Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Robert66]

in spite of what you see in the news, only a very small percentage of gun owners ever use a gun in an illegal or life threatening manner

And, in spite of your never-ending strawman posts, an even smaller percentage of gun control advocates argue for the complete outlawing of guns.

Insurance companies will not issue policies for at risk type nut cases who are somehow rather easily getting their hands on some
pretty powerful weapons.

Somehow?!?!?! IF you think about it, perhaps the lack of gun control (eg the sensible measures advocated repeatedly, seemingly to no avail, by myself and others here) could have something to do with it.

You are on my ignore list as, right from the beginnings of your trolling this post it was both non-productive and useless
- as so intended, true?

I am from and live in the USA - You say you are from elsewhere. And now want to change American gun laws because you pity us

Why don't you worry about the Ukraine instead I'm sure Putin, Stalin, Hitler and every other maniacal and blood thirsty tyrant
can and does feed off your "people need to be controlled and made safe by civilian disarmament" type ideology.

I see through you - You don't give a dam about gun safety or gun control - You want people control by the state
don't you ?

I started this post 10 years ago as I thought there might be some reasnoble solutions if peope realized the whole issue
of gun control and why we have a Second Amendment - At least partially caused because the British tried to disarm the American Colonists.
- And in spite of people like you it is still going
- And spite of people like you who are not even from here trying to colonize American ideology
- YOU FAIL

Not just me you are ignoring. You continually ignore all the gun control arguments put to you, and just keep ranting.

Probably useless to (again) attempt to discuss the issue with you, however if you were to drop your indignant accusation - that I have a ' "people need to be controlled and made safe by civilian disarmament" type ideology ' you might be able to recognise that people do realize the whole issue, and have offered some reasonable solutions. It is up to you whether you will attempt to understand them, or would prefer instead to ignore them.

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

Don't forget you started this thread with an attack on gun control advocates which was really quite abhorrent, and which you attempted to bolster with outright lies about the situation in Australia. If anyone on this thread should be resorting to a 'you are not even from here' pseudo-argument it would have to be an Australian, after your OP.

[UniversalAlien]

Robert66 wrote:

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

Don't forget you started this thread with an attack on gun control advocates which was really quite abhorrent, and which you attempted to bolster with outright lies about the situation in Australia. If anyone on this thread should be resorting to a 'you are not even from here' pseudo-argument it would have to be an Australian, after your OP.

I'll give you one more chance

1. Again, instead of answering my post where I suggested the possibility of mandatory liability insurance {like required auto insurance} for gun ownership - you find another excuse for an ad hominem attack on me - Touchy you say If you were not touched by whatever agenda causes you to troll this post, I would not be touchy.

2. The outlawing of many guns {isn't it all semi-automatics?} in Australia is a fact -true? And when I said all guns that was a mistake
{I recently found some US politician saying the same thing} - Apparently there is a lot of misinformation on the internet. I got the info
from an Australian who was purchasing a karate book from me which I had posted on ebay - He probably meant all semi-automatics.

3. Normally I side with left wing {the Democrats} on most issues - On gun control I take a more conservative view {Republican}
Its not the gun, its the 'nut' with the gun view - Recently I've read about multiple killings with knives, and nuts and terrorists determined to
kill will always find a way.

Now if you want me to take you seriously, even if not from the US, answer my question
- Do you think having gun buyers, owners, and dealers be required to carry mandatory liability insurance have any
possibility of curbing the current gun violence and murder in the USA


Two more quotes by one of histories most villainous advocates of gun control

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
― Adolf Hitler

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
― Adolf Hitler

[Robert66]

Robert66 wrote:

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

Don't forget you started this thread with an attack on gun control advocates which was really quite abhorrent, and which you attempted to bolster with outright lies about the situation in Australia. If anyone on this thread should be resorting to a 'you are not even from here' pseudo-argument it would have to be an Australian, after your OP.

I'll give you one more chance

1. Again, instead of answering my post where I suggested the possibility of mandatory liability insurance {like required auto insurance} for gun ownership - you find another excuse for an ad hominem attack on me - Touchy you say If you were not touched by whatever agenda causes you to troll this post, I would not be touchy.

2. The outlawing of many guns {isn't it all semi-automatics?} in Australia is a fact -true? And when I said all guns that was a mistake
{I recently found some US politician saying the same thing} - Apparently there is a lot of misinformation on the internet. I got the info
from an Australian who was purchasing a karate book from me which I had posted on ebay - He probably meant all semi-automatics.

3. Normally I side with left wing {the Democrats} on most issues - On gun control I take a more conservative view {Republican}
Its not the gun, its the 'nut' with the gun view - Recently I've read about multiple killings with knives, and nuts and terrorists determined to
kill will always find a way.

