The Sum of the Gun Control Debate - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate News And Just About Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

The Sum of the Gun Control Debate
in Politics

By VaulkVaulk 558 Pts edited March 8
I'm consolidating many of the popular arguments because when analyzed for their underlying principles, they are mostly the same.

1). Assault (Style) weapons should be banned.

In order to determine whether the above statement is true, we're going to have to understand collectively what an "Assault (Style) weapon is".  While determining the qualifications for such a classification, I've come across multiple references with varying degrees of similarity.  What seems to correlate between the qualifications for an "Assault Rifle" is that the firearm itself must have been manufactured with selective firing modes and of those modes "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" must be included.  In layman's terms this means that if I open the packaging of an "Assault Rifle", I can toggle a lever or switch on the rifle itself that allows it to be fired as either an automatic weapon (Like a Machine Gun) or a semi-automatic weapon (Exactly like a handgun).

Now that I've established what an "Assault Rifle" is, we can move forward with determining whether or not they should be banned.  Or I should say that we "Could" move forward with the determination if it weren't for the fact that Assault Rifles were banned in 1994 under the provisions of The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.  I suppose we could discuss after the fact whether or not it was the right move for the United States but the rationale of the argument that these weapons should be banned seems to be that they're somehow not banned.  

I'm going to move into some dangerous territory here and presume that the argument above isn't what people actually mean when they say it.  Let's presume that what's actually being argued is that:

2). Firearms that look like Assault Rifles should be banned.

I strongly feel that I can adequately squash this argument by suggesting that it's irrational to insist that the appearance of a firearm (The aesthetics) could somehow make it more or even less dangerous than any other firearm.  Since the appearance has nothing to do with how the weapon functions and has zero impact on the weapon's performance then I'm going to go ahead and lay this one to rest.  Feel free to present a rational argument on this if you'd like though.

3). Stricter gun control laws need to be implemented to prevent people from obtaining Firearms with intent to do harm.

Now we're getting into the rational arguments for the "Anti-gun" side if you will.  As many of us would likely agree, there does in fact need to be a fully effective system in place to prevent say a career criminal from walking into a gun store and purchasing a firearm.  I doubt many would contest this idea, instead what most "Pro-gun" activists, if you will, are against is the implementation of this idea by the same people who are responsible for arguments one and two.  

For example:

John and Courtney (Husband and Wife) are attending the local PTA meeting at their Children's school one night.  During the meeting, the Principle announces that several new and exciting programs are being implemented to bring about safety and security for their Children while attending School during the School day.  The Principal announces that effective immediately, violence will be banned at the school.  John and Courtney are confused, understanding that violence in school is already against the rules and also punishable by law...they're uncertain how that would deter anyone from behaving violently.  The Principal calms all the parents down by clarifying that "That's not all", his new program would also require that Children who even appear to be capable of violence shall be expelled effective immediately in order to prevent violence from occurring.  That sent John and Courtney reeling and they both protested adamantly that an attempt to classify children as "Potentially" violent would arbitrarily exclude Children from School who by any standards are no more capable of violence than other Children.  The principal wound down his speech and explained that in addition to his two new policies, he would immediately begin an in-depth screening of Children who register at the school and the screening would cover background information to include: History of violence, criminal background, mental disorders and Family medical history.  At this point John and Courtney are both in agreement that a background screening sounds like a positive action to ensure the safety of their Children...but neither of them are confident that the same person who suggested that banning violence or expelling students for appearing to be capable of violence, would be fit to implement a background check program for students.  John and Courtney are sufficiently turned off to the ideas of the Principal at this point and are both ready to see the District Superintendent about the competency of the Principal at their Children's School.

The point here is that while the third argument might be based in rational logic, it's being made from the same side that's proposing one and two.  It's merely my opinion but I'm of the strong influence that Pro-gun activists are largely opposed to just about any discussion of Gun Control but that's mostly because of the insanity that comes from their opposition.  Likewise I'm sure there are "Gun nuts" out there who sufficiently scare Anti-gun activists into their delusional fears of random NRA members shooting up their local schools...although to date I can't think of a single NRA member who's done that.

In the end I don't think that there needs to be stricter gun control laws, I think the laws that are in place are sufficient...they just need to be enforced.  If and when a criminal purchases a firearm legally, the system has failed, so let's fix the system.  Now it's common knowledge that the overwhelming majority of crimes committed with firearms are done so with illegally obtained firearms, but if the majority of Americans want to focus on the less than 20% of the issue first...well we can go there.  I suspect that even if we did manage to close the loop entirely on gun sales...crimes committed with Firearms wouldn't decrease...not in the least.  But hey at least everyone will get a warm and fuzzy feeling about making a positive change...even if it doesn't stop murderers from killing Children.
 



Applesauce
  1. The Gun Control Debate is targeted correctly

    6 votes
    1. Yes
      16.67%
    2. No
      83.33%
"If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

"There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

"Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
33%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • While I don't have time right now to give this a full response, I do feel the need to address one issue I see. @Vaulk, that article on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban states: "The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision." So, no. Assault weapons are not currently banned, for better or worse.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    While I don't have time right now to give this a full response, I do feel the need to address one issue I see. @Vaulk, that article on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban states: "The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision." So, no. Assault weapons are not currently banned, for better or worse.
    Real assault rifles as Vaulk has defined them are banned, all he got wrong was the dates as I'll explain in my response to him.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    edited March 8
    Vaulk said:
    In order to determine whether the above statement is true, we're going to have to understand collectively what an "Assault (Style) weapon is".  While determining the qualifications for such a classification, I've come across multiple references with varying degrees of similarity.  What seems to correlate between the qualifications for an "Assault Rifle" is that the firearm itself must have been manufactured with selective firing modes and of those modes "Automatic" and "Semi-Automatic" must be included.  In layman's terms this means that if I open the packaging of an "Assault Rifle", I can toggle a lever or switch on the rifle itself that allows it to be fired as either an automatic weapon (Like a Machine Gun) or a semi-automatic weapon (Exactly like a handgun).

