I like thunderfoot a lot. I really do. I agree with him 100% of the time thus far. However, the second he opened his mouth after the bile comment, I'm afraid I had to stop listening.
If that is even a part of his argument - at all - that the 2nd amendment to the US Constitution is old and was written in a different time, oddly enough put there because of the actions of the "kingdom" in which he himself WAS born and lived for years, then I'm sorry to say I'll hear no more from him on this topic.
I was sure he would be on that side of the debate but am displeased to confirm my suspicions.
David is so overtly biased on this issue. It was pretty pathetic how he and Aron stopped using arguments at certain points and reverted to mockery and scorn. Mockery and scorn have no place in an intellectual discussion. Respect for them has been significantly lowered.
This to me was a disappointing debate It was like hearing extremes from both sides, with very little rational conversation between the two. Statistics were brought in without talking about other factors. As much as I hate to disagree with Aron and David, I would like to hear them talk about more realistic options to address problems. First I do agree that just taking away peoples guns is ludicrous. That does not mean that making new guns harder to get is not a good idea. Kind of seems like we’ve lost the battle so might as well make it worse. Second, saying that the states with the most gun control have the highest gun related homicides without realizing that that is likely the reason they have adopted more gun control, and giving the numbers before and after these laws were in acted seems dishonest. Third, if do have to pass a barrier to buy a gun in a certain state, it doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot if you can still purchase one without and documentation at a gun show or if someone gives one to you. Forth how many people in the states without much gun regulation actually own guns in the first place? If a very low number of people own one why would they put forth gun laws? Fifth has and one on the panel seen any current studies on these numbers? http://www.iop.harvard.edu/new-statistics-indicate-gun-control-works.
I must say that I have listened to many of your shows, I think you do an wonderful job, and that Aron is probably one of my favorite go to people on the subjects of religion and evolution. But you both seemed to come into this with a presuppositional mindset that I don’t usually get from either of you. Thunderfoot and DPR were ok but I thought also came at this from the wrong angle. I am of the opinion that I would like to own a gun to be able to protect my family. If one is to be put up on my wall for collection where anyone can break in and steal it it should be rendered inoperable as I am using it for collection rather than defense or hunting. I don’t see how it is such an obstacle for me to be required to have any weapon I own registered and insured. I don’t see why I shouldn’t be required to have some training to own one, much like a car. I think ammunition should be regulated as well so if someone is suddenly buying thousands of rounds a red light goes off before something bad happens. I think much of the burden should be placed on manufacturers. When a car is made and someone uses it as a car bomb somehow we can trace those parts to manufacture and the person who owned and rented it. why should guns be different? I think gun purchases should be recorded so we can annalise how many are truly sold and do more accurate studies so we might be able to get a handle on the problems we have with guns in this country. I do agree with you about the mass shootings being a problem mostly centered on mental problems, The other deaths I don’t feel fall into this category and are usually only used to bring up debate on the other very real issues.
So, that all being said, I would love to hear a real debate on more realistic options, and opinions on this subject from you someday. I feel you guys are much better than this show was.
4 times more likely to be attacked violently in his country ..."yeah but we live" as TFoot said,,,Yes, you live to be beaten up, punched, attacked violently,, tomorrow, the next day, the next day, the next day, ....DO THE DAMN MATH IDIOTS !!!!!
So, DPR distrusts the gov in England as far as violent crime stats are recorded as far as elections are concerned, but totally believes the stats on violent crime stats when it fits his view on gun control in america???? WTF?????????
TFoot, DPR, ty for showing your respective ignorances. Apparently neither of you are aware that when the government of Australia demanded that guns were confiscated, the violent crime rate rose 40% within 2 years. The same happened in England at the rate of 32% increase in violent crime when the current gun control laws were enacted. Do the damn math idiots !!!!!
