Ha! Ad hominems won't help you now, friend. Have you forgotten that the purpose of forums in general, and threads specifically are to state one's reasoned argument so that others might debate its relevant points? If you're looking for a love-fest populated by only like-minded individuals, there might be other forums that offer that,... I don't know. This forum has disparate views and I have found that the most effective members are able to present their arguments with supportable facts and critical thought. It so happens that I seen very little of this from you thus far in your thread. I disagree, in that I don't believe that a logical person would conclude that we have a gun registry in this country. Quite the reverse actually. The records that you spoke of that are to be retained for 20 years are to be retained exclusively by the dealer himself, and NOT the government. The FBI states on their website that: "The NICS is not to be used to establish a federal firearm registry; information about an inquiry resulting in an allowed transfer is destroyed in accordance with NICS regulations. Current destruction of NICS records became effective when a final rule was published by the Department of Justice in The Federal Register, outlining the following changes. Per Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 25.9(b)(1), (2), and (3), the NICS Section must destroy all identifying information on allowed transactions prior to the start of the next NICS operational day." Given that the government does NOT have a record of who has guns, there is NO gun registry. Simple. THAT is how a logical person would view this. Yes, I should do YOUR work for you. Would you like me to construct your argument as well? Oh, now it's not only the supposed "moral decay" of Mexicans, but now it's also government "corruption" too. Your argument is very fluid and ever-changing. You're arguing against something that does not exist. We don't have a gun registry in this country in spite of your irrational fears to the contrary. The fact that criminals don't obey laws is irrelevant to this discussion. Your argument by slogan fallacy misses the reality that criminals tend not to obey ALL laws. Not just gun laws. We write our laws with the full knowledge that there will be some who will not follow that particular law. Our prisons are full of perfect examples of this fact. Sigh,.... Once again you have adopted a very fluid argument. You have now contradicted an earlier assertion that societal laws affect positively on crime, ie your claims as to capital punishment. "Morals" could be ONE determinant for crime, but we are discussing guns, no? Do you have an aversion to posting sources to your "facts"? Do you know the average education level of convicts? How does this relate to guns? There are other sub-forums here that will deal with crime and politics. In THIS sub-forum we are discussing guns. You seem to have forgotten this simple point. In your OP you stated: "There were even 67 murders in Juarez, Mexico in just one day! Just across the border in El Paso, there are only a few murders all year." as if gun laws were the determining factor. This conclusion cannot be made from what you have offered yet that's what you did. FAIL. Secondly, in your OP you stated that our President and others believe that certain gun laws would "ensure our safety and wellbeing", and yet failed to quote any of them actually saying this. FAIL.
I see many accusations and no substantiations. Coincidence? This is relevant how, exactly? Perhaps you are attempting to make a straw man, and accuse me of saying that guns are not safe with competent people, I don't know, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. Frankly, it comes across as a purely emotional argument on you part. Ironic, that. Ha! WHERE? Show us these "plenty of examples of the side stepping of inconvenient facts". Anything less is emotive bluster.
Your legalistic complaints fail to refute the very basic argument that gun control laws concerning registration and calibre restriction, etc. in Mexico and America, have no measureable impact on crime reduction. In the OP I did not fully explain my reasoning and back up every word with a graph and mountain of research. Sorry, but this is a forum, not a school research paper. If I were to post my ideas in this format they would be of little interest to the average person here reading it and be ignored. This is a gun control forum, yes? Although I didn't go through my whole thesis and back up everything with a quote and study in the OP, I've made an attemp to do so as you and others have asked in this thread. Gun control laws that I have commented on have not lowered crime in the US or Mexico. Show me where the 1968 Gun Control Act and the assault weapons bans, by themselves, have any statistical impact on lowering crime. The ATF and Feds may look at the dealer's gun registration forms as they see fit, and take over the records after a dealer closed shop. I call this registration, you don't. So be it. Being a gun control forum, I stated my causes for crime; the people, culture and moral values, and the solutions; better moral values and harsh punishments for crime---religious and otherwise. You said they didn't belong in this forum, but any reasoned person would believe them relevant. Obamas call for "sensible gun control" is so well known, along with the anti-gun ideas and policies of his political allies that they are part of "common wisdom and knowledge" in this forum. You already know their views on the subject. The "fails" I see, are more from you. Fairure to produce evidence to show gun control policies, in themselves are working here and in Mexico. Failure to elaborate on your own unique ideas on gun crimes and violence as associated with gun control. I will be happy to flatten any ideas I don't agree with.
