridden” United States, cites the study."


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed, join me, embrace an alternate way of viewing the issue.
    Perhaps we will get there...



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/1...ers-systematic
    "Conclusion: Access to firearms is associated with (increased) risk for completed suicide and being the victim of homicide."
    Remove suicide and domestic violence from this report and your chances of "experiencing violence" drops precipitously. Why do I suggest dropping these two categories for our discussion here? Because suicide should be obvious, but domestic violence is an ongoing situation that often escalates. The abuse this person suffers isn't generally with a gun. The abuser would certainly not stop abusing if guns were not available.

    So the average gun owner doesn't seem to experience a much higher risk of "experiencing violence" once these two groups are removed.
    The more the population, the higher the issue (as with most human issues). Rural America (most of America) does not "see" the major gang violence nor the other random violence seen in metropolitan areas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    My argument is this....
    Peaceful trusting societies make rules against unrestricted ownership of firearms.
    The peace is the cause, the restrictions are the effect.
    1. I never suggested "unrestricted ownership".
    2. You admit there are probably "mixed" results by taking away/severely restricting gun ownership from a society that already has them.
    3. A society that never allowed gun ownership at all is not a good example for this conversation. How can you possibly compare gun ownership in a society that never allowed it???
    4. You admit that it isn't a given that all peaceful societies would not allow possession of guns (since you agree many/some/several/more than one reason/s to own a gun that do not involve violence against humans).
    5. If you are correct, the US will head towards non-possession naturally (or we will all just kill everyone in sight and never become a peaceful society...).
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 5th, 2019 at 05:34 PM.

  6. #226
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    So far you have submitted 5 contemporary countries with low murder rates and strict gun laws. This and your opinion is all I have to work with....
    They are the five lowest crime nations of significant size. I just took them from the top of a list of low murder rate countries. You will find pretty much the same if you do your research on the subject.

    And those are facts, not my opinion. Their rates are what they are and their gun policies are what they are. None of that has to do with my opinion. All I am doing is observing the facts and drawing inference from them.

    This and Japan which has never really allowed personal ownership of guns at all, and always has had a low murder rate so just isn't really a good example of what restrictive gun laws can do or, conversely, how a society with a low murder rate would handle gun ownership.
    And they have largely been a high trust low crime society for a very long time. That only supports my argument. Remember, this is not about what gun laws can accomplish, it is about why people make gun laws. Gun laws are the effect, not the cause.

    Since the US has a long tradition of gun ownership, perhaps (as I tried some posts ago) we should look at taking a society that had less restrictive gun laws and then passed much more restrictive laws:
    https://crimeresearch.org/2016/04/mu...fter-gun-bans/
    " Every place that has banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.
    For an example of homicide rates before and after a ban, take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997 (source here see Table 1.01 and the column marked “Offences currently recorded as homicide per million population,” UPDATED numbers available here). After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002 (see here p. 11). The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate."
    Once again YOU ARE ARGUING WHAT AFFECT GUN LAWS HAVE ON CRIME, THAT IS NOT WHAT i AM ARGUING ABOUT SO IT IS NOT A REBUTTAL TO MY ARGUMENT.

    Remove suicide and domestic violence from this report and your chances of "experiencing violence" drops precipitously. Why do I suggest dropping these two categories for our discussion here? Because suicide should be obvious, but domestic violence is an ongoing situation that often escalates. The abuse this person suffers isn't generally with a gun. The abuser would certainly not stop abusing if guns were not available.
    This doesn't change the fact that if you have a gun, you and your family are more likely to die than if you don't. Suicide kills more people in families with guns than families without guns. Would you like to keep your family safer from death? Don't own a gun. And death by domestic violence is higher in families with a gun than families without a gun. If you own a gun you or a family member are more likely to die from domestic violence.

    No one is saying the gun makes you kill your wife or makes you kill yourself, but if you decide to do it, it works a lot better than other methods so you are more likely to have a fatality. The reason guns work so well at killing people is because that is what they are designed specifically to do most of the time.

