How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

That is your response to "agency"? More foolish posts from you that are off the immediate topic.

Where's your response? Your continued cries of "Off topic" are becoming ludicrous. I directly responded to your "sine quo non" post, and your complaints are nothing but avoidance.

Sorry you aren't getting worldwide acclaim for discovering the novel idea that "gun violence" involves guns being used. Maybe you should submit a study showing how "rope violence" involves ropes being used.

 

[RF667799]

BTW @Spock

Firearms can't act or exert power. They're inanimate objects.

Lions don't talk to and make friends with prey animals on the African Savannah.

Leprechauns aren't real.

 

[jaeger19]

That's not my argument. That is my most basic assumption. Assuming that people want to live is not an argument.

Well that IS your argument that the priority is saving lives over all else. You want to take my property away to “ save lives” . Surely you then should be willing to have your car regulated to 35 mph to save lives as well. If saving lives is really your goal.

If anybody wants to argue otherwise, I urge them to open their own thread. Not what this thread is about and, frankly.... I'm not interested in a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I. Other words you don’t want to discuss your hypocrisy.

I completely agree that people who could pose a threat to others by driving should not be allowed to drive. Just like people who could pose a threat to others should not be allowed to be anywhere near guns. But those are two different topics! MY arguments for the latter and ideas on how to implement it are on the OP.

Except you are arguing that people who don’t pose a threat should not be allowed to own certain rifles. And have there rights restricted.
According to you, “ to save lives”
So it begs the question whether you are willing to have things that matter to you restricted , taken away etc, to save lives”

If you have anything to rebut MY arguments.... go for it! Looks like nobody in this thread has been able to. But if you want to discuss the "driving" part, OPEN A THREAD. I am not interested in you using that as a strawman.

No strawman. It goes to your consistency of your logic.
I ve already rebutted the effectiveness of your suggestions for gun control.

 

[RF667799]

That's not my argument. That is my most basic assumption. Assuming that people want to live is not an argument.

If anybody wants to argue otherwise, I urge them to open their own thread. Not what this thread is about and, frankly.... I'm not interested in a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


I completely agree that people who could pose a threat to others by driving should not be allowed to drive. Just like people who could pose a threat to others should not be allowed to be anywhere near guns. But those are two different topics! MY arguments for the latter and ideas on how to implement it are on the OP.

If you have anything to rebut MY arguments.... go for it! Looks like nobody in this thread has been able to. But if you want to discuss the "driving" part, OPEN A THREAD. I am not interested in you using that as a strawman.

You should look up what a "strawman" is. Nobody is saying you are making an argument about motor vehicles. In fact, it's obvious you are avoiding the point.

 

[Goshin]

In brief, hail no.

 

[Spock]

Where's your response? Your continued cries of "Off topic" are becoming ludicrous. I directly responded to your "sine quo non" post, and your complaints are nothing but avoidance.

Sorry you aren't getting worldwide acclaim for discovering the novel idea that "gun violence" involves guns being used. Maybe you should submit a study showing how "rope violence" involves ropes being used.

You seem to have trouble grasping the connection between firearms and firearm violence.

 

[Spock]

BTW @Spock

Firearms can't act or exert power. They're inanimate objects.

Firearms are agents of injury. They have agency in firearm violence through instrumentality.
You continue for fabricate another issue as equivalent-- autonomous function. No one is asserting that firearms act autonomously, but you will be unable to give up that argument.

Lions don't talk to and make friends with prey animals on the African Savannah.

Leprechauns aren't real.

You should concentrate on understanding firearms.

 

[Rich2018]

So lives is only a matter if they're ended intentionally?

No, but intension is a huge factor
There is a gun control debate purely because of the number of people INTENTIONALLY killed with firearms.

 

[CLAX1911]

I'd be thrilled if you had arguments that DISAGREE with me.

No you wouldn't you would do exactly what you did.

I challenged you to give us your BEST argument against any of my proposals.

I don't debate against imaginary hypotheticals.

And you chose two. First you made the claim I hadn't addressed mental health, which I obviously DID (point 10, for example). And then that "Red Flag" laws already existed, which is false They only exist in 21 states and DC.

I never mentioned mental health so you've got me confused with someone else.

I stated red flag laws are a violation of the Constitution you said you can't violate the constitution because some reason that you can't explain and you don't understand what the supreme Court does.

You challenged, not arguments, but FACTS. Which means you don't even HAVE arguments that disagree with us.

I don't challenge hypotheticals.

I'm sorry you're not a legend in other people's minds besides your own. In the crazy crap you cook up in your own mind is of no concern to anybody.

I don't debate proposals of someone who's in no position to make proposals.

 

[RF667799]

You seem to have trouble grasping the connection between firearms and firearm violence.

