How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[JMB1911A1]

I don't know what you're talking about. This thread is about guns. Specifically assault weapons. Read the OP!

I'm willing to briefly address any off-topic comment that you might have. But I won't participate in your efforts to derail the thread in an attempt to hide the fact that you have NOTHING to rebut the OP

This thread is NOT about a machine designed to transport you. It's a bout a machine designed to KILL you. The differences between the two are insurmountable.

Then why did you bring up the DMV and drivers licenses?

BTW, no! I have NEVER had to stand in line 2 hours at the DMV. Even when I didn't get an appointment, I have never had to wait even an hour. But usually 10 to 15 minutes including the waiting time... Once at the desk, it's pretty quick: they check my record, my eye-sight, a few questions... .in and out...

I think they might be holding you for some extra scrutiny, fella.... They might be thinking twice about whether they should allow you to drive or not. And if that applies to DRIVING, I can DEFINITELY understand why you don't want ANY requirements for you to get a gun.

 

[RF667799]

Then why did you bring up the DMV and drivers licenses?

As soon as his nonsense becomes inconvenient, it's off topic for him to support.

 

[jaeger19]

By your reasoning, there is no need for traffic laws.

Generally no.
“After 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on its rural highways outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.”

https://trid.trb.org/View/667740

So without posted speed limits , people still drive responsibly .
Your contention is that its speed limits that force drivers to be responsible and without them they will drive irresponsibly.
Thats not what happened in Montana.

The fact is that the vast vast vast majority of gun owners act responsibly without a law.

Part of the rationale for law is to change behavior BEFORE injury or death occurs.

Except that responsible behavior 1. Is already occuring and 2. Reminding people to be responsible doesn’t require a law but reinforcement through public service announcements or things like gun safety in schools .

I want gun owners to stop endangering others by reckless behavior. Apparently preventing and educating about dangerous behavior is not important to you.

Gun banners gotta lie.
I pushed for mandatory gun safety education in public school.
And you were vehemently against it!!!!

You are the one against prevention through education.

Remember how you first said “ using a gun safely requires a special set of skills.
Then when I suggested mandatory gun safety training and you said that gun safety didn’t require any training???

Who is going to be safer and more responsible a person who has had mandatory firearm safety from training through 5th grade through high schools. Years of reinforcing safe firearms use and storage .

Or that same person who is buying his first firearm at 21 and his only experience with firearms is video games and watching John Wick?

Answer that .
But we know you won’t because Gun Banners gotta lie..

 

[jaeger19]

But in many states they can't order your guns removed when that would be enough to ameliorate the immediate problem.

Bs. If a person is assessed as a danger to themselves or others they can be removed for some time ( usually a 48 hour) hold and can be assessed and still a danger be kept in inpatient treatment with due process.

That’s the currently law in every state.

Isn't it amazing!

There is no "treatment" for the impact of a sudden traumatic experience that could lead somebody to do things in the heat of the moment that they would normally not do otherwise. This is why some states have red flag laws. We just need them in ALL the states.

Bull. There is no “ traumatic experience that impacts someone to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do.
Suicide etc is not that impulsive.
Cripes you ridiculous dude if it’s so “ impulsive” after a sudden traumatic experience,
HOW COULD A RED FLAG LAW WORK???

Think about it. You think they’ve had a traumatic experience and are starting to do something right after…
Yet you think a red flag law where the police are called, have to come out and then take the guns is going to stop that action that happens right after that traumatic experience?

That makes no sense.

Completely agree. I was just responding to a passing comment by a poster.


And yet, you ARE. But that's not the worst part. The worst is that you are in the community AND you have a gun. Because in some states, judges are not even allowed to take your guns away from you briefly until the trauma of the moment passes.

How do you plan on removing guns Before the sudden trauma?
And once this “ sudden trauma” happens there is the delay for someone calling the cops and getting there.
Then if the person is a danger to themselves or others when they police get there. Why would you only want them to take guns from a dangerous person?
if they are a danger to themselves or others tge laws in all states allow the police to take them for inpatient evaluation and they can be held and if determined to be unsafe they can be forcibly placed into inpatient treatment and if that happens they can have their firearms removed FOREVER.

 

[jaeger19]

NO! It should absolutely NOT be like getting a drivers license.

So you just ADMITTED YOU LIED.
You just told a BALD FACED LIE that your gun licensing would be “ just like getting a drivers license.