    So the average gun owner doesn't seem to experience a much higher risk of "experiencing violence" once these two groups are removed.
    Wait, so if we remove the leading causes of death where the gun owner or their family is the cause of it, then there are fewer deaths? Wow, that's clever. But it utterly misses the point. Owning a gun makes you more likely to lose your life, not less likely. I suppose you might say domestic violence and suicide are wonderful things we should encourage, I don't. I think they are things you will want to avoid for you and your family.

    And of course, you can add gun accidents because people with guns in the home are far more likely to die or be injured by those than people without guns in their home.

    The more the population, the higher the issue (as with most human issues). Rural America (most of America) does not "see" the major gang violence nor the other random violence seen in metropolitan areas.
    No, not really. They don't have that kind of urban violence here in Japan. There are hardly any street gangs killing each other over turf here. Tokyo is the largest city on the planet by the way. America is simply a violent country with a semi-broken social ethic leading to rampant disenfranchisement. Many US cities don't have gang problems because they worked hard to remove them or prevent them.

    1. I never suggested "unrestricted ownership".
    I never suggested you did. But the kinds of Americans I identify as problematic for a trusting society often do.

    2. You admit there are probably "mixed" results by taking away/severely restricting gun ownership from a society that already has them.
    Yep, but I've never argued that gun restrictions are a goal, they are an effect of a peaceful society and attitude.

    3. A society that never allowed gun ownership at all is not a good example for this conversation. How can you possibly compare gun ownership in a society that never allowed it???
    It is if the reason they have never allowed for guns is that they always had a high level of social trust and relative domestic peace.

    4. You admit that it isn't a given that all peaceful societies would not allow possession of guns (since you agree many/some/several/more than one reason/s to own a gun that do not involve violence against humans).
    It isn't a given that rainbows won't shoot out of my ass either but you wouldn't place a bet that they will. The evidence strongly points to the fact that if a society is high trust and low crime, they will move towards limiting access to weapons.

    5. If you are correct, the US will head towards non-possession naturally (or we will all just kill everyone in sight and never become a peaceful society...).
    Indeed, public attitudes are shifting more and more towards restricting firearms. And, others seem bent on killing everyone in sight. I think the peaceniks will win out and America will slowly but surely move towards more restrictions and increased social trust.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #227
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You will find pretty much the same if you do your research on the subject.
    Oh ok, that is how this works...…..well, not so much really...


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Once again YOU ARE ARGUING WHAT AFFECT GUN LAWS HAVE ON CRIME, THAT IS NOT WHAT i AM ARGUING ABOUT SO IT IS NOT A REBUTTAL TO MY ARGUMENT.
    Well, I thought we were conversing, not just discussing exclusively Sig's point only...

    So again,
    agreed a peaceful society might indeed severely restrict gun possession, but it is not a given per you.

    Not sure what else needs to be said on the point?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Wow, that's clever. But it utterly misses the point.
    You certainly did...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Owning a gun makes you more likely to lose your life, not less likely.
    You have no way to quantify the resolve of a suicidal person nor one willing to commit domestic violence. It may change very little the number of murders or suicides.
    IOW, if there were 2000 suicides total and 1000 used a gun, there could still be 2000 total suicides if guns were unavailable.

    But the comment I was responding to was:
    "AKA if you own a gun, you are more likely to experience violence than if you don't."

    Suicides don't meet this criteria.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I suppose you might say domestic violence and suicide are wonderful things we should encourage, I don't.
    This kind of comment fallowing a couple from above makes me feel like I am talking with one of ODN's "boys", so it appears we are about finished here...


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Yep, but I've never argued that gun restrictions are a goal, they are an effect of a peaceful society and attitude.
    Yet to be supported and you have already said you haven't.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It is if the reason they have never allowed for guns is that they always had a high level of social trust and relative domestic peace.
    Well, here in the US, the genie is out of the bottle. We can't go back and change things. Here and now, we know there are a lot of guns in the US. I can't see how to apply "your argument" to help with America being more peaceful. You have agreed guns are not a cause of violence, so until the US "grows up" I see no reason to change the 2nd amendment. If you are correct citizens would just not own them and the laws really wouldn't need changed. Unless you can show gun ownership stands in the way of society becoming more peaceful.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It isn't a given that rainbows won't shoot out of my ass either but you wouldn't place a bet that they will.
    Well a lot of garbage seems to "shoot out of there", who knows what else might...

