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

[Spock]

You asked what a hunter needs an "assault weapon" for. I gave you an answer. Getting rid of feral hogs is still considered hunting, even if it is to eradicate an invasive species, and not to harvest.

You are confusing "want" with "need" and are demonstrating that there is no need for an assault weapon even for feral hogs.

 

[RF667799]

You are confusing "want" with "need" and are demonstrating that there is no need for an assault weapon even for feral hogs.

Define "need" as you are using it, or quit the equivocating babble about it.

 

[Spock]

Define "need" as you are using it, or quit the equivocating babble about it.

Check a dictionary, if you know how to use it.

 

[RF667799]

Check a dictionary, if you know how to use it.

There is more than one definition.

Refusal to define your terms indicates equivocation.

 

[Maidenrules29]

I assumed, apparently wrongly, that you were interested in learning.

I don't need to. I lived in CA for 39 years and recently moved to America. I am very familiar with all of their unconstitutional firearms laws and regulations thanks.

 

[Maidenrules29]

You are confusing "want" with "need" and are demonstrating that there is no need for an assault weapon even for feral hogs.

Nah, my brother definitely needed to rid his ranch of feral hogs. And the AR-15 or even a Mini-14 is the perfect rifle to make that happen.

 

[Spock]

Nah, my brother definitely needed to rid his ranch of feral hogs. And the AR-15 or even a Mini-14 is the perfect rifle to make that happen.

Again. Stating something is a "need" does not distinguish it from a want.

 

[Spock]

I don't need to. I lived in CA for 39 years and recently moved to America. I am very familiar with all of their unconstitutional firearms laws and regulations thanks.

Smart! You left the 4th largest economy in the world and moved to Puckerbrush, Id.

It is unlikely that Gavin Newsome is going to miss your Christmas card.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Smart! You left the 4th largest economy in the world and moved to Puckerbrush, Id.

It is unlikely that Gavin Newsome is going to miss your Christmas card.

 

[RF667799]

Again. Stating something is a "need" does not distinguish it from a want.

So define your terms.

 

[CLAX1911]

Again. Stating something is a "need" does not distinguish it from a want.

It's definitely not a want you need to clear Cheryl hugs from property if you didn't you wouldn't have any food.

 

[Spock]

So define your terms.

Use the dictionary. You can solve this issue by yourself, if you are smarter than a 3 grader.

 

[CLAX1911]

Use the dictionary. You can solve this issue by yourself, if you are smarter than a 3 grader.

The common definition suggests need is a requirement. If you're going to destroy feral hogs you need an implement to destroy them.

Since you're trying to use some esoteric meaning it is your burden to determine what you mean when using them.

Your exception for the term need was misplaced if we go by the dictionary.

 

[Spock]

The common definition suggests need is a requirement. If you're going to destroy feral hogs you need an implement to destroy them.

Since you're trying to use some esoteric meaning it is your burden to determine what you mean when using them.

Your exception for the term need was misplaced if we go by the dictionary.

Why would an assault weapon be a requirement when lots of other weapons can deliver a similar projectile with equivalent kinetic energy?

 

[rahl]

You are confusing "want" with "need" and are demonstrating that there is no need for an assault weapon even for feral hogs.

You are confusing the fact that you don’t get a say in what anyone needs, with your delusion that you do. Nobody cares what you think they need. Your opinion is completely meaningless.

 

[rahl]

Again. Stating something is a "need" does not distinguish it from a want.

Again, nobody gives a shit what you think they need. You get exactly zero say in the matter.

 

[CLAX1911]

Why would an assault weapon

who's being assaulted?

 

[rahl]

Why would an assault weapon be a requirement when lots of other weapons can deliver a similar projectile with equivalent kinetic energy?

Why do you think your opinion of what anyone needs is in any way relevant? Your opinion on what anyone needs is utterly meaningless. You don’t get a say.

 

[RF667799]

Use the dictionary. You can solve this issue by yourself, if you are smarter than a 3 grader.

There's more than one definition. You refuse to say which one you are using, and I absolutely detest equivocation. So I won't allow you to do it.

Your statement is rejected on the basis of undefined terms.

 

[CLAX1911]

There's more than one definition. You refuse to say which one you are using, and I absolutely detest equivocation. So I won't allow you to do it.

Your statement is rejected on the basis of undefined terms.

Well the way you use the word that you need a weapon to control wild animals is the correct usage.

His claim about assaulting someone with it whatever that is that's not relevant. It's not an assault weapon it's a wildlife control weapon that's how it's being used.

 

[RF667799]

Well the way you use the word that you need a weapon to control wild animals is the correct usage.

I say he is equivocating between two uses of the term or leaving the door open to such equivocation, and that is why he doesn't want to define the term. It's the same with @Rich2018 and his use of the term "can".

His claim about assaulting someone with it whatever that is that's not relevant. It's not an assault weapon it's a wildlife control weapon that's how it's being used.

What they call "assault weapons" are hardly ever used to assault anyone. Modern sporting rifle works fine for me as a descriptive.

 

[Spock]

There's more than one definition. You refuse to say which one you are using, and I absolutely detest equivocation. So I won't allow you to do it.

Your statement is rejected on the basis of undefined terms.

Your failure to comprehend is rejected as a failure to try.
No civilian "needs" an assault weapon for anything except self-indulgence, fantasy, and ego gratification.

 

[RF667799]

Your failure to comprehend is rejected as a failure to try.
No civilian "needs" an assault weapon for anything except self-indulgence, fantasy, and ego gratification.

You're afraid to define "need" as you're using it, because you know I have you cornered for equivocation.

 

[CLAX1911]

No civilian "needs" an assault weapon for anything except self-indulgence, fantasy, and ego gratification.

The right to keep it bear arms is it based on need.

Now we can restrict certain arms for example shot off shotguns. The argument can be made that there's no legal use for those, for the predominant uses illegal.

So you have to prove that all 20 million owners of these sorts of firearms do illegal things with them in order to suspend the right to own them.

Just saying someone commits assault with them it's not good enough someone can commit softball to the car or a knife but you can own those things.

 

[jaeger19]

As I have frequently posted, a firearm in a household under ANY circumstances represents a risk factor for death and injuy.

Bingo. Yet you claim that all firearms in a household should not be counted as prevalence for that risk.
Can you explain your disconnect here?

Locked and inaccessible to unauthorized persons with ammo kept separately locked would be a commonly understood scenario.

Bingo. Now are you going to claim that the vast majority of gun owners that have multiple guns have that scenario?
Again it seems you haven’t thought your pretense premise through.

Typically people use one firearm at a time.

Sure. But multiple firearms means access to multiple people.

No assumption at all.

See below

It is a spectrum of risk. Only you would consider locked secure storage (with ammo separately locked) to be equivalent to leaving a loaded firearm for children to find.

Yet it’s still risk according to you and you are dismissing these firearms not to mention ignoring the fact that certainly most firearms are not locked away with ammunition stored separately and locked .

By your thinking that every firearm is an equal risk, you would have to include all unsold weapons in a gun store

Well yes. Why not? Is that not say access for someone who is suicidal to buy one? Or a mass shooter?
The uvalde shooter bought two at 15 platform rifles from a dealer .
Like I said, you haven’t thought your position through logically .

and firearms in the military armories as part of the firearm burden in a community.

Again, does this not represent access that a military person or say a militia group etc be able to get their hands on.

“In the first public accounting of its kind in decades, an Associated Press investigation has found that at least 1,900 U.S. military firearms were lost or stolen during the 2010s, with some resurfacing in violent crimes. Because some armed services have suppressed the release of basic information, AP’s total is a certain undercount.

Government records covering the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force show pistols, machine guns, shotguns and automatic assault rifles have vanished from armories, supply warehouses, Navy warships, firing ranges and other places where they were used, stored or transported.“

AP: Some stolen US military guns used in violent crimes — AP Special Projects

www.apspecialprojects.com