Why should then anyone listen to whatever BS YOU ARE SPOUTING NOW.?

Tell you what . Admit that your licensing would put a greater burden on law abiding people than going to the dmv .

And you admit to EXACTLY, what that license will entail.

I was in law enforcement. And I am also rich and white . So I will have firearms regardless of whatever ridiculous requirement you have .

The question here is how much bs do you want to put someone thorough for no good reason simply to restrict their constitutional rights.

But in some states it's harder to get a driver's license than getting a gun. It should be much MUCH harder. So hard that only responsible gun owners who are proficient in their use and in their sound mental abilities can buy one.

Apparently this scares some folks here. Only reason I can imagine why is that THEY would not be able to meet this requirement. So they make excuses like equating it to "having to wait 2 hours in line at the DMV"... A comment that many have been trying to use to hide the fact that they have no arguments to rebut ANY of the points in the OP.

How about you? Do YOU think you could meet the requirements?



If you understand that that is NOT the topic of the thread, then you already know that's a side comment directed to one specific poster who made a comment about the DMV. If you are trying to DERAIL the thread, than that is what you will focus on. Which is it? I'm pretty sure we'll know in you

 

[RF667799]

So you just ADMITTED YOU LIED.
You just told a BALD FACED LIE that your gun licensing would be “ just like getting a drivers license.

Why should then anyone listen to whatever BS YOU ARE SPOUTING NOW.?

Tell you what . Admit that your licensing would put a greater burden on law abiding people than going to the dmv .

And you admit to EXACTLY, what that license will entail.

I was in law enforcement. And I am also rich and white . So I will have firearms regardless of whatever ridiculous requirement you have .

The question here is how much bs do you want to put someone thorough for no good reason simply to restrict their constitutional rights.

And even with lying, he finds it necessary to conflate ownership of an item and use of public facilities.

There is no license required to own a motor vehicle, yet that is what he proposes to own a gun.

 

[Spock]

Do you support law to limit the speeds of motor vehicles to 25 mph and require NASCAR safety gear for all occupants?

If not, the conclusion is you don't care about the lives of the people who would not perish or be grievously injured in traffic mishaps...including any number of children.

I support laws to define safe behavior of drivers and, similarly, equivalent laws for firearm owners.

 

[Spock]

Generally no.
“After 4 years of no numerical or posted daytime speed limit on its rural highways outside of urban areas, Montana recorded its lowest fatality rate.”

https://trid.trb.org/View/667740

There are speed limits now in Montana.

So without posted speed limits , people still drive responsibly .
Your contention is that its speed limits that force drivers to be responsible and without them they will drive irresponsibly.
Thats not what happened in Montana.

Actually you know nothing of Montana and are exercising your typical cherry-picked (and wrong) example

The fact is that the vast vast vast majority of gun owners act responsibly without a law.

Except that responsible behavior 1. Is already occuring and 2. Reminding people to be responsible doesn’t require a law but reinforcement through public service announcements or things like gun safety in schools .


Gun banners gotta lie.
I pushed for mandatory gun safety education in public school.

No. You pushed for gun promotion, not education.

And you were vehemently against it!!!!

I am against your biased approach to gun education.
Safety training is unreliable for children and does not address the problem.

You are the one against prevention through education.

Remember how you first said “ using a gun safely requires a special set of skills.
Then when I suggested mandatory gun safety training and you said that gun safety didn’t require any training???

No contradiction.

Who is going to be safer and more responsible a person who has had mandatory firearm safety from training through 5th grade through high schools. Years of reinforcing safe firearms use and storage .

We do not need more gun promotion.

Or that same person who is buying his first firearm at 21 and his only experience with firearms is video games and watching John Wick?

Answer that .
But we know you won’t because Gun Banners gotta lie..

I still await your justification in dollars and lives for the 500 billion price tag for the 100,000 dead and injured yearly from firearms.

 

[RF667799]

I support laws to define safe behavior of drivers and, similarly, equivalent laws for firearm owners.

Refusal to respond to direct queries. Post rejected on that basis.

 

[jaeger19]

Mmm m

There are speed limits now in Montana.

Yes because the feds forced them to have speed limits or lose federal funding.
A good example of government ignoring science for political agendas .
There probably was also something about the state losing revenue from not having spied traps where the posted speed was much less than necessary for safety.

Actually you know nothing of Montana and are exercising your typical cherry-picked (and wrong) example

You are welcome echo provide the evidence showing such
But we know you can’t.
So why be so snarky.