    Three of us now recently have commented on your "style" lately (one a community regular, one on staff, and now me) to deaf ears (and I am not referring to you cap fetish). I like humor, please feel free to "play" with me in our conversations, but reading your last post it just doesn't come off that way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Indeed, public attitudes are shifting more and more towards restricting firearms.
    Agreed,

    BUT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT THAT ARE YOU! YOU ARE NOT ARGUING FOR GUN CONTROL!

    or did I misunderstand?



    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    And, others seem bent on killing everyone in sight. I think the peaceniks will win out and America will slowly but surely move towards more restrictions and increased social trust.

    I would like to think the coming "robot revolution" is going to give people the time to be more "Star Trek" like, where one only seeks to better themselves as most all needs are taken care of, one has their whole life to "grow"!
    Sadly, I see Americans just becoming more sloth like. Hopefully I am wrong.
    Last edited by Belthazor; June 6th, 2019 at 04:48 PM.

  8. #228
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Oh ok, that is how this works...…..well, not so much really...
    Aside: This is one of my gripes on ODN. While the challenge rule and the requirement to provide evidence is a good thing, It sometimes leads people to think that all you need to do for a rebuttal is say "you haven't provided enough evidence for me". And then it is the person making the rebuttal who is not doing any work and is just naysaying rather than trying to be persuasive. If one side puts forward solid evidence, even if it is not 100% conclusive, it falls to the other side to pony up and do some homework if they are to have a meaningful debate. you aren't a prime offender of this, but there are some here who rely on the "prove it" gimic and never put in any work themselves. Doing research should be a fundamental part of argumentation.

    Well, I thought we were conversing, not just discussing exclusively Sig's point only...
    I'd ask that if you want to make a side point, not a rebuttal of my argument, that you label it as such. BTW or Aside or A point I want to make is...

    agreed a peaceful society might indeed severely restrict gun possession, but it is not a given per you.
    Let me be clear...
    It is not deductively proven, because ultimately, human beings are hard to 100% predict. But...

    You would be a fool not to think this is the general pattern and predominant theme. I'm not here to argue that it is metaphysical certainty, only that it is the predominant truth of the world we all live in.

    We could debate if you will win the lottery someday. It's possible you will, but I'm arguing you want and It's very likely I'm right and that making decisions based on my view is going to be far more effective than those based on the opposing view.

    You have no way to quantify the resolve of a suicidal person nor one willing to commit domestic violence. It may change very little the number of murders or suicides.
    IOW, if there were 2000 suicides total and 1000 used a gun, there could still be 2000 total suicides if guns were unavailable.
    We know for a cold hard fact that if you own a gun you are more likely (with statistical significance) to die from suicide than if you don't own one. You can dance around that fact all you like, but it remains a fact.

    "AKA if you own a gun, you are more likely to experience violence than if you don't."
    Suicides don't meet this criteria.
    They do meet that criterion. Suicide is violence.

    Definition- Violence: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

    Suicide involves physical force, it hurts or damages or kills someone.

    Dictionaries, they are useful tools for debate and argument.

    And also, dead is dead. Whether you kill you or your spouse kills you or some stranger kills you, you are still dead. Your chances of ending up dead early go up if you own a gun. Same goes for everyone in your family.

    Yet to be supported and you have already said you haven't.
    Dude, this kind of **** pisses me off. I have supported it. I've done it multiple times. What has not happened is that you have not refuted it. That is because you have no evidence what so ever for a counterclaim. I've shown you multiple examples of the most peaceful populous countries on earth and how they all have significant gun restrictions. You have not a single counterexample. I have support, your rebuttal has none. I have also, many times explained the plausible reason for this. You have no response but, "It might not be true."

    You are doing nothing but nay-saying on this point. I did research and put work into my argument, you are just saying Nuh-Uh. And worse than that, denying that I did the research and presented it to you. This is a repeated pattern in this thread. I present sources and data, you then later say I never proved the point. I then have to present it again and you just ignore it, not acknowledging the evidence. Then you later forget about it and say I didn't offer proof. You are being lazy.

