|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4145 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
It doesn't matter what is used to commit the murder. All that matters is that there was a murder committed. If increasing accessibility to firearms increases murder rates (by any means), then it does. It not, then it doesn't.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But if someone were to make the specific claim that gun controls don't prevent gun crimes (as criminals will still have guns, say) then the total amount of murder would be irrelevant to that argument. What would be relevant is statistics about gun crimes (or deaths or whatever) specifically. The best response is to tell them their point is irrelevant. And moving on.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
As deaths increase with gun ownership, the nul hypothesis must be that they are a contributing factor. And where is your evidence to this effect?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Please refer to the last several pages of this thread to discover why limiting your research criteria to 'firearm deaths' produces meaningless results.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But it also has a lot to say about whether firearms are merely substituting deaths by other methods and if you'd care to read some of the research itself instead of randomly jeering every post I make, you would know that. Then where's it at? According to your source, the evidence they reviewed was specifically related to 'firearm deaths'. It says so, at the start of the second introductory paragraph. Your sources are unimpressive at best.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
All of this talk about what is easier to access in the 'heat of the moment' and whether guns promote violence or not is completely irrelevant.
The issue of whether a citizenry should be allowed to arm itself or not comes down to one very simple point: It is against the very principles of democracy to empower a government over its people.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
What weapons do you think the citzenry should have access to? Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Then you've never lived in any thing like a democracy. I'm aware of the U.S. government's oppressive hypocrisy.
You live in a representative democracy because you and your buddies control the legislature and the executive branch via the ballot box. A piece of paper is not control.
they just pack their @#$% and leave office. If they are following the rules. My own research, however, has shown me that tyrants are less than observant of rules respecting democratic process.
In fact, we can cite a number of instances in our history when people have taken up arms in order to oppose democratic processes (e.g. Wilmington insurrection of 1898). Instances like the Wilmington Insurrection aren't oppositions to democratic processes; they are examples of democratic processes.
I don't see anything particularly democratic about that. That's because you haven't studied your Greek word derivations. JonLove your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Should everyone be able to defend themselves against an armed government? All people should be equally empowered. That's the point of a democracy.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If democracy includes allowing a bunch of racists to overthrow the lawfully elected government despite being a minority in Wilmington, then perhaps we needn't consider democracy something to aspire to. But they weren't allowed to do anything. Unless, of course, are they still in power?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The Wilmington Massacre resulted in a successful overthrow of the local government by a minority faction for reasons anyone ought to find repulsive. Why, if they were a minority, were they not overthrown by the majority that supposedly didn't agree with their point of view? And the purpose of a democracy isn't to appease NoNukes.
Neither the state nor the federal government intervened. Why?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But given the disenfranchisement of blacks that occured shortly afterwards by state adoption of Jim Crow laws, the effort would have been futile anyway. So they weren't actually as much in the minority as you make them out to be, eh?
At this point you ought to have a few ideas why the state did not intervene, and anyone familiar with Civil War and Reconstruction history could make some good guesses at why the federal government stayed out of it. Where is your evidence that the people represented a minority point of view?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Yet the same people (broadly speaking) who support a superpower strength US military capable of taking on the combined armies of most of the rest of the world simultaneously claim that Joe the Plumber and his buddies need to have the firepower resources to take on this same superpower strength military. Please learn to read. I never stated that I support a 'superpower strength US military'. Nor have I argued that any single individual should hold power equal to that of an entire nation's military forces. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
How about the fact that their faction had lost both the 1894 and 1898 local elections in Wilmington despite the employing intimidation tactics to discourage black voters? Why didn't that big voting majority stand up against those rag-tag racists, then?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
So which group is it that has the right to bear arms? The voting majority or the rag-tag dissidents? Or is it both? As I already said: "All people should be equally empowered."
Are you advocating the use of arms to solve all political disputes? Peaceful means are always preferred. Love your enemies!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024