My Solution - Please Critique

I have had to draw a firearm to dissuade a gang of hoodlums I was not their dinner ticket. Your solution would have rendered me defenseless against a "wolf pack." Thanks, but no thanks!!

Your positions are so full of distorted numbers, half-truths, and illogical conclusions that I really don't know where to begin refuting them (nor do I have the time . . .).

To determine the real applicability of your "just ban 'em" solution, please refer to the Volkstead Amendment. :D
 
The word you should be using is "critique"

Your analysis is equally erroneous. Banning liquor, i.e., "Prohibition," turned the mafia from a small group of gangs in certain major cities into the international crime cartel it is today. That growth was funded by the millions it made supplying illegal liquor, while corrupting the legal system in the process.

The later equivalent is "The War On Drugs," which made the Columbian drug cartel and key individuals in The Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia very wealthy, with the same erosion of social structure and corruption of police and the courts. It is also responsible for the incarceration of a very significant; indeed, disproportionate, percentage of black and Hispanic males.

Think gun bans work? You obviously have done little, if any, research. I direct your attention to Britain, Brazil, the Phillipines, and Japan. Your simplistic and undesirable "solution" created MORE violent crime because it turned citizens into victims.

Come back if, as, and when you've acquired some knowledge and perspective. In short, "get a clue."
 
If I'm not mistaken...

Read all ten of his steps. I smell something subtly satirical. ;)

(I think what is supposed to seem like an argument for gun control is, instead, deliberately riddled with all the logical flaws we know in the grabbers arguments. Hope lots of antis go read that. :cool: )
 
Please, folks, take a moment to ensure that your thread titles have proper spelling. :) If you're not sure about a word, look it up! It doesn't take a 60 second trip to your dictionary, merely a 10-second search on dictionary.com. :)
 
Your analysis is equally erroneous. Banning liquor, i.e., "Prohibition," turned the mafia from a small group of gangs in certain major cities into the international crime cartel it is today. That growth was funded by the millions it made supplying illegal liquor, while corrupting the legal system in the process.

The later equivalent is "The War On Drugs," which made the Columbian drug cartel and key individuals in The Golden Triangle of Southeast Asia very wealthy, with the same erosion of social structure and corruption of police and the courts. It is also responsible for the incarceration of a very significant; indeed, disproportionate, percentage of black and Hispanic males.

Think gun bans work? You obviously have done little, if any, research. I direct your attention to Britain, Brazil, the Phillipines, and Japan. Your simplistic and undesirable "solution" created MORE violent crime because it turned citizens into victims.

Come back if, as, and when you've acquired some knowledge and perspective. In short, "get a clue."

Thanks for saying what you've said about the WOD. It has actually made drug dealing more lucrative, and cost taxpayers billions of dollars. People think that decriminalization is giving up on the war, when in actuality it would be the most effective way of fighting it. The best way to end the reign of Columbian drug lords is to take the market away from them. And then use the money from the selling of these substances to pay for education and treatment. Make the addicted fund their own medical bills.

Theo
 
If I'm not mistaken...

Read all ten of his steps. I smell something subtly satirical.

(I think what is supposed to seem like an argument for gun control is, instead, deliberately riddled with all the logical flaws we know in the grabbers arguments. Hope lots of antis go read that. )
Click to expand...

It is going after both sides of the arguement. Each side has alot of good ideas that are thought out, backed up with stats, etc. However, both sides attacked points that could be easily riddiculed. There is no easy solution for easy side.

I am trying to just try to work out a theory from getting comments from each side. You know they won't stop until all guns are banned. I am still working on the site, trying to devolop the site better and to add more ideas and concepts to stir emotion and conflict, like any good site does.
 
Satire?

Tamara suggests we may have misinterpreted the originator of this thread:

"Read all ten of his steps. I smell something subtly satirical"

Very subtle, if it is indeed present. Here's what I found:

"My solution which I have stated many times is to simply destroy all the guns that way there would be no point to gun laws at all, therefore, making guns laws useless, therefore, helping our overall economy by focusing our attention on more important issues. Gun laws would control things that would no longer exist in my solution and eventually fade out.."

Satire tends to use exaggeration, often outrageous magnification of the points it wishes to ridicule, to show the flaws of that target. All I see here is a reiteration of the usual Brady Bunch/Million Marching Moron/blissninny BS.

Or, it's simply too subtly crafted for me to catch....... :rolleyes:
 
TotalGunControl,

So, is Tamara right? I'm really not sure which way your argument is meant to go: are you trying to point out the flaws of both sides in a satirical manner? If you are, I'm sure people would be able to give better commentary...
 
Please, folks, take a moment to ensure that your thread titles have proper spelling. If you're not sure about a word, look it up! It doesn't take a 60 second trip to your dictionary, merely a 10-second search on dictionary.com.
Click to expand...


It's also a good idea to learn to use the quote function. Tain't hard.



Hey, even I can do it!
 
Totalguncontrol

I've made a visit to your site and your logic is tortured in may ways and at many different points.

So much so, that I cannot begin to address them all. No flame intended.

In your conclusion you state that "we" have guns only to protect ourselves from others with guns. While that may be true in part, do you genuinely hold that position in its completeness? Are there no other reasons in your personal mental constructs that account for legit ownership of firearms.

Do we also have dogs only to protect us from the dogs owned by others who might manage them with ill intent against us?
How shall we address edged weapons? Fists?
Just wondering.
S-
 
Sorry,

but I stopped reading after,

There have been many arguments on both sides trying to prove that they are right and convince the legislature to create new laws favoring their side of the policy.
Click to expand...

This is false. One side is trying "to create new laws" however unconstitutional they may be and the other side is trying to eliminate unconstitutional "laws."
 
Gun control has been a hot issue in the United States since it was founded back in 1776.
Click to expand...

I think you need to start with historical facts. Any time I encounter two errors in the first sentence, I quit reading.
 
The Declaration of Independence

was signed in 1776 (remember the "Bicentennial?"); the battles of Concord and Lexington were fought in 1775. If this country was not founded as The United States - as distinguished from British colonies - in 1776, just when WAS it founded? :confused:
 
The signing of the Constitution by the 55 delegates of the Constitutional Convention was on September 17, 1787, at Independence Hall, Philadelphia, PA.
 
What was founded in 1776? Thirteen new Countries/Nations/States with names like "New York" and "Georgia". These States later formed an alliance or Confederation named "The United States of America" under the Articles of Confederation - Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 and in force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/artconf.htm
 
Yes, but the Constitution wasn't ratified until 1789.

TotalGunControl - Just being straight with you here - There are a lot of flaws on the website, not just flaws of logic either, but flaws of fact. I think these errors matter to you and that you are sincere in trying to correct them. Obviously there is a wealth of information here in this forum from experienced people who know American history. Use them wisely.

Good luck in your endeavor. :)
 
History Lesson:

A resident Yalie declares:

"What was founded in 1776? Thirteen new Countries/Nations/States with names like 'New York' and 'Georgia'."

This ignores the express text of the Declaration, which specifically refers to the "UNITED States of America." It both opens and closes with that term:

"IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,.....

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled..."

I reiterate: The United States was formed in 1776.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top