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

[rahl]

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 are still suffering under the delusion that you get a say in what anyone else needs. Where does this stupidity originate?

 

[Spock]

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?

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.

Sure. But multiple firearms means access to multiple people.


See below

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 .

All risk is not equal. Is that so hard to understand. I am willing to stipulate that properly secured firearms are less risky that concealed carry, those in use for hunting or target practice, or guns left around for adolescents and children to access.

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 .

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

If you are arguing that all firearms should be eliminated, I agree.
Otherwise, what is your point? Do you consider firearms in locked storage to be just as much a threat to safety as a loaded handgun in the glove box of an unlocked car? If you do, fine. That sort of reasoning justifies eliminating all civilian or military firearms.

 

[CLAX1911]

All risk is not equal. Is that so hard to understand.

It's my choice what risk I take on.

I am willing to stipulate that properly secured firearms are less risky that concealed carry, those in use for hunting or target practice, or guns left around for adolescents and children to access.

With the 100 million or so households that own firearms it seems the actual risk of this is extraordinarily low.

If you are arguing that all firearms should be eliminated, I agree.

Why not argue that should have a leprechaun?

Otherwise, what is your point? Do you consider firearms in locked storage to be just as much a threat to safety as a loaded handgun in the glove box of an unlocked car?

if you leave your gun somewhere you should unload it

If you do, fine. That sort of reasoning justifies eliminating all civilian or military firearms.

A thing you cannot do.

 

[Maidenrules29]

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.

Yeah I'm done with him. I refuse to feed unreasonable people with real knowledge.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yeah I'm done with him. I refuse to feed unreasonable people with real knowledge.

It's not about him I don't think he'll ever be convinced. It's about learning how to argue against his view.

 

[jaeger19]

All risk is not equal. Is that so hard to understand. I am willing to stipulate that properly secured firearms are less risky that concealed carry, those in use for hunting or target practice, or guns left around for adolescents and children to access.

Okay, but you are still dismissing the risk that does exist. And those used in concealed carry , hunting , and target practice and even those “ left around” all likely spend some time being “ properly secured”

If you are arguing that all firearms should be eliminated, I agree.

Nope and you know I am not.

Otherwise, what is your point? Do you consider firearms in locked storage to be just as much a threat to safety as a loaded handgun in the glove box of an unlocked car?

Well since that same firearm spent part of the day in that locked storage and part of the day
How do you reconcile that in counting that firearm in prevalence.

See I don’t see the firearm as the risk.
The risk comes from the people around that firearm and their abilities and intent.

If you do, fine. That sort of reasoning justifies eliminating all civilian or military firearms.

Not at all.
See above.
I don’t fear the national guard with a fully automatic rifle who doesn’t want to kill me.
I have to fear the neighbor with a rock who doesn’t want to kill me.

In your logic a firearm represents more risk to you than a knife.
So we should disarm our military and policeman etc.
Because they are more of a threat than the man with the knife that wants to murder you.

 

[Spock]

Okay, but you are still dismissing the risk that does exist. And those used in concealed carry , hunting , and target practice and even those “ left around” all likely spend some time being “ properly secured”

Nope and you know I am not.

Well since that same firearm spent part of the day in that locked storage and part of the day
How do you reconcile that in counting that firearm in prevalence.

Now you are beginning to understand the difficulty measuring prevalence. It has taken you months to come to that realization.

See I don’t see the firearm as the risk.
The risk comes from the people around that firearm and their abilities and intent.

Firearm is an essential part of the equation.

Not at all.
See above.
I don’t fear the national guard with a fully automatic rifle who doesn’t want to kill me.
I have to fear the neighbor with a rock who doesn’t want to kill me.

Once again, your hypotheticals and personal problems are irrelevant.

In your logic a firearm represents more risk to you than a knife.
So we should disarm our military and policeman etc.

Strawman hyperbole.

Because they are more of a threat than the man with the knife that wants to murder you.

You just don't get it, do you?
This is not about your fears and fantasies.

 

[RF667799]

Now you are beginning to understand the difficulty measuring prevalence. It has taken you months to come to that realization.

We've watched you proselytize for months about firearm prevalence, only to watch you claim it can’t be determined when it becomes inconvenient to your rambling gas.

Firearm is an essential part of the equation.

Once again, your hypotheticals and personal problems are irrelevant.

Strawman hyperbole.

You just don't get it, do you?
This is not about your fears and fantasies.

 

[Spock]

We've watched you proselytize for months about firearm prevalence, only to watch you claim it can’t be determined when it becomes inconvenient to your rambling gas.

You have failed to understand the concept and, likely, never will.
Why would a gun in a gun shop or at a gunsmith be part of a prevalence calculation?
Why would a gun in storage never used for decades reflect prevalence?
You do not understand the concept of prevalence and refuse to learn.

 

[CLAX1911]

You have failed to understand the concept and, likely, never will.

Probably because it's dissonance.

Why would a gun in a gun shop or at a gunsmith be part of a prevalence calculation?
Why would a gun in storage never used for decades reflect prevalence?
You do not understand the concept of prevalence and refuse to learn.

Because it's dissonance

 

[RF667799]

You have failed to understand the concept and, likely, never will.
Why would a gun in a gun shop or at a gunsmith be part of a prevalence calculation?
Why would a gun in storage never used for decades reflect prevalence?
You do not understand the concept of prevalence and refuse to learn.

Meh. At other times, you argue the mere existence of guns is a risk.

Argument rejected on the basis of being incoherent.

 

[CLAX1911]

Meh. At other times, you argue the mere existence of guns is a risk.

Imagine this neuroticism in real life. If he sees a gun sitting on the table he's in the fear of it like he would be a crocodile.

Argument rejected on the basis of being incoherent.

Indeed

 

[Spock]

Meh. At other times, you argue the mere existence of guns is a risk.

Argument rejected on the basis of being incoherent.

Learn about prevalence in relation to disease promotion before you make any further comments that demonstrate ignorance.

 

[CLAX1911]

Learn about prevalence in relation to disease promotion before you make any further comments that demonstrate ignorance.

So now guns are viruses?

 

[RF667799]

Learn about prevalence in relation to disease promotion before you make any further comments that demonstrate ignorance.

Goalpost move into irrelevancy. Admonition rejected on that basis.

 

[Spock]

Goalpost move into irrelevancy. Admonition rejected on that basis.

Firearm prevalence as the agent of injury has always demanded determination of accessible firearms (often approximated merely by households with firearms) and "total" firearms has always been a crudely incorrect approximation. This has all be explained to you repeatedly.

 

[RF667799]

Firearm prevalence as the agent of injury has always demanded determination of accessible firearms (often approximated merely by households with firearms) and "total" firearms has always been a crudely incorrect approximation. This has all be explained to you repeatedly.

So tell us how you determine firearm prevalence, given it is so important to what might be loosely characterized as your arguments.

 

[Spock]

So tell us how you determine firearm prevalence, given it is so important to what might be loosely characterized as your arguments.

Trolling is unbecoming and tiresome. All this has been explained, repeatedly.

 

[CLAX1911]

Trolling is unbecoming and tiresome. All this has been explained, repeatedly.

Poorly you explained it poorly. Explain it better don't accuse other people of trolling because you're incompetent.

 

[rahl]

Now you are beginning to understand the difficulty measuring prevalence. It has taken you months to come to that realization.

So you understand your continued reliance on “prevalence” as an argument is retarded then?

Firearm is an essential part of the equation.

No they aren’t.

Once again, your hypotheticals and personal problems are irrelevant.

Strawman hyperbole.

You just don't get it, do you?
This is not about your fears and fantasies.

 

[rahl]

You have failed to understand the concept and, likely, never will.
Why would a gun in a gun shop or at a gunsmith be part of a prevalence calculation?
Why would a gun in storage never used for decades reflect prevalence?
You do not understand the concept of prevalence and refuse to learn.

Then articulate it. Show us the precedence per state, city then household, and then demonstrate the causal factor.

 

[rahl]

Learn about prevalence in relation to disease promotion before you make any further comments that demonstrate ignorance.

Disease has nothing to do with firearms. You can’t demonstrate “precedence” in any way what so ever. So why do you persist with the completely retarded assertions that have been consistently curb stomped?

 

[rahl]

Firearm prevalence as the agent of injury has always demanded determination of accessible firearms (often approximated merely by households with firearms) and "total" firearms has always been a crudely incorrect approximation. This has all be explained to you repeatedly.

Then demonstrate the preference broken down by state, city and household and show the causal factor in relation.

 

[jaeger19]

Now you are beginning to understand the difficulty measuring prevalence. It has taken you months to come to that realization.

Oh no difficulty at all, that the point Gun sales for example would be a great and valid way to measure prevalence. Gun sales capture the number of guns available for crimes, suicides and accidents .

Firearm is an essential part of the equation.

So?

Once again, your hypotheticals and personal problems are irrelevant.

No they aren’t . They illustrate your failure to understand the issue is intent vs a firearm.

Strawman hyperbole.

Not at all . Logic which you cant refute.

You just don't get it, do you?
This is not about your fears and fantasies.

I get that. It’s about YOUR FEARS AND FANTASIES!!
You illustrate this nicely with your latest irrational statement . That for every 1 responsible gun owner , twelve are out murdering, committing suicides or having accidents

All your posts are simply your fears and fantasies!!!
As we have all shown, they are not based on reality.
Cripes you’ve been arguing that mental health treatment for someone struggling won’t prevent suicide but taking a firearm from someone who isn’t suicidal will!!??!!

 

[RF667799]

Trolling is unbecoming and tiresome. All this has been explained, repeatedly.

I can understand how embarrassing it might be to admit that you so often try to argue on the basis of a quantitative value you can't define.