Re: Gun Control

by Belsfir Sun Feb 10, 2013 11:34 am

JAMSM wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Very well, but it leaves the question unanswered as to why do we even need gun control if we don't know if it works? We are a constitutional democracy, meaning some rights cannot be infringed even if the people want it to be so, such as a national religion.

Eh, if this is true, then why does our constitution expressly say it can be amended?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html wrote:
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The purpose for creating amendments is to prefect the Constitution, so that it may guarantee further rights that may not be infringed despite any objection from popular consent, or that it may structure our Government much more effectively and fairly.

Just because the people want something to be so, does not mean it is fit for a constitutional amendment. However, it is sad to report that this has not always been enforced.... For instance, prohibition...

If we did not have a Constitution, then we would be a true democracy, in which the people have the highest authority.

by SkepticalDragon Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:30 pm

Belsfir wrote:The purpose for creating amendments is to prefect the Constitution, so that it may guarantee further rights that may not be infringed despite any objection from popular consent, or that it may structure our Government much more effectively and fairly.

That is a belief... not a bad one either... but where does it mention that in the constitution?

Currently as it is... there is hypothetically/argumentatively one provision within the American constitution that is "entrenched". That is as mentioned in article five: "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". Meaning that either the number of senators from states cannot be changed or if it is amended (presumably at all the states consent) all states must retain equal representation...

In the practice of American law the remote attempt at revolution/succession being illegal and unconstitutional is almost like it is entrenched. Considering the ruling of the Alaskan Supreme Court when the Alaskan Independence Party attempted to submit a petition for a general referendum to amend their constitution to investigate, make possible, and seek succession ruled that the state secretary of state acted properly when he barred the petition from appearing on the ballot even though there was more than enough petitioners... stating that the remote act in of itself was invalid, illegal, and unconstitutional.

Belsfir wrote:Just because the people want something to be so, does not mean it is fit for a constitutional amendment. However, it is sad to report that this has not always been enforced.... For instance, prohibition...

The American governments tried their best to uphold prohibition and regretfully it failed. Considering the drinking culture of that time, it was more than excessive and problematic, the idea of trying to slow people down wasn't a bad idea... but prohibition wasn't aimed at slowing people down it was a radical answer to the problem, get rid of the booze... which is why it failed.

Belsfir wrote:If we did not have a Constitution, then we would be a true democracy, in which the people have the highest authority.

The United States is (to use a political science term) is a liberal democracy. But this term "true democracy" is a bit of a farce, democracy is such a broad conception that to narrow it down to something like people voting or everyone voting is an extreme over simplification of what it means...

by JAMSM Sun Feb 10, 2013 9:39 pm

Belsfir wrote:
JAMSM wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Very well, but it leaves the question unanswered as to why do we even need gun control if we don't know if it works? We are a constitutional democracy, meaning some rights cannot be infringed even if the people want it to be so, such as a national religion.

Eh, if this is true, then why does our constitution expressly say it can be amended?

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html wrote:
Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The purpose for creating amendments is to prefect the Constitution, so that it may guarantee further rights that may not be infringed despite any objection from popular consent, or that it may structure our Government much more effectively and fairly.

Just because the people want something to be so, does not mean it is fit for a constitutional amendment. However, it is sad to report that this has not always been enforced.... For instance, prohibition...

If we did not have a Constitution, then we would be a true democracy, in which the people have the highest authority.

Eh, actually, the Anti-federalists wanted two things, A guarantee of rights, and a Republic, as opposed to a democracy.
The federalists wanted there to be no guarantee of rights, and a democracy.

Hence, just by the fact that those in favor of democracy would rather not have a solid 'bill of rights' is, in essence, to say that a democracy (and by extension, our constitution) was not designed to guarantee solid rights.

If it were designed to guarantee solid rights, they would be an article, as opposed to an addendum

by SkepticalDragon Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:41 am

JAMSM wrote:Eh, actually, the Anti-federalists wanted two things, A guarantee of rights, and a Republic, as opposed to a democracy.
The federalists wanted there to be no guarantee of rights, and a democracy.

