You're Wrong, We Need To Evaluate People Who Want To Purchase Firearms

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

There, wasn't that hard, right? There are solutions to make background checks more universal than they are now... A little bit of will is all it takes...

Obviously it isn't particularly easy or popular either, since I haven't heard a thing about it in years.

John_C_87

Plaffelvohfen said:

CYDdharta said:

Plaffelvohfen said:

@CYDdharta

So you're against background checks??

No; as I've already stated a number of times in this thread, we already have background checks.

That's only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers... The gun shows and private sales exemptions are still problematic...

The whole process of background check is unconstitutional, states already know in advance of looking who does not qualify for a firearm and preserving the weight of lethal force prior to any history search per person. What should be done is a legal united State qualification by information already available in each state to Identification in a state level. Who can? Who cannot?

All Identification can have a Conditional qualification or disqualification signifying who clearly is qualified who is not without prejudice. Meaning for gun owner or non-gun owner alike. The  2nd amendment is about the weight of lethal force and not gun per-say so who refuses to bear arm has legal consequences as a duty..

The 2nd amendment creates a duty to bear arm so that all men in the united states are created equal by burden of lethal force and the weight it bears publicly. There is no reason to believe this duty doesn't hold for woman placed under a United State of Presadera with any armament as well. 

John_C_87

A basic principle as legal precedent any true united state records all people those who do uphold the constitutional weight to bear by 2nd amendment and those who do not hold the weight to bear by second amendment as duty to American Constitution of common defense to the general welfare, loosely. A President. Executive officer, or united state President Executive officer of the United State of America has a American Constitutional right to officers of standing who are an uncommission union, meaning these men, woman and people are not paid by he or the United State to uphold American united state consecution due to International legal ramification to hider what might be accused by some as killer.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: As stated before, this debate of mine isn't necessarily predicated upon the U.S., but as to discuss a matter of objective principle, though I can see how you'd assume as such. However, I'm not certain the U.S. meets my agenda when there are rampant mass shootings taking place. That fact alone seems to disprove that the U.S. is managing to properly handle its vetting processes, for if it wielded such things properly we wouldn't be seeing things like constant mass slaughter by firearm.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
To address the United States even further, the picture is not as clear as you seem to be trying to make it out to be. The U.S. functions under differing hierarchies of power, like the federal government, individual state governments, etc. This can easily allow for vastly different gun legislation depending on each individual territory. Also, there are problems with loopholes like the gun show loophole, which allows for easy purchase of firearms without such heavy surveillance, such as this CNN clip illustrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7MwvqCtlk. Additionally, gun legislation is not in a frozen state, but one potentially added upon or chipped away by the current leaders that be. As one piece of evidence, Donald Trump has made it easier for more people with mental illness to acquire guns by rolling back Obama-era legislation, as sourced by NBC News here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-trump-made-it-easier-mentally-ill-get-guns-when-n1039301. So, the issue of whether or not unfit people can gain guns is far more complex and dynamic that you appear to assert.

ZeusAres42

I think we need to differentiate between the demolishing of risk with the reduction and mitigation of risk. It's impractical to think that laws and just laws alone is the "be all end all" of all gun related crimes/incidences. By the same token it's equally non-pragmatic to think that nothing should be done because some people will get guns illegally away; this appears to me to be a reflection of "all or nothing" thinking.

Thomasius

@ZeusAres42
Re: I don't disagree with you, for, as I've pointed out to my main contender in my debating with him, laws, logically speaking, aren't designed out of some ideal that all crime pertaining to the law will absolutely stop, but rather it is to diminish the crime as much as possible within the domain of force and oversight.

John_C_87

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: As stated before, this debate of mine isn't necessarily predicated upon the U.S., but as to discuss a matter of objective principle, though I can see how you'd assume as such. However, I'm not certain the U.S. meets my agenda when there are rampant mass shootings taking place. That fact alone seems to disprove that the U.S. is managing to properly handle its vetting processes, for if it wielded such things properly we wouldn't be seeing things like constant mass slaughter by firearm.

The United States of America possibly is not venting properly a constitutional right to common defense though, it is a individual state issue before federal issue. The ideas of creating constitutional united state on a federal level in qualification to preserve America's federal constitution within state does not take place by state of the union, really it might be questioned as to the last time it had been attempted. There any number of reason of justification as to why that may be taking place.

JesusisGod777888

People who illegally purchase firearms on the black market aren't evaluated so your point is fallacious.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Also, there are problems with loopholes like the gun show loophole, which allows for easy purchase of firearms without such heavy surveillance, such as this CNN clip illustrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7MwvqCtlk.

Assuming the video is accurate, the transaction has been chopped to pieces and the host is lying when he said the teen legally bought the gun, so what?  As I've already pointed out to Plaffelvohfen, according to an NIJ study released in December 1997 ("Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities," a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

Additionally, gun legislation is not in a frozen state, but one potentially added upon or chipped away by the current leaders that be. As one piece of evidence, Donald Trump has made it easier for more people with mental illness to acquire guns by rolling back Obama-era legislation, as sourced by NBC News here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-trump-made-it-easier-mentally-ill-get-guns-when-n1039301. So, the issue of whether or not unfit people can gain guns is far more complex and dynamic that you appear to assert.