    Now that I've established what an "Assault Rifle" is, we can move forward with determining whether or not they should be banned.  Or I should say that we "Could" move forward with the determination if it weren't for the fact that Assault Rifles were banned in 1994 under the provisions of The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act.  I suppose we could discuss after the fact whether or not it was the right move for the United States but the rationale of the argument that these weapons should be banned seems to be that they're somehow not banned. 
    Just a correction/clarification - since assault rifles are capable of full-auto fire, they have been severely restricted since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934.  New machine guns (which includes assault rifles) were allowed to enter the market, but requirements and taxes prevented most people from being able to access that market.  The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 limited the market to those guns that were legally registered by May 19, 1986.  The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act that you referenced actually had no impact whatsoever on assault rifles as you have correctly defined them as it dealt strictly with semi-automatic firearms.
  • whiteflamewhiteflame 415 Pts
    edited March 8

    Just off the top, much as you say you’re consolidating and analyzing arguments presented by the pro-gun control crowd, you don’t seem to have done that. You’ve provided, at best, a general overview of two points (not three, as your second point is just your interpretation of the actual argument behind the first point), dismissed the first as illogical based on what is already banned, and dismissed the latter based on… well, the former. Doesn’t seem like you’re getting into the actual argument behind each of these points, or even that you’ve addressed their underlying principles.

    1) Assault (Style) weapons should be banned.

    I have no doubt that some assault style weapons are banned. However, as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is now gone, and as there are still many legal guns classified as assault weapons, I don’t think there’s any question that some are currently not banned. I think there’s a lot of good debate regarding where we draw the line between assault weapons and non-assault weapons, but, contrary to your statement, people do clearly want to ban assault weapons, even if there is some variance in their definitions of what an assault weapon is.

    2) Firearms that look like Assault Rifles should be banned.

    It seems like your main point here is that aesthetics alone should not be used as a basis for banning any type of firearm. I don’t particularly know who’s making this argument. There are people arguing that toy guns that look an awful lot like firearms should be banned (and I’d be happy to argue for that), but that doesn’t seem to be your point. My experience with this type of argument is that people are concerned about certain firearms that are not classified as assault weapons and believe that they too should be banned. Those arguments are usually based on functionality, not aesthetics. I guess I’d agree with you that aesthetics alone shouldn’t determine whether a gun is considered for a ban, but again, I haven’t really seen this argument making the rounds. It seems instead that you’re presuming that this argument exists, when the argument is chiefly about functionality, not aesthetics.

    3) Stricter gun control laws need to be implemented to prevent people from obtaining Firearms with intent to do harm.

    I think, of all your responses, this is probably the most disquieting. If I have it correctly, your logic is as follows: this is rational (possibly even reasonable), yet because the same people who support this also support things that you find irrational, it should be opposed. Or, put another way, because there’s a policy that anti-gun individuals are presenting that you and others find ridiculous, any rational suggestions they make are tainted and therefore must be rejected. In what world is reasonable? Since when do we reject decent and rational policy ideas solely on the basis that you find fault with other, somewhat related policy ideas? You even state that most people would agree with, at the very least, improved enforcement of the laws we already have (which would likely include closing loopholes that have opened due to that lack of enforcement), yet those measures would be off the table because the people who show the strongest support for them also support actual gun bans. You’re quick to call their opposition insane, but you’re talking about a vast number of Americans working against what they feel is best for their country and their safety based on a perception that the other side might also want to implement supposedly illogical gun policy. Aren’t issues like this usually resolved by two sides coming together on the parts of the issue on which they agree? If that’s impossible here, then it takes two to tango. Pretending that this is all on the anti-gun crowd when you’re suggesting that pro-gun advocates are straight up rejecting policy ideas they agree with sounds absurd to me.

    It does sound like your argument runs a bit deeper, but not much. The idea is that you can’t trust someone to implement decent policy so long as they have some interest in implementing bad policy as well. Setting aside the fact that I don’t agree with your characterization of those arguments, why can’t we trust a law that clearly spells out changes to, say, background checks as being solely about background checks? Is the concern that anti-gun people are going to enforce beyond the scope of the law? Is it that people will feel like they’re emboldening them to pass more laws? Both sound like slippery slope fallacies without any support.

    The analogous story you’ve presented here is similarly fallacious. First, banning a gun is very different from banning a child, particularly from a school. The former is an item that would otherwise be available for purchase. The latter is a human being, which the state has an obligation to provide an affordable education. If a principal of a school started doing something like this, it would not only be against the law, but it would also challenge basic decency. An education is pretty much required for anyone to get anywhere in this country, and essentially denying a child access almost certainly relegates them to poverty. I don’t see how that applies to a gun ban in any way. Second, determining which child is “‘potentially’ violent” is an impossible task. There’s a stark difference between stating that a human is more prone to violence vs. stating that a gun has more capacity to inflict deadly injury. Third, you’re essentially characterizing the principle as a dictator capable of imposing his ideas for the school unilaterally unless there is outside intervention. Putting aside how that’s not even possible, policy doesn’t work that way. It’s not a single individual imposing their idea of how the country should work on the populace, and it comes with checks and balances internal to it.

    Lastly, no one is sitting here saying that we must solve this issue now and all other issues related to gun violence should be shelved. It’s a false dichotomy to state that, by attempting to restrict access to legally obtained guns, we are fundamentally pushing away or delaying responses to illegally obtained guns. We can endeavor to solve both problems at the same time. There is no reason why one must come after the other.

    PoguePolaris95
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts

    Just off the top, much as you say you’re consolidating and analyzing arguments presented by the pro-gun control crowd, you don’t seem to have done that. You’ve provided, at best, a general overview of two points (not three, as your second point is just your interpretation of the actual argument behind the first point), dismissed the first as illogical based on what is already banned, and dismissed the latter based on… well, the former. Doesn’t seem like you’re getting into the actual argument behind each of these points, or even that you’ve addressed their underlying principles.

    1) Assault (Style) weapons should be banned.

    I have no doubt that some assault style weapons are banned. However, as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban is now gone, and as there are still many legal guns classified as assault weapons, I don’t think there’s any question that some are currently not banned. I think there’s a lot of good debate regarding where we draw the line between assault weapons and non-assault weapons, but, contrary to your statement, people do clearly want to ban assault weapons, even if there is some variance in their definitions of what an assault weapon is.

    2) Firearms that look like Assault Rifles should be banned.

    It seems like your main point here is that aesthetics alone should not be used as a basis for banning any type of firearm. I don’t particularly know who’s making this argument. There are people arguing that toy guns that look an awful lot like firearms should be banned (and I’d be happy to argue for that), but that doesn’t seem to be your point. My experience with this type of argument is that people are concerned about certain firearms that are not classified as assault weapons and believe that they too should be banned. Those arguments are usually based on functionality, not aesthetics. I guess I’d agree with you that aesthetics alone shouldn’t determine whether a gun is considered for a ban, but again, I haven’t really seen this argument making the rounds. It seems instead that you’re presuming that this argument exists, when the argument is chiefly about functionality, not aesthetics.