    It's one thing to say you are not persuaded, and you can explain why, but to say I have not offered support is just dishonest and it raises my ire.

    Well, here in the US, the genie is out of the bottle. We can't go back and change things. Here and now, we know there are a lot of guns in the US.
    We used to have a lot of horses too. We used to have a lot of smallpox. We used to have a lot of things we don't have now. Times change. With effort, nothing is out of reach, certainly not phasing out our love of guns and violence. It takes many steps, it doesn't happen overnight, but it can happen. I think it will happen. The gun owners are not the majority of Americans, they are around 20%, with around one third having "access" to one. Violent crime rates have been falling steadily for some time now in America. Support for gun restrictions is largely growing.

    BUT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT THAT ARE YOU! YOU ARE NOT ARGUING FOR GUN CONTROL!
    Correct. But my argument does say that as a nation becomes more peaceful, it will restrict firearms more. I think America is on that path. Support for restrictions is growing and the overall violent crime rate has been declining.

    I would like to think the coming "robot revolution" is going to give people the time to be more "Star Trek" like, where one only seeks to better themselves as most all needs are taken care of, one has their whole life to "grow"!
    Sadly, I see Americans just becoming more sloth like. Hopefully I am wrong.
    I think the main drivers are actually urbanization and increased intercommunication of various types. I think the urbanization drives cooperation and the intercommunication makes it harder to commit violent crimes and get away with it.

    As to the robot revolution. I think that it will both allow some people to better themselves and do great things while encouraging others to be lazy. Some people make the best of opportunities, others make the worst of them. That is the nature of humanity. My view is that in the long run, the people who better themselves make a bigger impact in the overall stream of culture than the lazy folks do so the more opportunities we have, the better.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #229
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,114
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I'd ask that if you want to make a side point, not a rebuttal of my argument, that you label it as such. BTW or Aside or A point I want to make is...
    Perhaps I'm lost, I thought I was in LK's Op regarding gun control/banning particular weapons?
    You want me to make a point every time my comment applies exclusively to it as apposed to your one specific point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Let me be clear...
    It is not deductively proven, because ultimately, human beings are hard to 100% predict. But...
    Or because there are non-violent reasons to own one and a society that becomes more peaceful over time and has always had them around may not see the need for them to severely limit ownership.
    I just don't see gun ownership as standing in the way of the US becoming more peaceful, nor a way to quantify it one way or the other, so here we obviously disagree??


    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    We know for a cold hard fact that if you own a gun you are more likely (with statistical significance) to die from suicide than if you don't own one. You can dance around that fact all you like, but it remains a fact.
    Actually we know that:
    In the US a gun is the "preferred" tool for suicides.
    Can you show if we remove guns from the equation that those suicides would not have happened? No.
    IOW, if we removed all guns from the US, you are saying suicides will drop on the order of the number of people that chose that method to die? I think we can look to countries that have banned weapons (Australia for instance) an we see no drop in suicides, only the tool/method changes.

    Also, I still say committing suicide is not "experiencing violence" in a commonly held way. Sure it's a violent death, but not at all what most/nearly all people mean when they think of "experiencing violence".

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Definition- Violence: behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

    Suicide involves physical force, it hurts or damages or kills someone.
    If you like, but I am guessing this definition misses the point.
    You can chose whether to shoot yourself or not. Not true in all other cases of violence involving a weapon

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think the urbanization drives cooperation and the intercommunication makes it harder to commit violent crimes and get away with it.
    Really? "Intercommunications" maybe, but "urbanization"?
    More people more crime. More kinds of crime. I grew up in a town of 18,000 people. It is now 60-100,000 people.
    Some big cities don't even investigate the majority of murders unless there is clear evidence of "who" because there are soo many to investigate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    As to the robot revolution. I think that it will both allow some people to better themselves and do great things while encouraging others to be lazy. Some people make the best of opportunities, others make the worst of them. That is the nature of humanity. My view is that in the long run, the people who better themselves make a bigger impact in the overall stream of culture than the lazy folks do so the more opportunities we have, the better.
    Agreed, it won't be all good or bad. It is the % of the good/bad that will matter I think.
    I hope you and Squatch are right on this one
    Because on this point, I want to be wrong....