No. You pushed for gun promotion, not education.

I am against your biased approach to gun education.
Safety training is unreliable for children and does not address the problem.

No contradiction.

We do not need more gun promotion.

I still await your justification in dollars and lives for the 500 billion price tag for the 100,000 dead and injured yearly from firearms.

 

[Spock]

Mmm m

Yes because the feds forced them to have speed limits or lose federal funding.
A good example of government ignoring science for political agendas .
There probably was also something about the state losing revenue from not having spied traps where the posted speed was much less than necessary for safety.

You are welcome echo provide the evidence showing such
But we know you can’t.
So why be so snarky.

It really comes down to whether laws result in a better, safer society or not.
Firearms, especially handguns, are way to unregulated in America and we see the evidence for problems from that lack of regulation.
Children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule that is not disproven by your imaginary exceptions. Your need to assert exceptions is just so much irrelevant propaganda.

 

[RF667799]

It really comes down to whether laws result in a better, safer society or not.
Firearms, especially handguns, are way to unregulated in America and we see the evidence for problems from that lack of regulation.
Children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule that is not disproven by your imaginary exceptions. Your need to assert exceptions is just so much irrelevant propaganda.

You yourself proposed children having access to firearms from age 12.

That you make your arguments inconsistent and incoherent is not a mark in their favor.

 

[jaeger19]

Mmm m

There are speed limits now in Montana.

Yes because the feds forced them to have speed limits or lose federal funding.
A good example of government ignoring science for political agendas .
There probably was also something about the state losing revenue from not having spied traps where the posted speed was much less than necessary for safety.

Actually you know nothing of Montana and are exercising your typical cherry-picked (and wrong) example

You are welcome to provide the evidence showing such
But we know you can’t.
So why be so snarky.?

No. You pushed for gun promotion, not education.

No I pushed for gun safety education. Gun promotion is done by the gaming industry and hollywood. We need to counter their unsafe messaging.

I am against your biased approach to gun education.

There is nothing biased about it.

Safety training is unreliable for children and does not address the problem.

you’ve been shown with scientific citations that safety training works and reduces unsafe behaviors
And how does it not address the problem.
?
Who is going to be safer and more responsible a person who has had mandatory firearm safety from training through 5th grade through high schools. Years of reinforcing safe firearms use and storage .

Or that same person who is buying his first firearm at 21 and his only experience with firearms is video games and watching John Wick?

No contradiction.

Complete contradiction

We do not need more gun promotion.

Then you need to speak to Hollywood and game producers because they are the largest promoters of unsafe gun use.

I still await your justification in dollars and lives for the 500 billion price tag for the 100,000 dead and injured yearly from firearms.

Spock. I’ve already addressed the fact that firearms I. The United States give huge advantages from defensive gun use. Which even the cdc concluded was greater than criminal use.
From the economics of hunting .
The effects of hunting on reducing car accidents from animal collisions ,
The social improvement for elderly in shooting sports .
Better focus for students.
Cripes I supplied reams of emscie ridiculous evidence of the benefit of firearms in society.

Then I asked you if you could prove that those 100,000 people who died and billions of dollars would not have happened in the absence of firearms.

And you couldn’t answer . Because the reality is that someone who wants to commit suicide can find another lethal way as they do in South Korea
If they want to commit a murder , they can find another way like they do in Mexico and in ny state and the uk.

 

[P_T]

The highest risk to our safety is the operating Cell phone in motion. Make it unlawful to do it.
Pass laws declaring all Cell phones in motion have to automatically disconnect until not moving
( in motion ) ... ( say 2 miles per hour and above.) ... ...

 

[Spock]

You yourself proposed children having access to firearms from age 12.

That you make your arguments inconsistent and incoherent is not a mark in their favor.

My fault to assume that you could understand that childhood is a spectrum. Your ability to understand generality on an issue is compromised.
But, if you want to outlaw all guns until age 21, fine with me.

 

[jaeger19]

It really comes down to whether laws result in a better, safer society or not.
Firearms, especially handguns, are way to unregulated in America and we see the evidence for problems from that lack of regulation.
Children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule that is not disproven by your imaginary exceptions. Your need to assert exceptions is just so much irrelevant propaganda.

Children should be taught safe behaviors with firearms . Years of reinforcement of safe behavior creates responsible and safe adults.

You are the one against prevention through education.