The difference between democracy and a republic is really splitting hairs. You are right there is a difference and the authors of the constitution and later bill of rights did tend to see a meaningful difference between the two, but in modern conceptions of democracy and republic those meaningful differences have faded.

JAMSM wrote:Hence, just by the fact that those in favor of democracy would rather not have a solid 'bill of rights' is, in essence, to say that a democracy (and by extension, our constitution) was not designed to guarantee solid rights.

I'm wondering if this is an over simplification. I seem to remember that there were those who didn't want the federal constitution to have a bill of rights because it was feared it would eventually supersede state bill of rights, which because of the fourteenth amendment it did, and that previously they assumed that the federal government would respect state bill of rights, constitutions, and laws... which in large part is why the bill of rights chiefly only applied to the federal government.

JAMSM wrote:If it were designed to guarantee solid rights, they would be an article, as opposed to an addendum

I'm not sure if being amended to the constitution makes it less important? I would argue that it makes it even more important since it is implicitly stating that this bill of rights supersedes the entire constitution because it is an amendment to the entire constitution. But I understand what you mean that it was added later under pressure from the states in ratification.

Also I am guessing no one has any comments on my brainstorming for reforming gun control law???

by Belsfir Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:26 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:Also I am guessing no one has any comments on my brainstorming for reforming gun control law???

No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.

by SkepticalDragon Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:11 pm

Belsfir wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:Also I am guessing no one has any comments on my brainstorming for reforming gun control law???
No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

Oh... well at least you read them I guess?

Belsfir wrote:I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.

So you didn't read what I wrote... points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 focus rather particularly on motivation or the causes of gun violence outside of the immediate scope of guns.

king

lol

But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...

by Belsfir Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:35 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:Also I am guessing no one has any comments on my brainstorming for reforming gun control law???
No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.
Oh... well at least you read them I guess?
Belsfir wrote:I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.
So you didn't read what I wrote... points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 focus rather particularly on motivation or the causes of gun violence outside of the immediate scope of guns.

lol

You posted it few pages back, as this:

SkepticalDragon wrote:
1. Qualification screening, education, training, and other services. (Licensing)
2. Raising the age a person can 'independently' own, possess, or operate a firearm to twenty six years of age.
3. Mandatory permitting for pistols, "assault weapons", and the like.
4. On-site evaluation and screening prior to sale. (Universal background checks)
5. One month waiting period before the completion of a transaction.
6. Reorganizing, refunding, retooling the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and similar agencies.
7. Supporting the UN illegal arms trade treaty that aims to reduce the illegal flow of firearms between nations.
8. Safe and secure storage law, making persons liable for misuse and risky storage of their firearm or ammunition.
9. Safer and smarter firearm standards (eg: a safety mandatory for all new models)
10. Emergency weapon confiscation warrant (temporarily and with some creditable evidence).
11. Public morale and peacebuilding program (advocacy/outreach).
12. Suicidal and homicidal prevention program (advocacy/outreach).
13. Physical, automated, and human security improvement for public/common environments (eg: schools, supermarkets).
14. Gun maker liability (making it possible to sue gun makers for defects).
15. Public safety liability (making it possible to sue for failing to providing adequate security for the public).
16. Tax incentives for communal/cooperative membership of gun owners and public liability insurance.
17. Expanding access to self-defense classes (moreover for females)

Also while not directly related to gun control would in my view help reduce overall crime.

18. Reforming the justice system to a more humane and benevolent restorative, rehabilitative, and reconciliation system that focuses on individual liberty, dignity, and independence while based on science, wellness, and education.
19. Reforming the mental health care system to a more liberal "community support" model with better holistic care.
20. Expanding access to health care, education, employment, and welfare.

Your points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do share in trying to lower the motivation of crime, and thereby lowering crime itself, but isn't that the goal of gun control as well? Those things may be out of the scope of guns, but it is trying to accomplish the same goal.

Your points also seem to be very harmful to the sale and manufacturing in the gun industry, very few points brought up ever in this discussion considered it.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...

Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.

by SkepticalDragon Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:11 pm

Belsfir wrote:No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.

Belsfir wrote:Your points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do share in trying to lower the motivation of crime, and thereby lowering crime itself...