"The Obama rule that Trump nullified had added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their financial affairs to the national background check database."

Do you suppose "people deemed unfit to handle their financial affairs" are a serious concern to law enforcement?

Thomasius

@JesusisGod777888
Re: Well, child traffickers engage on the black market too should we not invest in time and resources cracking down on these operations as well, by your logic?

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Maybe, maybe not. Depends on each case. The main point of bringing that example up is to demonstrate that individual presidents have the capacity to add upon or deconstruct gun regulation. And that's just one of the issues I happened to list.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: These things add evidence to the fact that, in the United States, the issue of unfit people being able to acquire firearms is far more complicated than what you're claiming it to be.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Maybe, maybe not. Depends on each case. The main point of bringing that example up is to demonstrate that individual presidents have the capacity to add upon or deconstruct gun regulation. And that's just one of the issues I happened to list.

Um, OK; that pretty much goes without saying.  It's interesting to note that since murders peaked in 1991, Pres. 0bama presided in one of one 2 upticks in the murder rate.  It seems discriminating against people who aren't likely to commit crimes isn't a good way to reduce the crime rate.  Meanwhile, Pres. Trump's approach appears to be working quite well, as violent crime has dropped every year of his presidency thus far.

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: These things add evidence to the fact that, in the United States, the issue of unfit people being able to acquire firearms is far more complicated than what you're claiming it to be.

I'm far more aware of how complicated the issue is than you are as it's a subject I've quite well versed in and have been trying to debate specifics in, which you've balked at because you're "not proficient enough in understanding all the intricacies" of the topic. Keeping unfit people from being able to acquire firearms, to the extent that such a goal is possible, is not difficult.  Just outlaw all firearms; there, all done.  Unfit people can't legally get guns.  The most unfit people will ALWAYS have a way of getting them, as they're also the most involved in the black market, so it wouldn't necessarily solve the problem, but it would create a lot more victims. What IS difficult is coming up with a way to keep unfit people from being able to acquire firearms while not hindering law-abiding citizens from acquiring and using firearms for legal purposes.  The system we have does a reasonable job of balancing those two competing goals.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Although I haven't seen you list any sources for your claim that violent crime has gone down under Trump, I'll accept the premise to go ahead and be kind (though violent crime isn't necessarily the same as gun crime). However, crimes like mass shootings are a staggering problem in the U.S., as CBS News found that, when the article was written on September 1st of 2019, the total amount of mass shootings in this country had surpassed the number of days of the year so far at that point, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/. And this just encompasses mass shootings and not all other types of gun-related crimes. From observation, there is necessarily a  gun problem in this country. The solution for the U.S. is obviously to strengthen federal and state legislation to unanimously be as comprehensive as possible while also exerting force to crack down on black market operations and other exterior loopholes.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I'd like to revisit your original comment on my debate post to keep things from getting muddied too much in the arguments around effective legislative policy, data and other aspects of our current conversation. 
Your original comment on my debate post said, "Anyone CAN purchase firearms, and there isn't a single law that would prevent that.  It is ALREADY ILLEGAL for a convicted felon or someone with a history of drug abuse or serious mental illness to buy a firearm.  The fact that such people as still able to obtain firearms undermines any further attempts to empower the government for such purposes."
Your philosophy is evident from the second sentence, so that's what I want to really pin down. Do you not recognize that stating that the government shouldn't be empowered to pursue law X simply because people still commit crime X is a logical fallacy? If you recognize that this is a logical fallacy, then what is your contention at this point ideologically?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Although I haven't seen you list any sources for your claim that violent crime has gone down under Trump, I'll accept the premise to go ahead and be kind (though violent crime isn't necessarily the same as gun crime). However, crimes like mass shootings are a staggering problem in the U.S., as CBS News found that, when the article was written on September 1st of 2019, the total amount of mass shootings in this country had surpassed the number of days of the year so far at that point, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shootings-2019-more-mass-shootings-than-days-so-far-this-year/. And this just encompasses mass shootings and not all other types of gun-related crimes. From observation, there is necessarily a  gun problem in this country. The solution for the U.S. is obviously to strengthen federal and state legislation to unanimously be as comprehensive as possible while also exerting force to crack down on black market operations and other exterior loopholes.

I've been using the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program numbers. 

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/topic-pages/tables/table-1

And for a longer range comparison;

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

I dismiss claims such as your "mass shooting problem" out-of-hand as media sensationalism and fabrication.  "Mass shootings" are a new stat that haven't been tracked until recently so they have no real value, but those sensationalist claims do serve to sell more papers/get more clicks and to further vilify gun ownership and legitimate self-defense.  Both are bigger goals of our mainstream media than accurately presenting the issue.  Would we be better or worse off if shootings were up, but mass shootings were down?  Additionally, it doesn't seem that expanded background check would have much effect on mass shootings.