    You are incorrect.  Assault rifles have been banned since 1984.  What the mainstream media and anti-second amendment advocates call "assault rifles" are merely firearms that look like assault rifles.  Clinton passed a ban on them, but it had no effect on crime, so Bush 43 allowed that ban to sunset. 
  • @CYDdharta

    For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to get into the question of what is and is not an assault rifle with you. Hell, I'll even go so far as to concede the point that what suffices as an assault rifle has been banned since 1984. I'm also not going to argue that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had any substantive effect, at least not right here, as that's an issue that requires an entirely separate debate. Suffice it to say that, whether people define them correctly or not, there is a clear push to ban guns that have characteristics that deem them to be more dangerous. Now, you and @Vaulk have argued that the reason why specific guns are targeted other than those banned in 1984 (including those in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) is chiefly because of aesthetics. I would argue that that perspective is based on their functionality. I don't think either of us can definitively prove that the majority of people who are supporting what is called an assault weapons ban base their decision chiefly on aesthetics or functionality, mainly because the detailed opinions on the matter only represent a small subset, and there's no clear polls I've found that have attempted to determine this. However, both you and Vaulk have claimed to know that aesthetics are the chief reason. Would either of you care to support that?
    Pogue
  • someone234someone234 605 Pts
    edited March 9
    Something wrong with Americans in general but also Russians and most South Americans is this idea that 'only bad guys will always have guns if guns are banned'.

    Wrong.

    It comes down to how lazy the police are with their undercover war on guns. In Westerm Europe, Australia, most of Asia and even most of Africa (I say even because despite being fairly underdeveloped they've done a good job at keeping the guns in the hands of the cops relatively speaking), guns are in the hands of the 'good' by a huge margin. In most of Eastern Europe, South America and USA, there seems to be a culture amongst the police that it's not worth cracking down on so naturally if you passed a law in USA, Russia and South America today to take guns, only the bad guys would have them by large.
    Pogue
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    edited March 9
    @CYDdharta

    For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to get into the question of what is and is not an assault rifle with you. Hell, I'll even go so far as to concede the point that what suffices as an assault rifle has been banned since 1984. I'm also not going to argue that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban had any substantive effect, at least not right here, as that's an issue that requires an entirely separate debate. Suffice it to say that, whether people define them correctly or not, there is a clear push to ban guns that have characteristics that deem them to be more dangerous. Now, you and @Vaulk have argued that the reason why specific guns are targeted other than those banned in 1984 (including those in the Federal Assault Weapons Ban) is chiefly because of aesthetics. I would argue that that perspective is based on their functionality. I don't think either of us can definitively prove that the majority of people who are supporting what is called an assault weapons ban base their decision chiefly on aesthetics or functionality, mainly because the detailed opinions on the matter only represent a small subset, and there's no clear polls I've found that have attempted to determine this. However, both you and Vaulk have claimed to know that aesthetics are the chief reason. Would either of you care to support that?
    What other reason could there be?  The firearms that the anti-2nd amendment advocates are trying to ban are rarely used in crimes and are functionally identical to guns that aren't on the ban list.  For instance, they want to ban this;



    But this is OK;


    They are both semi-automatic rifles.  The only real difference is that the one on the bottom is in a much higher caliber (30-06 vs 5.56mm), so in reality the one that they're not trying to ban is more deadly than the one they're trying desperately to ban.  The only difference between them is their looks.



  • @CYDdharta

    Who is "they"? Is this a specific policy proposal you're talking about? Can you prove that that proposal represents the vast majority of people on the pro-gun control side of this debate? I'm not doubting that aesthetics plays some role in the selections, but your argument is that it's the CHIEF factor involved, and the most integral reason for banning specific weapons that a majority of gun control advocates support. Where, exactly, is that argument coming from?
    Pogue
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    Who is "they"? Is this a specific policy proposal you're talking about? Can you prove that that proposal represents the vast majority of people on the pro-gun control side of this debate? I'm not doubting that aesthetics plays some role in the selections, but your argument is that it's the CHIEF factor involved, and the most integral reason for banning specific weapons that a majority of gun control advocates support. Where, exactly, is that argument coming from?
    Lets start with this;

    https://cicilline.house.gov/sites/cicilline.house.gov/files/images/Assault_Weapons_Ban_of_2018.pdf

    Then we can go on to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students that are being used to ban only the AR-15 (the first rifle in the last post).

    And you completely ignored the point of my last post.  The only difference between the rifle that anti-2nd amendment advocates are trying to ban and the one that they're not trying to ban is looks.

  • someone234someone234 605 Pts
    edited March 9
    @CYDdharta Tell me, why did your great idol Trump spend most of his life in the single most anti-gun state in USA (NY)?

    Why? 
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @CYDdharta

    I didn't ignore your point, I said that your point doesn't answer my query. All you did was provide a perspective, say that a nebulous "they" believe that perspective, and claim that a majority of people who support gun control hold that perspective. You've now specified who the "they" is, but that doesn't support the claim that both you and Varka have made, which is that this is by far the most common reason why supporters of gun control support any specific gun bans. 

    As for the specifics on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, it looks as though they're rather specific about characteristics that alter functionality rather than appearances. Here's what I've found on the topic:

    "Both measures would ban sales of semiautomatic rifles with certain military-style features, such as pistol grips and flash suppressors. The measures would also outlaw the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Neither bill would require current gun owners to give up any of their weapons."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/28/the-two-assault-weapons-bans-before-congress-are-co-sponsored-by-195-democrats-and-0-republicans/?utm_term=.bd7a9ccd0ac2

    Now, it's not my goal to defend policy like this within this context. From the start, my responses have not been aimed at specifically defending any legislation, or for that matter, even the effort to ban any subset of guns. I'm solely addressing the issue of whether or not the arguments presented by gun control advocates have chiefly derived from personal feelings about guns, or if they bring a certain logic to their arguments that goes beyond those feelings. You've both argued that what makes gun control advocates choose certain weapons to ban is chiefly the appearance. This and other ban proposals suggest that there are functional aspects that drive these decisions. So, while the features described above may not be things you'd personally agree make a gun more dangerous (and I'm not going to argue whether or not they do), they clearly add functionality, and are not just cosmetic. So, I'll ask again: how do you know that policies like this are chiefly crafted for the purpose of eliminating the appearance of certain guns based on cosmetic reasons? 
    Pogue
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    I didn't ignore your point, I said that your point doesn't answer my query. All you did was provide a perspective, say that a nebulous "they" believe that perspective, and claim that a majority of people who support gun control hold that perspective. You've now specified who the "they" is, but that doesn't support the claim that both you and Varka have made, which is that this is by far the most common reason why supporters of gun control support any specific gun bans. 