Now if you want me to take you seriously, even if not from the US, answer my question
- Do you think having gun buyers, owners, and dealers be required to carry mandatory liability insurance have any
possibility of curbing the current gun violence and murder in the USA


Two more quotes by one of histories most villainous advocates of gun control

“To conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens.”
― Adolf Hitler

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
― Adolf Hitler

Let's call this dog by its name. Yes you are being very touchy. You feel free to spread lies, ignore the content of replies, and insult gun control advocates, Australia, and me, but if I call you on your misinformation, or indeed on your failure to engage in discussion of the many solutions which have been offered through this thread, you go all sooky and block me. I see little point in engaging with you, however you have so graciously given me one more chance, even if I am not from the US (LOL), so:

Yes I think your idea re insurance has merit, as one of a suite of gun control measures which could positively impact on the horrendous mass murder situation most commonly seen in USA.

Re Australian gun law you could look at official information here:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament ... n_gun_laws

IF you do actually read this, you will see that yes we do have firearms in Australia, just that they are regulated differently compared to in USA. So I fail to see why you would want to keep repeating your claims about tyranny and disarmament.

[Robert66]

You have given me food for thought, I will grant you that. For example, when you wrote 'Apparently there is a lot of misinformation on the internet' it did cause me to think "Well, if only there was a way to filter that misinformation." To my way of thinking a web source with .gov or .edu carries a degree of credibility, but of course this would be geo-specific, and in some circles I would be thought of as a naive fool, or just brainwashed. Far better to rely on some "facts" put out by the Zombie Defence League or such, governments being tyrannical and educational institutions just trying to deprive the individual's freedom of thought.

And since you have gone to the trouble of quoting Hitler ('As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation') I wonder why you would not support governmental attempts to protect children by keeping dangerous assault weapons out of the reach of psychopathic school massacrists.

[EricPH]

In theory, making gun insurance compulsory like auto insurance, sounds good. Auto insurance pays out on accidents. But would the auto insurance pay out if a terrorist deliberately drove his insured car into a crowd of people?

I could imagine gun insurance paying out on an accidental shooting. But would that policy cover a gunman who deliberately aims and shoots at a person or property?

How could you write a meaningful policy for gun insurance, and what would be covered? I can imagine pages of small print covering the terms and conditions.

Sorry, I haven't read all through this thread.

[GE Morton]

Now if you want me to take you seriously, even if not from the US, answer my question
- Do you think having gun buyers, owners, and dealers be required to carry mandatory liability insurance have any
possibility of curbing the current gun violence and murder in the USA?

No. For the same reason all other gun laws don't work --- those who acquire and use guns for criminal purposes would ignore such a requirement, just as many ignore the requirement to have auto liability insurance. Keeping an uninsured firearm would be even less risky than driving without insurance, since the gun is not exposed to view on public roads on a daily basis.

[GE Morton]

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

There are no solutions that are both "reasonable" and effective. The US could cut the homicide rate in half, however, not by enacting more knee-jerk gun laws, but by assuring that persons who have a history of criminal behavior are removed from the streets and kept off --- i.e., nailing shut the jailhouse revolving doors.

[Robert66]

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

There are no solutions that are both "reasonable" and effective. The US could cut the homicide rate in half, however, not by enacting more knee-jerk gun laws, but by assuring that persons who have a history of criminal behavior are removed from the streets and kept off --- i.e., nailing shut the jailhouse revolving doors.

Holy smokes! You could run for office with lines like that. And go down in history as the most effective, most unreasonable, toughest on crime ever politician. (You may need to raise taxes to pay for 50 million prisoners and their keepers, but that is a hurdle you will clear no doubt)

[GE Morton]

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

There are no solutions that are both "reasonable" and effective. The US could cut the homicide rate in half, however, not by enacting more knee-jerk gun laws, but by assuring that persons who have a history of criminal behavior are removed from the streets and kept off --- i.e., nailing shut the jailhouse revolving doors.

Holy smokes! You could run for office with lines like that. And go down in history as the most effective, most unreasonable, toughest on crime ever politician. (You may need to raise taxes to pay for 50 million prisoners and their keepers, but that is a hurdle you will clear no doubt)

Oh, we make the criminals pay for their own keep. Prisons would be work centers or camps, where they must work to pay, not only for their keep, but full restitution to the victims of their crimes. If they don't work, they don't eat.

[3017Metaphysician]

First the Second:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I could not watch the news this morning save for only one story: 27 people, 20 of which were children between 5-10 years old were gunned down by a lone gunman who also killed his mother who was teaching the children at the time. Gun control advocates can now celebrate {cynicism intentional}. Again they will start to call for more draconian anti-gun laws to protect the public - But will this really protect the public? Australia after a similar incident some years ago outlawed all guns. And then the crime rate went up so high they had to rescind the law. In the USA with many millions of guns already in the hands of the public a gun ban would cause, to use an old saying: "When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

So how can 'we the people' be protected from the lone mad gunman determined to kill? We can not be protected completely, both guns and for that matter life itself is dangerous. Recently a lone swordsman dispatched a bunch of people in Japan and don't forget terrorist bombers who kill many more with no guns at all. So what do we do? If we took the Second Amendment literally and allowed the the right of the people to bear arms, this mass murder scenario would end. If enough of the 'well armed militia' was in fact armed the public would no longer be subjected to mass murderers; they could be stopped before their carnage was complete. To quote a somewhat controversial politician of years past" "A well armed society is a polite society" -G. Gordon Liddy