Purely opinion on your part. Quit dodging now and substantiate your many accusations put forth that I have called you on. So once again, you said: "Greataxe, your excellent OP, and subsequent posts have in some cases, fallen on the deaf ears of the emotive anti gun brigade. These types arrive at conclusions emotionally, then try to substantiate their conclusions by denial of reality, word games, and disruptive debate." and yet when pressed for substantiations, you are missing-in-action and without the ability to respond. You also made other false accusations, saying: "There are plenty of examples of the side stepping of inconvenient facts" Again, when I asked you to substantiate (which should have been easy seeing as you claimed there to be "plenty of examples"), you once again were unable to respond. The end result is that you have made a bunch of baseless accusations which you have been unable to support. Maybe you might want to become more relevant and actually offer a rational counterargument to what I have stated here. Try it.
False conclusion from a false premise. Pity. You can keep saying that we have a gun registry in this country and you can keep saying that we have any significant caliber restrictions, but it won't make it any truer. I have already shown your premise to be false, therefor any conclusion derived from it will also be a false one. Simple. Hollow excuses. Nobody is asking for you to "back up every word with a graph and mountain of research", friend. This is merely a distraction from your inabilities to back up your argument. People start threads here every day that are both interesting AND supported by facts. Yours, unfortunately fell far short of this goal. That's the point that you're avoiding. Good work,....you're half-way there. Where? I recall you linking to a theological site to show your theology, but nothing that I can recall that would support your OP. Please help me to understand this contradiction. This wasn't part of your OP, friend. You're moving the goalposts again. I realize that your OP was rambling and scattered, but surely you'll wish to stand behind it? A gun registration would typically give the government the ability to identify all gun owners and all their weapons. We do NOT have this in this country thanks largely to the NRA. All gun laws are expressly written so as to avoid any semblance to a gun registry, so your fears have no validity. That's precisely the point, friend. There are politicians that have made comments about gun laws and these are public record. You have stated that "Our nation's greatest minds and leaders like Pres. Obama, Sen. Lautenburg, and Mayors Daley and Bloomberg tell the unwashed masses that sensible gun control laws, like banning certain evil military type rounds and weapons, and having strict gun registration, will ensure our safety and wellbeing", but, ironically have not been able to show this group saying these words. If your intention is to make a rambling and unsupportable ranting OP then you have succeeded. On the other hand, if you wish to make a reasoned argument that is verifiable and factual, then you should at the very least be able to show those whom you claim to be saying a particular thing,... actually SAYING those things, no? You seem to be having trouble with the concept of presenting an argument in the Opening Post of a thread. The intent is to create a discussion or a debate as to the validity of the argument itself. This is what I have done here and which you have not been able to address directly yet. This is YOUR argument and the burden of proof is entirely on YOUR shoulders, not mine. I fully understand why you would wish to escape from your flawed argument, but you DO need to face this fact head-on.
I haven`at present, the inclination to waste my precious time on meaningless, circular debate. If you genuinely want answers to the questions you put forward, I suggest just read through the previous posts, and other anti gun dogma, with an open mind. There, in the previous sentence, ate the two standout, operative words, "open mind". Anyone with an open mind regarding my post, will quickly recognise the factors I mentioned. On the other hand, anyone with a closed mind, satisfied with emotionally driven conclusions, will never get it. Best of luck.
Your "precious time" has somehow become an issue now that you have been challenged to support your personal attacks and accusations. There is much irony to that. Your "precious time", in this case is purely relative. You had no problem earlier wasting your precious time when you chimed in here in support of the OP, not by supporting his argument,...... no, by attacking myself and anyone else who might have challenged his weak argument. I would view this enterprise, personally as a waste of anyone's precious time, but there we are. Once again, you attempt to distract from your inability to support your baseless accusations by lodging ad hominem attacks against myself. I DO have an open mind, thank you very much. Of course this fact has nothing to do with your inability to support your charges. Personally, I would not make an accusation against other members here unless I could support that charge with quotes. Simple. If I SAY that you said something, then it behooves ME to show where you said it, because accusations should be taken seriously and not thrown around as some sort of cheap and dishonest parlor game. Your choice. Perfect. More personal attacks by blaming the messenger. It's interesting that you have not been able to address the issues in this thread but instead chose to waste all our time here by making more and more baseless personal charges. In fact, you haven't even been able to support ONE of your many accusations. In your first post you stated: "There are plenty of examples of the side stepping of inconvenient facts" Again, when I asked you to substantiate (which should have been easy seeing as you claimed there to be "plenty of examples"), you once again were unable to respond. We can only assume, therefor that your charges are completely baseless and false. I suggest that you drop all the false and baseless accusations and try a perhaps, more adult method of debate here by actually addressing the core arguments here instead of the people participating in them.