I will accept that as a minimal concession that yes I did propose things outside of the immediate scope of gun control.

Belsfir wrote:...but isn't that the goal of gun control as well? Those things may be out of the scope of guns, but it is trying to accomplish the same goal.

So trying to accomplish the same goal of gun control... that is reducing gun injury, violence, and crime... is somehow bad? Please tell me you are joking or I am misunderstanding you.

Belsfir wrote:Your points also seem to be very harmful to the sale and manufacturing in the gun industry, very few points brought up ever in this discussion considered it.

No. It is holding the industry responsible to the public like any other industry should be. If you bought anything (insert your favorite food here) and it had (insert dangerous object/substance here) in it... you should be free to file lawsuit. This very same reasoning is what I proposed previously.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...

Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.

I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.

by Belsfir Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:22 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.
Belsfir wrote:Your points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do share in trying to lower the motivation of crime, and thereby lowering crime itself...
I will accept that as a minimal concession that yes I did propose things outside of the immediate scope of gun control.
Belsfir wrote:...but isn't that the goal of gun control as well? Those things may be out of the scope of guns, but it is trying to accomplish the same goal.
So trying to accomplish the same goal of gun control... that is reducing gun injury, violence, and crime... is somehow bad? Please tell me you are joking or I am misunderstanding you.

I recognize the targeted goal of gun control as good, efforts to reduce the motive of crime is good as well.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Your points also seem to be very harmful to the sale and manufacturing in the gun industry, very few points brought up ever in this discussion considered it.
No. It is holding the industry responsible to the public like any other industry should be. If you bought anything (insert your favorite food here) and it had (insert dangerous object/substance here) in it... you should be free to file lawsuit. This very same reasoning is what I proposed previously.

The industry sells weapons, in which case anyone can use maliciously. But holding the manufacturer accountable for someone using the product with the wrong intent is wrong. For instance, if you bought lighter fluid, poured it down your driveway and lit a match to it, you cannot sue the manufacturer because you used the product with the wrong intent.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:
But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.

I'm not asking you to argue, I'm asking you to lay down proof...

But for the sake of time....
That's the point, for when/if you post data that shows gun control being effective, there is going to be contradicting data out there as well.... So in conclusion... We cannot assume it will work because of the fact there is a lack of conclusiveness to it.

by SkepticalDragon Tue Feb 12, 2013 2:58 pm

Belsfir wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.
Belsfir wrote:Your points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do share in trying to lower the motivation of crime, and thereby lowering crime itself...
I will accept that as a minimal concession that yes I did propose things outside of the immediate scope of gun control.
Belsfir wrote:...but isn't that the goal of gun control as well? Those things may be out of the scope of guns, but it is trying to accomplish the same goal.
So trying to accomplish the same goal of gun control... that is reducing gun injury, violence, and crime... is somehow bad? Please tell me you are joking or I am misunderstanding you.
I recognize the targeted goal of gun control as good, efforts to reduce the motive of crime is good as well.

So perhaps those points I brought up might be worthy of discussion???

Belsfir wrote:Your points also seem to be very harmful to the sale and manufacturing in the gun industry, very few points brought up ever in this discussion considered it.
SkepticalDragon wrote:No. It is holding the industry responsible to the public like any other industry should be. If you bought anything (insert your favorite food here) and it had (insert dangerous object/substance here) in it... you should be free to file lawsuit. This very same reasoning is what I proposed previously.
Belsfir wrote:The industry sells weapons, in which case anyone can use maliciously. But holding the manufacturer accountable for someone using the product with the wrong intent is wrong. For instance, if you bought lighter fluid, poured it down your driveway and lit a match to it, you cannot sue the manufacturer because you used the product with the wrong intent.

No... That isn't what it means. It means for example if the gun is made in such a way that it prone to dangerous malfunctioning. It would also mean the ability to file lawsuit with companies that do business with dealers that are known to not follow the law, has criminal/militant/terrorist connections, or even is reckless in its sale/storage of guns.

SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
SkepticalDragon wrote:I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.
Belsfir wrote:I'm not asking you to argue, I'm asking you to lay down proof...

