Can you debate gun control using only logical arguments... (6 Viewers)

[RF667799]

After all this discussion of prevalence in multiple threads, you have learned nothing.

Right. Prevalence. That's another one you've never been able to explain. In fact, you've claimed it is impossible to accurately determine.

I'm seriously torn between whether you're an agent of the Gun Control Industry, or the NRA put you up to this tomfoolery.

 

[jaeger19]

Why would you think that there is a 1:1 correspondance between firearms and death/injury?
You have proven only that you do not understand variance and distribution.

I don’t. In the case of over all those years of increased sales and increasing numbers of firearms violence including firearm violence WENT DOWN
In other words a negative correlation.
As you can see by the data there is no consistent correlation . 1 to1 or otherwise between increasing firearm numbers and death and injury.

I understand variance and distribution and correlation and causation while you do not.

 

[Spock]

Right. Prevalence. That's another one you've never been able to explain. In fact, you've claimed it is impossible to accurately determine.

Explain how gun sales to those who own guns already will change the firearm death and injury in a community.
Explain how firearm death and injury can occur without a firearm.
Explain why complex public health problems should be dismissed because there is variable presentation year to year.

I'm seriously torn between whether you're an agent of the Gun Control Industry, or the NRA put you up to this tomfoolery.

I can't help you with your sense of personal confusion and failure to understand multiple sources of information.

 

[Spock]

I don’t. In the case of over all those years of increased sales and increasing numbers of firearms violence including firearm violence WENT DOWN
In other words a negative correlation.

You are easily confused and unable to rise above hackneyed NRA indoctrination.

As you can see by the data there is no consistent correlation . 1 to1 or otherwise between increasing firearm numbers and death and injury.

Correlation can exist with variation in presentaion and misrepresentation of incomplete data is a common technique of the intellectually bereft.

I understand variance and distribution and correlation and causation while you do not.

If you cannot understand that firearms present a public health problem, you do not understand firearms or health.

 

[rahl]

Who, or what is a grenade designed to kill? Who or what is dynamite designed to kill?
Your question is just more white noise by a firearm apologist.

You keep forgetting to answer the question. Who or what is a browning BT99 designed to kill. I will not let you squirm away from this. I will ask you every single time I see you post, until you answer.

 

[rahl]

After all this discussion of prevalence in multiple threads, you have learned nothing.

What is the prevalence of firearms broken down by state, city and household. After you provide that number, explain the negative correlation between firearms and death/injury.

 

[rahl]

Explain how gun sales to those who own guns already will change the firearm death and injury in a community.

Prove gun sales went to those who already own guns.

Explain how firearm death and injury can occur without a firearm.

Meaningless tautology

Explain why complex public health problems should be dismissed because there is variable presentation year to year.

There isn’t a public health problem regarding firearms.

I can't help you with your sense of personal confusion and failure to understand multiple sources of information.

 

[RF667799]

Explain how gun sales to those who own guns already will change the firearm death and injury in a community.
Explain how firearm death and injury can occur without a firearm.
Explain why complex public health problems should be dismissed because there is variable presentation year to year.

Those are your contentious and they're up to you to explain.

You won't.

I can't help you with your sense of personal confusion and failure to understand multiple sources of information.

 

[dairyair]

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

You had the opportunity to read this link already. Perhaps you missed it or can't understand it? https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/who-invented-the-first-gun.htm So you can’t explain why you think ancient Chinese inventions have any relevance to modern firearms, many of...

debatepolitics.com

Already have. I will continue pointing and laughing at the face planting you guys do when you fall into the “designed to kill” stupidity.

Us guys? You mean those who support the 2A? LOL.
What a foolish statement.

If you can't debate the topic, attack the messenger. You lose

So, you think a link to how and why guns were originally invented is a lie? LOL, that is completely absurd.

 

[RF667799]

Us guys? You mean those who support the 2A? LOL.
What a foolish statement.

If you can't debate the topic, attack the messenger. You lose

So, you think a link to how and why guns were originally invented is a lie? LOL, that is completely absurd.