I've explained the connection. You're hung up on it, and can't advance your desire for authoritarian gun control any further.

 

[CLAX1911]

I've explained the connection. You're hung up on it, and can't advance your desire for authoritarian gun control any further.

Are you telling me you're more concerned about an oppressive dictatorship government with the authority to do however it pleases then you are signaling about caring about the lives of gangbangers?

 

[RF667799]

Firearms are agents of injury. They have agency in firearm violence through instrumentality.
You continue for fabricate another issue as equivalent-- autonomous function. No one is asserting that firearms act autonomously, but you will be unable to give up that argument.

You're unable to give up the baby talk. It probably won't be long before you are going on about guns killing people and such silliness.

Absolutely nobody here has ever argued that people don't sometimes kill other people by using a gun. Yet you are determined to prove over and over that is the case, as if someone HAS argued that.

You should concentrate on understanding firearms.

You should concentrate on what agency means in the context of this discussion, and stop equivocating. Nobody has argued that guns can't be used in a harmful manner.

 

[CLAX1911]

You're unable to give up the baby talk. It probably won't be long before you are going on about guns killing people and such silliness.

What's interesting is he knows just enough to not understand that he's not good at this. Notice how I called him out on his false equivalence nonsense and now he pretends like he can't even read my posts.

Absolutely nobody here has ever argued that people don't sometimes kill other people by using a gun. Yet you are determined to prove over and over that is the case, as if someone HAS argued that.

This is the narcissism of it. He thinks because the only solution he can come up with is ban guns and magically they'll disappear so therefore that's the only logical conclusion anyone else can come up with.

It's not just self-centeredness it's also bigotry.

You should concentrate on what agency means in the context of this discussion, and stop equivocating. Nobody has argued that guns can't be used in a harmful manner.

Again he thinks the only solution to guns being used in a harmful manner is prevent anyone who would never use them that way from having them.

Don't fault him he's being manipulated and he doesn't have much information because the people who are manipulating him are purposefully keeping him from absorbing that information.

 

[Spock]

I've explained the connection. You're hung up on it, and can't advance your desire for authoritarian gun control any further.

You claim you understand but then you try to change the discussion to "authoritarian gun control" which indicates that you really do not understand.

 

[Spock]

You're unable to give up the baby talk. It probably won't be long before you are going on about guns killing people and such silliness.

Absolutely nobody here has ever argued that people don't sometimes kill other people by using a gun. Yet you are determined to prove over and over that is the case, as if someone HAS argued that.

Why do you refuse to recognize the importance of means, opportunity and motive?

You should concentrate on what agency means in the context of this discussion, and stop equivocating.

YOU have denied the importance of firearms in firearm violence.

Nobody has argued that guns can't be used in a harmful manner.

Perhaps that should be stipulated by all the gun fanatics in this thread.

 

[RF667799]

You claim you understand but then you try to change the discussion to "authoritarian gun control" which indicates that you really do not understand.

Oh my. Don't let me change the discussion.

Go ahead and proceed from your premise that guns are involved in gun violence, skateboards are involved in skateboard violence, ropes are involved in rope violence, and so on.

 

[RF667799]

Why do you refuse to recognize the importance of means, opportunity and motive?

A gun is only a means when it is used by a human. Opportunity and motive rests with that human as well. I'm not seeing you support the agency of firearms yet.

YOU have denied the importance of firearms in firearm violence.

Quote me. All I've done is congratulate you on discovering a new and exciting theory.

Perhaps that should be stipulated by all the gun fanatics in this thread.

You're welcome to quote just one who claims that guns can't be used in a harmful manner.

You won't, because your implication that some do, is a lie.

 

[Spock]

Oh my. Don't let me change the discussion.

Go ahead and proceed from your premise that guns are involved in gun violence, skateboards are involved in skateboard violence, ropes are involved in rope violence, and so on.

I understand how difficult it is for you to avoid defusing the concept that firearms are a major problem by changing the subject, deflecting, or false equivalence.

 

[Spock]

A gun is only a means when it is used by a human. Opportunity and motive rests with that human as well. I'm not seeing you support the agency of firearms yet.



Quote me. All I've done is congratulate you on discovering a new and exciting theory.



You're welcome to quote just one who claims that guns can't be used in a harmful manner.

You won't, because your implication that some do, is a lie.

Sorry to inform you but all this is "Yes...but" thinking.
You refuse to recognize that instrumentality means agency and need to throw up endless smoke screens.

 

[RF667799]

I understand how difficult it is for you to avoid defusing the concept that firearms are a major problem by changing the subject, deflecting, or false equivalence.

Hmmm. That doesn't look like you proceeding to make an argument from your premise.