d00d you are too much. anyone who agrees with you is logical, and anyone who disagrees is illogical. LOLOLOL why so bigoted? its 2 on 1 and that 1 is schooling you guys.
I won't respond to all of this, for much of it is petty leagalisms. I will go back to my OP. I have already touched on Obama's well know views on gun control, but mayors Bloomburg and Daley help found "Mayors Against Illegal Guns." where they claim that many gun policies "are not appropriate for a big city..." such as their own. Chicago has had its famous handgun ban and other anti-gun policies that they are still tooling with after the Supreme Court struch them down last year. Daley called for a "...fight for a ban on assault weapons..." and so on. Mayor Bloomberg still fiercely clings to his ancient and ineffective Sullivan Act of 1911 which makes it near impossible for an unconnected political person to obtain a handgun permit. Their "Mayors" group are fighting tooth and nail against any concealed carry law that would void their elitist gun bans and registration laws. Look up their views on their website. In my OP I laughed at the idea that having the gun law must reduce crime. Looking at real historical data one can see on pg 36 of www.jrsa.org/programs/Historical.pdf that our historical gun control laws have had no evidence of working: National Firearms Act 1934---no effect. This is a ban on machine guns unless one REGISTERS them with the government. As of 1995 there were 240,000 machine guns REGISTERED with the federal government. For all the hysertria with Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde, banning machine guns had no statistical impact on crime (already low). Greater crackdowns on crime by the FBI were probably more of an effect. Gun Control Act of 1968----only continued upward. Defacto gun registration and other silly import restrictions. Quite stupid laws. The Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994---the ATF claim it could "in no way validate" the effectiveness of the ban. Looking at the graph, crime peaked in 1991, but still remains much higher that back before the mid 1960's. My other main point is when there is stronger criminal control there is less crime, as the graph shows when people became fed-up with liberal treatment of criminals and began tougher laws (three strikes, etc) in the early 1990's. Let's have some of YOUR data to refute this. Let's see some original ideas from you in this forum.
You're not upsetting me, but you ARE hurting your standing by being unable to support your accusations. I see that you STILL haven't addressed this. You were? With false accusations? You sure have an odd way of "analyzing" a situation. Try analyzing the topic of the thread with rational and reasoned responses. Surprise us all.
You're dodging. "legalisms" ,.....really? Finally. Actually, as I recall, you made a vague comment about what "everybody" knows. You never showed him saying that "banning certain evil military type rounds and weapons, and having strict gun registration, will ensure our safety and wellbeing". THIS was your contention, remember? You still are having a problem with showing sources, I see. Yes, don't worry. I"LL do your work for you. You're talking about a law that has been in place for 100 years and blaming the current Mayor for it? Interesting. Nothing there about gun registrations, assault weapons and how their use "will ensure our safety and wellbeing", as you said. Remember? Is THAT what you meant? I recall that you stated: "Opressive gun control laws must equate to less murders and less crime. Having the law MUST make all the difference It would sound to me as if you were saying that a law would have to be shown to be effective BEFORE being enacted. You should be more clear. Fairly basic innumeracy, I'm afraid. You're attempting to show a correlation from data that disputes your conclusions. Hardly a way to make an argument, I'd say. There was a downturn in crime during 1934, and 1993. Two of the three examples you highlighted as not having a positive effect on crime. Do you have anything more persuasive? Once again, you have made assumptions from raw data that is unreasonable and illogical. There has been much speculation as to the reasons for historical rises and falls in crime. Most of the time the actual answer is a combination of disparate factors. Why bore everyone else here with MY opinions when we have so much to occupy us with deciphering your OP? Speaking of which let's look at it again, shall we? You started off by making a straw man fallacy that you have not been able to verify while speculating on other's motivations. Next, you argued that by comparing gun deaths in the US and Mexico, that you could glean something significant as to the value of gun control laws. Your argument as to this was that "If the law was really that effective then there would not be so many thousands of gun deaths in Mexico", however you contradicted yourself by then stating that the actual reasons for the crime and deaths are from the lack of morals of Mexicans and NOT, I assume their gun laws. This particular part of your OP is perhaps the weakest of your somewhat rambling OP. Aside from contradicting yourself, you totally ignore other countries such as Japan that would give your argument a completely different result. Lastly, you assumed that the use of capital punishment would be the best answer to crime in Mexico although you can't present us with any verification of this other than a particular theologian who happens to advocate it.