Despite the frequent calls for expanded background checks after mass public shootings, there is no evidence that background checks on private transfers of guns would have prevented any of the attacks that have taken place since at least 2000. Nor is there any statistical evidence that indicates that these mass public shootings are rarer in states with background checks on private transfers.  What we do find is that fatalities and injuries from mass public shootings increased in states after they imposed background checks on private transfers. States with background checks on private transfers tended to have relatively low rates of murders and injuries from mass public shootings before the passage of background checks on private transfers and that these rates became relatively high afterwards.

There are real costs of expanding background checks to private transfers. In particular, the fees on private transfers. Law-abiding poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas and who benefit the most from protecting themselves will be the ones most likely priced out of owning guns for protection.

Without some benefits in terms of either reduced crime or mass public shootings, it is hard to see how these rules pass any type of cost-benefit test.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2711323

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Regardless of whether or not mass shootings, statistically speaking, haven't been reported until more recent periods of time, that doesn't dismiss the fact that these numbers of mass shootings are one for alarm, because these are hundreds of killings via firearm in not even within the span of a full year. That's no small number within slightly over half a year. Where's your evidence that mainstream media is engaging in this cabal of sorts to vilify gun ownership and legitimate self-defense? Ideally, we should strive for a society where both mass shootings and ordinary shootings decreased, I don't know why you're presenting this as an either/or issue, if that's what you're claiming. Furthermore, on your point of private transfer, if I understand private transfer in this context to mean the transferring of firearms by one private individual to another, then that only encompasses one dynamic in the possessing and distributing of firearms.

Aside from that, you still need to answer my simple line of questioning. Do you recognize that your claim that the government shouldn't be empowered to pursue law X because there are still lawbreakers of law X is a logical fallacy? If you do, then what's your new counterargument philosophically?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Regardless of whether or not mass shootings, statistically speaking, haven't been reported until more recent periods of time, that doesn't dismiss the fact that these numbers of mass shootings are one for alarm, because these are hundreds of killings via firearm in not even within the span of a full year. That's no small number within slightly over half a year.

What difference does it make how many people were involved in a shooting?  The total number of victims are down.  The murder rate is below what it was in 1960 and trending downward.  I went back and listened to the Nixon-JFK debate on domestic policy (September 26, 1960).   Care to guess how many times shootings were mentioned?  If you guessed 0, get yourself a cookie.  The closest thing to a mention of crime to come up was a passing quip about Jimmie Hoffa.  In the entire hour-long debate on domestic policy, the first presidential debate ever televised, when the murder rate was higher than it is today, crime didn't rate as highly was farm subsidies, the $1.25 minimum wage, or even the number of Sudanese students brought to the US.  This is a non-issue.

Where's your evidence that mainstream media is engaging in this cabal of sorts to vilify gun ownership and legitimate self-defense?

Just one example;

https://www.mrc.org/media-reality-check/abc-cbs-nbc-slant-8-1-obamas-gun-control-crusade

Ideally, we should strive for a society where both mass shootings and ordinary shootings decreased, I don't know why you're presenting this as an either/or issue, if that's what you're claiming.

Once again, the only relevant statistic is the total number of people killed with firearms.  A victim that's shot dead is just as dead if he was the only one or if he was one of 42.  As long as the total is coming down, that means fewer people are being shot to death.  The number killed in mass shootings is meaningless. 

Furthermore, on your point of private transfer, if I understand private transfer in this context to mean the transferring of firearms by one private individual to another, then that only encompasses one dynamic in the possessing and distributing of firearms.

There are only 2 kinds of transfers; either private or through a dealer.  When you say it "only encompasses one dynamic in the possessing and distributing of firearms" that "one dynamic" is half of the possibilities. In fact, that's the only one that's relevant to this discussion, as all transfers through a dealer do so only after a background check is made.

Aside from that, you still need to answer my simple line of questioning. Do you recognize that your claim that the government shouldn't be empowered to pursue law X because there are still lawbreakers of law X is a logical fallacy? If you do, then what's your new counterargument philosophically?

No, it is not a fallacy.  Something that you have never acknowledged is that people have a fundamental right to defend themselves.  Here in the US, people have a right to bear arms that "shall not be infringed".  If you have a way to process who can or can't have a gun that doesn't infringe on people's right to bear arms, let's hear it.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: This is an issue, because the fact that the amount of victims accumulated are going down does not negate that these crimes are still being perpetrated at mass scale. The MRC, as described by Wikipedia, is a conservative source. I can’t trust sources that are biased. Need a better one.

The number of mass shootings itself is not meaningless because not only is it directly reflecting people perpetrating gun crimes, but also reflects the potential for things to become worse down the road, even if it doesn’t totally sway the downward trend you’ve mentioned.

To your point of private transfers once more, I’ll go ahead and concede to your point on private transfers simply because I’m not adequately acquainted enough with this particular discussion. So, I’ll shift the focus on the broader issue. Gun deaths are increasing in the U.S., as noted by https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/firearm-homicide-suicides-increasing-study/index.html. Also, as noted by https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/gun-background-checks-florida-school-shooting/index.html, the current background checks do not catch early warning signs of disturbed individuals. Also, as stated by this latter source, not all aspects of individuals may be screened which are important, which can mean things like public threats are not observed. So, contrary to your perspective, loopholes and flaws do exist and each state can have their own individual laws which may restrict or expand access to guns by individuals.

