• 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...

Just can’t help lying can you.
Let’s test its usefulness as a public safety metric.
.... .
Which community has a larger problem with suicide?
Irrelevant hypothetical. Why are firearms the preferred method for American males for suicide?
Hmm just a couple of posts ago you said
Spock:Mental health services, while important, are unrealistic solutions to suicide

You just said that mental health treatment is unrealistic treatment!
It is an unrealistic cure in a situation where prevention is more important.
Should be instruct people not to inhale or should we restrict tobacco smoke and access?
You favor training depressed people not to use firearms and I advocate for reducing means. Do you also favor just counselling for individuals inclined to use firearms criminally or do you think reducing access to firearms might have some role?
You lose this argument..


Yeah and that’s so ridiculous that it’s astounding to me that you would even say that.
Seriously, in your bias against firearms it’s like you forget that all the other people who die by suicide without using a firearm.

Holy crap yes it will . If that mental health is effective it will prevent not only a firearm from being used but any other method

Very true. We all wish you understood that.

Who made that assumption? Certainly not me.
You are willing to accept "numbers of firearms in a population" as a measure of prevalence, with full knowledge that many, if not most, firearms are bought by people already have firearms. Bad science.
For example the measurement of firearm violence is completely useless.
No. Firearm violence is simple to measure. Just count the number of firearm deaths and injuries.
However your theory is that when confronted with scientific evidence you don’t like. You immediately dismiss it unless the accuracy of the data is 100 percent.
....
The difficulty measuring firearm prevalence has been discussed extensively with you but you fail to understand the concept.
Do you even know the difference between incidence and prevalence?
Already cited a number of scientific research that shows firearm training reduces the chance of accidents.

Cripes . Do you hear yourself ?
So children now don’t have to be taught safety behaviors and responsibility because “ they know that accidents “ result from impulsive actions and bad judgement.”
So no need for sex education, drivers education, safe handling of tools in shop class,
Etc.
lmao.

You just said to use a firearm safely they need special skill.???
Lmao
Your reading problems seem to have continued.
I see , so sex education just teaches them to have unprotected sex.
Drug and alcohol counseling teaches them to drink and take drugs ,
Drivers education teaches them to drive recklessly !!
Are you know suggesting that firearm use requires special skill development? Get your arguments straight.
Fact is, discharging a firearm is easy but firearm skill is another issue.
There is no value to promoting firearms in schools when there are so many other areas of instruction needed.
You are promoting firearms with "mandatory firearm training". Drug, sex, alcohol education is about avoid primarily.
Which is what you have helped me do here.
Splendidly so I might add.
You seem unable to follow nuanced arguments. No surprise there.
You’ve now managed to argue that mental health treatment is ineffective in preventing or stopping suicide ideation and the best solution is to take away firearms from people who are not suicidal. !!! Lmao.
Are you arguing that mental health service it is always effective?
You’ve argued that firearm prevalence and the prevalence of sexuality in teens can’t be measured .

You’ve argued that firearm violence is a valid statistic but can’t answer a simple question about suicide or safety.


You’ve argued now that mandatory firearm training for hunters education , in schools or in private are unnecessary because all a person needs to know is that “ accidents are related to impulsive actions and bad judgement”.
Firearm violence is more an issue of bad judgment rather than accidental discharge of a firearm. Your interest is to promote firearm ownership and use when all the evidence supports the idea that firearm access increase death and injury.
 
“ hey Spock do we need to teach children the dangers of talking to strangers and going with them?
Spock “ heck no, we just need to teach them that accidents are from impulsive actions and bad judgement”.
Stay focused. Irrelevant.
You have done an awesome job of demonstrating why no one should ever listen to a gun control advocate

I thank you.

I am disappointed that you have so little interest in understanding basic public health concerns and so little capacity to distinguish your own needs from the social dangers of firearms.
 
I am disappointed that you have so little interest in understanding basic public health concerns and so little capacity to distinguish your own needs from the social dangers of firearms.
there isn’t any social dangers from firearms. They are rarely used for homicide.
 
Stay focused. Irrelevant.

I am disappointed that you have so little interest in understanding basic public health concerns and so little capacity to distinguish your own needs from the social dangers of firearms.
Well being a gangster or being suicidal is probably detrimental to your health. Having a gun most certainly is not.
 
Irrelevant hypothetical. Why are firearms the preferred method for American males for suicide?

Why is that so important to you?

If all firearms magically disappeared, would you then haunt the corridors of internet discussion sites wailing about the horrors of ropes- the preferred method for American males for suicide?

It is an unrealistic cure in a situation where prevention is more important.
Should be instruct people not to inhale or should we restrict tobacco smoke and access?
You favor training depressed people not to use firearms and I advocate for reducing means. Do you also favor just counselling for individuals inclined to use firearms criminally or do you think reducing access to firearms might have some role?
You lose this argument..