Okay I will quote someone you should know and trust admitting that gun control reduces gun crimes.

Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.

Which is what you seem to fall back to if you can't make a case against some kind of gun control... you argue that it somehow is ineffective at reducing overall crime or that it aggravates overall crime... Which casually is known as "moving the goal post" and this claim of ineffectiveness/aggravation is as previously discussed in doubt.

by Belsfir Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:17 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:No, not a thing new to say to that which wasn't previously pointed out, lol.

I do feel that if crime was to be lowered, we should instead try to pass legislation that would deter the motive, and not the means.
Belsfir wrote:Your points 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 do share in trying to lower the motivation of crime, and thereby lowering crime itself...
I will accept that as a minimal concession that yes I did propose things outside of the immediate scope of gun control.
Belsfir wrote:...but isn't that the goal of gun control as well? Those things may be out of the scope of guns, but it is trying to accomplish the same goal.
So trying to accomplish the same goal of gun control... that is reducing gun injury, violence, and crime... is somehow bad? Please tell me you are joking or I am misunderstanding you.
I recognize the targeted goal of gun control as good, efforts to reduce the motive of crime is good as well.
So perhaps those points I brought up might be worthy of discussion???
SkepticalDragon wrote:
Belsfir wrote:Your points also seem to be very harmful to the sale and manufacturing in the gun industry, very few points brought up ever in this discussion considered it.
No. It is holding the industry responsible to the public like any other industry should be. If you bought anything (insert your favorite food here) and it had (insert dangerous object/substance here) in it... you should be free to file lawsuit. This very same reasoning is what I proposed previously.
The industry sells weapons, in which case anyone can use maliciously. But holding the manufacturer accountable for someone using the product with the wrong intent is wrong. For instance, if you bought lighter fluid, poured it down your driveway and lit a match to it, you cannot sue the manufacturer because you used the product with the wrong intent.

SkepticalDragon wrote:No... That isn't what it means. It means for example if the gun is made in such a way that it prone to dangerous malfunctioning. It would also mean the ability to file lawsuit with companies that do business with dealers that are known to not follow the law, has criminal/militant/terrorist connections, or even is reckless in its sale/storage of guns.

I believe that if the product is malfunctioning, you have the ability to sue already. The other parts are already illegal, and capitalism itself keeps the last point in check (Since they are companies trying to make a profit). Theft, of course is bad, but the companies do lose their money in the damages and would seek that such a thing does not happen.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
SkepticalDragon wrote:I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.
Belsfir wrote:I'm not asking you to argue, I'm asking you to lay down proof...
Okay I will quote someone you should know and trust admitting that gun control reduces gun crimes.
Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.
Which is what you seem to fall back to if you can't make a case against some kind of gun control... you argue that it somehow is ineffective at reducing overall crime or that it aggravates overall crime... Which casually is known as "moving the goal post" and this claim of ineffectiveness/aggravation is as previously discussed in serious doubt.

Its always been my case, my one argument. All of my points have been to support that one argument. I set the goal post then exactly where it is now.

Its apparent that gun control lowers gun crimes.

But the key world in there is GUN. I've already cited data that shows more effective mass murder tools, and the fact that guns can be replaced. I also brought up the point that gun control can lower the possibility of a civilian based counter measure against crime as well. We also cannot figure out if having a gun or not can affect the motivation of a killer here, as previously discussed.

So yes, while gun control can lower gun crimes, is that of any benefit to us? (that benefit was previously defined to me only as "Overall crime rates lowering")
We don't know.

Moreover, I have made mention to the fact that it harms an industry, that it lowers personal defense in case of a robbery or home invasion, and that it restricts the formation of a militia. So cons have been defined, and the pros are unknown.

by SkepticalDragon Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:40 pm

Belsfir wrote:I believe that if the product is malfunctioning, you have the ability to sue already. The other parts are already illegal, and capitalism itself keeps the last point in check (Since they are companies trying to make a profit). Theft, of course is bad, but the companies do lose their money in the damages and would seek that such a thing does not happen.

... my benefit of doubt is running short that you are sincerely trying to discuss this topic.