To your point about your philosophy, I agree that one should be able to defend themselves. Yet, the constitutional argument is, at its heart, a fallacy of appealing to tradition. We can change the constitutional framework within the United States so that we can embark on these matters without legally infringing upon individuals.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: The debate I'm most interested in is debating your philosophy of self-defense and your abiding by the constitution, as this is the heart of your contrary argumentation. Not to say I won't debate other points, but I view that this is the most fruitful direction to carry our discourse onward.

piloteer

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
To address the United States even further, the picture is not as clear as you seem to be trying to make it out to be. The U.S. functions under differing hierarchies of power, like the federal government, individual state governments, etc. This can easily allow for vastly different gun legislation depending on each individual territory. Also, there are problems with loopholes like the gun show loophole, which allows for easy purchase of firearms without such heavy surveillance, such as this CNN clip illustrates: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fB7MwvqCtlk. Additionally, gun legislation is not in a frozen state, but one potentially added upon or chipped away by the current leaders that be. As one piece of evidence, Donald Trump has made it easier for more people with mental illness to acquire guns by rolling back Obama-era legislation, as sourced by NBC News here: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/president-trump-made-it-easier-mentally-ill-get-guns-when-n1039301. So, the issue of whether or not unfit people can gain guns is far more complex and dynamic that you appear to assert.

"@Thomasius

 Not to say I disagree with you, but you've admitted yourself that the issue of whether or not unfit people can gain (access to) guns is far more complex. Since you've admitted the complexities of figuring out those who are unfit, you've also admitted how complex it will be for vetting them out of gun ownership, and I'm not at all convinced by you about this supposed vetting systems effectiveness. Obviously mass shooters have malicious agendas, which you've gone over many times, but you haven't even begun to touch upon how this vetting system can actually bring to light an individuals potentially harmful mindset. It would seem to me that if I were being psychologically screened to determine whether I'm fit for gun ownership, it would be in my best interest to not be forthcoming with my seething anger and fears of a certain portion of society, or all of society if that was the case.

 Psychologists are very intelligent people, but they can't look into your brain and see if you're a radical racist who thinks the earth is overpopulated and you've been chosen by God to correct that. 75% of all mass shooters had absolutely no signs of being vengeful radicals. If that 75% had been psychologically vetted before they committed their atrocities, could you say with certainty that most of them would have failed the screening and would have been barred from owning guns? Lets say the individuals who make up that 75% were subjected to psychological screenings by multiple psychologists, can you say with certainty that the same number of them would have been barred from gun ownership by every single psychologist? Although none of us can say for certain what the conclusions to those psychological screenings would have been, I'd be willing to bet that most of those mass shooters would not have failed a psychological screening, and the results from multiple psychologists would not have been uniform across the board, and I'm willing to bet everyone on here would agree. Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, but it would be interesting for you to describe this psychological screening process that could find the "silver bullet" warning signs that all potential mass shooters have.          

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: This is an issue, because the fact that the amount of victims accumulated are going down does not negate that these crimes are still being perpetrated at mass scale.

Once again, so what?  What difference does it make if 10 people are killed in 10 separate incidences or in 2 incidences?  The victims are just as dead in either case.

The MRC, as described by Wikipedia, is a conservative source. I can’t trust sources that are biased. Need a better one.

No, we're not doing this.  If you're going to dismiss my source out-of-hand simply because it's conservative, then I'll have to dismiss your mainstream media sources out-of-hand because they're liberal.  We'll be reduced to only what we can find in C-Span, Roll Call, UPI, Stars and Stripes, Military Times, and Real Clear Politics.  You wanted evidence, I gave you evidence.

The number of mass shootings itself is not meaningless because not only is it directly reflecting people perpetrating gun crimes, but also reflects the potential for things to become worse down the road, even if it doesn’t totally sway the downward trend you’ve mentioned.

If mass shootings directly reflect people perpetrating gun crimes, that means they are going down.  That doesn't seem like a bad thing.

Gun deaths are increasing in the U.S., as noted by https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/08/health/firearm-homicide-suicides-increasing-study/index.html.

Old data.  "Researchers looked at firearm homicides and suicides from 2012-13 to 2015-16".  The FBI data I've already posted shows an increase in 2015 and 2016, in fact I've already noted it. That short bump reversed in 2017 and accelerated downward in 2018.  Once again, the current murder rate is below what is was in 1960, the current violent crime rate is below what it was in 1970.

Also, as noted by https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/gun-background-checks-florida-school-shooting/index.html, the current background checks do not catch early warning signs of disturbed individuals.

So you're idea it to expand a system that you consider to have proven itself to be ineffective?  That doesn't sound like a winning strategy.

Also, as stated by this latter source, not all aspects of individuals may be screened which are important, which can mean things like public threats are not observed. So, contrary to your perspective, loopholes and flaws do exist and each state can have their own individual laws which may restrict or expand access to guns by individuals.

I never said the system was perfect, but then you've said you don't expect it to stop a particular crime at all instances 100.00%.  It works well enough considering the current crime rates and trends.

To your point about your philosophy, I agree that one should be able to defend themselves. Yet, the constitutional argument is, at its heart, a fallacy of appealing to tradition. We can change the constitutional framework within the United States so that we can embark on these matters without legally infringing upon individuals.

