How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[jaeger19]

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.

Nope, I am not. But gun banners gotta lie right?

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

Sure. Never said they didn’t.

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

Earlier you claimed it took “ special skills” and now you don’t.
Explain. Which is it. ?
Are you know claiming that a 15 minute class is sufficient for hunter safety , and before people conceal carry ?

Random rambling free association.

Nope.

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

I understand how a firearm functions and I think that would be a valuable thing to teach people on how a firearm functions and how to do it in a safe manner .

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

Gun banners gotta lie.
I am waiting for you to present me with evidence that nra Eddie eagle program telling kids if the my see a firearm to “ stop, leave it alone and go tell an adult” promotes firearms more than movies tv and video games.

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

Yes. Do you think mothers against drunk driving are promoting alcohol when they say the same message?

Please explain the difference between saying “ don’t drink and drive , drink responsibly “

And saying “ don’t drink and drive , drink responsibly.”

Can you.?

False dichotomy. Try again.

More diversion on your part.

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

Exactly. Isn’t it odd then that you avoid discussing the massive promotion of unsafe gun use by the movie , tv and video game industry. ?

They are the single largest promoter of unsafe gun use.

 

[Spock]

Nope, I am not. But gun banners gotta lie right?

Sure. Never said they didn’t.

Earlier you claimed it took “ special skills” and now you don’t.
Explain. Which is it. ?

Neither.

Are you know claiming that a 15 minute class is sufficient for hunter safety , and before people conceal carry ?

No. 15 minutes to offer a class to attempt to teach children not to access firearms.
You do not seem to understand the difference between teaching about the risk of firearms and a course to promote firearms.

Nope.

I understand how a firearm functions and I think that would be a valuable thing to teach people on how a firearm functions and how to do it in a safe manner .

Of course you do-- because it is all about promoting firearm usage.

Gun banners gotta lie.
I am waiting for you to present me with evidence that nra Eddie eagle program telling kids if the my see a firearm to “ stop, leave it alone and go tell an adult” promotes firearms more than movies tv and video games.

It is an inherently obvious connection. Might as well hand out candy.

Yes. Do you think mothers against drunk driving are promoting alcohol when they say the same message?

because MADD does not promote drinking alcohol.

Please explain the difference between saying “ don’t drink and drive , drink responsibly “

And saying “ don’t drink and drive , drink responsibly.”

What exactly is your point?
If you do not understand the similarity with promoting drinking by adds that also advertise spirits, I cannot help you.
Look up "priming" to begin to understand the connection between image placement and psychological impact.

Can you.?


More diversion on your part.

Exactly. Isn’t it odd then that you avoid discussing the massive promotion of unsafe gun use by the movie , tv and video game industry. ?

They are the single largest promoter of unsafe gun use.

The one advantage of films are that they give you another fallacious excuse for opposing restrictions on firearms and to have the firearm industry promote gun "safety" along with validation messages about firearms.

 

[RF667799]

There's nothing wrong with using firearms, therefore there is nothing wrong with promoting firearm use.

 

[Spock]

There's nothing wrong with using firearms, therefore there is nothing wrong with promoting firearm use.

Firearms are used wrongly hourly in the USA, so your premise is faulty.

 

[RF667799]

Firearms are used wrongly hourly in the USA, so your premise is faulty.

No, my statement is true. Just because motor vehicles are "used wrongly" at times, does not mean motor vehicle use itself is intrinsically wrong.

Just as with firearm use.

 

[Spock]

No, my statement is true. Just because motor vehicles are "used wrongly" at times, does not mean motor vehicle use itself is intrinsically wrong.

Just as with firearm use.

You assertion was "There's nothing wrong with using firearms, ..." that is obviously false. There are 100,000 preventable deaths and injuries yearly.
Your entire statement is meaningless.

 

[RF667799]

You assertion was "There's nothing wrong with using firearms, ..." that is obviously false. There are 100,000 preventable deaths and injuries yearly.
Your entire statement is meaningless.

Do you say there is something wrong with using firearms?

 

[CLAX1911]

You assertion was "There's nothing wrong with using firearms, ..." that is obviously false.

I use them all the time what's wrong with that?

There are 100,000 preventable deaths and injuries yearly.

That's not because of a firearm.

Your entire statement is meaningless.

Your entire presence on this forum is meaningless.

 

[rahl]

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

Which is meaningless. Idaho is orders of magnitude safer than New York

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

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.

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

More rambling.

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.

 

[rahl]

Firearms are used wrongly hourly in the USA, so your premise is faulty.

Motor vehicles are used wrongly 30x’s more than firearms are.

 

[rahl]

You assertion was "There's nothing wrong with using firearms, ..." that is obviously false. There are 100,000 preventable deaths and injuries yearly.
Your entire statement is meaningless.

There are 30x’s more preventable deaths and injuries from motor vehicles vs firearms.

Your faux outrage over firearms is meaningless.

 

[RF667799]

Which is meaningless. Idaho is orders of magnitude safer than New York

They also probably have a "bigger public health problem" with horses and ponies than does New York.