That looks like deflection by way of ad hominem.

 

[CLAX1911]

You claim you understand but then you try to change the discussion to "authoritarian gun control" which indicates that you really do not understand.

So if you aren't advocating gun control what are you doing?

 

[rahl]

You seem to be equating agency with autonomous function.
Definition of agency includes instrumentality

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!

www.dictionary.com

A firearm has agency as it is a required component of firearm violence. In addition, a firearm is an agent of injury in the public health epidemiology literature. Google those highlighted terms for a better understanding

Firearms are inanimate. They by definition, don’t have agency.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Well that IS your argument that the priority is saving lives over all else.

Nope! Now you know that saving human lives being the priority is an assumption. If you don't believe that saving human lives is a priority, this thread will not work for you. Nobody is going to waste their time explaining to you why anymore that they'd waste it explaining why the Earth is round.

Except you are arguing that people who don’t pose a threat should not be allowed to own certain rifles.

Because this thread is not about people. It's about guns.

And have there rights restricted.

When that saves lives. But somebody who doesn't believe that saving lives is a priority even BEFORE reading this thread, would never understand why. And I'm not interested in wasting my time explaining that to you.

I ve already rebutted the effectiveness of your suggestions for gun control.

You can repeat that to yourself over and over until you turn blue in the face. But anybody who actually READS any of the above will see that I have challenged anybody to give me their BEST argument against any of my proposals. The attempts have been to claim that I don't consider mental health, which is not true (it's right on the OP). That there are already federal red flag laws, which is also false (only 21 states and DC have them), ..... now your argument is that I have to PROVE that defending human life is a priority. God!

The other one is so idiotic that I even addressed it preemptively in the OP: that you can kill as many people with a [knife, car, a match, your hands... I don't even know what] as you can with an assault weapon. Which, BTW, is DESIGNED to kill many people in as short amount of time as possible. I'm guessing people who make that argument have never SEEN what some of these assault weapons can do. Kids in schools like Parkland, Newtown, Uvalde... certainly have. It's an argument so absurd it's not even worth more than four lines to address....

So, you see? NO rebuttal of ANY of my arguments. When I wrote that, I was expecting to have somebody correct one or two. So far...NOTHING! So it would appear they're even more solid than I envisioned.

 

[RF667799]

Nope! Now you know that saving human lives being the priority is an assumption. If you don't believe that saving human lives is a priority, this thread will not work for you.

Point being, you don't believe it yourself.

Nobody is going to waste their time explaining to you why anymore that they'd waste it explaining why the Earth is round.




Because this thread is not about people. It's about guns.


When that saves lives. But somebody who doesn't believe that saving lives is a priority even BEFORE reading this thread, would never understand why. And I'm not interested in wasting my time explaining that to you.


You can repeat that to yourself over and over until you turn blue in the face. But anybody who actually READS any of the above will see that I have challenged anybody to give me their BEST argument against any of my proposals. The attempts have been to claim that I don't consider mental health, which is not true (it's right on the OP). That there are already federal red flag laws, which is also false (only 21 states and DC have them), ..... now your argument is that I have to PROVE that defending human life is a priority. God!

The other one is so idiotic that I even addressed it preemptively in the OP: that you can kill as many people with a [knife, car, a match, your hands... I don't even know what] as you can with an assault weapon. Which, BTW, is DESIGNED to kill many people in as short amount of time as possible. I'm guessing people who make that argument have never SEEN what some of these assault weapons can do. Kids in schools like Parkland, Newtown, Uvalde... certainly have. It's an argument so absurd it's not even worth more than four lines to address....

So, you see? NO rebuttal of ANY of my arguments. When I wrote that, I was expecting to have somebody correct one or two. So far...NOTHING! So it would appear they're even more solid than I envisioned.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

I'd be thrilled if you had arguments that DISAGREE with me.

No you wouldn't you would do exactly what you did.

You mean rebut them with facts and logic? I sure would!

I'm done debating what I would or wouldn't do. Do you have ANYTHING to even ADDRESS any of the points in the OP? Let's see...

I stated red flag laws are a violation of the Constitution...

So far, courts have disagreed with you. And these laws have existed in some of those states for a long long time.

Anyway, that's not a rebuttal. If the Supreme Court declares them unconstitutional, then we move on. In the mean time, the FACT is that they would WORK! And you just admitted you haven't even ATTEMPTED to rebut that.

You haven't rebutted ANY of my points. This was just a pause but, again, a REBUTTAL is what I'm interested in. Do you have any?
....

I don't debate proposals of someone who's in no position to make proposals.

Great! So you ADMIT that you can't debate my proposals. Wonderful!

I doubt you'll find some Senator here to debate them with. But you have wasted enough of my time!