That's naive and you should know it. You've said it's so simple yet haven't clearly demonstrated what your argument is or what you're arguing for.You're trying to make something very simple complicated. Reason this has not be solved in the United States simple, you cannot have a true belief in something until you seen it for yourself. And 50% of the United States does whatever the media tells it too.
Fair enough. I just wanted to demonstrate that this issue you think is simple is not so simple and that the 'undeniable proof' you have in favour of your arguments aren't really undeniable or proofs. I never asked for a complete history of anything, just reasonable replies to my criticisms of your arguments.The reason I made my initial comment was hoping I could spark some interest in someone to go look for themselves. I did not come here to argue over politics and I simply don't have the time to give you a complete history lesson of the world. Because that's what this comes down to.
This is a major problem with all your arguments. You are incredibly reductionists when you have even said yourself that you don't have time to discuss the history of the world. In all of history, has every unarmed society really been slaves to their government? Is this a fact you know of? Have you studied every civilisation and society? How do you know they're unarmed? What is the definition of a government pre-dating the Greeks? What's an 'unarmed' society? Has there even been an 'unarmed society'?In all of history every unarmed society has ended up being slaves to their own government.
You create these problems yourself. Tighten up your arguments, drop the sweeping conclusions that you know you can't back up with evidence. You don't need to argue that there are fundamental laws of human society that mean an unarmed populace will die at the hands of their government. That's too hard to prove and isn't necessary for your argument. Argue from what you know and what is relevant. The rest of the world isn't very relevant to the gun debate in the US. I acknowledge that myself. NZ can get away with firearm restriction because we don't have many small arms floating around on the streets as Fnord mentioned. You guys have bigger domestic issues to deal with. It'd help if you keep your arguments focussed on the United States, little else is relevant at the end of the day.
Really, every country? You know of this, do you? You can recite these countries yourself? Again, what I said above. Don't make sweeping statements you can't back up. They're easy to rebut, waste time, and are irrelevant to the discussion.The fact is that nearly every country in the world has indoctrinated their citizens to have irrational fear of firearms and the FBI statistics do speak for themselves as long as you look at them with an open mind.
NZ has a great relationship with firearms. No one is really afraid of firing a rifle or shotgun, many people just don't want to. I'd buy a rifle but it's not practical for me because I live in a city. Most people I know, girls and boys, given the chance have fired a firearm. There's no indoctrination. Firearm regulation rarely ever comes up in conversation here, it's not a political issue by any means.
The FBI statistics don't speak for themselves and I've demonstrated that already. I've said several times now that statistics are interpreted in any number of ways. The only statistics that are facts are descriptive statistics, not inferential statistics.
This isn't about the 'truth'. I haven't been arguing that there should be more gun regulation. I've only argued that your arguments are weak. This has nothing to do with being 'blind to the truth', I'm not looking for the 'truth'. I'm rebutting your version of the truthIf you want to be blind to the truth that's up to you. If you wanted to know the truth you would go look for yourself, I most certainly not going to do it for you. Again the whole point of my comment was to get people to think for themselves.
The whole point of my comments are to get you to think more critically about what you're saying. It doesn't do anyone any good if people are wasting time discussing futile points. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion that you can't substantiate at a reasonable level, it just means you can't throw around words like 'undeniable proof' or 'the truth'. We all have opinions that we can't substantiate beyond some level because we're not all professionals or educated in the relevant disciplines. Who has the time to know everything? The trade-off is that we are limited in what we can say and that we acknowledge our limitations.
You say this is a 'simple fact' yet you can't demonstrate it. You've given me the FBI stats but I can interpret them in a completely different way or reject them all together. Statistics are not facts, they don't describe inherent truths. Again, you should reduce the size of the claim you are making. Don't say it as if its an inherent truth all across the world. Don't say 'good' and 'evil'; those are vague and meaningless in a practical sense. Why not say "In contemporary society in the US, the benefits of firearms outweigh their cost". That's a testable hypothesis. The statistics you use to reinforce that claim are immediately more useful, the number of interpretations is reduced. That being said, that specific argument is probably attacking straw men since I don't think most anti-gun people want to eradicate guns from society.The simple fact is that firearms are used by far more for good, than for evil.
Fair enough. I know there is debate surrounding this very argument so it is not a 'simple' issue either. The 2nd amendment was adopted in a very different time and place so one would naturally question its relevancy in today's society. That doesn't mean you don't have the right to bear arms, it just means that the issue is not clear-cut, it's not simple. The 2nd amendment isn't interpreted in only one, simple, manner. Even if it were, one could argue that it's no longer applicable or relevant and required updating. My point: this is not a simple issue. You have to be naive and closed-minded to think so. You have to reject all arguments from the other view point to believe it is a simple issue. I may not agree with everything about the pro-gun stance, but that doesn't mean I think the issue is simple or clear-cut. Many people do, but they're naive.In the United States we have this thing called the Constitution and there are two primary reasons that guarantees are right to keep and bear arms and neither of those two reasons have anything to do with crimes.
Well I've pointed out on numerous occasions where your arguments are incorrect or vague. I still don't know what your main argument really is, you keep shifting and saying things like "it is a fundamental law of the universe that people without guns die". OK, so I exaggerated, but that's about as useful as some of the claims you've made.If there's a single shred of evidence that disproves my believes I would love to see it, believe me I have looked
That aside, you shouldn't be looking for one piece of evidence to refute or support your claim. There isn't going to be one piece of evidence that can do either. The whole reason this issue is complex is because the evidence can be interpreted in many different ways. Someone can say 'this proves that XXXX' and someone else can say 'but they didn't account for this/it was a poorly designed study/it only applies to this situation/it is irrelevant to the issue today/but what about this statistic that says the opposite' etc. Firearm regulation is a social issue. Social issues aren't simple. The social sciences are a perfect example of how social issues are not simple. This isn't physics or maths. We're not dealing with laws of the universe or mathematical proofs. They simply do not exist for this issue. We're dealing with correlations and causations.
I completely agree and I don't take these discussions as personal either (we have them fairly often here). I'm only trying to show that this issue is not simple, it's not something that can be resolved on a forum. Hell, it's too complex for politicians and the like to fully comprehend or understand. Just like any other social issue. The best we can hope for is informed debate where irrelevant arguments and rhetoric are absent. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world and any reform or regulation that makes it way through your judicial system is either going to be watered-down (doesn't really change anything) or misguided (changes a lot of things, but none of them matter or solve any issues).I fully believe that every individual has the right to think and feel whatever they want. I did not mean to cause an uproar and I hope I haven't stepped on anybody's toes. I hold no hard feelings against anyone from this discussion. I only hold grudges if they're really good ones.
We've seen both sorts of changes happen recently in the US, and I don't like the 'watered-down' laws anymore than I like the 'misguided' laws. But we can at least stop pretending here that the issue is simple and easily resolvable.