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.
Ok. So you don't understand prevalence whatsoever.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 .
Hypothetical nonsense is the worst kind of strawman nonsense.So?
No they aren’t . They illustrate your failure to understand the issue is intent vs a firearm.
Not at all . Logic which you cant refute.
Hardly. I do not have the necessary fear and anger that appears to be necessary to carry a firearm in public.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!!??!!
Think about it and explain your confusion.How can the bold be valid when you earlier said that firearms in storage don't count towards prevalence?
Clearly you do not understand the prevalence equivalence of 10 firearms vs 1 firearm in a household.Your argument is rejected on the basis of incoherence.
Explain "prevalence" in the context of public health and disease. Perhaps I can correct your misconceptions if I understand your confusion.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.
Think about it and explain your confusion.
Clearly you do not understand the prevalence equivalence of 10 firearms vs 1 firearm in a household.
Explain "prevalence" in the context of public health and disease. Perhaps I can correct your misconceptions if I understand your confusion.
The firearm is the agent of injury like a virus, swimming pool, bicycle or icy sidewalk.We aren't talking about disease. The confusion seems to be yours. Nothing in your list of Gun Control Industry talking points that gives advice on how to proceed beyond assertion?
You have not done your homework and are not ready to learn.Why don't you explain this phenomenon you have such difficulty asserting coherently?
The firearm is the agent of injury like a virus, swimming pool, bicycle or icy sidewalk.
Understand the prevalence of that condition is central to understanding firearm death and injury.
Explain how firearms are like a virus.The firearm is the agent of injury like a virus, swimming pool, bicycle or icy sidewalk.
You keep saying this debunked thing it was debunked. Do you not know what that means?Understand the prevalence of that condition is central to understanding firearm death and injury.
I was laughing when I read that.You say firearm prevalence can't be determined. Meanwhile, we know there are more than 100 million people with access to firearms who come to no harm, compared to a relative few that do.
Neither virus nor gun is a disease. Homicides, suicides, and accidents are different things.
Your struggle is just very sad.You say firearm prevalence can't be determined. Meanwhile, we know there are more than 100 million people with access to firearms who come to no harm, compared to a relative few that do.
Neither virus nor gun is a disease. Homicides, suicides, and accidents are different things.
The firearm is the agent of injury like a virus, swimming pool, bicycle or icy sidewalk.
Understand the prevalence of that condition is central to understanding firearm death and injury.
When was the last time you misplaced your cell phone or wallet?day 94 of my new gun being in my house
so far, its done nothing but stay exactly where I put it ................
I suppose a person COULD use a virus to kill others, a swimming pool to kill others, a bicycle to kill others .... I don't think someone could use an icy sidewalk to kill others other than smashing their heads into it maybe ?
Core problem - the person using any of those things to kill someone.
Right ?
When was the last time you misplaced your cell phone or wallet?
Your struggle is just very sad.
and you think everyone with guns never misplaces them, endangering children and bystanders and promoting theft?occasionally
I do not misplace a virus, a swimming pool, an icy sidewalk, my bicycle or my guns
especially my guns - I've never, ever said " well damn, where did my 629 or Ruger go off to ??? "
You have had multiple opportunities to learn but never invested the slightest effort toward that end.You're obviously out of substantive response (like you ever had any), and are reduced to simplistic attempts to insult. A sure sign you failed and know you failed. The Gun Control Industry certainly doesn't get much for their money with you, and that's a good thing.
You have had multiple opportunities to learn but never invested the slightest effort toward that end.
and you think everyone with guns never misplaces them, endangering children and bystanders and promoting theft?
I do. You apparently don’t. You claim there is “ varying risk” so you arbitrarily dismiss firearms that in your mind constitute “ less risk”Ok. So you don't understand prevalence whatsoever.
Except that hypothetical illustrates real world conditions that you fail to consider.Hypothetical nonsense is the worst kind of strawman nonsense.
Well there again is a falsehood.Hardly. I do not have the necessary fear and anger that appears to be necessary to carry a firearm in public.
You are not invested in discussion because you fail to contribute any intellectual effort.Wouldn't you rather talk about gun control than deflect away from your failure by talking about me?
Ok. You do not understand the elements necessary for firearm violence and think that a firearm is irrelevant.a gun laying on the ground endangers nobody
no more so than a knife laying on the ground or a hammer or a baseball bat etc
now if someone picked up any of those items and wanted to use them as a weapon? sure - they could but its NOT the object is it? it the person wanting to hurt someone else right ?
Let me put it this way-- do you think the prevalence of influenza should include influenza in a lab or in dead, buried patients?I do. You apparently don’t. You claim there is “ varying risk” so you arbitrarily dismiss firearms that in your mind constitute “ less risk”
Why? Why should they be dismissed?
You have no answer.
Those firearm become prevalent when they leave storage.And you fail to consider that in points in time a firearm may go from “ safe storage” to being used.
Adam Lanzas mother stored her firearms in a locked safe.
The parkland and uvalde shooters obtained firearms from the “ safe storage” of a licensed gun dealer.
You presumption that every firearm everywhere contributes equally to firearm violence risk demonstrates you need for simplistic generalization.Your premise surrounding “ prevalence “ simply doesn’t work logically.
Your meaningless attempt to skew the discussion is recognized as bogus.Except that hypothetical illustrates real world conditions that you fail to consider.
You fail to recognize that civilian legal firearms produced the criminal firearm problem and you fail to recognize alternative responses to threat because you are chronically and deeply afraid.Well there again is a falsehood.
On one hand you say there is no need to carry a firearm for protection.
Then in the next breath you exclaim how violent the us is because of firearms.
Too many firearms in the USA should address all your concerns for an explanation.So which is it?
If you aren’t afraid to go out because of violent crime
( remember your angst over most murders involve a firearm)
Then why are you worried about people owning firearms.?v -.
Look to Canada for the answer if you are really interested.Can you see your intellectual disconnect here?
The rest of this can see it.
Millions of guns and millions of gun owners and you feel perfectly safe.
What’s the problem?
You're the one trying to say guns are a disease.Your struggle is just very sad.
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?