    As for the specifics on the Assault Weapons Ban of 2018, it looks as though they're rather specific about characteristics that alter functionality rather than appearances. Here's what I've found on the topic:

    "Both measures would ban sales of semiautomatic rifles with certain military-style features, such as pistol grips and flash suppressors. The measures would also outlaw the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Neither bill would require current gun owners to give up any of their weapons."

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/28/the-two-assault-weapons-bans-before-congress-are-co-sponsored-by-195-democrats-and-0-republicans/?utm_term=.bd7a9ccd0ac2

    Now, it's not my goal to defend policy like this within this context. From the start, my responses have not been aimed at specifically defending any legislation, or for that matter, even the effort to ban any subset of guns. I'm solely addressing the issue of whether or not the arguments presented by gun control advocates have chiefly derived from personal feelings about guns, or if they bring a certain logic to their arguments that goes beyond those feelings. You've both argued that what makes gun control advocates choose certain weapons to ban is chiefly the appearance. This and other ban proposals suggest that there are functional aspects that drive these decisions. So, while the features described above may not be things you'd personally agree make a gun more dangerous (and I'm not going to argue whether or not they do), they clearly add functionality, and are not just cosmetic. So, I'll ask again: how do you know that policies like this are chiefly crafted for the purpose of eliminating the appearance of certain guns based on cosmetic reasons? 
    Pistol grips and flash suppressors don't alter the functionality of the firearms, only the cosmetics.  Unless you can show me examples of people being injured or murdered by such accouterments, you have made my case for me, thank you.  This is all about appearances, and nothing substantial.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    @CYDdharta Tell me, why did your great idol Trump spend most of his life in the single most anti-gun state in USA (NY)?

    Why? 
    It didn't matter to Trump, personally; like all billionaires, he could afford to surround himself with people with guns.
  • @CYDdharta Wrong. He preferred a society where everyone was safe as a society without guns is a safer one. Checkmate.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • GooberryGooberry 404 Pts
    It appears the gun debate is often framed in a disengenious way, but to me, the call for additional gun control, and in this case specifically talking about assault weapons, the argument is actually broadly trivial:

    - As a society, and with a sound constitutional basis, a class of weapons have already been deemed as far too dangerous and problematic for the public to be able to own and acquire. And have been banned.

    - This ban Is already relatively uncontentious: and I have yet to hear anyone actively call for its overturn.

    - This ban/restrictions is relatively successful, and has lead to few if any deaths at the hands of these type of military grade and highly dangerous weapons in the last few decades that I am aware of.

    - This ban has not inhibited individual gun rights, or prevented individuals ability to defend themselves.

    Given that: the argument should not be framed as whether gun control is constitutional, sound, or whether
    its legal or practical to ban assault weapons:

    The argument is clearly this: are these classes of weapons at least as dangerous as the classes of weapons that are already banned?

    Given recent developments and practical considerations, the answer to me is an obvious: yes.
    Vaulk
  • CYDdharta said:
    Pistol grips and flash suppressors don't alter the functionality of the firearms, only the cosmetics.  Unless you can show me examples of people being injured or murdered by such accouterments, you have made my case for me, thank you.  This is all about appearances, and nothing substantial.
    I've already stated that I have no interest in debating the merits of the actual policy. You conveniently ignored the magazine aspect of that bill, but even if we set that aside, it's not clear to me what the support is for your argument. I'm aware of what a pistol grip and flash suppressor look like, and they do not dramatically modify the appearance of a gun. It's your argument that the major reason they've selected those two features is because they change the cosmetics of the gun to a substantial degree. Maybe those two parts of the gun are just things that gun control supporters hone in on, but I have a hard time thinking that the end of the gun barrel and the grip alone are really all they care about. It's much more likely that they perceive some functionality from these two features. I'm not saying that that functionality is actually integral to the success of a mass shooter, so that functionality may be a terrible choice, but it seems more likely that they view any functionality that potentially improves rate of fire or stealth as inherently dangerous.
    Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited March 9
    Apologies for not jumping in here earlier but I'll try to play catch up as best as I can.

    While I don't have time right now to give this a full response, I do feel the need to address one issue I see. @Vaulk, that article on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban states: "The legislation passed in September 1994 with the assault weapon ban section expiring in 2004 due to its sunset provision." So, no. Assault weapons are not currently banned, for better or worse.
    You are technically correct here and I concede that my original statement presumed that everyone would know what I was talking about when I said "Banned".  What I meant by that statement is that Assault Rifles are not currently available to the public in the manner that the vast majority of firearms are available.  While it's technically possible to own an Assault Rifle, the certifications, licenses and regulations that surround the ownership of said weapons are substantially strenuous and generally speaking, the private citizens who do own them aren't prone to harming others with them.  

    @CYDdharta

    You're correct in your assertion that my dates were wrong, the reference I used was not the original ban.

    @whiteflame

    Let's start with "Who is making the argument that aesthetics alone should not be used as a basis for banning any type of firearm".  I admit there were multiple references to "Those" who support the new bans but I didn't say exactly who.  Mostly it's because of the difficulty in producing an exact list by name of everyone that wants to do it.  So then allow me to get broad with the statement.  Anyone who proposes to ban the AR-15 on the grounds that it's too dangerous for the U.S. civilian population to own is inadvertently arguing to ban the weapon purely based on the cosmetic appearance of the weapon.

    Now I know that sounds awfully bold and there may even be a few people out there that outright deny the statement on its face.  So let me clarify how I've come to that conclusion.

    It's a matter of logical deduction rather than pointing out an outright admission of the rationale.

    I'm going to try to use my best organizational skills to outline the following arguments but bear with me.