SkepticalDragon wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
SkepticalDragon wrote:I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.
Belsfir wrote:I'm not asking you to argue, I'm asking you to lay down proof...
Okay I will quote someone you should know and trust admitting that gun control reduces gun crimes.
Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.
Which is what you seem to fall back to if you can't make a case against some kind of gun control... you argue that it somehow is ineffective at reducing overall crime or that it aggravates overall crime... Which casually is known as "moving the goal post" and this claim of ineffectiveness/aggravation is as previously discussed in serious doubt.

Belsfir wrote:Its always been my case, my one argument. All of my points have been to support that one argument. I set the goal post then exactly where it is now.

... The post you responded to has in it verbatim:

SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...

Which you replied with:

Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.

So to the subject of reducing gun violence... nothing else... your response is implying you have no knowledge of gun control being effective. You even argue that there is no clear data on the subject at all... So I quote you admitting that yes gun control is effective at reducing gun crime, which is the point being immediately discussed:

Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.

I then pointed out that when you seemingly cannot reject gun control on this grounds you move the goal post and claim... well everything that you do here:

Belsfir wrote:Its apparent that gun control lowers gun crimes.

But the key world in there is GUN. I've already cited data that shows more effective mass murder tools, and the fact that guns can be replaced. I also brought up the point that gun control can lower the possibility of a civilian based counter measure against crime as well. We also cannot figure out if having a gun or not can affect the motivation of a killer here, as previously discussed.

So yes, while gun control can lower gun crimes, is that of any benefit to us? (that benefit was previously defined to me only as "Overall crime rates lowering")
We don't know.

Moreover, I have made mention to the fact that it harms an industry, that it lowers personal defense in case of a robbery or home invasion, and that it restricts the formation of a militia. So cons have been defined, and the pros are unknown.

But even after stating:

Belsfir wrote:...its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists...

You claim there is data that you cited that somehow proves your point...

Adequate proof for me of biased obfuscation as I previously mentioned. Your proof has been laid down for you to see. Have a good day.

by Belsfir Tue Feb 12, 2013 3:59 pm

SkepticalDragon wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:
SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
SkepticalDragon wrote:I am not going to argue with biased obfuscation.
Belsfir wrote:I'm not asking you to argue, I'm asking you to lay down proof...
Okay I will quote someone you should know and trust admitting that gun control reduces gun crimes.
Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.
Which is what you seem to fall back to if you can't make a case against some kind of gun control... you argue that it somehow is ineffective at reducing overall crime or that it aggravates overall crime... Which casually is known as "moving the goal post" and this claim of ineffectiveness/aggravation is as previously discussed in serious doubt.
Belsfir wrote:Its always been my case, my one argument. All of my points have been to support that one argument. I set the goal post then exactly where it is now.
... The post you responded to has in it verbatim:
SkepticalDragon wrote:But I suppose discussing actual proposals to reduce gun violence or reform gun control is pointless with someone who refuses to even admit that gun control is effective...
Which you replied with:
Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.
So to the subject of reducing gun violence... nothing else... your response is implying you have no knowledge of gun control being effective. You even argue that there is no clear data on the subject at all... So I quote you admitting that yes gun control is effective at reducing gun crime, which is the point being immediately discussed:
Belsfir wrote:But those cases are fire arm related, lol. Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.
I then pointed out that when you seemingly cannot reject gun control on this grounds you move the goal post and claim... well everything that you do here:
Belsfir wrote:Its apparent that gun control lowers gun crimes.

But the key world in there is GUN. I've already cited data that shows more effective mass murder tools, and the fact that guns can be replaced. I also brought up the point that gun control can lower the possibility of a civilian based counter measure against crime as well. We also cannot figure out if having a gun or not can affect the motivation of a killer here, as previously discussed.

So yes, while gun control can lower gun crimes, is that of any benefit to us? (that benefit was previously defined to me only as "Overall crime rates lowering")
We don't know.

Moreover, I have made mention to the fact that it harms an industry, that it lowers personal defense in case of a robbery or home invasion, and that it restricts the formation of a militia. So cons have been defined, and the pros are unknown.
But even after stating:
Belsfir wrote:...its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists...
You claim there is data that you cited that somehow proves your point...

Adequate proof for me of biased obfuscation as I previously mentioned. Your proof has been laid down for you to see. Have a good day.

You make a very good point and it would of been a great strike to my arguement, but that relies on this:

Belsfir wrote:Saying that I "refuse to even admit that gun control is effective" suggests that you have knowledge of gun control being effective. Please, do share.

Also, its not that I refuse to acknowledge that it works, its that I find no reason to put faith in it if no clear data exists and mixed philosophy about it also exists.

I'm afraid you taken my words in the wrong context, mixing up what I meant as "effective" in that quote (also, not quite the best word choice). To me, and shown in my points, gun control being effective does not mean being able to reduce gun crime. I define effective in these means as being a benefit to society. Perhaps I should of worded it better back then.

So my standing point is still as:

Belsfir wrote:Its apparent that gun control lowers gun crimes.

But the key world in there is GUN. I've already cited data that shows more effective mass murder tools, and the fact that guns can be replaced. I also brought up the point that gun control can lower the possibility of a civilian based counter measure against crime as well. We also cannot figure out if having a gun or not can affect the motivation of a killer here, as previously discussed.

So yes, while gun control can lower gun crimes, is that of any benefit to us? (that benefit was previously defined to me only as "Overall crime rates lowering")
We don't know.

Moreover, I have made mention to the fact that it harms an industry, that it lowers personal defense in case of a robbery or home invasion, and that it restricts the formation of a militia. So cons have been defined, and the pros are unknown.

And it does not contradict or stray from this:

Belsfir wrote:Its no surprise that taking fire arms away lowers crimes involving them. The questions is that if it lowers ALL crime.

by SkepticalDragon Wed Apr 03, 2013 2:23 pm

U.N. Approves Treaty To Regulate Multibillion-Dollar Global Arms Trade - NPR

Delegates to the United Nations General Assembly applaud the passage of the first U.N. treaty regulating the international arms trade on Tuesday.

he United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first U.N. treaty to regulate the estimated $60 billion global arms trade on Tuesday.

The goal of the , which the U.N. has sought for over a decade, according to, is to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

The vote on the treaty was 154-3, with 23 abstentions.

Iran, Syria and North Korea voted against the treaty, the same three nations that blocked the treaty's adoption at a negotiating conference last Thursday.

The 23 countries that abstained included a handful of Latin American nations, as well as Russia, one of the largest arms exporters. Russian envoy to the United Nations Vitaly I. Churkin said his country had misgivings about what he called ambiguities in the treaty, reports the Times, including how terms like genocide would be defined.

The New York Times had more :
"The treaty would require states exporting conventional weapons to develop criteria that would link exports to avoiding human-rights abuses, terrorism and organized crime. It would also ban shipments if they were deemed harmful to women and children. Countries that join the treaty would have to report publicly on sales every year, exposing the process to levels of transparency that rights groups hope will strictly limit illicit weapons deals."
In the U.S., there from the National Rifle Association. The gun lobby fears that the treaty would be used to regulate civilian weapons, and the NRA has vowed to fight ratification in the Senate.

The treaty will not, in fact, control the domestic use of arms in any country, but nations that ratify it will be required to create and enforce national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and regulate arms brokers.

Battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons are covered under the treaty.

That list originally contained the phrase "at a minimum," but the wording was dropped, reports the AP, at the insistence of the U.S.

7. Supporting the UN illegal arms trade treaty that aims to reduce the illegal flow of firearms between nations.

Thankfully the United States has continued to support this treaty at the United Nations and received wide support in the General Assembly... if this international convention aimed at keeping illicit firearms from those who are likely to abuse human liberties such as militants, terrorists, and organized crime will be ratified by the United States Senate is another matter entirely.

As some of you may recall the UN treaty for the disabled failed to be ratified by the US Senate despite broad support from American Republicans and Democrats. This was satirized by comedy satirical pundit Stephen Colbert in this clip, Politicos & Paranoid Fantasies (Wednesday December 5, 2012)

by Sponsored content