There is nothing wrong with gun control. It's common sense; a public safety concern. For instance, just like automobile safety, we have laws that help protect or regulate. Meaning, to prevent accidents from happening, we don't ban all automobiles. Instead, we have controls/laws that help mitigate or act as a deterrence from the potential harm or damage caused to both vehicles (inspection laws/transportation safety) and human life (driver education/safety laws). For instance, there's nothing wrong with laws that preclude a top fuel dragster from entering the highways (AKA assault weapons), but instead allow them to be used elseware (on shooting ranges, etc.).

The political argument from the extremist right, is that they try to say it's an exclusive people problem. Well of course it is, everything is. What's the solution? The hypocrisy then rears its head when the far-right is unable to argue consistently from that same demand-side 'behavioral' causal chain. In other words, politically, on the one hand they claim illegal immigrants (supply-side) are bringing drugs into the US and causing bad stuff to happen (demand-side), yet don't argue the same demand-side prevention measures (people shouldn't consume drugs). The inconsistency is thus:

More drugs= more bad stuff happening. More guns=more bad stuff happening. More cars=more bad stuff happening. Yet they deny the 'more guns' have an impact.

Again, just like any public safety law (automotive analogy) both are needed; driver education and regulations that help control the kinds of cars allowed on the roadways. Enjoy your guns, just have public safety measures that control it use. An assault weapon, simply by virtue of playing the bullet-odds, is more likely to kill many more people versus a single-shotgun. So the short answer is both. Living life is both/and, not either/or. Many politicians want to make it an either/or proposition. You have to approach the problem from both the supply and demand side of things.

Like other texts from history, some of the wisdom is contextual. The founding fathers were not familiar with modern assault weapons and the need for such public safety controls, much less tanks, nuclear weapons, missiles, and so forth. Remember, the far right wants every weapon imaginable--tanks and nuclear codes. The far left wants to take guns away. Common sense (moderate's) says enjoy the guns but have reasonable public safety controls in place and enforce them. Also remember, being reasonable means treating like cases likely, different cases differently. What's unreasonable about gun public safety?

Like a lot of things in life, it's an emotional issue no doubt!! So much for materialism

[Robert66]

Also, aren't you a little touchy. I mean if I suggested some reasonable solutions, do you really think I have tried to 'colonize American ideology'?

There are no solutions that are both "reasonable" and effective. The US could cut the homicide rate in half, however, not by enacting more knee-jerk gun laws, but by assuring that persons who have a history of criminal behavior are removed from the streets and kept off --- i.e., nailing shut the jailhouse revolving doors.

Holy smokes! You could run for office with lines like that. And go down in history as the most effective, most unreasonable, toughest on crime ever politician. (You may need to raise taxes to pay for 50 million prisoners and their keepers, but that is a hurdle you will clear no doubt)

Oh, we make the criminals pay for their own keep. Prisons would be work centers or camps, where they must work to pay, not only for their keep, but full restitution to the victims of their crimes. If they don't work, they don't eat.

I knew it! You are running for office. And with a platform like that you are a shoo-in (depending on which state you are in). Chain gangs?

[3017Metaphysician]

There are no solutions that are both "reasonable" and effective. The US could cut the homicide rate in half, however, not by enacting more knee-jerk gun laws, but by assuring that persons who have a history of criminal behavior are removed from the streets and kept off --- i.e., nailing shut the jailhouse revolving doors.

Holy smokes! You could run for office with lines like that. And go down in history as the most effective, most unreasonable, toughest on crime ever politician. (You may need to raise taxes to pay for 50 million prisoners and their keepers, but that is a hurdle you will clear no doubt)

Oh, we make the criminals pay for their own keep. Prisons would be work centers or camps, where they must work to pay, not only for their keep, but full restitution to the victims of their crimes. If they don't work, they don't eat.

I knew it! You are running for office. And with a platform like that you are a shoo-in (depending on which state you are in). Chain gangs?

Daggonit, I told GE not to make Mama mad. If he doesn't behave, she's liable to put him back in time-out!! She may even take his crack-pipe away!

[GE Morton]

Chain gangs?

If the inmates' behavioral history warrants it.

[GE Morton]

There is nothing wrong with gun control. It's common sense; a public safety concern.

Well, it depends upon what you include in "gun control," but there is no correlation between "stringent" gun laws and homicide rates in the US:

https://reason.com/volokh/2015/10/06/ze ... een-state/

[3017Metaphysician]

There is nothing wrong with gun control. It's common sense; a public safety concern.

Well, it depends upon what you include in "gun control," but there is no correlation between "stringent" gun laws and homicide rates in the US:

https://reason.com/volokh/2015/10/06/ze ... een-state/

The question would be whether the previous assault-rifle ban yielded any decrease in death's...