    AR-15s are more dangerous than other firearms.
       
    a. The ammunition is more deadly than other firearms.  
         ~  Actually the ammunition scale for AR-15s ranges from .17 MACH all the way up to .458 SOCOM so this argument would actually apply to ALL firearms that CAN be chambered for any of those ammunition types.  FYSA that's just about all firearms.  So if we apply logical deduction to this argument we can safely deduce that either it's intended to be an argument against ALL firearms (Which is highly unlikely) or the argument itself falls flat on its face and is actually about something else.  Example: Swords need to be banned because they're sharper than other bladed weapons.  We all know that any bladed weapon can be sharpened to a razor's edge or dulled to a spoon.

    b. AR-15s hold more ammunition than other firearms and can kill more people without having to reload.
        ~ 
    Actually all firearms with the exception of a rare few can be and have been used with high capacity magazines as well as good old ingenuity based mechanisms to increase the number of rounds that can be fired in quick succession.  They even make speed loaders for revolvers.  So if we apply logical deduction to this argument we can safely deduce that either this is an argument against ALL firearms...well you can see where I'm going with this.

    c. AR-15s can shoot rounds in faster succession than other firearms, this makes them more capable of killing groups of people faster than other firearms.
        ~ Actually, and this one's funny, that's not even close to being true.  So on the technical side, all semi-automatic firearms shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger.  AR-15s do not give any more or less of an advantage than any other semi-automatic firearm in terms of rate of fire.  So if we apply logic...this argument appears ridiculous.  

    d. AR-15s kill more people than any other firearm.
        ~ Actually, not even close.  The FBI's current expanded homicide report covers from 2010 to 2014.  Averaging these years out, I've done some simple math and can provide the following:
    1. Handguns on average are used in 47.74% of the total annual homicides 
    2. Rifles on average are used in 2.42% of the total annual homicides 
    3. Handguns on average are used 19 times more often than rifles to commit murder.  So that's one murder with a rifle for almost every 20 murders with a handgun.
    So if we apply logical deduction to this argument we can see that AR-15s do no kill more people than any other firearm...in fact knives, blunt objects and fists each kill more people each year on average than rifles.  

    Feel free to add an argument that I may have forgotten to list here but I'm going to press onward to the point.

    1. Currently there are no proposals being considered by congress to control or ban ALL firearms, only AR-15s and "Assault Style Weapons".
    2. There is nothing functionally unique about AR-15s that would make them more dangerous than other firearms. 
    3. The VAST MINORITY of firearm related homicides in the U.S. annually are committed with AR-15s, so the ban couldn't possibly be because the firearm is being used to kill too many people.
    4. Handguns have been used in twice the number of mass shootings as rifles since 1982 so it couldn't possible be that AR-15s are being used more than other weapons for mass shootings.

    Let's focus for a moment on a portion of the narrative that is continuously pushed by our political leaders as well as prominent activists for the Ban of the AR-15.

    1. It's an Assault Weapon.
       ~ 
    Now we're all smart here and we know it's not.  In fact it's not even close to an assault weapon, it has no selective firing mode and certainly is not fully-automatic.  So then why call it an "Assault Weapon".  Well, because it looks like one.  And I'll be the first to say it, it does in fact look exactly like an Assault Rifle...and it's likely meant to look like one.  But functionally it's not even close.  So we're left to deduce that the only logical reason why so many intelligent leaders of our political parties could be calling it that is because it looks like one.

    2. We need to ban all Assault "Style" weapons.
       ~ Now we're getting into the meat and potatoes of the Pro-gun argument against banning weapons based on cosmetic features.  Why on Earth would you call an AR-15 an Assault "Style" weapon?  Well I think we all know what style is, but style and functionality are independent from one another.  So we're left to deduce that what we're hearing is an argument against something that appears to be something else.  This is the answer to the question "Who's suggesting that we ban something based on cosmetic appearance"?

    3. It's a "Military Style Weapon".

       ~ This is actually technically correct.  The First firearm in history was the Fire Lance and as you might've guessed...it wasn't designed for hunting.  Firearm development has always ridden on the back of the War Machine and has seldom ever made leaps or strides in advancement due to the needs of hunters.  In essence, all firearms are Military style weapons as firearms were originally designed to be used for Military purposes.  The AR-15 was originally designed to be used by the Infantry to replace the M14 as a lighter weapon but the design was sold off to Colt who modified the weapon and sold it off as a hunting rifle in the early 60s.  Hell the M1 Garand is more of a Military Style Weapon than the AR-15 ever will be but no one's going to try to ban that.  As I've stated, the argument is technically correct however, again...it would be an argument against every firearm on the market.  Military purpose firearms will likely drive the firearm advancement industry for ages to come.
     

    To summarize: If you insist that a "Style" of firearm needs to be removed from society but your argument against the functionality of that firearm inadvertently concedes that there's nothing functionally unique about that firearm...then we're left to believe by the process of logical deduction that you either want to ban all firearms or you want to ban this one because of what it looks like.  I have so many horrible words for this ideology but for the sake of rational argument I'll just say that it's absurd.

    For your enjoyment, here are some of the prominent arguments against AR-15s.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/assault-weapons-must-be-banned/2016/06/13/0d6a58f4-3195-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html?utm_term=.c342bfefd78d
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/assault-weapons-ban_b_2313290.html

    Edit 

    I actually found a more recent FBI statistic for active shooters that covers 2000 to 2016 but the results aren't any better for the argument against rifles.  The totals weren't included but I'll round up a tally later so we can see how many mass shootings were done with each type of weapon as well as a total of killed and wounded.
    https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/activeshooter_incidents_2001-2016.pdf/view
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk

    Now this is a proper analysis of the pro-gun control arguments, at least insofar as you've listed them. Despite having debated the issue previously, I can't say my knowledge on these points is very detailed, and while I think I could address some of the points you've stated here, I'm going to largely concede the argument you're making: that many types of guns hold the same dangers as what is usually classified as an assault weapon, and that as a result, banning those weapons does little to diminish the problem. Truth be told, while I have different reasons for doing so, I don't support a gun ban myself, though I do support certain gun control measures.

    Instead of focusing on those arguments (and, seriously, I do appreciate the analysis - I've learned a lot from people like you who are far more knowledgeable about gun types than I am), I'd just like to address the overall argument you're making. It seems that your perspective (and that of CYDdharta) is that because you've logically addressed the arguments that proponents of these bans have and found them wanting, they must be chiefly driven to propose these bans on a cosmetic basis, i.e. these guns look dangerous, ergo they should be banned. I think the list of arguments you've presented here belies that view. I'm sure that the proponents of these arguments could do more to explain why they think they're valid, but even assuming that they can't, it seems to me that their argument is fundamentally derived from functionality. They believe (perhaps wrongly) that assault weapons provide a particularly potent means of mass murder that is otherwise absent in other gun types. Or, perhaps, they merely wish to reduce the number of gun types that can use, say, a certain type of ammunition. It's not my goal here to defend those arguments, but I do think it's a logical leap to state, as both of you have, that because these perspectives are faulty, they must be deriving their view from cosmetic appearance. I'm not saying that no one derives their views from aesthetics alone (and I'm certain that many of the people who haven't researched this topic in any detail would likely default to aesthetics rather than engage with the issue of functionality), but I think it's a stretch to assume that there's such an inherently subjective reason behind pretty much every policy initiative attempting to ban guns.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited March 9
    @whiteflame

    Actually I'm completely on board with you with your beliefs on why gun-ban activists are pushing their agenda.  I'd be willing to get on board with the idea that at least the majority of gun-ban supporters truly believe that their arguments against "Assault Style Weapons" are honestly rooted in functionality.  Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of these proponents are (If I could use some personal lingo) "Well misinformed" in their perspectives.  For example, I think Agriculture is generally less impacting and far less potentially lethal than Firearms but if a movement against certain practices in Agriculture arose and the proponents of that movement made wild accusation that were based on total misunderstandings and they simultaneously seemed to be making a smear campaign out of it...I'd be fairly turned off to the idea of listening to them or generally accepting their ideas as anything but the result of ignorance.  