You are willing to accept "numbers of firearms in a population" as a measure of prevalence, with full knowledge that many, if not most, firearms are bought by people already have firearms. Bad science.

No. Firearm violence is simple to measure. Just count the number of firearm deaths and injuries.

Just like rope violence.

The difficulty measuring firearm prevalence has been discussed extensively with you but you fail to understand the concept.
Do you even know the difference between incidence and prevalence?

Your reading problems seem to have continued.

Are you know suggesting that firearm use requires special skill development? Get your arguments straight.
Fact is, discharging a firearm is easy but firearm skill is another issue.
There is no value to promoting firearms in schools when there are so many other areas of instruction needed.
You are promoting firearms with "mandatory firearm training". Drug, sex, alcohol education is about avoid primarily.

You seem unable to follow nuanced arguments. No surprise there.

Are you arguing that mental health service it is always effective?

Firearm violence is more an issue of bad judgment rather than accidental discharge of a firearm. Your interest is to promote firearm ownership and use when all the evidence supports the idea that firearm access increase death and injury.
 
Why is that so important to you?
Emotional manipulation.
If all firearms magically disappeared, would you then haunt the corridors of internet discussion sites wailing about the horrors of ropes- the preferred method for American males for suicide?
He doesn't realize how ridiculous his observation is essentially he's stating firearms are the preferred weapon by people.

I made the same point you made if you go back to the 1300s I bet there is more people killed by swords.
Just like rope violence.
He has a tendency to blame the object instead of the violence
 
35 pages rebutting your argument:

 
35 pages rebutting your argument:

You don't know what rebut means, do you? What's the ratio of defensive gun uses to offensive gun uses?

Fact-checking the "good guys with guns" maxim.
 
You don't know what rebut means, do you? What's the ratio of defensive gun uses to offensive gun uses?

Fact-checking the "good guys with guns" maxim.
From your link (to the The Trace which is known gun control propaganda site):

"Notably, the NCVS figure excludes cases of simple assault. There are other caveats: Survey respondents are only asked about defensive measures if they report being victims of certain crimes, including rape, assault, burglary, larceny, and car theft."

So, make the numbers lower by excluding data. Liars, damn liars, and gun control advocates.

1.67 million defensive gun uses a year on average.

 
Guns don't cause anything to happen. People cause things to happen.
Car accidents can't happen because cars can't have accidents?
Where to you gun apologists get this nonsense?
 
Car accidents can't happen because cars can't have accidents?
Traffic accidents happened because of the people driving them.

Let's make a list of all the accidents cars have caused while parked in a parking lot
Where to you gun apologists get this nonsense?
Reality.
 
From your link (to the The Trace which is known gun control propaganda site):

"Notably, the NCVS figure excludes cases of simple assault. There are other caveats: Survey respondents are only asked about defensive measures if they report being victims of certain crimes, including rape, assault, burglary, larceny, and car theft."

So, make the numbers lower by excluding data. Liars, damn liars, and gun control advocates.

1.67 million defensive gun uses a year on average.
You can't defend that number, you were queried before.
As the country reels from a pair of devastating mass shootings, the gun lobby has doubled down on the notion that “a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.” That maxim is central to the National Rifle Association’s decades-long mission to relax gun laws and increase gun sales. Right-leaning media outlets have amplified that message in recent years by reporting that instances of self-defense by law-abiding owners actually outnumber gun crimes. How Often Are Guns Used for Self-Defense?
 
You can't defend that number, you were queried before.

As the country reels from a pair of devastating mass shootings, the gun lobby has doubled down on the notion that “a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.” That maxim is central to the National Rifle Association’s decades-long mission to relax gun laws and increase gun sales. Right-leaning media outlets have amplified that message in recent years by reporting that instances of self-defense by law-abiding owners actually outnumber gun crimes. How Often Are Guns Used for Self-Defense?
Guns are used defensively 1.7 million times per year. Guns are used to murder around 15,000 times per year.

Reality doesn’t care about your ideology.
 
T
Irrelevant hypothetical. Why are firearms the preferred method for American males for suicide?

It is an unrealistic cure in a situation where prevention is more important.
Explain in detail how is an “ unrealistic cure”
I want to hear you explain how treatment of mental health issues like depression is unrealistic in preventing suicide
While taking a firearm way from people who aren’t suicidal /depressed etc IS.

Please explain in detail your thoughts on what a medical provider should do when they determine that their patient has suicidal ideation and they’ve determined there are no firearms in the house.
Is suicide now not an issue?

Should be instruct people not to inhale or should we restrict tobacco smoke and access?
Well that’s as silly. Almost as silly ( almost) as taking a firearm away from someone without suicide ideation to stop suicide ideation.