    ---------- Post added at 05:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Aside: This is one of my gripes on ODN. While the challenge rule and the requirement to provide evidence is a good thing, It sometimes leads people to think that all you need to do for a rebuttal is say "you haven't provided enough evidence for me". And then it is the person making the rebuttal who is not doing any work and is just naysaying rather than trying to be persuasive. If one side puts forward solid evidence, even if it is not 100% conclusive, it falls to the other side to pony up and do some homework if they are to have a meaningful debate. you aren't a prime offender of this, but there are some here who rely on the "prove it" gimic and never put in any work themselves. Doing research should be a fundamental part of argumentation.
    That I don't agree with you is hardly evidence I haven't "done the research".
    This may surprise you, but regarding the human condition, it is quite common for two people to see the same evidence and come away with very different conclusions...

  10. #230
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This seems to be our real disagreement in this thread. I agree things could be worse and they could be better. We can't go back in time and retry world history under a different set of values. All I can do is state that factually America played a predominant role in the end of 20th century fascism. Now, if you are arguing that our culture played no part in our role historically, I think it is your argument to make, not mine. What I can say also factually say is that the same Japanese culture which you are wishing we'd more like directly participated in 20th century imperialism and fascism. They were on the fascist side. Now, I'm not trying to argue that I know how we'd be different and I am not trying to prognosticate. However, I think it is na´ve to believe culture plays no role in how societies navigate through history. It seems obvious that if American culture was different then historical outcomes would be different as well.
    Yes, culture plays a significant role in history. Of course, it does. But you haven't shown me that having a violence-prone society made us uniquely able to thwart the Germans and Japanese or that Japan's high trust society led to fascism. We can get into the weeds of those arguments but you haven't really made them. Basically, you are saying stuff would be different if things were different. Ya, that's true but what of it? How does that impact my claim that peaceful societies tend to restrict access to weapons?

    In terms of whether changing our culture would make us better in the future, how do you know? If it is enough to alter the past in undefinable ways, then the future certainly isn't any less susceptible. You act like we don't learn lessons from the past. Like the past isn't intertwined with our future. Looking at cultures like Japan, would we become more susceptible to a dictatorship? Would we be more willing to accept fascism? Would we be more willing to make compromises on our other rights? I don't know the answer and neither do you.
    Japan is not the only high trust low crime society around these days. There are quite a few as I have pointed out. Nor was Japan the only nation to go down the path of Fascism. Germany and Italy were not high-trust low crime societies in the days of Fascism. So we don't see a consistent pattern with low crime and fascism. Nor do I see a logical connection between having social trust, rejecting violence and embracing fascism. If you want to make a solid contention here, please do, it's an interesting topic. Tell me how low rates of crime and high rates of social trust create fascism and war.

    But to say history could be different if history is different, that is not making any kind of real argument one way or another. It's about as compelling as saying, "if we make changes things will change."

    Personally, I want to see America change such that we have less crime and a greater sense of security and peace.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  11. #231
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,399
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Gun Control and your stance

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Perhaps I'm lost, I thought I was in LK's Op regarding gun control/banning particular weapons?
    You want me to make a point every time my comment applies exclusively to it as apposed to your one specific point?
    If you are replying to a quote from me, yes. If you make a post and are not addressing me, do whatever makes you happy.

    Or because there are non-violent reasons to own one and a society that becomes more peaceful over time and has always had them around may not see the need for them to severely limit ownership.
    I just don't see gun ownership as standing in the way of the US becoming more peaceful, nor a way to quantify it one way or the other, so here we obviously disagree??
    You just don't understand me is all. Gun ownership is not in the way of use being more peaceful. It's just that as a society becomes more peaceful, it will move to restrict guns because they are weapons and weapons pose a risk of violence. So it is natural to move to restrict them such that it is harder to use them for violence.

