• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments...

Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.

Do the cost benefit analysis with actual dollars at 2 million dollars per life without fabricating some hypothetical number of prevented deaths because similar countries do not have similar firearm violence with fewer firearms.

A cost benefit analysis would be more involved that your simplistic and arbitrary dollar value you've decided is the cost of a human life. Do communists ever think of anything except in monetary terms?

Preposterous fiction.

Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.

Hunters decide why they need modern sporting rifles. You don't get to determine whether the needs of others are valid in this country, comrade.
 
Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.
Incorrect. It shows that in most cases of gun ownership, there is no social cost.


fabricating some hypothetical number of prevented deaths
Incorrect. Guns provide us with protection and save lives.


because similar countries do not have similar firearm violence with fewer firearms.
As if it makes any difference that people in those countries are murdered with knives instead of guns.

People who are murdered with a knife are still just as dead.


Preposterous fiction.
Wrong again. Guns provide us with protection, with food, and with recreation.


Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
We're not serfs and you are not our lord. We don't have to get someone to agree that we need a weapon before we are allowed to have it. We'll use whatever guns we choose to use, and we will do it without asking anyone's permission.
 
...I would have said using only logical arguments and your brain, but that would have been redundant.

RULES:
Rule 1 - no resorting to personal attacks or character attacks on either poster or politicians. We are debating only the concept of whether gun control itself makes sense as a rule.
Rule 2 - no using websites or articles as evidence. You can use any information you get from them as evidence, but it has to be your interpretation. In other words, no posting links, saying "I'm right because the writer of this article agrees with me."
Rule 3 - this one will be difficult so I may have to make it optional... try not to post more than 1 argument per post. It makes no sense, and is nearly impossible, to reply to 3-4 different arguments in a single post. Including multiple arguments in one post doesn't make your point more correct. Also when multiple arguments are happening at one time people just choose the easiest point to respond to and then the opposing side thinks they've won. Make one argument and make it count.

If no one posts here I will know no one is interested.
Also... I don't know if I'm allowed to make rules like this but... Oh well I'm trying anyways
-Dave
Very stupid post.
 
Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.
true. But to do a cost benefit analysis you must know the number of people who own guns and how they benefit.

You ignore that side of the equation.

Based on you logic ,, we should only calculate the cost of bathtub accidents . And not the benefits .
Do the cost benefit analysis with actual dollars at 2 million dollars per life without fabricating some hypothetical number of prevented deaths because similar countries do not have similar firearm violence with fewer firearms.
Whiskibbible . I’ve done the cost benefit analysis.
It would be nice if you gun banners could be honest but you just have to lie.



Preposterous fiction.
Nope
Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
. We don’t. As has been explained to you. The firearm I use for coyote and hog hunting that you call “ an assault weapon”.. is no such thing.
But you gun banners gotta lie . You just have to.
 
true. But to do a cost benefit analysis you must know the number of people who own guns and how they benefit.

You ignore that side of the equation.

Based on you logic ,, we should only calculate the cost of bathtub accidents . And not the benefits .

Whiskibbible . I’ve done the cost benefit analysis.
It would be nice if you gun banners could be honest but you just have to lie.
Nope

. We don’t. As has been explained to you. The firearm I use for coyote and hog hunting that you call “ an assault weapon”.. is no such thing.
But you gun banners gotta lie . You just have to.
In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.
In other words, because some people enjoy smoking, there should not be strict regulation, restriction of child access or limitations on use and sales.
Your claims of benefit of firearms are extremely strained and contrived. Are you suggesting that people in LA need assault weapons to deal with stray cats and coyotes? Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.

The fundamental problem with American firearm regulation is that the lax regulation and easy access to firearms has resulted in excess mortality. If we had rates of firearm violence equivalent to Canada, Australia, the UK or NZ, we would not be having this conversation.

Firearms are the problem. Simple.
 
In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.
In other words, because some people enjoy smoking, there should not be strict regulation, restriction of child access or limitations on use and sales.
Your claims of benefit of firearms are extremely strained and contrived.
Make your appeal to the supreme Court.
Are you suggesting that people in LA need assault weapons to deal with stray cats and coyotes?
What's an assault weapon?
Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
Too bad people like to own guns and shoot.
The fundamental problem with American firearm regulation is that the lax regulation and easy access to firearms has resulted in excess mortality.
Make your plea to the supreme Court.
If we had rates of firearm violence equivalent to Canada, Australia, the UK or NZ, we would not be having this conversation.
We can't we aren't those countries
Firearms are the problem. Simple.
Than leave. Bye
 
In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.
The benefits of guns include protection, food, and recreation.


In other words, because some people enjoy smoking, there should not be strict regulation, restriction of child access or limitations on use and sales.
Off topic. Gun control is not even about trying to save lives. It is only about maliciously trying to violate people's civil liberties for no reason. Therefore it is not comparable to cigarette regulations.


Your claims of benefit of firearms are extremely strained and contrived.
Wrong again. People use guns for protection, for food, and for recreation.


Are you suggesting that people in LA need assault weapons to deal with stray cats and coyotes?
We're not serfs and you are not our lord. We don't have to get someone to agree that we need a weapon before we are allowed to have it. We'll use whatever guns we choose to use, and we will do it without asking anyone's permission.


Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
We're not serfs and you are not our lord. You don't get to make those decisions for us. We'll do what we want to do, and we won't ask anyone for permission.


The fundamental problem with American firearm regulation is that the lax regulation and easy access to firearms has resulted in excess mortality.
Fake news. Never happened.

Since gun control is not even about trying to save lives, blocking gun control does not cost any lives.


Firearms are the problem. Simple.
Wrong again. There is no problem.
 
In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.
In other words, because some people enjoy smoking, there should not be strict regulation, restriction of child access or limitations on use and sales.
Yeah. Gun banners gotta lie right?

Your claims of benefit of firearms are extremely strained and contrived. Are you suggesting that people in LA need assault weapons to deal with stray cats and coyotes?
Well first let’s get this through your skull. What you call an “ assault weapon isn’t one.
Second? Yeah people in la shoot competitions and go hunting .
Tejon ranch for example has hog hunts just an hour from LA.


Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
imagine you are a 10 year old. You’ve already have fond memories of camping and hunting with your dad, older brother and grandpa.
But you’ve just turned ten and this is your first deer hunt.
You’ve been practicing with your rifle . An ar 15 style firearm chambered in 243. It’s got light recoil “ being a semi automatic , and you shoot it well. In fact youve been practicing with firearms with your dad , grandpa etc for years. You went through hunters education this last year when you are 9 and it was a way tougher test than anything you’ve had in school. But you got a 98 on it and boy was your dad proud.
So it’s your first deer hunt and you can’t hardly sleep the night before . Everyone in camp wished you luck the night before because they knew you were out early with dad.
You and dad start hiking well before day break and you hike a good couple of miles until you get up onto a ridge that overlooks a whole series of little valleys , just as the sun starts to peak through. It’s one of the most amazing sights. The sun splashing gold across the grass and trees , burning off the morning fog.
You and your dad sit up there glassing for an hour , looking over the most beautiful country and then you spot a flicker of movement and you see off in the distance a small group of deer. It’s so far that even with the binoculars you can’t be sure but you think there is a decent buck at the edge of the group.
Your dad asks if you want to go after them? You realize this is your hunt and you make the decisions. This is a huge deal. Dad follows your lead for the first time. You decide to go after them. Dad asks your plan and after some suggestions from Dad the two of you take off.
It takes an hour of hiking to get into position and when you get there? No deer. Your dad asks you: what you think ? And you say “I bet they walked over that saddle where we couldn’t see them. You ease over there and find fresh poop and tracks . Your dad says “ good call”.
You then make a plan using your gps map and your knowledge about deer to come up with a strategy.
You lead your dad through the saddle and up onto a ridge and there you spot them but they are well out of range. For the next three hours you cover another mile sometimes walking, sometimes duck walking sometimes crawling on your belly to get into a shooting position.
Finally after stalking through brush and grass your cover peters out and now it’s bare ground between you and tge buck. And he is a nice one. You range him and it’s 375 yards. You try to go prone but the cover is too high. You have to settle for a kneeling position with sticks and your pack. The wind has picked up and is changing direction at at any moment that deer is going to smell you and be gone.
You settle into position and try to keep the crosshairs behind his shoulder. But you realize you can’t make that shot. It’s too risky for wounding that deer. The deer slips into the brush and is gone.
You look up at Dad and say “ sorry dad but I couldn’t make that shot “ and he says “ I am proud of you son , you did the right thing”.

You spend the rest of the day looking for that deer or any deer but to no avail.
You trudge into camp very tired . Everyone at camp wants to hear your story. And you and Dad get to tell that story together right up to the point where you tell the group you didn’t shoot . And that’s when everyone tells you how proud they are and how you did the right thing.
And that’s sticks with you the rest of your life.
You kill a number of deer the rest of your life. But the one memory you cherish the most ? Is the deer you DIDNT shoot with your Dad.


Now how about you tell your “ axe throwing story “
Lmao.
Don’t talk about things you know nothing about.
 
Yeah. Gun banners gotta lie right?


Well first let’s get this through your skull. What you call an “ assault weapon isn’t one.
Your need to conform the world to your set of subjective and arbitrary ideas about guns is the central reason you are struggling to promote an unreal vision of firearms in America. Learn about language. Assault weapon is as valid a moniker as "modern sporting rifle"
Second? Yeah people in la shoot competitions and go hunting .
Tejon ranch for example has hog hunts just an hour from LA.
Once again, you cannot distinguish your fabricated fantasy exceptions from the reality of firearm problems in America. Teton Ranch is not LA any more than the Wild Animal Park is San Diego.

imagine you are a 10 year old. You’ve already have fond memories of camping and hunting with your dad, older brother and grandpa.
But you’ve just turned ten and this is your first deer hunt.
You’ve been practicing with your rifle . An ar 15 style firearm chambered in 243. It’s got light recoil “ being a semi automatic , and you shoot it well. In fact youve been practicing with firearms with your dad , grandpa etc for years. You went through hunters education this last year when you are 9 and it was a way tougher test than anything you’ve had in school. But you got a 98 on it and boy was your dad proud.
So it’s your first deer hunt and you can’t hardly sleep the night before . Everyone in camp wished you luck the night before because they knew you were out early with dad.
(clipped to comply with word limit)...
You kill a number of deer the rest of your life. But the one memory you cherish the most ? Is the deer you DIDNT shoot with your Dad.


Now how about you tell your “ axe throwing story “
Lmao.
Don’t talk about things you know nothing about.
That is perhaps the greatest bit of rambling nonsense ever written as a justification for easy access to firearms and bad firearm policy in America. This is toxic Alvin York or Chris Kyle mentality at its finest. You never mention 10 year old who decides to show his friend his dad's handgun and kills his best friend. You forgot to mention the boys playing with 22 rifles and shoot out windows in their schoolhouse. You neglected to mention the boys with BB guns who play war and one shoots the other in the eye.
For every Norman Rockwell moment there are dozens of stories of injury and death related to the volume and types of guns and firearm policy in America. Get a grip on reality and the 21st Century.
 
Your need to conform the world to your set of subjective and arbitrary ideas about guns is the central reason you are struggling to promote an unreal vision of firearms in America. Learn about language. Assault weapon is as valid a moniker as "modern sporting rifle"
No it’s not. You aren’t willing to understand that the firearm you call an assault weapon doesn’t differ mechanically in operation from an other semi automatic firearms you say aren’t assault weapons.

Once again, you cannot distinguish your fabricated fantasy exceptions from the reality of firearm problems in America. Teton Ranch is not LA any more than the Wild Animal Park is San Diego.
ummm. So you don’t think people in LA can travel less than an hour away ??? Millions of American travel to different states and even countries to hunt and compete in shooting events but gun owners in LA. Can’t travel less than an hour to hunt or shoot competitively.???


That is perhaps the greatest bit of rambling nonsense ever written as a justification for easy access to firearms and bad firearm policy in America. This is toxic Alvin York or Chris Kyle mentality at its finest. You never mention 10 year old who decides to show his friend his dad's handgun and kills his best friend. You forgot to mention the boys playing with 22 rifles and shoot out windows in their schoolhouse. You neglected to mention the boys with BB guns who play war and one shoots the other in the eye.
For every Norman Rockwell moment there are dozens of stories of injury and death related to the volume and types of guns and firearm policy in America. Get a grip on reality and the 21st Century.
Yeah no. See here is the problem . You’ve got it completely backwards. You aren’t living reality. And your post illustrates it. Literally tens of millions of children head out into the woods with firearms , go to gun ranges to compete or to plink with their family .
And nothing happens other than they have fond memories of learning to be responsible adults .
While the “ shooting out the windows” or shooting others is exceedingly rare.

If what you say is true. Then Idaho, Utah, Vermont , Iowa , should be virtual war zones with their high prevalence of firearms .
But they aren’t.

Think what you are saying. For every one safe gun owner. 12 are criminals!!!

This is why sir we point out your obvious bias and lack of objectivity.
Your premise makes no logical sense.

And this is why people should never listen to you when it comes to gun control.
 
No it’s not. You aren’t willing to understand that the firearm you call an assault weapon doesn’t differ mechanically in operation from an other semi automatic firearms you say aren’t assault weapons.
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
ummm. So you don’t think people in LA can travel less than an hour away ??? Millions of American travel to different states and even countries to hunt and compete in shooting events but gun owners in LA. Can’t travel less than an hour to hunt or shoot competitively.???
I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.
Yeah no. See here is the problem . You’ve got it completely backwards. You aren’t living reality. And your post illustrates it. Literally tens of millions of children head out into the woods with firearms , go to gun ranges to compete or to plink with their family .
And nothing happens other than they have fond memories of learning to be responsible adults .
While the “ shooting out the windows” or shooting others is exceedingly rare.

If what you say is true. Then Idaho, Utah, Vermont , Iowa , should be virtual war zones with their high prevalence of firearms .
But they aren’t.

Think what you are saying. For every one safe gun owner. 12 are criminals!!!

This is why sir we point out your obvious bias and lack of objectivity.
Your premise makes no logical sense.

And this is why people should never listen to you when it comes to gun control.
Irrational extrapolation is not your friend on this matter. Try to understand that your anecdotes do not represent reality and my examples cannot be generalized to every child and adult. However, the trends in firearm violence are obvious.

The trend is clear, more firearm violence exists in those states with more firearm prevalence and with less restrictive firearm laws.
Firearms are dangerous lethal devices. You love to describe them as tools, yet you cannot admit that they are dangerous tools.
Learn about firearm violence in the anglosphere before you continue to embarrass yourself.
 
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.

It's a laughably inaccurate description.

I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.

Irrational extrapolation is not your friend on this matter. Try to understand that your anecdotes do not represent reality and my examples cannot be generalized to every child and adult. However, the trends in firearm violence are obvious.

The trend is that gun owners use their guns peacefully, in overwhelming numbers.

The trend is clear, more firearm violence exists in those states with more firearm prevalence and with less restrictive firearm laws.

Again arguing on the basis of a criteria you claim cannot be determined.

Firearms are dangerous lethal devices. You love to describe them as tools, yet you cannot admit that they are dangerous tools.
Learn about firearm violence in the anglosphere before you continue to embarrass yourself.

Human beings are quite capable of safely using potentially dangerous tools. 100 million gun owners prove it constantly.
 
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
Yeah no. It’s completely erroneous . Laughably so.
I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.
Actually I live in the forest. You are the one that’s fixated on a few incidents.
Irrational extrapolation is not your friend on this matter. Try to understand that your anecdotes do not represent reality and my examples cannot be generalized to every child and adult. However, the trends in firearm violence are obvious.
Yes the trends in firearm violence are obvious. There are no trends. You’ve already been presented with the fact that as gun sales soared, regulations were relaxed , new gun owners expanded , violent crime even gun crime went DOWN.
couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.

The trend is clear, more firearm violence exists in those states with more firearm prevalence and with less restrictive firearm laws.
NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. Washington DC has low gun prevalence and high gun crime .

And so what? Gun violence as you’ve proven is meaningless when it comes to safety.


Firearms are dangerous lethal devices. You love to describe them as tools, yet you cannot admit that they are dangerous tools.
They are dangerous if used incorrectly. Like a chainsaw. They are not inherently dangerous like some acids , poisons or explosives .
Learn about firearm violence in the anglosphere before you continue to embarrass yourself.
The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.
You’ve shown your hand . You think of thirteen gun owners only one is responsible and the other 12 are out committing accidents or crime.
You’ve proven your ridiculous bias. Not based in reality or fact.
 
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
Not really you people never get anywhere it's because everyone knows your opinions aren't reality.
I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.

Irrational extrapolation is not your friend on this matter. Try to understand that your anecdotes do not represent reality and my examples cannot be generalized to every child and adult. However, the trends in firearm violence are obvious.

The trend is clear, more firearm violence exists in those states with more firearm prevalence and with less restrictive firearm laws.
Firearms are dangerous lethal devices. You love to describe them as tools, yet you cannot admit that they are dangerous tools.
Learn about firearm violence in the anglosphere before you continue to embarrass yourself.
 
Yeah no. It’s completely erroneous . Laughably so.

Actually I live in the forest. You are the one that’s fixated on a few incidents.

Yes the trends in firearm violence are obvious. There are no trends. You’ve already been presented with the fact that as gun sales soared, regulations were relaxed , new gun owners expanded , violent crime even gun crime went DOWN.
couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.


NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. Washington DC has low gun prevalence and high gun crime .

And so what? Gun violence as you’ve proven is meaningless when it comes to safety.



They are dangerous if used incorrectly. Like a chainsaw. They are not inherently dangerous like some acids , poisons or explosives .

The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.
You’ve shown your hand . You think of thirteen gun owners only one is responsible and the other 12 are out committing accidents or crime.
You’ve proven your ridiculous bias. Not based in reality or fact.

Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
We have been over all this repeatedly.
Since you cannot determine firearm prevalence in Washington, DC we are left with the conclusion that DC has exceptional firearm violence BECAUSE there are too many firearms. Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence. Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:

 
Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
Accusations to your mirror.
Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
Dumbest claim ever.
We have been over all this repeatedly.
Yes you have been wrong repeatedly. And nobody's going to believe your nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it.
Since you cannot determine firearm prevalence in Washington, DC we are left with the conclusion that DC has exceptional firearm violence BECAUSE there are too many firearms.
You can certainly jump to whatever conclusion fits your narrative. It doesn't mean anything and you're not going to get any traction with it.
Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence.
There are fire arms. They exist and they always will.

The condition of without firearms is not possible.
Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:
Proven false multiple times. Repeating your mantra won't magically make it true
 
Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
We have been over all this repeatedly.
Apparently no amount of caution can make motor vehicles safe.

Since you cannot determine firearm prevalence in Washington, DC we are left with the conclusion that DC has exceptional firearm violence BECAUSE there are too many firearms.

🤣 Since you've stepped on your dick by claiming the premise hinging your arguments is unknowable, you'll compensate by invoking a begging the question fallacy.

Hilarious. You're saying your claim is proof of your claim.

Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence. Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:

Too late. You've already argued you have no way of knowing firearm prevalence.


 
Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
Yeah no. Look we’ve been over this. You are the one cherry picking. You love saying “ more prevalence equals more gun violence.
But the minute more prevalence doesn’t result in more gun violence you ignore it with . “ you can’t know prevalence,

Gun banners gotta lie right?

Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
what an ignorant thing for you to say. Unloaded a firearm and it becomes as dangerous as a paperweight.

We have been over all this repeatedly.
Since you cannot determine firearm prevalence in Washington, DC we are left with the conclusion that DC has exceptional firearm violence BECAUSE there are too many firearms.
See above. You gun banners gotta lie.
You have no problems with prevalence when you state unequivocally that “ the higher the gun prevalence the higher the gun violence”
But suddenly it’s a magically unknown number when the ACTUAL data shows you are wrong.

Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence. Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:
Exactly. What a stupid thing for you to say.
Without bicycles there wouldn’t be bike accidents .
So?
 
Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
We have been over all this repeatedly.
Since you cannot determine firearm prevalence in Washington, DC we are left with the conclusion that DC has exceptional firearm violence BECAUSE there are too many firearms.
This is probably the most retarded thing you have posted on this subject. And you’ve posted an uncountable number of retarded things on this topic.

Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence. Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:

 
Yeah no. Look we’ve been over this. You are the one cherry picking. You love saying “ more prevalence equals more gun violence.
But the minute more prevalence doesn’t result in more gun violence you ignore it with . “ you can’t know prevalence,

Gun banners gotta lie right?
No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.
Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.
what an ignorant thing for you to say. Unloaded a firearm and it becomes as dangerous as a paperweight.
Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms. Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.
Furthermore the first rule of firearm handling is to treat each gun as if it is loaded.
See above. You gun banners gotta lie.
You have no problems with prevalence when you state unequivocally that “ the higher the gun prevalence the higher the gun violence”H
Logic will always defeat you in spite of your denial.
Are you going to deny that no intercourse occurs in a population with pregnant women because you cannot measure the prevalence of sexual activity?

But suddenly it’s a magically unknown number when the ACTUAL data shows you are wrong.
Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.
Exactly. What a stupid thing for you to say.
Without bicycles there wouldn’t be bike accidents .
So?
Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.
 
No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.
Meaningless tautology. And firearm violence isn’t a thing.
Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.
It’s ****ing hilarious when you do this.
Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms.
Please list all the people that have been killed by an unloaded firearm. Hell, I’ll take just a single example.
Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.
😂
Logic will always defeat you in spite of your denial.
😂
Are you going to deny that no intercourse occurs in a population with pregnant women because you cannot measure the prevalence of sexual activity?
😂
Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.

Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.
Then show us the specific proportion of firearms and the non existent category “firearm violence”. Be specific and show your work.
 
No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.

Absolutely nobody has questioned that. This is a lie you tell at an alarming rate.

Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.

Clearly, that's a Begging the Question fallacy.

Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms.

No they aren't.

Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.
Furthermore the first rule of firearm handling is to treat each gun as if it is loaded.

Anyone who would perform maintenance on a loaded gun is a moron.

Logic will always defeat you in spite of your denial.
Are you going to deny that no intercourse occurs in a population with pregnant women because you cannot measure the prevalence of sexual activity?

Your analogy fails. Nobody but nobody has denied that people sometimes shoot other people. Outside of state actors, it is a relatively rare occurrence though.

Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.

Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.

If you want to argue about firearm accidents, then do that. They are more rare than murders or suicides.
 
No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.
Again you gun banners gotta lie.
I defy you to find a where it’s been said that firearms aren’t “ necessary for firearm violence”,
We constantly admit that laughingly because so what???
Bicycles are necessary for bike accidents.
Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.
Oh but you have zero problems stating that as prevalence increases so does gun violence.
But then you admit you have no idea of gun prevalence so ….
Gun banners gotta lie.
Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms.
No one is being killed by an unloaded gun unless it’s used as a bludgeon I. E. A paperweight
You can most assuredly make sure a firearm is unloaded and in fact it’s tremendously easy to.
Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.
Yeah I’ve only treated hundreds of. And seen hundreds of gun shot wounds in the animals I and others have hunted.
Stop talking.

Furthermore the first rule of firearm handling is to treat each gun as if it is loaded.
That’s right. You know what that means right?
Of course you don’t!!! It means when someone hands you a firearm or you pick one up. You immediately assume it’s loaded . AND IMMEDIATELY CHECK TO MAKE SURE ITS ACTUALLY UNLOADED!!!!!
BECAUSE A GUN THATS UNLOADED CANT BE YSED TO HURT PEOPLE.

Logic will always defeat you in spite of your denial.
Are you going to no intercourse occurs in a population with pregnant women because you cannot measure the prevalence of sexual activity?
WE CAN MEASURE THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.
Nope.
Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.
Just because bicycles are necessary for bike accidents does not in any way mean that bikes accidents are PROPORTIONAL to bicycles.
In fact more bicycles may relate to FEWER BICYCLE accidents as more people biking leads to changes in road construction. To accommodate bicycles.
Leads to more safety designs to make bicycles safer.
More bicycles use leads to more motorist awareness.
 
Again you gun banners gotta lie.
I defy you to find a where it’s been said that firearms aren’t “ necessary for firearm violence”,
We constantly admit that laughingly because so what???
Bicycles are necessary for bike accidents.

Oh but you have zero problems stating that as prevalence increases so does gun violence.
But then you admit you have no idea of gun prevalence so ….
Gun banners gotta lie.

No one is being killed by an unloaded gun unless it’s used as a bludgeon I. E. A paperweight
You can most assuredly make sure a firearm is unloaded and in fact it’s tremendously easy to.

Yeah I’ve only treated hundreds of. And seen hundreds of gun shot wounds in the animals I and others have hunted.
Stop talking.


That’s right. You know what that means right?
Of course you don’t!!! It means when someone hands you a firearm or you pick one up. You immediately assume it’s loaded . AND IMMEDIATELY CHECK TO MAKE SURE ITS ACTUALLY UNLOADED!!!!!
BECAUSE A GUN THATS UNLOADED CANT BE YSED TO HURT PEOPLE.


WE CAN MEASURE THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY.


Nope
Just because bicycles are necessary for bike accidents does not in any way mean that bikes accidents are PROPORTIONAL to bicycles.
In fact more bicycles may relate to FEWER BICYCLE accidents as more people biking leads to changes in road construction. To accommodate bicycles.
Leads to more safety designs to make bicycles safer.
More bicycles use leads to more motorist awareness.
Absurdist reasoning.
You cannot acknowledge the fundamental relationship between firearms and firearm violence because it would undermine your entire world view.
Firearms are necessary for firearm violence.
Firearm access facilitates use of firearms
Firearm use increases as access increases.
Firearms use increases the likelihood death and injury.
Firearms are a risk factor for death and injury.
 
Back
Top Bottom