Dewd, I`m happy to discuss the facts. In fact, if I believed for a minute that a blanket firearm ban would be beneficial to society, I`d be up there with the best of the anti gunners. I simply don`t take the circular, soggy thinking so often displayed by anti gunners too seriously, so I respond in kind. Keep it real dewd.
This forum has the purpose to draw out ideas on gun control. Yes, as you point out again and again on my OP being vauge and not having every point and conclusion that I later elaborated on. As with the traditional liberal gun control advocates, they show gun control laws like registration and handgun restrictions (ie weapon type), as reasons for being effective in certain countries to control crime and murders---then by this unfair comparison demand that the US take similar measures. As I have proved, having the gun registration policy does not lead to lower crime. If this were true then Mexico would not have such a huge murder and crime rate. A typical post of late was "Ban all guns (part 2) by liberal activist. After copying the data from the Brady site on several Western European nations that have low crime and strong gun control, he gives a poor conclusion from poor data. If gun control regulations like handgun bans and registration schemes work to control crime--then this theory must be applied to ALL nations and ALL groups of people worldwide. And that is flat out false. I am so glad you came up with at least a weak attempt at a personal stand on gun control when you said I "totally ignored Japan." Now we are getting somewhere. So do you then support having Japan's laws that allow unwarrented serch and seizure and being held for 28 days w/o bail when arrested? Do you support their demand for mental exams and other lengthy and invasive restrictions invalidated by our 2nd Amendment rights? Why did you "cherry pick" Japan and not Brazil or South Africa? All these countries have gun registration among other gun control measures. Tell us about the gun control measure and crime rates of all three of these nations if you are so critical of my limited coverage of worldwide gun control laws. Brazil and South America are much more demographically similar to our own large urban areas than Japan. Tell us how having to wait 2 years for a gun in South Africa makes it so safe that it is called "the rape and hijacking capital of the world." Tell us why crime has been at least 50% higher in Brazil than the US. As for capital punishment in Mexico, wait an see what happens when the country goes through another revolution.
Still can't do it. eh? No substantiations? Thought so. You have said that you would like to discuss the "facts" and have yet to post any here. Coincidence?
It's interesting that you are unable to respond to most of my post. I had asked you of your use of the term "legalism", pointed out how your claims as to out President were untrue, asked you once again for sources, exposed your inflated significance placed on two mayors and showed how you still could not quote them saying what you CLAIMED that they had said, eviscerated your linked source that was supposed to support your claim that gun laws have a negative ( or zero) effect on crime. Yes, ALL of this was met with the faint sound of crickets chirping in the background. Very telling. Where did THIS come from? Focus now,..... straw man fallacies won't help you now. I have said NOTHING in advocacy of gun bans. Nice try, but stick to the topic at hand. You have proven nothing of the kind, in fact, you have had a hard time identifying what a gun registry even is. Ha. Nothing like YOU, eh? YOU haven't taken cherry-picked data and concocted favorable conclusions from them. No. NOW we're getting somewhere. I'm glad to hear that you're dropping your cherry-picked country of Mexico and now accurately claim that any meaningful conclusion can ONLY be drawn from "ALL nations". Good work. It's silly to look at one country or another and glean anything meaningful from their laws. Let me know what you come up with as to national studies. This will be good. Good, thank you. Whoa there fella. Please don't attempt to once again use cheap straw man fallacy here by ascribing a position to me that I don't actually have. You were just starting to develop a reasoned argument. You DO make a good point though in that when you compare our country with others such as Mexico, we must control for culture, laws and government, and in turn the realities that these forces inevitably bring. Cherry-picking other emerging democracies don't actually help your argument at all. Have you forgotten your plea to consider "ALL nations", so quickly? This is ironic. This is YOUR thread, friend. If you have a view as to this that will enhance your weak argument, then feel free to explain to us why South Africa and Brazil have higher crime rates (if they do, that is, as you still cannot seem to get the concept of posting sources). I have no interest in debating capital punishment with you here in this gun forum. Thanks. I see that you weren't able to address the major flaw in your OP that I pointed out to you in last post. Your argument as to this was that "If the law was really that effective then there would not be so many thousands of gun deaths in Mexico", however you contradicted yourself by then stating that the actual reasons for the crime and deaths are from the lack of morals of Mexicans and NOT, I assume their gun laws. Nothing?