    Actually we know that:
    In the US a gun is the "preferred" tool for suicides.
    Can you show if we remove guns from the equation that those suicides would not have happened? No.
    Some of them, yes. The statistics show that if you don't have access to a gun, you are a lot less likely to die from suicide. Suicide rates are higher for gun owners than non-gun owners. If no one owned a gun, then the overall suicide rate would likely be lower. It would not stop all suicides since people without guns also commit suicide, they just do it less successfully and less often.

    IOW, if we removed all guns from the US, you are saying suicides will drop on the order of the number of people that chose that method to die? I think we can look to countries that have banned weapons (Australia for instance) an we see no drop in suicides, only the tool/method changes.
    Are you sure about that...

    https://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
    "In 2011, Harvard's David Hemenway and Mary Vriniotis reviewed the research on Australia's suicide and homicide rate after the NFA. Their conclusion was clear: "The NFA seems to have been incredibly successful in terms of lives saved."
    What they found is a decline in both suicide and homicide rates after the NFA. The average firearm suicide rate in Australia in the seven years after the bill declined by 57 percent compared with the seven years prior."

    The research on this topic points to the fact that since guns are designed for killing people, they are a highly effective and simple means of suicide. When people get the impulse to kill themselves, if they own a gun, they are more likely to act on it and more likely to succeed than those who must take a longer time, suffer more, and use a less effective method to end their lives.

    Also, I still say committing suicide is not "experiencing violence" in a commonly held way. Sure it's a violent death, but not at all what most/nearly all people mean when they think of "experiencing violence".
    Well, what I am talking about is people dying because they or a family member owns a gun and how if they didn't have one, they might still be alive. You are probably not safer if you own a gun, you are in fact more likely to lose your life. Your family is not safer, they are more likely to die.

    Really? "Intercommunications" maybe, but "urbanization"?
    More people more crime. More kinds of crime. I grew up in a town of 18,000 people. It is now 60-100,000 people.
    Some big cities don't even investigate the majority of murders unless there is clear evidence of "who" because there are soo many to investigate...
    Urbanization builds social trust and cooperation. It creates liberal political attitudes.

    But as you note, it can also lead to higher crime. Though right now, rural America is actually having some serious crime problems, especially in the eastern parts of the US due to the spread of opiate use and meth in rural areas. Many cities have low crime rates, even US cities. This tends to be when the city has a high average income, the biggest predictor of crime from one city to the next in the US, followed by income inequality and racial diversity. Granted many rural areas have almost zero crime, especially if they are doing well financially.

    Still, I think it's a fair point to argue as traditionally, rural areas are low-crime areas in the US.

    That I don't agree with you is hardly evidence I haven't "done the research".
    Well, what research have you done in the course of arguing about gun laws in nations with low violent crime rates? So far as I can see, you have not shown me any large peaceful countries without significant restrictions on firearms. I've not seen any citations contrary to the claim. I've spent quite a lot of time reading articles on the subject, gathering statistics to share with you on that topic, and making sure I'm not just talking out of my ass on this topic. I try to do that on nearly every topic I argue.

    Now, you have done some homework to give me statistics on how gun laws don't stop crime. I commend you on that, but since it is not in rebuttal to me or my claim, it's not the part of the debate I'm talking about. I'm addressing your claim I have not offered evidence that peaceful nations move to restrict firearms access.

    This may surprise you, but regarding the human condition, it is quite common for two people to see the same evidence and come away with very different conclusions...
    What conclusion do you draw from the fact that all of the nations with the least amount of domestic violent crime have fairly restrictive gun laws that require registration, licensing, and place limits on the types of guns you can own?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

 

 
Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2 8 9 10 11 12

Similar Threads

  1. There is no tenable stance against gay marriage
    By Zhavric in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 207
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2011, 09:57 AM
  2. Your stance on overpopulation
    By Xanadu Moo in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: August 13th, 2007, 08:11 AM
  3. Something from nothing: the THEIST stance.
    By Zhavric in forum Religion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: May 16th, 2007, 07:27 AM
  4. Abortion Stance
    By Meng Bomin in forum ODN Polls
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: October 21st, 2004, 09:48 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •