Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments... (3 Viewers)

[Rich2018]

The best evidence does not show that.

Nope, the best evidence shows quite the reverse
Gun control has worked everywhere where it's been tried country-wide.

When do you plan on banning motorcycles?

Because they're designed to kill ?

 

[CLAX1911]

Firearms are not the optimum or even desirable method of defense for everyone.

So why would the military in the police carry them?

Secondsly, because firearm access has produced the firearm violence problem, duh!

No it hasn't. If firearms weren't available people would just to be violent with something else just like they have all throughout human history

 

[Rich2018]

So why would the military in the police carry them?

Need mostly

And it's rather sad that US police need to carry firearms.

 

[jaeger19]

I have no idea what you are referring to.
More rambling unsubstantiated drivel.
Sorry for your confusion.
Firearms are efficient at injuring or killing. Their fundamental purpose is to penetrate flesh and bone with a projectile.
Hence, they are the weapon of choice for murder and access to them makes murder more easy to accomplish.
Those fundamental facts seem to elude you.

Nope. Those facts don’t allude me.
You need to stop lying.
I have fully and completely admitted that a firearm is necessary for “ firearm violence”
Just like a bicycle is necessary for a bike accident,

You can’t seem to understand the simple fact that firearms do not CAUSE a person to be violent.
And that without a firearm, someone who wants to be violent will simply use another tool.

For example new state has lower gun crime.
But a higher murder rate than Idaho.

 

[jaeger19]

Your benefits are subjective, personal and unquantifiable. The risks are quite obvious and therefore the risks outweigh whatever benefits you have concocted from your misrepresented data.

Nope. I already quantified them for society. Firearms represent a huge economic driver for society from hunting , manufacture, and competition and recreational shooting.
They are necessary for controlling animal populations which reduces the economic impact cost on agriculture and the accident cost to car/animal collisions
I provided scientific evidence that shooting sports improves societal cohesion, etc
And as the cdc noted from 500,000 to 3.5 million self defense uses occur yearly compared to much lower misuse.

 

[jaeger19]

Nope, the best evidence shows quite the reverse
Gun control has worked everywhere where it's been tried country-wide.

Why isn’t Mexico a leader in non violence ?
It has draconian gun control .

Because they're designed to kill ?

Um no rich . Because you stated this
rich2018:The high rate of death/serious injury suffered by people riding motor cycles, is indeed a social cost.

so when do you plan on banning motorcycles rich??
Or do you find the high rate of death/serious injury on motorcycles acceptable?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Explain what tool can produce immediate death and injury equivalent to firearms.

I'll bet those 130,000 mass murdered in the aforementioned event would have liked an immediate death.

Back when your dream was a reality, very often death was lingering and excruciating.

Hyperbole is the last refuge of the intellectually bereft.

The irony is beyond the pale.

The dream of a defenseless population, easily preyed upon is not the dream for good men.

And of course, disarming the public is highly illogical.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope, the best evidence shows quite the reverse
Gun control has worked everywhere where it's been tried country-wide.

Right, Chicago is a model for the nation....

Because they're designed to kill ?

Which keeps millions alive who would otherwise be victims.

But then, that's why the left objects...

 

[CLAX1911]

I'll bet those 130,000 mass murdered in the aforementioned event would have liked an immediate death.

Back when your dream was a reality, very often death was lingering and excruciating.

He's making the most immature argument for his position.

Essentially it's sometimes people do bad things so therefore ban an object that they often use in doing these bad things.

That's like if you had two children and one of them was hitting the other with sticks and you been sticks instead of punishing the child for hitting somebody.

The stick is the problem not the behavior. The reason why people are alcoholics is because of alcohol the reason why people are drug addicts is because of drugs it's not because of them despite the fact that most people aren't.

It really is poor logic

The irony is beyond the pale.

The dream of a defenseless population, easily preyed upon is not the dream for good men.

And of course, disarming the public is highly illogical.

Well the dream is really just a dream and should stay there. Reality is guns are already here they're always going to be made until something more efficient comes along. And if you make them illegal only outlaws will have them.

 

[CLAX1911]

Right, Chicago is a model for the nation....

Will you have to be very precise in asking how this is affected and he's going to say fewer people are killed with firearms in certain places. This isn't the flex he thinks it is. Fewer people being killed with firearms typically results in more people being assaulted attacked and killed through other means.

A way to look at it is in the 1200s I'm sure they were a lot more people killed with swords then there are today.

One of the things he likes to use his an example is the UK. The UK has a much higher property crime rate. If there was a threat of getting shot maybe that wouldn't be the case.

Which keeps millions alive who would otherwise be victims.

But then, that's why the left objects...

I'm more bothered by the dishonest argument tactics of these people than their misguided viewpoint

 

[Uncensored2008]

So. you have fabricated a mythology about the anti-tyrant effect of firearms.

Historical fact is not fabricated.

You have forgotten that civilian firearms are more often used for crime, accidental death, suicide, and vigilantism.

You have forgotten that civilian firearms are what liberated and established this nation. You forget that King George outlawed the possession and ownership of firearms - just as the radical left does today. An armed populace cannot be ruled.

Oh, spare use the histrionics. You are demonstrating only NRA propaganda victimization.

Tyrants from the days of Egyptian Pharos, to Genghis Khan, to Edward I "Longshanks", to Hitler,Stalin, and Mao all disarmed the populace. It is the first step in subjugation. No mass disarming in history has ever failed to lead to tyranny - as the poor sots in the Caliphate of England are presently learning.

 

[CLAX1911]

Historical fact is not fabricated.

We are seeing it happen in front of our eyes. In the UK people are being arrested and fine for things they say and even things that they think. That is tyrannical.

You have forgotten that civilian firearms are what liberated and established this nation. You forget that King George outlawed the possession and ownership of firearms - just as the radical left does today. An armed populace cannot be ruled.

That's precisely the problem gun control isn't about guns it's about control.

Tyrants from the days of Egyptian Pharos, to Genghis Khan, to Edward I "Longshanks", to Hitler,Stalin, and Mao all disarmed the populace. It is the first step in subjugation. No mass disarming in history has ever failed to lead to tyranny - as the poor sots in the Caliphate of England are presently learning.

Worse than that they convince the population to be disarmed because it was for their safety.

 

[Spock]

Why do you think owning guns causes this?

Really? Is that a serious question?

 

[Spock]

Historical fact is not fabricated.

Actually history is frequently misunderstood.

You have forgotten that civilian firearms are what liberated and established this nation. You forget that King George outlawed the possession and ownership of firearms - just as the radical left does today. An armed populace cannot be ruled.

No random group of colonists liberated the colonies. They were an organized militia.

Tyrants from the days of Egyptian Pharos, to Genghis Khan, to Edward I "Longshanks", to Hitler,Stalin, and Mao all disarmed the populace. It is the first step in subjugation. No mass disarming in history has ever failed to lead to tyranny - as the poor sots in the Caliphate of England are presently learning.

You are indulgins in a fantasy about firearms and that fantasy has promoted too many firearms in the USA.

 

[Spock]

I'll bet those 130,000 mass murdered in the aforementioned event would have liked an immediate death.

Back when your dream was a reality, very often death was lingering and excruciating.



The irony is beyond the pale.

The dream of a defenseless population, easily preyed upon is not the dream for good men.

And of course, disarming the public is highly illogical.

While you indulge your misconceptions about tyranny, many hundreds of thousands die each decade from the surfeit of firearms.

 

[Spock]

Nope. Those facts don’t allude me.
You need to stop lying.
I have fully and completely admitted that a firearm is necessary for “ firearm violence”
Just like a bicycle is necessary for a bike accident,

You can’t seem to understand the simple fact that firearms do not CAUSE a person to be violent.

Firearm is a means to an end and, when available, that end is easier to reach.

And that without a firearm, someone who wants to be violent will simply use another tool.

No tool is as efficient as a firearm, so your rationalizaton is incorrect.

For example new state has lower gun crime.
But a higher murder rate than Idaho.

You are forgettiing the prime directive of statistics-- compare equivalent populations.

 

[Spock]

Nope. I already quantified them for society. Firearms represent a huge economic driver for society from hunting , manufacture, and competition and recreational shooting.

How much does this offset even one human life? You have never explained that.

They are necessary for controlling animal populations which reduces the economic impact cost on agriculture and the accident cost to car/animal collisions

Nonsense and irrelevant. Alternatives exist.

I provided scientific evidence that shooting sports improves societal cohesion, etc

Truly grasping for justification.

And as the cdc noted from 500,000 to 3.5 million self defense uses occur yearly compared to much lower misuse.

Bad data from bad retrospective reporting with flawed methodology and without independent verification. Otherwise, great studies.

 

[CLAX1911]

Really? Is that a serious question?

Yes it is I've owned guns and I've never murdered anybody. So have approximately 100 million people.

 

[rahl]

I doubt that a level of proof exists to change your opinion on anything that you have ordained to be true.
In my experience with your style of discussion, you refuse to substantiate your opinions and expect opposing claims to be presented with an unrealistic level of "proof". Substantiation can exist in many forms and very often is as simple as recognizing that firearms are necessary for firearm violence. Arguing about the agency of firearms is disenguous evasion.

 

[rahl]

My observations have been substantiated.

 

[rahl]

Nope, the best evidence shows quite the reverse
Gun control has worked everywhere where it's been tried country-wide.

Some places with more gun control have higher murder rates than places with less gun control. So your claim above is a proven lie.

Because they're designed to kill ?

Sure. Just like softball bats, claw hammers, tennis rackets and ford explorers.

 

[CLAX1911]

Actually history is frequently misunderstood.

No random group of colonists liberated the colonies. They were an organized militia.

Militia is private citizens that own weapons. In order to have militia you must have private citizens owning firearms.

You are indulgins in a fantasy about firearms and that fantasy has promoted too many firearms in the USA.

You don't know what Militia is. It's like you think it's the same thing as military different spelling and pronunciation of the word should indicate different meaning.

 

[Spock]

Yes it is I've owned guns and I've never murdered anybody. So have approximately 100 million people.

How many people need to be murdered to invalidate your indulgence?

 

[CLAX1911]

How many people need to be murdered to invalidate your indulgence?

If you can show me that me owning guns causes people to just be murdered or commit suicide I'll give them up right now.

 

[rahl]

How many people need to be murdered to invalidate your indulgence?

Way more than the 5,000-10,000 that are murdered with firearms each year