But still safer from violence to live there.

 

[Spock]

They also probably have a "bigger public health problem" with horses and ponies than does New York.

But still safer from violence to live there.

Idaho is worse for firearm violence than NY.

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

Dying from firearms is more common (per capita) than in NY.
You are more likely to die from firearms in Idaho than in NY.

Do you say there is something wrong with using firearms?

Repetitious. Discussed previously. You should understand the problems with firearms.
If you are incapable of following the discussion, I am uninterested in continuing.

 

[rahl]

Idaho is worse for firearm violence than NY.

Idaho is safer than NY. The homicide rate in NY is much higher than in Idaho.

Dying from firearms is more common (per capita) than in NY.

Dying in NY is more common in NY than Idaho.

You are more likely to die from firearms in Idaho than in NY.

You are more likely to die in NY than you are in Idaho.

Repetitious. Discussed previously. You should understand the problems with firearms.

There aren’t any.

If you are incapable of following the discussion, I am uninterested in continuing.

Because you have had every argument you’ve tried curbing stomped

 

[RF667799]

Idaho is worse for firearm violence than NY.

View attachment 67578157

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

Dying from firearms is more common (per capita) than in NY.
You are more likely to die from firearms in Idaho than in NY.

Baby talk is not convincing. Post rejected on the basis it invokes the supernatural.

Repetitious. Discussed previously. You should understand the problems with firearms.
If you are incapable of following the discussion, I am uninterested in continuing.

You fear answering the question in a forthright manner.

 

[CLAX1911]

Idaho is worse for firearm violence than NY.

View attachment 67578157

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

While the number of gun deaths in the U.S. fell for the second consecutive year in 2023, it remained among the highest annual totals on record.

www.pewresearch.org

Dying from firearms is more common (per capita) than in NY.
You are more likely to die from firearms in Idaho than in NY.

Repetitious. Discussed previously. You should understand the problems with firearms.
If you are incapable of following the discussion, I am uninterested in continuing.

Pretending murder is a bigger problem in Wyoming than in California is why murder rate is a dishonest metric.

There are 588,000 people in Wyoming that means in 2023 that means between 118 and 147 people has to be murdered in Wyoming to get this rating

For California to get their rating they can have up to 4000 murders.

Reality is your far more likely to be murdered in valuable or new York than Wyoming or Alaska

 

[jaeger19]

Neither.

Well explain that.

No. 15 minutes to offer a class to attempt to teach children not to access firearms.

Studies show that you can’t teach avoidance behaviors in that time frame.

You do not seem to understand the difference between teaching about the risk of firearms and a course to promote firearms.

Please explain it to me. What would be safer ?
21 year old purchasing his first firearm after having a 15 minute speech on not accessing firearms . That has no idea how to handle a firearm properly.

Or a 21 year old who has been taught how to handle firearms safely over the course of years?
What is safer a15 minute class on not accessing firearms to children about to go on their first hunt
And a several day course and test on firearm safety and hunting safety on children about to go on their first hunt..

Explain exactly how teaching how to handle firearms safely including when to avoid dangerous situations is “ promoting” firearms.

Er
Of course you do-- because it is all about promoting firearm usage.

Please explain.

It is an inherently obvious connection. Might as well hand out candy.

Again explain.

because MADD does not promote drinking alcohol.

Yet the message is exactly the same. Explain how tge message changes when it’s exactly the same.

What exactly is your point?
If you do not understand the similarity with promoting drinking by adds that also advertise spirits, I cannot help you.

Explain how mothers against drunk driving saying the same thing “ don’t drink and drive. Drink responsibly “ promotes drinking.

Look up "priming" to begin to understand the connection between image placement and psychological impact.

You mean like in video games, Hollywood movies and tv,

The one advantage of films are that they give you another fallacious excuse for opposing restrictions on firearms and to have the firearm industry promote gun "safety" along with validation messages about firearms.

Please explain.
You really have no idea about hunter safety and other firearm safety courses

 

[Spock]

Well explain that.

Studies show that you can’t teach avoidance behaviors in that time frame.

There are no reliable methods to guarantee children will avoid firearms.

Please explain it to me. What would be safer ?
21 year old purchasing his first firearm after having a 15 minute speech on not accessing firearms . That has no idea how to handle a firearm properly.

Or a 21 year old who has been taught how to handle firearms safely over the course of years?

False dichotomy. Safer not to buy any firearm.

What is safer a15 minute class on not accessing firearms to children about to go on their first hunt
And a several day course and test on firearm safety and hunting safety on children about to go on their first hunt..

Absurd hypothetical wrapped in false dichotomy and smothered with NRA propganda

Explain exactly how teaching how to handle firearms safely including when to avoid dangerous situations is “ promoting” firearms.

Explained repeatedly. You refuse to learn.

Please explain.

Again explain.

Yet the message is exactly the same. Explain how tge message changes when it’s exactly the same.