To the point of protecting your property. Build actual stone houses and secure the house use cameras and alert systems (they aren't that expensive anymore!). That way a burglar can't enter your house or aparment on a whim by simply trying to smash in windows etc. Second: education is a valid point those who have job skills don't need to go about stealing. And lastly if you can't buy frickin guns and bullets in the supermarket - which to me is outragous - for prices that are laughable, the thiefs and gangs will have a much harder time getting weapons or earn money by selling them to mexicans. Will they still have weapons after a ban? yeah that's likely. But running around with guns is a sure thing then to identify you as a potential criminal or gang member.
It's a little like the parable from WW1. Soldiers got lots of deadly headshots. So steel helmet where intruduced. Next thing that happend was the rate of headwounds was 7 times higher than before. The difference was though that most of the headwounded soldier would have died without the helmet.
Would assaults rate get higher with tighter gun laws? Most probably, but more people would survive than before. Because what before was a murder is now an assault. It's easy to squeeze triggers but it is much harder stab or beat someone to death.
Now in my country gun laws are very, very strict. And I can leave my car unlocked and the house which is the last of the village is safe even with an unlocked door. Mind you the overall population density is 350 per km2 compared to 31 per km2 in the US. And it's one of the main transit countries from North to South and East to West (and vice versa) in Europe.
Yet, there is no need to be on constant alert or defense because a) almost nobody carries a gun b) burglars in general don't need and use guns c) having a dog is the most protection you need.
No one I personally know of in my country was EVER shot. No one of my friends and aquintances was robbed at gun point, that's a job for skilled pickpockets who are annoying but they commit a non violent crime..
1. No one EVER said making a bomb or beating someone to death was just as easy as pulling a trigger... we said MULTIPLE times that we want more restrictions on guns... but, one of the brits may have re-worded our position in that way to create a strawman - which works on people who are half-assed listening. How about you go back and actually LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAID - to understand our position, and then come back with your sarcastic instults. At least you'll know what you're talking about then.
@Jen - Welcome to the list of people who criticize something they don't understand. - Here's the key that you're missing: Skype has a cute little feature which mutes the other side when you're talking. That means, when Thunderf00t was speaking, he couldn't hear me. So if I just kept talking to try to cut him off - it would have been even worse - yelling over one another and chaos. - I kept the conversation going, and I did the best I could with the technology that they were calling in from in England. I'm sure your show is much better, since you're a professional at hosting and coordinating international conversations via Skype.
I am very disappointed in you Smalley. You let thundfoot completely control and take over the show. He continually spoke over the top of everyone else and refused to let anyone else get a word in edgewise. I wish you would have stepped in and kept better control so others could have made their points. You also could of kept control of where the conversation went and kept everyone on target instead of going off on tangents. This could have been a great conversation, instead it was nothing more than a platform for a talking bully. Thanks for doing the show though, I usually really like it.
Not sure why Smalley and Aronra wanted to have this debate, they have no intentions of discussing whether or not Americans should have the right to own guns. America can keep their guns, keep their gun culture, but then they have to keep their >40 times more gun deaths than any other civilized nation. (and unfortunately the odd school shooting)
1. Saying that making a bomb is just as easy as pulling a trigger is amazingly stupid.
2. Saying that killing with a knife/bat/whatever is easy as it is to pull a trigger is, again, amazingly stupid.
3. Guns are the easiest, cheapest way to mass murder. It's just a fact pill--now swallow it.
4. You all believe in weapon restrictions of some kind. Don't be lie about it like a smelly coward.
5. If you don't believe in weapon restrictions of any kind--you're an unbearable kook.
6. Aron Ra should stick to debating religion. He's emotionally compromised when it comes to guns. It's like this: My doctor is VERY smart and I trust her a lot. However, I wouldn't take my car to her if it needed fixed. Stick to religion, Aron, 'cause you sound like a dumb, flag-waving hayseed at times when you talk about gun control.
7. Gun-nuts sound exactly like obtuse Libertarian Randroids. We don't live in a cheap pulp fiction novel, folks.