    Logically, any side to an argument can have a good point, but realistically when attempting to gain influence and "Majority consensus" you have to be very careful with how you go about persuading the people.  So far the anti-gun lobby has been fairly reckless in their assertions and, in my opinion, has sufficiently lost all hope of support from pro-gun rights activists.  Common sense gun control should include nothing but common sense.

    And I'll point out that while I did go into detail to explain the gun control debate...I could easily take all of those arguments and "Simplify" them right back down to the three that I listed in the beginning.  

    In the end, I honestly think we need to put a swift foot up the backside into the background check system.  It's already designed to work, it's just not being used as intended.  It's really a matter of enforcing compliance as opposed to creating new laws in order to get that compliance...I think we should simply introduce new and harsher punishments for failure to adhere to the system.  Anytime we notice a law that isn't being followed, we fix it by ramping up the punishment for it, nitpicking every single person that breaks it even in the slightest and then we make examples out of prominent members of society.  Usually there's some backlash, some disgruntled people and after a year or so, the court appearances and prosecutions diminish as people realize over time that the Government means business about that law.

    Assuming we ever did that with the background check system...we'd still be looking at the almost 80% of total firearm related crimes that are committed with an illegally obtained firearm.  

    On a side note, if we ever did ban Assault Style Weapons, we'd have some serious explaining to do about how it's possible that less than a hundred kids died at the end of an Assault Style Rifle and we drastically changed the law but kids are dying by the hundreds every month in places like Chicago, D.C. Baltimore, New York, Oakland, Detroit and many others while we do nothing to stop or stifle it.  It would certainly make an interesting narrative: White kids die in school to a lone gunman and the Country roars into legal action...Black kids die in record numbers in the inner cities and no one bats an eye.  I'm not one for race baiting but it's hard to deny the honesty of that narrative.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    @CYDdharta Wrong. He preferred a society where everyone was safe as a society without guns is a safer one. Checkmate.
    New York city?!?  You're joking, right?
    Erfisflat
  • Erfisflat
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    edited March 9
    Spiffy, only Trump isn't living there now.  He was there in the 70s, 80s and 90s though;


    Erfisflat
  • @Vaulk

    You know, for two people who likely consider themselves to be on opposing sides of this issue, I think we agree quite a bit. Doing a better job enforcing the laws we have now and closing loopholes that allow some to circumvent enforcement are the main methods I'd support when it comes to any sort of gun control measures. 

    The question to me is, what exactly is making it so difficult to implement any kind of policy/enforcement changes? 

    From my perception, it's both sides of the debate that are contributing to this. Gun control advocates have been feeling pretty helpless in the wake of the many recent shootings, and I think they're proposing pretty much anything that sounds about right without really considering the implications. And, from both your statements to this effect and my experience, it seems as though individuals against gun control see every measure, no matter how reasonable, as putting their gun ownership in danger.
  • @whiteflame This article by a self-professed anti-gunner makes a lot of the arguments I use, and makes a lot of sense.  I think you may like it;

    I used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.
  • @CYDdharta

    I agree with him for the most part. There are a couple of the conclusions he makes about certain additional features and gun types that I find fault with, but I do think he's right that there's no single policy change that restricts access to any given feature or set of weapons that will effectively solve the major problems involving gun violence. The problem runs rather deep and far beyond mass shootings, though I do think that the increased numbers of mass shootings are a symptom of a problem that seems entirely separate from the availability of guns. What that problem is is a question I'm still wrestling with.
    lexman
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited March 11
    Well, I think we're on the right path here.  Realistically I think gun control is the wrong focus.  I honestly think this is more of an issue of values at its core but that's more of an argument for another debate.  Honestly I think the way to solve the issue of the background check loopholes and system failures is to just start holding people heavily liable for it.  If you sold a gun to someone that should have had a check and you didn't get it done...and they murdered someone with that gun...you should be standing right next to the murderer on trial.  If you're cop and you arrest a guy for domestic violence but fail to input that into the registry that would prevent him from owning a gun and he buys one later and kills someone with it...your badge goes in the trash and you can stand trial with the murderer.  It's that easy.


    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    Well, I think we're on the right path here.  Realistically I think gun control is the wrong focus.  I honestly think this is more of an issue of values at its core but that's more of an argument for another debate.  Honestly I think the way to solve the issue of the background check loopholes and system failures is to just start holding people heavily liable for it.  If you sold a gun to someone that should have had a check and you didn't get it done...and they murdered someone with that gun...you should be standing right next to the murderer on trial.  If you're cop and you arrest a guy for domestic violence but fail to input that into the registry that would prevent him from owning a gun and he buys one later and kills someone with it...your badge goes in the trash and you can stand trial with the murderer.  It's that easy.