I`ve posted plenty of facts on this forum, but with some people, facts can`t be discussed. However, in this case, it`s your health and well being that I`m considering by my tempory relaxation of the supply of facts and data. I don`t want to agrivate your condition of RSI in the ankles from side stepping facts and reality. Please rest those ankles for a little while.
My OP "Sensible" Mexican Gun Laws America Needs was, as anyone would know, is sarcasm. Their laws are neither sensible or needed here or anywhere. When I stated: "Oppressive guns laws must equate to less murders and less crime. Having the law MUST make all the difference," I was being sarcastic. I was showing the false reasoning of gun control advocates. When I said that Pres. Obama, Sen Lautenberg, and mayors Bloomberg and Daley called for various common gun control measures to ensure" "safety and wellbeing" I did not quote them directly, but made an accurate generalized statement based on their words and laws they support. Obama's "sensible gun control" statements can be found at: www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barak_Obama_Gun_Control.htm. Sen Lautenbergs veiws are well known on gun control. On response to the failure of his "Gun show loophole" legislation, he said, "It's..time to put aside business as usual in Washington and start considering the safety of our families over special interests." His actions on gun control range from supporting this law, to UN gun bans, allowing lawsuits on gun manufactures, and nation gun registration databases (as kept by a central database). www.ontheisuues.org has his views as well. As for Bloomberg and Daley, go to their website: www.mayorsagainstillegalguns to see their opposition to challenges of their citie's restrictive and illegal gun bans. Gun control laws that I have talked about can only be called "effective" if they are effective everywhere, which can't be proved. They have been proven not to reduce crime in at least the US, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa as can be seen if one looks up the crime data. The Mexican people have had the moral failing of looking the other way so long that criminal elements now control many areas and have made them killing grounds. The law by itself does not prevent criminal act. Crime is based on the given people, their culture, moral values and how they punish the criminal acts. How criminals are punished and how the laws are enforced is what keeps crime low even in places with questionable moral values like Saudia Arabia.
This is silliness. You claim that by cherry-picking two specific gun laws (one of which we don't even have in this country) that this can tell us something relevant about ALL of our gun laws. FAIL. Secondly, you claim that by cherry-picking a few countries (that you are unable to source data for), that this somehow will tell us something relevant as to gun-control law efficacy. This, in spite of the fact that you admit that one should look at "ALL nations", FAIL. Finally, You can't refute your contradiction that you first claimed that gun laws in Mexico can be shown to be ineffective simply by their overall crime rates (innumeracy), in spite of the fact that you ALSO claim that their crime is predominantly driven by immorality. FAIL again. Get back to me when you have a real argument to offer us.
In Svalbard (part of Norway), all the snowsleds have gun racks. By law, residents of this Arctic island are required to carry a shotgun outside of the small towns. The reason for this is to defend oneself against potential attacks by the large polar bear population. In Switzerland also, all the men are required to store assault rifles in their homes. One man who was a friend of the family was bipolar and wanted to return his gun, as he was afraid he would do something he would later regret. The government denied his request, basically saying he was not mentally impaired enough! In Switzerland, all men serve two years in the army, and all are considered part of the state militia, in the event of a potential invasion. Until the last two decades, all houses were actually required to be built with a basement bombshelter. So it is interesting that in some countries the people are legally required to own guns, while on other countries gun ownership is forbidden. I think the issue has more to do with crime and conflict than guns being "good" or "bad". Typically poorer nations without international conflict ban guns, whereas wealthier nations that face the potential threat of invasion actually promote gun ownership. There is far more of a correllation between poverty and the murder rate than there is between gun ownership and the murder rate. It is no surprise that those who promote gun ownership do not want too much immigration, which brings in poverty and crime from the third world.
I don't think that the issue is whether guns are "good" or "bad". It's about how we can balance the rights of gun owners with the rights of all citizens.