Remember how you first said “ using a gun safely requires a special set of skills.
Then when I suggested mandatory gun safety training and you said that gun safety didn’t require any training???

Who is going to be safer and more responsible a person who has had mandatory firearm safety from training through 5th grade through high schools. Years of reinforcing safe firearms use and storage .

Or that same person who is buying his first firearm at 21 and his only experience with firearms is video games and watching John Wick?

Why won’t you answer that question Spock?
Because you know I am right but your fear won’t let you answer.

Now we all know Spock won’t answer.

But I’d like to mention the importance of gun safety training to all children. Even those whose parents don’t own firearms and will never want there kids to have firearms.

The reality is that somewhere somehow a person is likley to be around firearms. Maybe it’s some kids who found a firearm thrown in a dumpster.
Maybe it’s a boyfriend who wants to take your 22 year old daughter shooting.
Maybe it’s when a loved one dies and you find a firearm when cleaning their house out.

Knowing what to do with a firearm safely. Even if it’s . “ that’s a gun, don’t touch , go tell an adult . Can potentially save a life or injury.

Maybe knowing the safe way to handle a firearm means your daughter sees that her boyfriend doesn’t have a clue and is dangerous. because I of incompetence and she calls A friend to pick her up.

Gun safety training does NOT promote guns.
For children it removes the mystery and dangerous curiosity created by video games and television.
It teaches responsible behaviors.

 

[RF667799]

My fault to assume that you could understand that childhood is a spectrum. Your ability to understand generality on an issue is compromised.
But, if you want to outlaw all guns until age 21, fine with me.

You said children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule. That is contradictory of your also saying that many children should have access to firearms.

Maybe you are trapped in inconsistency and incoherence because you fear arguing on your true beliefs.

 

[Spock]

Mmm m

Yes because the feds forced them to have speed limits or lose federal funding.

A good example of government ignoring science for political agendas .

A good example of bad science is to make an argument about traffic laws by using the traffic patterns in the least densely populated state with the implication that absence of law will work in larger, denser populated areas. The stupidity of that argument is really beyond comprehension.

There probably was also something about the state losing revenue from not having spied traps where the posted speed was much less than necessary for safety.

You are welcome to provide the evidence showing such
But we know you can’t.
So why be so snarky.?

No I pushed for gun safety education. Gun promotion is done by the gaming industry and hollywood. We need to counter their unsafe messaging.

Gun safety is not a needed program beyond about 15 minutes in a classroom. All other efforts are just promotion.
How much time is need to teach a child not to put a marble up their nose?

There is nothing biased about it.

you’ve been shown with scientific citations that safety training works and reduces unsafe behaviors
And how does it not address the problem.
?
Who is going to be safer and more responsible a person who has had mandatory firearm safety from training through 5th grade through high schools. Years of reinforcing safe firearms use and storage .

Or that same person who is buying his first firearm at 21 and his only experience with firearms is video games and watching John Wick?

Nonsensical and irrelevant reasoning that is tiresome.
The promotion of firearms is the fundamental reason that "Eddy Eagle" and similar NRA NSSA programs exist.

Complete contradiction

Then you need to speak to Hollywood and game producers because they are the largest promoters of unsafe gun use.

No. Your propaganda and the NRA talking heads are disingenuous promoters that have much greater influence on firearm laws than Hollywood.

Spock. I’ve already addressed the fact that firearms I. The United States give huge advantages from defensive gun use.

Nope. All biased self-reporting of retrospective events. If guns made the country safer overall, we would not have so much firearm violence.

Which even the cdc concluded was greater than criminal use.
From the economics of hunting .

The effects of hunting on reducing car accidents from animal collisions ,

Nonsense.

The social improvement for elderly in shooting sports .
Better focus for students.
Cripes I supplied reams of emscie ridiculous evidence of the benefit of firearms in society.

No you have mentioned trivial nonsense that strains credulity and does not come close to justifying the 500 billion and 100,000 causalities.

Then I asked you if you could prove that those 100,000 people who died and billions of dollars would not have happened in the absence of firearms.

Compare the US to Canada or Australia if you really doubt the numbers.

And you couldn’t answer . Because the reality is that someone who wants to commit suicide can find another lethal way as they do in South Korea
If they want to commit a murder , they can find another way like they do in Mexico and in ny state and the uk.

South Korea is not the USA. You should be able to prove that the prevalence of firearms do not influence firearm death and injury if you really believed that.
If you really had some interest in human welfare, you would advocate for the definitive experiment-- eliminate all the firearms in America.