Your link is speculation. The lie is when it's claimed to be fact.

The face plant is when its relevance can't be explained anyway.

 

[dairyair]

The .30-06 cartridge? A military design originally, I believe.



Suppose I give you that one. What does that have to do with the rest of the gun designs?

I care less what the rest of the guns are designed for.
I made no mention, ever, of what all guns are designed for.

My only claim is the original design intent by the Chinese some 1200 yrs ago.

It's why all military's in the world have guns. To use as the original design intent was meant to be used. To kill.

I have no interest in what a little pea shoot type pistol is designed for. Nor do I care.
I've never stated all guns are designed to kill. Only that the origin of the design was with the intent to kill. Again, that's why military's have them. It's why Law enforcement have them.

 

[dairyair]

Your link is speculation. The lie is when it's claimed to be fact.

The face plant is when its relevance can't be explained anyway.

You have made no attempt to explain it away. Denying facts is not an explanation.

Make your case that the Chinese didn't invent guns to kill.

And don't use the lame excuse that not all guns today are designed to kill. That's comparing apples to oranges.
My point is the original intent of the design of what has become a gun.
A projectile hurled with gunpowder. To be used against an enemy.

...
The history of the firearm begins in 10th-century China, when tubes containing gunpowder projectiles were mounted on spears to make portable fire lances.[1] Over the following centuries, the design evolved into various types, including portable firearms such as flintlocks and blunderbusses, and fixed cannons, and by the 15th century the technology had spread through all of Eurasia.

History of the firearm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RF667799]

I care less what the rest of the guns are designed for.
I made no mention, ever, of what all guns are designed for.

My only claim is the original design intent by the Chinese some 1200 yrs ago.

It's why all military's in the world have guns. To use as the original design intent was meant to be used. To kill.

I have no interest in what a little pea shoot type pistol is designed for. Nor do I care.
I've never stated all guns are designed to kill. Only that the origin of the design was with the intent to kill. Again, that's why military's have them. It's why Law enforcement have them.

You've not explained the relevance of your speculation.

Now you can explain the relevance in light of your rejection of the categorical claim.

IOW, how can you distinguish the guns that are not designed to kill, given that virtually all of them can be used to kill?

 

[RF667799]

You have made no attempt to explain it away. Denying facts is not an explanation.

Make your case that the Chinese didn't invent guns to kill.

No, I don't have to prove a negative.

And don't use the lame excuse that not all guns today are designed to kill. That's comparing apples to oranges.
My point is the original intent of the design of what has become a gun.
A projectile hurled with gunpowder. To be used against an enemy.

...
The history of the firearm begins in 10th-century China, when tubes containing gunpowder projectiles were mounted on spears to make portable fire lances.[1] Over the following centuries, the design evolved into various types, including portable firearms such as flintlocks and blunderbusses, and fixed cannons, and by the 15th century the technology had spread through all of Eurasia.

History of the firearm - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unless there are notes in there attributed to the original inventor of the first gun where he outlined his intent, that's speculation.

 

[dairyair]

You've not explained the relevance of your speculation.

Now you can explain the relevance in light of your rejection of the categorical claim.

IOW, how can you distinguish the guns that are not designed to kill, given that virtually all of them can be used to kill?

I told you, I care less about those guns today that are not designed to kill.
I never made any claim to every gun in the world.

Only the reason the Chinese created gun powder projectiles. To kill.
The reason military's use those designed to kill projectiles. The reason LEO use guns.

Why do you wish me to defend something I never said nor care about?

 

[dairyair]

No, I don't have to prove a negative.

Unless there are notes in there attributed to the original inventor of the first gun where he outlined his intent, that's speculation.

What's the purpose of the old M16?
Or the 30-06? As designed and intended.

 

[RF667799]

I told you, I care less about those guns today that are not designed to kill.
I never made any claim to every gun in the world.

Only the reason the Chinese created gun powder projectiles. To kill.
The reason military's use those designed to kill projectiles. The reason LEO use guns.

Your claim about "the Chinese", is speculation. Nothing more.

Why do you wish me to defend something I never said nor care about?

But you did reject the categorical claim in favor of the idea that some guns are "designed to kill". Are you now saying that "designed to kill" is irrelevant?

 

[RF667799]

What's the purpose of the old M16?
Or the 30-06? As designed and intended.

Why are you deflecting from your claim about the inventor of the first gun?

 

[dairyair]

Your claim about "the Chinese", is speculation. Nothing more.



But you did reject the categorical claim in favor of the idea that some guns are "designed to kill". Are you now saying that "designed to kill" is irrelevant?

I don't consider a history piece to be speculation.
But that is me.
Gun powered projectiles were invented for a reason, 1200 yrs ago.

What do you think that reason was?
Hurling a projectile through a tube ignited by powder?

...
the Chinese developed the huo qiang (“fire lance”), a short-range proto-gun that channeled the explosive power of gunpowder through a cylinder—initially, a bamboo tube. Upon ignition, projectiles such as arrows or bits of metal would be forcefully ejected, along with an impressive gout of flame. By the late 13th century the Chinese were employing true guns, made of cast brass or iron. Guns began to appear in the West by 1304, when the Arabs produced a bamboo tube reinforced with iron that used a charge of black powder to shoot an arrow. Black powder was adopted for use in firearms in Europe from the 14th century but was not employed for peaceful purposes, such as mining and road building, until the late 17th century.

Gunpowder | Facts, History, & Definition | Britannica

Gunpowder, any of several low-explosive mixtures used as propelling charges in guns and as blasting agents. The first such explosive was black powder—a mixture of saltpeter (potassium nitrate), sulfur, and charcoal—which is thought to have originated in China, where it was being used in...

www.britannica.com

 

[dairyair]

Why are you deflecting from your claim about the inventor of the first gun?

It's not a deflection.
Those weapons are the types of weapons that evolved from the 1st gun.

You seem to take this think personal, that a gun was designed to kill. I don't get why that is such a concern?

 

[RF667799]

I don't consider a history piece to be speculation.
But that is me.

Yes, that is you. It doesn't change the fact that it's speculation though.

Gun powered projectiles were invented for a reason, 1200 yrs ago.

What do you think that reason was?

"Gun powered projectiles"?

Whatever those are, I would need to see some extraordinary evidence before I presumed to read the mind of an unknown person dead for over a thousand years.

 

[RF667799]

It's not a deflection.
Those weapons are the types of weapons that evolved from the 1st gun.

The guns you say aren't designed to kill should have evolved from the first gun too, if you're to be consistent in your theory of gun evolution.

 

[dairyair]

Yes, that is you. It doesn't change the fact that it's speculation though.


"Gun powered projectiles"?

Whatever those are, I would need to see some extraordinary evidence before I presumed to read the mind of an unknown person dead for over a thousand years.

I see you failed to read the Britannica piece.

Yes, gun powdered projectiles. I guess you don't know the basic fundamental operation of a gun? Replace gun for black, or any other powder that can be ignited. If that is your hang up

Any way. There's no reason to continue.
You seem to think guns were invented as a peaceful means to something. Whatever.

 

[dairyair]

The guns you say aren't designed to kill should have evolved from the first gun too, if you're to be consistent in your theory of gun evolution.

LOL. You are really hung up on things I never bring up.

 

[RF667799]

I see you failed to read the Britannica piece.

Yes, gun powdered projectiles. I guess you don't know the basic fundamental operation of a gun? Replace gun for black, or any other powder that can be ignited. If that is your hang up

So now they're powder powered projectiles? Look. Learn what you're talking about before you go writing things that expose you are unfamiliar with the topic.

Like when you were conflating a rifle and a cartridge as if they were the same thing.

Any way. There's no reason to continue.
You seem to think guns were invented as a peaceful means to something. Whatever.

You seem to think erecting a strawman erases all your unsupported claims.