Explain how mothers against drunk driving saying the same thing “ don’t drink and drive. Drink responsibly “ promotes drinking.

MADD is not involved in production of alcohol. Duh.

You mean like in video games, Hollywood movies and tv,


Please explain.
You really have no idea about hunter safety and other firearm safety courses

You insist on conflating hunter safety with firearm safety for children. Why are those concepts such a farrago in your mind?

 

[Spock]

Teaching gun hazard to children, largely useless:

Gun Safety Programs Do Not Prevent Children from Handling Firearms, Rutgers Study Finds

When it comes to teaching gun safety to children, it does not seem to work. Kids – especially boys – who come in contact with a gun, no matter what they have been told, are too curious not to pick it up, according to a Rutgers study. The only way to keep kids safe is to lock guns up or not have...

www.rutgers.edu

 

[RF667799]

Teaching gun hazard to children, largely useless:

Gun Safety Programs Do Not Prevent Children from Handling Firearms, Rutgers Study Finds

When it comes to teaching gun safety to children, it does not seem to work. Kids – especially boys – who come in contact with a gun, no matter what they have been told, are too curious not to pick it up, according to a Rutgers study. The only way to keep kids safe is to lock guns up or not have...

www.rutgers.edu

So much for "If it saves just one life...".

 

[jaeger19]

There are no reliable methods to guarantee children will avoid firearms.

Guarantee? Who said Guarantee ? But the science shows that training will significantly increase the chance of children avoiding risky behavior.

False dichotomy. Safer not to buy any firearm.

except people are still going to by firearms.
So
Please explain it to me. What would be safer ?
21 year old purchasing his first firearm after having a 15 minute speech on not accessing firearms . That has no idea how to handle a firearm properly.

Or a 21 year old who has been taught how to handle firearms safely over the course of years?
What is safer a15 minute class on not accessing firearms to children about to go on their first hunt
And a several day course and test on firearm safety and hunting safety on children about to go on their first hunt..

Explain exactly how teaching how to handle firearms safely including when to avoid dangerous situations is “ promoting” firearms.

Absurd hypothetical wrapped in false dichotomy and smothered with NRA propganda

Please explain how children hunting is an absurd hypothetical.

Explained repeatedly. You refuse to learn.

No you didn’t explain.

MADD is not involved in production of alcohol. Duh.

So what. The message is exactly the same.

You insist on conflating hunter safety with firearm safety for children. Why are those concepts such a farrago in your mind?

 

[jaeger19]

There are no reliable methods to guarantee children will avoid firearms.

False dichotomy. Safer not to buy any firearm.

Absurd hypothetical wrapped in false dichotomy and smothered with NRA propganda

Explained repeatedly. You refuse to learn.

MADD is not involved in production of alcohol. Duh.

You insist on conflating hunter safety with firearm safety for children. Why are those concepts such a farrago in your mind?

Hunter safety is done with children Spock. And it’s firearm safety.
But you explain why they are different.

 

[Spock]

So much for "If it saves just one life...".

Actually, promoting a fallacy results in far more risky than "one life".
The illusion that training young children to behave "safely" around firearms leads the gullible and misinformed to assume that firearms (loaded or not) can be left without danger within reach of children. But, that is something you do not seem to be concerned about.

 

[RF667799]

Actually, promoting a fallacy results in far more risky than "one life".

"If it saves one life..." is a lie, every time it is espoused as some sort of principle.

The illusion that training young children to behave "safely" around firearms leads the gullible and misinformed to assume that firearms (loaded or not) can be left without danger within reach of children. But, that is something you do not seem to be concerned about.

Firearms can be left safely within reach of children, depending on the children and depending on the circumstances. Do you disagree?

 

[Spock]

Guarantee? Who said Guarantee ? But the science shows that training will significantly increase the chance of children avoiding risky behavior.

Define significant and explain how it is going to be used reliably in real life situations.

except people are still going to by firearms.
So
Please explain it to me. What would be safer ?
21 year old purchasing his first firearm after having a 15 minute speech on not accessing firearms . That has no idea how to handle a firearm properly.

Gun safety training for children is not a Hunter Safety Course.

Or a 21 year old who has been taught how to handle firearms safely over the course of years?
What is safer a15 minute class on not accessing firearms to children about to go on their first hunt
And a several day course and test on firearm safety and hunting safety on children about to go on their first hunt..

Hunting is irrelevant to this particular discussion.

Explain exactly how teaching how to handle firearms safely including when to avoid dangerous situations is “ promoting” firearms.

Handling firearms should never be part of a course for young children. The natural allure and curiosity about firearms is only reinforced by gun handling programs.

Please explain how children hunting is an absurd hypothetical.

Supervised use of firearms by older children is irrelevant to gun safety programs for young children.

No you didn’t explain.

Explain your trouble understanding.

So what. The message is exactly the same.

You want to draw a comparison between MADD and NRA gun safety. MADD does not promote or manufacture alcohol. The entire intent of the NRA has been to promote firearms since its founding. Clear difference.