The Constitutional argument is hardly a fallacy, it's the law.  As you've noted, it can be changed.  It includes a method for making such changes.  If you think there's enough public support for the changes you'd like to make, go for it.

Thomasius

@piloteer
Re: The issue with your claim is that you assume you can only determine that one has malicious agendas by examining their minds, which is, frankly, to your credit, near impossible. We can instead examine things like social media for evidence of anger and/or mental instability, we can have an expanded mental health apparatuses that work to detect troubled individuals early on and work in joint operation with other departments to ensure these individuals are blocked from accessing guns, we can go through rigorous psychological evaluations and testing periods to gather as much data as possible, et cetera. There are lots of opportunities when you think outside of the box about these things, but such measures can only be effective if we make sure that they are comprehensive and are strictly followed through. Now, I’m not a psychologist of any nature so I can’t go into too deep of detail because the depths of these matters are beyond my expertise, though still I can understand the basics of what needs to be done by exercising logic.

Thomasius

@piloteer
Re: To add, I'm not saying that looking at exterior data can prove these things at equal or better capacity than being able to read peoples' minds, but instead that they suffice enough as strong evidence.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I don't know how I missed your post. Whether by delay or by simple error of the eye, I'll now correct this by responding...

But I’ve proven that your sources are conservative, not simply dismissed them as such.

I’m not stating that the United States should expand upon its flawed system, but instead have part of the resolution mean a resolving of the flaws which make it faulty to begin with. There’s nothing illogical about expanding a system which has been systematically patched up.

As for your point on the system being good enough as it is, that point simply doesn’t hold up both logically and empirically. Logically, if there are still lots of gun crime and gun deaths, an issue worth ameliorating is evident. Empirically, other nations have done far better in their attempts than the United States has. As for some examples, in Japan, if a person wishes to buy firearms, they must pass rigorous testing of their knowledge and skills, as well as undergo a mental-health evaluation at a hospital, as well as a background check, which is far more comprehensive in that it digs through crime records or ties and interviews friends and family members, and, then, onto Britain, they banned the private ownership of handguns, along with semiautomatic and pump-action firearms, and now there are 3.78 guns per 100 people in the U.K., whereas in the U.S., there are 101 guns per 100 people, along with there being only 50 to 60 gun deaths a year (the U.S. has 160 times as many). Source https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-nearly-eliminated-in-countries-what-us-can-learn-2017-11#the-united-kingdom-took-a-multipronged-approach-4.

For your constitutional argument, it is a fallacy if you’re saying that it holds validity simply due to it being in the document. Now, debating the efficacy of such change is far different than being ideologically opposed.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: I don't know how I missed your post. Whether by delay or by simple error of the eye, I'll now correct this by responding...

But I’ve proven that your sources are conservative, not simply dismissed them as such.

Proving that a source is conservative or liberal is meaningless.  Just because a source is conservative doesn't mean the information the convey is inaccurate.  You're relying on the Poisoning the Well logic fallacy.  Please stop.

I’m not stating that the United States should expand upon its flawed system, but instead have part of the resolution mean a resolving of the flaws which make it faulty to begin with. There’s nothing illogical about expanding a system which has been systematically patched up.

On March 23, 2018, the Fix NICS Act was signed into law by President Trump.

As for your point on the system being good enough as it is, that point simply doesn’t hold up both logically and empirically. Logically, if there are still lots of gun crime and gun deaths, an issue worth ameliorating is evident. Empirically, other nations have done far better in their attempts than the United States has. As for some examples, in Japan, if a person wishes to buy firearms, they must pass rigorous testing of their knowledge and skills, as well as undergo a mental-health evaluation at a hospital, as well as a background check, which is far more comprehensive in that it digs through crime records or ties and interviews friends and family members, and, then, onto Britain, they banned the private ownership of handguns, along with semiautomatic and pump-action firearms, and now there are 3.78 guns per 100 people in the U.K., whereas in the U.S., there are 101 guns per 100 people, along with there being only 50 to 60 gun deaths a year (the U.S. has 160 times as many). Source https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-deaths-nearly-eliminated-in-countries-what-us-can-learn-2017-11#the-united-kingdom-took-a-multipronged-approach-4.

Let me get this straight, you complained about US gun laws because "The U.S. functions under differing hierarchies of power, like the federal government, individual state governments, etc. This can easily allow for vastly different gun legislation depending on each individual territory." but you want to compare US gun laws and violent crime rates to other countries???  In addition, the UK has a long history of manipulating their crime stats to under-report crime.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6736505/Police-force-tricks-to-fiddle-crime-figures.html

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46894162

Interestingly, the UK's stats show a rise in crime for the last 2 years, while the US has experienced a decrease.

For your constitutional argument, it is a fallacy if you’re saying that it holds validity simply due to it being in the document. Now, debating the efficacy of such change is far different than being ideologically opposed.