    I read a proposal a little while ago that would open up NICS so that anyone could access it freely.  I'm going from memory, so I may have some details wrong, but it would go like this; You want to buy a gun, you log onto NICS entering your personal information, If you pass you get a code which you present to the seller, they check the code to make sure it's authentic and can then authorize the sale.  It seemed like a decent starting point.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    CYDdharta said:

    I read a proposal a little while ago that would open up NICS so that anyone could access it freely.  I'm going from memory, so I may have some details wrong, but it would go like this; You want to buy a gun, you log onto NICS entering your personal information, If you pass you get a code which you present to the seller, they check the code to make sure it's authentic and can then authorize the sale.  It seemed like a decent starting point.
    I approve of this idea, doesn't seem to be much wiggle room for it to be corrupted.  So long as the program was developed properly, it would provide a method to ensure only the qualified receive a firearm while simultaneously giving sellers the coverage they need to keep them within the bounds of the law without being invasive.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • lexmanlexman 48 Pts
    I love the idea how the debate started by @vaulk was "the sum of", implying that it's the summary of all arguments.  2 pages of arguments later, the new summary is quite different than the actual summary.  I love it that the two sides are strarting to find common ground, which is unusual in such a controversial topic.  I am in general anti-gun, but finding both sides of this debate insightful and helping me shape my opinion.  Debra thinks that @whiteflame is winning by a healthy margin, which isn't wrong in my opinion <span>:smile:</span>
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    @lexman

    If you follow along with us through the debate, while I did in fact expand the "Sum of" I also explained how it could all be "Simplified" to the original three arguments.  The original arguments were meant to serve as the underlying premise for all the expanded arguments.  It's all in the text.
    agsr
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    Well, I think we're on the right path here.  Realistically I think gun control is the wrong focus.  I honestly think this is more of an issue of values at its core but that's more of an argument for another debate.  Honestly I think the way to solve the issue of the background check loopholes and system failures is to just start holding people heavily liable for it.  If you sold a gun to someone that should have had a check and you didn't get it done...and they murdered someone with that gun...you should be standing right next to the murderer on trial.  If you're cop and you arrest a guy for domestic violence but fail to input that into the registry that would prevent him from owning a gun and he buys one later and kills someone with it...your badge goes in the trash and you can stand trial with the murderer.  It's that easy.
    Suffice it to say that I don't think I fully understand what the focus should be, mainly because both sides have demonized each other to such a degree that actually discussing the issue has become a bit toxic. It's a breath of fresh air to be able to discuss this in a manner that doesn't automatically dismiss any attempt to instigate measures that will affect gun access in any way. Maybe we shouldn't use the term "gun control," but it seems like that's what we'd fundamentally be doing, even if the control method is more focused on their availability to individuals who should not have them. I'm not sure that putting someone on trial for murder because their lapse allowed them to obtain a gun and kill someone is the right level of response, but I do think responses should be harsher.
    lexman said:
    I love the idea how the debate started by @vaulk was "the sum of", implying that it's the summary of all arguments.  2 pages of arguments later, the new summary is quite different than the actual summary.  I love it that the two sides are strarting to find common ground, which is unusual in such a controversial topic.  I am in general anti-gun, but finding both sides of this debate insightful and helping me shape my opinion.  Debra thinks that @whiteflame is winning by a healthy margin, which isn't wrong in my opinion <span>:smile:</span>
    I would agree with you in part that the issues being discussed at this point differ largely from those presented at the start, though there are relations to it. There are more specific issues being addressed, and the "us vs. them" mentality that I think pervades much of this issue (e.g. those people are insane, we can't trust them to implement rational policy) appears to have been left behind in favor of a more basic conversation about where there is agreement on simple, straightforward measures we could take to reduce the incidence of school shootings and other gun violence. If the initial post did serve to create this general discussion, then I'm all for it, though I think some parts of that initial post (particularly the third) were more likely to engender enmity than stimulate discussion. In any case, I don't think we should go by Debra on this, chiefly because what we're having now isn't a debate. It's more of an open discussion than a debate. Much as I appreciate that you think I'm "winning," I don't think there's a winner to be had here. There's value in this discussion, I appreciate the perspectives being presented, as I believe others do mine.
    agsr
  • Here's something else being worked on that may be effective;

    Florida School Shooting Survivor Counsels Alternatives to Gun Bans




  • CYDdharta said:
    Here's something else being worked on that may be effective;

    Florida School Shooting Survivor Counsels Alternatives to Gun Bans
    Suffice it to say that, while I like the idea a lot better than arming teachers, I'm somewhat torn when it comes to bringing more armed guards onto school campuses. But that's a separate issue.
  • Suffice it to say that, while I like the idea a lot better than arming teachers, I'm somewhat torn when it comes to bringing more armed guards onto school campuses. But that's a separate issue.
    While I think both armed guards and armed teachers are both steps in the right direction, I don't think that was the primary focus of the article.  What is more important is the app he's working on;

    Kashuv says he is creating an app for moms, and possibly school counselors, to help connect his peers with the emotional support they need.

    “We definitely understand we have a lacking in the department for emotional support at our schools,” Kashuv said on Fox Business’ “Mornings with Maria” program Feb. 28. The program is hosted by Maria Bartiromo.

    What the app does is match users based on shared interests and connects them to each other. The app attempts to help students get emotional support after a traumatic incident. Once they’re comfortable, they can meet on campus.
  • @CYDdharta

    That much I thought was a very good idea.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    I'm of the opinion that if it's logical to point at a school shooter and use that instance as evidence that guns need to be banned...then likewise it's supremely logical to point at schools that have been arming teachers since 2013 and cities that require their citizens to be armed as landslide evidence that arming the people not only works and has a long established precedence of working, but is also a better option than increasing the difficulty to obtain a firearm in regards to reducing violent crime.

    Look at the gun control laws that we have now and please please please show me where any of them have reduced the number of violent crimes.  I'm above the politicizing agenda, this is about what's going to solve the problem.  This is about results, so let's look at the results of gun control and weigh them against the results of arming teachers and arming the citizens.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk How about nations that have police with brains and that have reduced gun crime to like 0.2% of crimes?

    Yes seriously, that low.

    Western EU nations for instance.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • @Vaulk How about nations that have police with brains and that have reduced gun crime to like 0.2% of crimes?

    Yes seriously, that low.

    Western EU nations for instance.
    What was their crime rate before they limited access to firearms?  Was it anywhere near what the US rate was?  No?  Then other factors involved must be playing a prominent role.  The US has managed to get it's homicide per capita rate down to what it was in the early 60s and its still dropping.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    @someone234

    "Western Europe" Countries like:

    1. The U.K. which has the absolute highest violent crime rate in Europe, higher than South Africa and certainly higher than the U.S.?

    2. Belgium, the leader of all firearm homicide in Western Europe.

    3. France, a bastion of righteousness...or not.  France was under Martial Law from November 2013 until November 2017 when Martial Law was replaced by their new Anti-Terrorism act which essentially extended the powers of the government indefinitely in regards to their already established reach through Martial Law.  Citizens of France are frequently subject to suppression of the freedom of speech through confinement and even judicial punishment and can have their homes raided and searched for any reason at any time.  La France est un mauvais endroit.  This is all setting aside the massacre of 2015 with 130 killed and another 368 injured and the 2016 massacre with a vehicle that left 86 dead and 434 injured.

    I'm sure you can see where this is going but now I'm actually having fun discovering all the "Wonderful" things there are to learn about your choice reference to "Western EU nations".

    4. Ireland.  In 1989 Ireland agreed to adhere to the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and to date...hasn't done so.  Ireland has no provision for Basic Human Rights.  
    This is all setting aside the fact that Ireland is literally PLAGUED with violent crime and more specifically...serious gun crime problems.

    5. Luxembourg.  Now here's where it gets semi-interesting.  Luxembourg is the Ritz of the Western European Countries with one of the highest costs of living compared to its neighbors.  It's a culturally rich environment and quite a few Americans actually live there comfortably albeit they're mostly financially wealthy.  The gun laws here prevent civilians owning firearms for the purpose of self-defense, even for the home however, residents are continuously circumnavigating this law by simply claiming that their firearms are for sporting or hunting purposes.  The Government is having little success in slowing the rapidly growing rate of firearm ownership in Luxembourg and yes, the violent crime rate there is very low.

    6. Monaco.  Boasting over a thousand billionaires and millionaires in official residence...no one is surprised that the singular square mile that is the Country of Monaco has been heralded as the safe haven that it is for as long as it has been.  Civilians cannot legally own firearms in Monaco but the reason for the virtually non-existent crime rate is the fact that Monaco has the absolute highest police force and police presence in the entire world on both per-capita and per-area basis.  I'm fairly certain if we had 1 police officer for every 67 citizens in the U.S. with literally billions of dollars to back them up then we wouldn't have 90% of the crime issues that we currently have.

    7. Netherlands.  Back to the problem.  The Netherlands own National Statistics Office admits that  over the past nine years, crime reports have decreased by 25% (Meaning people just don't report them) and approximately 57% of reported crimes go without investigation due to the lack of manpower and/or resources.  Substandard investigation practices and a total lack of investigation has resulted in the declining crime reports as people are confident that the crime either won't be investigated or that nothing will come of it...leaving a clear answer to the rest of the world wondering how the Netherlands has such a low crime rate.  Owning a firearm in the Netherlands is a privilege, not a right but that doesn't stop mass shootings with automatic weapons.  Still the reports say that the Netherlands' violent crime rate is lower than the U.S., I suppose there's really not a way to know for sure but I'd be willing to sell it.

    This concludes the list of Western European Countries as classified by the CIA and while everyone here can see (And research for themselves I'm sure) that Western Europe IS NOT a shining example to admire in regards to violent crime or gun crime rates, it's important to remember that comparing the U.S. to a single Country in Europe is faulty even on the best day.  A fair comparison would be to size up one of our States to one of their Countries.




    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Vaulk said:
    I'm of the opinion that if it's logical to point at a school shooter and use that instance as evidence that guns need to be banned...then likewise it's supremely logical to point at schools that have been arming teachers since 2013 and cities that require their citizens to be armed as landslide evidence that arming the people not only works and has a long established precedence of working, but is also a better option than increasing the difficulty to obtain a firearm in regards to reducing violent crime.

    Look at the gun control laws that we have now and please please please show me where any of them have reduced the number of violent crimes.  I'm above the politicizing agenda, this is about what's going to solve the problem.  This is about results, so let's look at the results of gun control and weigh them against the results of arming teachers and arming the citizens.
    That's one way of looking at it. I agree that it's logical to assess the effects of arming teachers and citizens where it has occurred, though I think you're quick to assert that they have "a long established precedence of working." Needless to say, I disagree with that conclusion, but again, I think we're getting off topic. We can continue our discussion of arming teachers, in particular, if you'd like.

    It's also not my aim to argue that gun control laws have produced a marked effect on the number of violent crimes. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to do so, and I'm not sure if the problem is that gun control laws have been ineffective at combating violent crime, that gun control laws are difficult to enforce, or that there's a web of complicating issues that make it difficult to assess. 
  • @Vaulk in one shooting many die, in many stabbings or bar fights few die. Your stats are missing out something important more than rate of crime. xD
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited March 12
    @someone234

    "XD"? My post (Which includes source data) was a response to your post where you cited "Rate of crime" as a statistic but provided no source as to where you might have received that information.  So now you're saying that my stats...although they directly counter the stats that YOU posted are somehow not relevant enough to acknowledge and now (Since your stats are no longer a valid argument) the focus should be something else?

    Please let me know when you've decided what point you'd like to stick with and we can debate it, until then I'm not sure that making any response will be sufficient to generate a decent debate. 
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk I said rate  of gun crime.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    edited March 13
    @someone234

    Ok, "Rate of GUN crime" is what you said, which is a rate of crime.  So are we on the statistics that you brought up or are we sticking with

    someone234 said:
    Your stats are missing out something important more than rate of crime. xD
    Cant' stress enough that the "Rate of crime" includes "Gun crime" in areas that have ANY gun crimes.

    Also

    someone234
    said:
    @Vaulk in one shooting many die, in many stabbings or bar fights few die. 
    Where are you getting this information?  Who is telling you these things?  How many is "Many stabbings"?  And I'd like some final clarification, even if you do ignore my entire post, which at this point wouldn't be unexpected, are you of the belief that if 20 are murdered over the course of a week...that it's somehow less of a tragedy than 20 people being murdered in 5 minutes and if so...how?
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @Vaulk In time you will understand what now seems a mystery to you.
    Be tomorrow's hero, not today's idol.
  • VaulkVaulk 558 Pts
    @someone234

    In the meantime, I will accept the fact that you've provided no rational argument to support your stance and therefor take that small victory and continue forward.  Thanks for playing.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 647 Pts
    edited March 17
    I guess it is just looks as to why people want to ban certain firearms;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqJ_4YhYMhE
  • @CYDdharta

    Yes, because clearly this is a carefully curated study that analyzes the mindset of a substantial proportion of gun control proponents without any bias, and these mindsets must be the basis for a majority of gun control legislation. Sorry, but a YouTube video of a couple of guys capturing candid opinions on gun control from random passersby isn't going to prove your point.
  • @CYDdharta

    Yes, because clearly this is a carefully curated study that analyzes the mindset of a substantial proportion of gun control proponents without any bias, and these mindsets must be the basis for a majority of gun control legislation. Sorry, but a YouTube video of a couple of guys capturing candid opinions on gun control from random passersby isn't going to prove your point.
    You mean, as opposed to all the evidence you've provided to the contrary, which consists solely of your misguided opinion that gun banners are motivated by some deeper purpose?  Relatively speaking, I have the preponderance of evidence on my side ... by a wide margin.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch