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.
Preposterous fiction.
Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
Incorrect. It shows that in most cases of gun ownership, there is no social cost.Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.
Incorrect. Guns provide us with protection and save lives.fabricating some hypothetical number of prevented deaths
As if it makes any difference that people in those countries are murdered with knives instead of guns.because similar countries do not have similar firearm violence with fewer firearms.
Wrong again. Guns provide us with protection, with food, and with recreation.Preposterous fiction.
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.Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
Accidents involving firms extraordinarily rare.Firearm homicide does not adequately capture the extent of firearm-related problems. Do you want to exclude firearm accidents as well?
Very stupid post....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
true. But to do a cost benefit analysis you must know the number of people who own guns and how they benefit.Claiming that many people own firearms has nothing to do with the human and social cost of firearm violence.
Whiskibbible . I’ve done the cost benefit analysis.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.
NopePreposterous fiction.
. 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.Explain why a hunter needs an assault weapon.
In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.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.
Make your appeal to the supreme Court.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.
What's an assault weapon?Are you suggesting that people in LA need assault weapons to deal with stray cats and coyotes?
Too bad people like to own guns and shoot.Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
Make your plea to the supreme Court.The fundamental problem with American firearm regulation is that the lax regulation and easy access to firearms has resulted in excess mortality.
We can't we aren't those countriesIf we had rates of firearm violence equivalent to Canada, Australia, the UK or NZ, we would not be having this conversation.
Than leave. ByeFirearms are the problem. Simple.
The benefits of guns include protection, food, and recreation.In summary, it appears that any subjective claimed benefit is an actual objective benefit by your reckoning.
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.In other words, because some people enjoy smoking, there should not be strict regulation, restriction of child access or limitations on use and sales.
Wrong again. People use guns for protection, for food, and for recreation.Your claims of benefit of firearms are extremely strained and contrived.
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.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. 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.Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
Fake news. Never happened.The fundamental problem with American firearm regulation is that the lax regulation and easy access to firearms has resulted in excess mortality.
Wrong again. There is no problem.Firearms are the problem. Simple.
Yeah. Gun banners gotta lie right?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.
Well first let’s get this through your skull. What you call an “ assault weapon isn’t one.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?
imagine you are a 10 year old. You’ve already have fond memories of camping and hunting with your dad, older brother and grandpa.Whatever congeniality and comradery is derived from group shooting can certainly be provided in other ways, such as axe throwing.
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"Yeah. Gun banners gotta lie right?
Well first let’s get this through your skull. What you call an “ assault weapon isn’t one.
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.Second? Yeah people in la shoot competitions and go hunting .
Tejon ranch for example has hog hunts just an hour from LA.
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.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.
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.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"
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.???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.
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 .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.
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.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.
I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.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.???
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.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.
It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
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.It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
Actually I live in the forest. You are the one that’s fixated on a few incidents.I think your fixation with a few trees has caused you to ignore the forest.
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.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.
NOT ACTUALLY TRUE. Washington DC has low gun prevalence and high gun crime .The trend is clear, more firearm violence exists in those states with more firearm prevalence and with less restrictive firearm laws.
They are dangerous if used incorrectly. Like a chainsaw. They are not inherently dangerous like some acids , poisons or explosives .Firearms are dangerous lethal devices. You love to describe them as tools, yet you cannot admit that they are dangerous tools.
The only one embarrassing themselves here is you.Learn about firearm violence in the anglosphere before you continue to embarrass yourself.
Not really you people never get anywhere it's because everyone knows your opinions aren't reality.It must be terribly frustrating to confront the reality of differing opinions. Assault weapon adequately describes MSR in my book.
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.
Disarming Realities: As Gun Sales Soar, Gun Crimes Plummet
Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall.www.forbes.com
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.
Accusations to your mirror.Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
Dumbest claim ever.Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
Yes you have been wrong repeatedly. And nobody's going to believe your nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it.We have been over all this repeatedly.
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.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.
There are fire arms. They exist and they always will.Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence.
Proven false multiple times. Repeating your mantra won't magically make it trueLook at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:
District Data: District of Columbia | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
District of Columbia annual gun death data.publichealth.jhu.edu
Apparently no amount of caution can make motor vehicles safe.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:
District Data: District of Columbia | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
District of Columbia annual gun death data.publichealth.jhu.edu
Yeah no. Look we’ve been over this. You are the one cherry picking. You love saying “ more prevalence equals more gun violence.Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about firearms.
what an ignorant thing for you to say. Unloaded a firearm and it becomes as dangerous as a paperweight.Firearms are inherently dangerous because no amount of caution can make them "safe".
See above. You gun banners gotta lie.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.
Exactly. What a stupid thing for you to say.Without firearms, there would be no firearm violence. Look at the actual numbers-- more firearms, more firearm violence:
District Data: District of Columbia | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
District of Columbia annual gun death data.publichealth.jhu.edu
Clearly you are determined to cherry-pick and extract misrepresentative and isolated statistics or data to promote your incorrect concepts about 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.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:
District Data: District of Columbia | Center for Gun Violence Solutions
District of Columbia annual gun death data.publichealth.jhu.edu
No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.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?
Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms. Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.what an ignorant thing for you to say. Unloaded a firearm and it becomes as dangerous as a paperweight.
Logic will always defeat you in spite of your denial.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
Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.But suddenly it’s a magically unknown number when the ACTUAL data shows you are wrong.
Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.Exactly. What a stupid thing for you to say.
Without bicycles there wouldn’t be bike accidents .
So?
Meaningless tautology. And firearm violence isn’t a thing.No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.
It’s ****ing hilarious when you do this.Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.
Please list all the people that have been killed by an unloaded firearm. Hell, I’ll take just a single example.Lots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms.
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?
Then show us the specific proportion of firearms and the non existent category “firearm violence”. Be specific and show your work.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.
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.
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.
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.
Again you gun banners gotta lie.No gun apologists are determined to lie. You know that firearms are necessary for firearm violence yet refuse to admit that.
Oh but you have zero problems stating that as prevalence increases so does gun violence.Prevalence is notoriously difficult to define for firearms, but clearly if there are more GSW in a community that has too many firearms.
No one is being killed by an unloaded gun unless it’s used as a bludgeon I. E. A paperweightLots of people are killed by "unloaded" firearms.
Yeah I’ve only treated hundreds of. And seen hundreds of gun shot wounds in the animals I and others have hunted.Of course, you know nothing about gun shot wounds so you would not know.
That’s right. You know what that means right?Furthermore the first rule of firearm handling is to treat each gun as if it is loaded.
WE CAN MEASURE THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY.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?
Nope.Nope. You are lying again because you need to deny the problems that arise from firearms.
Just because bicycles are necessary for bike accidents does not in any way mean that bikes accidents are PROPORTIONAL to bicycles.Bike accidents must surely relate proportionally to bicycles but extending that concept to firearms and firearm violence is apparently beyond you cognitive abilities.
Absurdist reasoning.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.
Prevalence and Trends of Sexual Behaviors Among Young Adolescents Aged 12 Years to 15 Years in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Population-Based Study - PMC
Risky sexual behaviors remain significant public health challenges among adolescents. Nearly 90% of adolescents live in low and middle-income countries (LMICs), but few studies have used standardized methodology to monitor the prevalence and trends ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?