The fallacy is suggesting that the US Constitution is merely a document.  It is the foundation of American society.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta

Re: The logical fallacy of poisoning the well is where you preemptively apply an ad hominem attack to your opponent to delegitimize them. This is not the same thing because, one, it is an accurate description, and, two, I’m not saying that source X is conservative so therefore source X is false, I’m saying source X is biased due to its conservative inclinations, so therefore I can’t trust source X because I can’t fully discern whether or not the information from source X is being affected by its biased inclinations because I don’t have the expertise to fully evaluate these things myself. So, no, I will not stop engaging in correct courses of action.

You need to give me a source which dives into the details and implications of this bill signed by Trump.

What about me talking about other countries negates my point I made about the U.S.?

To your point on the U.K.’s crime statistics, this does appear to be a legitimate issue, though this encompasses all crime and not just gun crime, and so you need to provide me with data with what these numbers create in terms of implications for gun crime itself in the U.K.

Your response to my supposed fallacy is actually a fallacy. I said, “X is not valid just because X is in document Y.” In return, you replied, “Y is not merely a document.”

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta

Re: The logical fallacy of poisoning the well is where you preemptively apply an ad hominem attack to your opponent to delegitimize them. This is not the same thing because, one, it is an accurate description, and, two, I’m not saying that source X is conservative so therefore source X is false, I’m saying source X is biased due to its conservative inclinations, so therefore I can’t trust source X because I can’t fully discern whether or not the information from source X is being affected by its biased inclinations because I don’t have the expertise to fully evaluate these things myself. So, no, I will not stop engaging in correct courses of action.

If you prefer to consider your fallacy the more generic ad hominem than Poisoning the Well, that's fine.  The bottom line is that you're attacking the source as a means of avoiding the substance of the argument; undoubtedly a logic fallacy.  The fact that you don't possess sufficient knowledge of the topic is a poor excuse; either cede the argument, or research a legitimate response.

You need to give me a source which dives into the details and implications of this bill signed by Trump.

Why do I have to spoon-feed you?  You obviously have access to Google, look it up.

What about me talking about other countries negates my point I made about the U.S.?

Once again, your argument was that "The U.S. functions under differing hierarchies of power, like the federal government, individual state governments, etc. This can easily allow for vastly different gun legislation depending on each individual territory."  I shouldn't have to mention that other countries "function under differing hierarchies of power", thus this can easily vastly skew differing crime statistics depending on each individual territory.  What is considered a crime in one country may be considered a lessor crime, or no crime at all in another country; for instance, slavery is still practiced in a number of African countries.  In addition, different countries have different methods of reporting crime.  In the US, if a body is found shot to death with 5 bullet holes in his back, it's counted as a murder.  Going back to the UK, they see things differently;

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm

In the UK, that same body with 5 bullet holes in it is NOT counted as a murder UNTIL THERE IS A CONVICTION.  If there is never a conviction, that murder isn't counted as a crime.

To your point on the U.K.’s crime statistics, this does appear to be a legitimate issue, though this encompasses all crime and not just gun crime, and so you need to provide me with data with what these numbers create in terms of implications for gun crime itself in the U.K.

No, I've already proven that the UK numbers are unreliable.  It is incumbent upon YOU to prove that your numbers have any value at all.

Your response to my supposed fallacy is actually a fallacy. I said, “X is not valid just because X is in document Y.” In return, you replied, “Y is not merely a document.”

Cite the fallacy and I'll show you why you're wrong.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: I'm gonna have to devote an entire separate post toward breaking down sources for you to understand how to utilize them...
1) You're not an expert in health but want to discuss matters of public health.
2) Since you yourself do not have the expertise to discern these things yourself, you need to get the information from a source other than yourself that does have expertise to tell you the information you strive to understand.
3) Can you trust just some health source out of the blue? No, because there is no means to validate their credentials on the matter.
4) Can you trust a health source that is selling a particular viewpoint? No, because the information they present is likely to be skewed and/or omitted to bend the data in their favor due to their evident bias.
5) So, who can you trust? One, you can trust educational sources because these sources have no operation other than to provide information to society. Two, you can trust news media sources which have had a longstanding reputation for being unbiased and trustworthy due to their history of journalistic integrity.
So, no, I'm not avoiding the substance due to me attacking the source, but rather I'm avoiding the substance because, since I'm not a certified expert on the topic, I don't have the means to discern for myself whether or not the politically biased source is skewing and/or omitting data to reach a conclusion favorable to its agenda.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta

Re: The reason I’m asking you to give me a citation for an in-depth look into Trump’s bill is because it is on you to prove your case to me. I’m not an expert on gun legislation so I need you to provide me with a reputable source which analyses this information.

Of course other countries function under different systems and structures, but how does this alone allow for these other countries alone to skew data in their favor? Other countries may have different classifications and categories of crime, sure, but still this is not enough to be sufficient proof for your case. As for your U.K. point, I’ll go ahead and use a source that predicates its data upon a multinational organization based in Switzerland. USA Today found that the number of gun homicides in England and Wales is 1 per 1 million people, and the other previous data is, in fact, backed up by this international organization, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/. Some of this data includes the previous mention of there being 160 times as many gun homicides in the U.S., and the U.S. only has roughly six times larger the population. This adds more merit to these U.K. numbers as they are backed up by Switzerland’s Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development.

I don’t have to point out a fallacy by name to know it’s a fallacy. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one founded upon an unsound argument. Your argument is unsound because it does not refute my original statement, as it was intended to do. If I say, “X is not valid just because X is in document Y,” your response of “Y is not merely a document” is fallacious in this context because pointing out that there is more to document Y because of its historical and legal heritage does not negate the point I made which is that document Y doesn’t innately validate point X logically and objectively.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: I'm gonna have to devote an entire separate post toward breaking down sources for you to understand how to utilize them...
1) You're not an expert in health but want to discuss matters of public health.
2) Since you yourself do not have the expertise to discern these things yourself, you need to get the information from a source other than yourself that does have expertise to tell you the information you strive to understand.
3) Can you trust just some health source out of the blue? No, because there is no means to validate their credentials on the matter.
4) Can you trust a health source that is selling a particular viewpoint? No, because the information they present is likely to be skewed and/or omitted to bend the data in their favor due to their evident bias.
5) So, who can you trust? One, you can trust educational sources because these sources have no operation other than to provide information to society. Two, you can trust news media sources which have had a longstanding reputation for being unbiased and trustworthy due to their history of journalistic integrity.
So, no, I'm not avoiding the substance due to me attacking the source, but rather I'm avoiding the substance because, since I'm not a certified expert on the topic, I don't have the means to discern for myself whether or not the politically biased source is skewing and/or omitting data to reach a conclusion favorable to its agenda.

If you don't believe a claim, fine DISPROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!  To dismiss it because in your opinion the source is untrustworthy is committing an obvious logic fallacy.  If you're too ignorant of a topic to debate it with integrity, then you should educate yourself beforehand or find another topic.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta

Re: The reason I’m asking you to give me a citation for an in-depth look into Trump’s bill is because it is on you to prove your case to me. I’m not an expert on gun legislation so I need you to provide me with a reputable source which analyses this information.

Once again, you have Google, look it up yourself.  You whine too much about my sources.

Of course other countries function under different systems and structures, but how does this alone allow for these other countries alone to skew data in their favor? Other countries may have different classifications and categories of crime, sure, but still this is not enough to be sufficient proof for your case. As for your U.K. point, I’ll go ahead and use a source that predicates its data upon a multinational organization based in Switzerland. USA Today found that the number of gun homicides in England and Wales is 1 per 1 million people, and the other previous data is, in fact, backed up by this international organization, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/. Some of this data includes the previous mention of there being 160 times as many gun homicides in the U.S., and the U.S. only has roughly six times larger the population. This adds more merit to these U.K. numbers as they are backed up by Switzerland’s Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development.

Switzerland’s Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development used the UK's discredited Home Office stats.  Another swing and a miss.

I don’t have to point out a fallacy by name to know it’s a fallacy. A fallacy is a mistaken belief, especially one founded upon an unsound argument. Your argument is unsound because it does not refute my original statement, as it was intended to do. If I say, “X is not valid just because X is in document Y,” your response of “Y is not merely a document” is fallacious in this context because pointing out that there is more to document Y because of its historical and legal heritage does not negate the point I made which is that document Y doesn’t innately validate point X logically and objectively.

So you cannot cite a fallacy.  Noted.  You can save yourself a lot of typing by just admitting it.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta

Re: It’s not my opinion that a source is untrustworthy because of its bias, that is just a factual observation. I’m not going to spend my time disproving your biased sources if you won’t spend some time, like I have, to find reliable sources to bolster your claim(s). There’s nothing that warrants time for disproof.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta

Re: I didn’t have any issues when you listed the Telegraph or BBC. It’s not that hard to find sources that are reputable. But I’m not going to look up information on your behalf. To expect an ordinary person to have such extensive legislative expertise and understanding is absurd, so you need to do the homework of presenting information on the bill that is digestible for those who do not bear such credentials.

That’s what I said. The previous data is backed up by the Swiss organization. If a multinational organization reviews this information and is able to confirm it as valid, which does add far more credibility to the validity of these U.K. stats in particular.

Did you even read my fallacy section? I clearly laid out how, in practice, it is a fallacy. I don’t need a name to know it is a fallacy. My point is still goldenly true.

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta

Re: It’s not my opinion that a source is untrustworthy because of its bias, that is just a factual observation. I’m not going to spend my time disproving your biased sources if you won’t spend some time, like I have, to find reliable sources to bolster your claim(s). There’s nothing that warrants time for disproof.

You haven't proven that any source is untrustworthy!!!!!  Just because a source has a particular political leaning doesn't prove that the information they impart is inaccurate.  When you whine about a source and ignore the information, you're committing a logic fallacy.

Thomasius

@CYDdharta
Re: Once more, I never said or implied that source X is incorrect because source X has a political leaning. I said that since source X has a political leaning and that I personally can't discern  its data as incorrect or correct, I have no choice but to avoid it because i can't tell if its baises affect its data. Tell me, if some left-winger provided you a left-leaning source for their claim on advanced economics, how could you trust the information in the source itself? Would you accept the data as given, go out of your way to do the homework for that opponent or wait for them to provide a reliable source to back up their claim?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta

Re: I didn’t have any issues when you listed the Telegraph or BBC. It’s not that hard to find sources that are reputable. But I’m not going to look up information on your behalf. To expect an ordinary person to have such extensive legislative expertise and understanding is absurd, so you need to do the homework of presenting information on the bill that is digestible for those who do not bear such credentials.

IOW, you're not smart enough to defend your position.  This probably isn't the proper forum for you, as you're unwilling to engage in a legitimate debate.  You should probably stick with Twitter, where you don't have to worry about accuracy or committing fallacies.

That’s what I said. The previous data is backed up by the Swiss organization. If a multinational organization reviews this information and is able to confirm it as valid, which does add far more credibility to the validity of these U.K. stats in particular.

Show me where the Swiss organization demanded that the UK alter it's practices on crime reporting and that the UK complied.

Did you even read my fallacy section? I clearly laid out how, in practice, it is a fallacy. I don’t need a name to know it is a fallacy. My point is still goldenly true.

You laid out gibberish; which fallacy is it specifically?

CYDdharta

Thomasius said:

@CYDdharta
Re: Once more, I never said or implied that source X is incorrect because source X has a political leaning. I said that since source X has a political leaning and that I personally can't discern  its data as incorrect or correct, I have no choice but to avoid it because i can't tell if its baises affect its data. Tell me, if some left-winger provided you a left-leaning source for their claim on advanced economics, how could you trust the information in the source itself? Would you accept the data as given, go out of your way to do the homework for that opponent or wait for them to provide a reliable source to back up their claim?

, YOU DID POST LEFT-WINGER ECONOMIC DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Did I dismiss the data because it was left-wing?  NO!!!!!!!  I found a source that explained how and why the data was false.  That's how a debate works, rather than relying on logic fallacies as you have.

Thomasius

[My debating on all current debates, including this one, is going to cease because I’ve decided to embark upon new debates with opening statements and formats that are more sufficient for my endeavors. However, despite my absence, others are free to continue on and all are free to judge for themselves who was triumphant in these dialogues.]

JesusisGod777888

@Thomasius

Who is we, last time I checked the us goverment doesn't care.

do you people smoke?

piloteer

@Thomasius

Are we going to assume all mass shooters are "unstable"? It seems your argument is starting to unravel. Mental illness (I'm assuming that's what you mean by "unstable") is not common among all mass shooters, in fact, most do not have any signs of any kind of mental illness. Only 4% of mass shooters can be positively diagnosed with a severe mental illness. When it comes to mass shooters, the percentage of them with mental illnesses are roughly the same percent of people with mental illness in society. Hatred, racism, and misanthropy are not symptoms of mental illness. Mental illness is not the common link among all mass shooters you're looking for.  

 My argument about mass shooters hiding their hostilities about other people is still pertinent when it comes to social media. They are not posting online how they are going to kill people. Where is your evidence that demonstrates mass shooters always send off warning signals that we are constantly missing? It seems that you're trying to make this more of a mental health, or social factor instead of what it actually is. If you have evidence of what exactly we should be looking for on social media or psychological factors that would stop even a single mass shooting, feel free to demonstrate that. 

piloteer

@Thomasius

Sorry, I wouldn't have addressed you directly if I had seen your earlier post about no longer being involved with this debate.

MayCaesar

@Thomasius

It is a small number. Statistically, you are many times more likely to drown in your bathtub, than you are to become a victim of a mass shooting. Should we talk about "bathtub drowning epidemic"? Of course not. Nor should we talk about "mass shooting epidemic".

When discussing any issue on a national/world scale, you should talk about relative numbers, not absolute numbers. A hundred people killed in mass shootings a year in itself means absolutely nothing, and a hundred people dying in a year in China suggests a dramatically different picture, than a hundred people dying in a year in Vatican City.

That is why, statistically speaking, the following alleged issues are not really issues anywhere in the developed world:

- Gun violence.
- Terrorism.
- Extreme poverty.
- Police violence.
- Political censorship.
- Opioid crisis.
- Virus outbreaks.

Now, each of these alleged issues in a given country can suggest indirectly something else about it. For example, violent crime rates in the US being much higher than in most other developed countries, while not really an issue for the average American, does say something about the difference in cultures and societies. Similarly, Internet censorship being far more prevalent in Australia than almost anywhere else on the West suggests that Australians might be a bit less tolerant towards non-conformism, than others.

That is why it is the cause the needs to be addressed, not the effect. And the cause can be much harder to determine and address. Suppose we determine that in France poorer labor culture, causing countless economical mini-crises as a result of activity of labor unions, comes fundamentally from the culture focusing less on self-reliance and more on mutual reliance. Now what? How do we address it? There is no easy answer. That is just the truth.

However, "There is no easy answer" is not something that gets you seats in the government. If you have two candidates, one of which says, "Elect me, and we will have a very different country in 1 year, one you cannot even imagine!", and another says, "If you elect me, nothing will really change. The issues are complex, and we will work hard to address them, but let us be real, folks, it will take years or even decades to manifest in something." - then the latter will obviously lose the election.
That is why we keep seeing these non-issues discussed by all major political organisations all over the world again and again. While barely anyone talks about the fundamentals, which is what determines everything.