Clearly the best solution is to treat the nicotine and social addiction and remove the desire to smoke.
Silly anti gunner.
You favor training depressed people not to use firearms and I advocate for reducing means
Why lie? Why must you gun grabbers lie so much.
It’s because you have no valid answer to the fact that treating people for their depression and eliminating their depression is far more effective at reducing suicide than taking firearms away from people not suicidal.
. Do you also favor just counselling for individuals inclined to use firearms criminally or do you think reducing access to firearms might have some role?
Actually yes. I favor treatment for those that might become violent due to mental health issues. This would prevent violence regardless of tool used.

I can hear you now
Spock “ well I understand sir that your daughter and son in law were killed by a man with dangerous mental health issues that was waiting for a room for inpatient mental treatment to open up.
“but you have to understand we needed that money for our gun buyback program”.

Well this is a good place to pause.

I want all the other anti gunners to take note.
Spock here has perfectly illustrated why we “ cannot have both” when it comes to mental health access and gun control.

The anti gunners obsession with taking away firearms away from people who are not a threat to themselves or others overrides even common sense.
Literally arguing that mental health is ineffective and unrealistic.

 
Explain in detail how is an “ unrealistic cure”
I want to hear you explain how treatment of mental health issues like depression is unrealistic in preventing suicide
While taking a firearm way from people who aren’t suicidal /depressed etc IS.

Please explain in detail your thoughts on what a medical provider should do when they determine that their patient has suicidal ideation and they’ve determined there are no firearms in the house.
Now you are changing the issue. This is not about mental health programs; it is about firearm access and risk.
The real question is, what should a medical person do when a clinically depressed person is found to have firearms in their household? Do you just refer for counselling or do you attempt to eliminate the means? I know you will not answer the question.
Is suicide now not an issue?


Well that’s as silly. Almost as silly ( almost) as taking a firearm away from someone without suicide ideation to stop suicide ideation.
Never the claim. It has always been about eliminating means to the extent possible.
Clearly the best solution is to treat the nicotine and social addiction and remove the desire to smoke.
Silly anti gunner.

Why lie? Why must you gun grabbers lie so much.
It’s because you have no valid answer to the fact that treating people for their depression and eliminating their depression is far more effective at reducing suicide than taking firearms away from people not suicidal.

Actually yes. I favor treatment for those that might become violent due to mental health issues. This would prevent violence regardless of tool used.

I can hear you now
Spock “ well I understand sir that your daughter and son in law were killed by a man with dangerous mental health issues that was waiting for a room for inpatient mental treatment to open up.
“but you have to understand we needed that money for our gun buyback program”.

Well this is a good place to pause.

I want all the other anti gunners to take note.
Spock here has perfectly illustrated why we “ cannot have both” when it comes to mental health access and gun control.

The anti gunners obsession with taking away firearms away from people who are not a threat to themselves or others overrides even common sense.
Literally arguing that mental health is ineffective and unrealistic.
If firearms are harmless and means is irrelevant, as you have so often argued, why would you favor reducing the access to firearms?
 
The logical argument:
Compare the USA to Australia (similar language, geography, culture, economic status, diversity, history)

xxxxxxxxxxx Australia
firearm death rates:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html

3.5 per 100 gun ownership

1/100,000 population firearm death rate

xxxxxxxxxxx USA

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

32 per 100 gun ownership

Firearm violence rate

10+/100,000 population firearm death rate

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/annual-gun-violence-data

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Conclusion

more firearm access, more firearm death

Still no response from @jaeger19 , @JMB1911A1, @CLAX1911, or @RF667799 ???
 
You can't defend that number, you were queried before.

As the country reels from a pair of devastating mass shootings, the gun lobby has doubled down on the notion that “a good guy with a gun” is the only thing that can stop “a bad guy with a gun.” That maxim is central to the National Rifle Association’s decades-long mission to relax gun laws and increase gun sales. Right-leaning media outlets have amplified that message in recent years by reporting that instances of self-defense by law-abiding owners actually outnumber gun crimes. How Often Are Guns Used for Self-Defense?
Posting the same propaganda over and over from The Trace (a wholly Michael Bloomberg funded anti-civil right gun control organization) doesn’t make any more true.
 
Still no response from @jaeger19 , @JMB1911A1, @CLAX1911, or @RF667799 ???
Sorry, I don’t spend my day on DP correcting lies.
The logical argument:
Compare the USA to Australia (similar language, geography, culture, economic status, diversity, history)

xxxxxxxxxxx Australia
firearm death rates:
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opin...es-revealed-25-years-on-from-port-arthur.html

3.5 per 100 gun ownership

1/100,000 population firearm death rate


xxxxxxxxxxx USA

https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

32 per 100 gun ownership

Firearm violence rate

10+/100,000 population firearm death rate

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutions/annual-gun-violence-data

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Conclusion

more firearm access, more firearm death
Since your “argument” starts from a position of falsehood (US and Australia are similar), all that follows is bullshit. No argument needed.
 
Back
Top Bottom