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

[Spock]

That's up to the person making a claim he purports to be true.

I have provided the evidence. You claim the evidence is wrong.
Prove your claim.

 

[RF667799]

I have provided the evidence. You claim the evidence is wrong.
Prove your claim.

The only evidence you've provided is your own admission that your claim is not universally true.

 

[aociswundumho]

Clearly you are baffled by the simple fact that Australia with a smaller fraction of the population with firearms has fewer firearm deaths that the USA with a larger fraction of the population with firearms. 10X death rate with 10X the firearm ownership.
It could not be simpler.

Simple and dumb. A country with 10x more swimming pools will have more drownings - that's not an argument to ban pools. More of something risky doesn’t justify prohibition.

 

[CLAX1911]

Fewer firearm owners = less death by firearm

False.

 

[Spock]

Simple and dumb. A country with 10x more swimming pools will have more drownings - that's not an argument to ban pools. More of something risky doesn’t justify prohibition.

The fundamental fact that firearm prevalence is associated with firearm death and injury is a concept that gun fanatics cannot accept.
The USA has exceptional firearm violence compared to similar countries simply because there are too many firearms in too many hands.

 

[Spock]

The only evidence you've provided is your own admission that your claim is not universally true.

So you cannot support your opposition to my statements about Australia and the USA.
You have demonstrated that you have no argument, no capacity to debate, and no factual resources to support your opinions.

 

[RF667799]

So you cannot support your opposition to my statements about Australia and the USA.
You have demonstrated that you have no argument, no capacity to debate, and no factual resources to support your opinions.

It's up to you to support your statements. So far, what we have from you is an admission that they aren't universally true.

Given that, we can just sit back and watch you flounder about.

 

[aociswundumho]

The fundamental fact that firearm prevalence is associated with firearm death and injury is a concept that gun fanatics cannot accept.

Association is not causation. Yes, more guns can correlate with more gun deaths, just like more cars correlate with more car crashes. But that doesn’t mean cars (or guns) are the problem. The real question is who is committing the violence and why.

If gun ownership alone caused violence, rural areas with high gun ownership would be the most dangerous - yet they are not. The US has more guns than people, yet our intentional homicide rate is right about equal with the world rate:




It’s not about the number of guns; it’s about behavior and culture.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

This thread is a waste of time. Authoritarian governments/tyranny love gun control. Politicalized police departments will take your guns away for your own safety. The politicalized DOJ will arrest those that would fight for gun rights. MAGA thinks it will happen only to the left. Every example of authoritarian rule shows there are no rights for the people. MAGA should be afraid of long knives.

 

[Spock]

Association is not causation. Yes, more guns can correlate with more gun deaths, just like more cars correlate with more car crashes. But that doesn’t mean cars (or guns) are the problem. The real question is who is committing the violence and why.

Causation requires association. You agree that guns are associated with more gun deaths. Then you try to change the narrative. Bad dog!
The issue is gun deaths from ANY cause, not just homicide.

If gun ownership alone caused violence, rural areas with high gun ownership would be the most dangerous - yet they are not. The US has more guns than people, yet our intentional homicide rate is right about equal with the world rate:

View attachment 67576078


It’s not about the number of guns; it’s about behavior and culture.

Without guns the behavior result is different.

 

[Spock]

It's up to you to support your statements. So far, what we have from you is an admission that they aren't universally true.

Given that, we can just sit back and watch you flounder about.

Useless evasion by you.

 

[aociswundumho]

Without guns the behavior result is different.

No, it isn't. Honduras and Jamaica have extremely high murder rates with low gun ownership rates. Meanwhile Montana and Wyoming have extremely high gun ownership rates along with low murder rates.

 

[Spock]

No, it isn't. Honduras and Jamaica have extremely high murder rates with low gun ownership rates. Meanwhile Montana and Wyoming have extremely high gun ownership rates along with low murder rates.

Do you really think that if criminals have guns vs no guns that the result of criminal behavior is the same?
You do understand that the major weapon of homicide in the USA is a firearm?
If firearms gave no advantage, why would they be the preferred weapon?

 

[jaeger19]

You are confused, presumably because you are only considering homicide as a social problem caused by firearms.
There is imperfection in measures of firearm ownership, but broadly it relates to a measure of prevalence.
I would prefer some measure of firearms-in-hands or unlocked, accessible firearms as a measure of prevalence. but those numbers are fuzzy.
During hunting season, firearm mortality increases and that is illustrative of the impact of active firearm use.

Furthermore, minor variations in firearm ownership prevalence will not map precisely to firearm violence but will relate adequately.
In inner cities, prevalence is especially difficult to measure because the sub rosa use is essentially impossible to determine.

Pooh. Focus.
I used households with a firearm as prevalence with Idaho and New York state and suddenly it was not valid.

Then you use the same type of data with Australia and us and suddenly it is valid.

Your bs is just to funny.

 

[jaeger19]

Do you really think that if criminals have guns vs no guns that the result of criminal behavior is the same?

Well yes.

You do understand that the major weapon of homicide in the USA is a firearm?

So?

If firearms gave no advantage, why would they be the preferred weapon?

Why do you operate under the delusion that firearms are the only deadly weapon and that someone who wants to murder or hurt won’t simply find another method?

 

[jaeger19]

Preposterous claim there are no other countries more similar to the US than Australia and Canada.

Canada is much more similar to the us than Australia.
And even Canada differs greatly from its history, its medical systems. Political system etc.

 

[Spock]

Pooh. Focus.
I used households with a firearm as prevalence with Idaho and New York state and suddenly it was not valid.\

Try again. Idaho and New York likely differ in the amount of gang violence and firearms in criminal hands will not be captured by household comparison. On the surface, you are comparing dissimilar states economically and socially. However. show your work and explain why the rates of gun violence do not correlate with firearms.

Then you use the same type of data with Australia and us and suddenly it is valid.

I stand by the association between firearm access and firearm violence when other factors are controlled.

Your bs is just to funny.

I find your bs to be more pathetic than funny.

 

[Spock]

Canada is much more similar to the us than Australia.
And even Canada differs greatly from its history, its medical systems. Political system etc.

Canada offers some hope for the USA through better firearm regulation.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Canada offers some hope for the USA through better firearm regulation.

Rejected. Canadians are subjects, not citizens. You are feel free to move (assuming you would qualify to immigrate since they enforce immigration laws in Canada).

 

[Spock]

Rejected. Canadians are subjects, not citizens. You are feel free to move (assuming you would qualify to immigrate since they enforce immigration laws in Canada).

So you agree that firearm violence can be reduced in the USA by more intense regulation...

 

[JMB1911A1]

So you agree that firearm violence can be reduced in the USA by more intense regulation...

Nope. Never said that. But keep lying about what people post. It is a good look for you.

 

[Spock]

Nope. Never said that. But keep lying about what people post. It is a good look for you.

You oppose the regulation in Canada. Therefore you must recognize the benefit it provides to reducing firearm violence.

 

[JMB1911A1]

You oppose the regulation in Canada. Therefore you must recognize the benefit it provides to reducing firearm violence.

No, it does not provide any benefit. Canada is not similar to the U.S. and the c difference in crime rates is not due to gun control in Canada.

 

[Spock]

No, it does not provide any benefit. Canada is not similar to the U.S. and the c difference in crime rates is not due to gun control in Canada.

Firstly, the problem with guns is not entirely crime
Secondly, the household firearm access in Canada (26%) approximates the US (40%) with similar culture, geography, diversity, standard of living, language, ethnicity, history, etc.
Thirdly, the lower firearm violence in Canada compared to the US must relate to the regulation of firearms.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Firstly, the problem with guns is not entirely crime
Secondly, the household firearm access in Canada (26%) approximates the US (40%)

30% less is not a good approximation.

with similar culture,

Nope

geography,

I’ll give you that one.

diversity,

Not even close.

standard of living,

Lower in CA

language,

Nope

ethnicity,

Not even close. The group that commits the majority of crime in the U.S. is barely represented in Canada.

history,

Other than that whole Revolution thing and rejection of the monarchy.

etc.
Thirdly, the lower firearm violence in Canada compared to the US must relate to the regulation of firearms.

Now you are just clutching at straws.