 

[Spock]

You said children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule. That is contradictory of your also saying that many children should have access to firearms.

Maybe you are trapped in inconsistency and incoherence because you fear arguing on your true beliefs.

No contradiction. Try to keep up.
Do I have to explain every nuance or exception or trivial deviation from the GENERAL condition for you?

 

[rahl]

It really comes down to whether laws result in a better, safer society or not.
Firearms, especially handguns, are way to unregulated in America and we see the evidence for problems from that lack of regulation.

Firearms, especially handguns, are extremely regulated. Way more so than motor vehicles.

Children should not have access to firearms, as a general rule that is not disproven by your imaginary exceptions. Your need to assert exceptions is just so much irrelevant propaganda.

Motor vehicles kill and injure more children than firearms, yet are less regulated than firearms.

 

[RF667799]

No contradiction. Try to keep up.
Do I have to explain every nuance or exception or trivial deviation from the GENERAL condition for you?

I would say the children 12 and older that you think SHOULD have access to firearms constitutes a large enough portion of children overall, that you cannot say the general rule is to NOT have access to firearms.

You got caught in another contradiction. It embarrassed you. Now you embarrass yourself further by trying to squirm out of it.

 

[jaeger19]

A good example of bad science is to make an argument about traffic laws by using

A good example of bad science is to state unequivocally that in all cases something is true and ignore the best available evidence.
Because it doesn’t support your bias.

Your premise is that without laws the vast majority of society would devolve into chaos and lawless irresponsibility.
And that’s not true.
And that makes sense it’s not true. Why do laws come about in a democratic society. ?Generally because a large portion of society already support them.
The vast majority of drivers as the Montana study showed , believed in maintaining a safe and prudent speed even though by law they could do whatever.

Gun safety is not a needed program beyond about 15 minutes in a classroom. All other efforts are just promotion.

Hmm really? First you say gun safety requires special skill and then it only takes 15 minutes.

Please explain your expertise on training gun safety.

How much time is need to teach a child not to put a marble up their nose?

Hmmm. Probably not as much time as it would take to teach a child that the people they see on tv and characters in video games using firearms and doing outrageously dangerous things and yet nothing happens don t represent reality.
Perhaps if their hero’s and characters in video games were portraying how cool it was to play with marbles and stick them up your child’s nose , it might take more than 15 minutes to convince them it was unsafe.

You have however done a great job of proving that your position isn’t based on reducing accidents with children or adults.
Perhaps you should consider the fact that a child that is trained in firearm safety over years is much more likely to be a responsible adult with firearms.

Nonsensical and irrelevant reasoning that is tiresome.

Yeah no. Eddie eagle and other programs like Hunters Education have been designed not to promote firearms but to teach firearm safety .

Tell us all how does Eddie Eagle telling children if they see a gun: Stop ,! don’t touch !tell an adult “!
Promote firearms more than playing a game such as Call of Duty?

No. Your propaganda and the NRA talking heads are disingenuous promoters that have much greater influence on firearm laws than Hollywood.

WOW. Just wow. Please show how much advertising of firearms is done by the nra compared to movies, tv and video Games.

 

[jaeger19]

games. !!!

Nope. All biased self-reporting of retrospective events. If guns made the country safer overall, we would not have so much firearm violence.

Not true. There is the problem with your “ firearm violence statistic. It’s not a measure of safety .
Idaho has way more firearms than New York State .Has a higher gun violence than New York State
Yet Idaho has a lower murder rate than NY state and this is safer.

No you have mentioned trivial nonsense that strains credulity and does not come close to justifying the 500 billion and 100,000 causalities.

Pooh. You simply cannot get passed your bias. I provided reams of scientific data supporting the advantages of firearms in society.

Compare the US to Canada or Australia if you really doubt the numbers.

Compare what? Poverty rates? Access to universal healthcare? Social safety nets , racial inequity , access to excellent free public education?
You know the things that are causal to violence and suicide?

South Korea is not the USA.

Right. South Korea has stringent gun control and yet one of the worlds highest suicide rates
Gun banners gotta lie right.

You should be able to prove that the prevalence of firearms do not influence firearm death and injury if you really believed that.

No. Absolutely not. Because as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. Firearm violence is a useless statistic.
Suicide rates however. That’s useful.
So look at suicide in South Korea with few firearms yet one of the highest suicide rates.
Murder rates they are useful.
Compare Idaho with ny state ? Lots of guns yet lower murder rates.

If you really had some interest in human welfare, you would advocate for the definitive experiment-- eliminate all the firearms from the USA

But. Thank you for that. You’ve shown your true colors and why no one should ever listen to a gun control advocates talk about
“ just wanting reasonable gun control”
Or “ just wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals”
“ or pish we don’t want to take your guns”

 

[Spock]

A good example of bad science is to state unequivocally that in all cases something is true and ignore the best available evidence.
Because it doesn’t support your bias.

Your premise is that without laws the vast mjority of society would devolve into chaos and lawless irresponsibility.
And that’s not true.

You seem to be claiming that societies exist without laws . Surely you will have in mind some society that exists that fulfills your claim.
I think none exist and you are clearly wrong.

And that makes sense it’s not true. Why do laws come about in a democratic society. ?Generally because a large portion of society already support them.
The vast majority of drivers as the Montana study showed , believed in maintaining a safe and prudent speed even though by law they could do whatever.

Laws exist in every society, even if it is just the ruler's dictate.

Hmm really? First you say gun safety requires special skill and then it only takes 15 minutes

Gun safety course only takes 15 minutes. Perhaps longer for certain learners. How long did it take you?

Please explain your expertise on training gun safety.

Hmmm. Probably not as much time as it would take to teach a child that the people they see on tv and characters in video games using firearms and doing outrageously dangerous things and yet nothing happens don t represent reality.

Random rambling free association.

Perhaps if their hero’s and characters in video games were portraying how cool it was to play with marbles and stick them up your child’s nose , it might take more than 15 minutes to convince them it was unsafe.

You have however done a great job of proving that your position isn’t based on reducing accidents with children or adults.

You should start with an understanding of the function of a firearm because that would school you in the fundamental threat to safety.

Perhaps you should consider the fact that a child that is trained in firearm safety over years is much more likely to be a responsible adult with firearms.

I am not interested in promoting more firearms in America, but I appreciate your acknowledgment that lifelong firearm possession is your general goal.

Yeah no. Eddie eagle and other programs like Hunters Education have been designed not to promote firearms but to teach firearm safety .

Bogus. Do you really think, by analogy, that ads about "drinking responsibly" by distilleries are to simply reduce alcohol injury?

Tell us all how does Eddie Eagle telling children if they see a gun: Stop ,! don’t touch !tell an adult “!
Promote firearms more than playing a game such as Call of Duty?

False dichotomy. Try again.

WOW. Just wow. Please show how much advertising of firearms is done by the nra compared to movies, tv and video Games.

More false dichotomy. The discussion is not about films. The discussion is about firearms as a public health problem.

 

[Spock]

games. !!!

Not true. There is the problem with your “ firearm violence statistic. It’s not a measure of safety .
Idaho has way more firearms than New York State .Has a higher gun violence than New York State
Yet Idaho has a lower murder rate than NY state and this is safer.

Therefore, Idaho has a bigger public health problem with firearms than NY.

Pooh. You simply cannot get passed your bias. I provided reams of scientific data supporting the advantages of firearms in society.

You fabricated absurd hobby value that pales compared to the known social cost of firearms in lives and treasure.

Compare what? Poverty rates? Access to universal healthcare? Social safety nets , racial inequity , access to excellent free public education?
You know the things that are causal to violence and suicide?

Right. South Korea has stringent gun control and yet one of the worlds highest suicide rates
Gun banners gotta lie right.

I am sure the claim of lying is really a reflection of your desperation. One can do the thought experiment and ask, what would likely happen to the South Korean suicide rates if firearms were suddenly widely available throughout the country.

No. Absolutely not. Because as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. Firearm violence is a useless statistic.

It is useless to someone determined to create a false reality. For those determined to live a fantasy, firearm violence seems meaningless.

Suicide rates however. That’s useful.
So look at suicide in South Korea with few firearms yet one of the highest suicide rates.
Murder rates they are useful.
Compare Idaho with ny state ? Lots of guns yet lower murder rates.

More rambling.

But. Thank you for that. You’ve shown your true colors and why no one should ever listen to a gun control advocates talk about
“ just wanting reasonable gun control”
Or “ just wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals”
“ or pish we don’t want to take your guns”

I enjoy your need to generalize about the opposition to your propaganda. The first rule of propaganda is to magnify a single fact into a universal truth.