How to ban guns without firing a single shot! (5 Viewers)

[RF667799]

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...



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?
....


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!

You've adopted the Trump position. Due process is whatever you say. If that includes arbitrarily depriving people of their property, then that's all the due process they get.

 

[Spock]

The gun advocacy argument boils down to:
1. I want my gun, any gun. (preposterous)
2. Firearms are not involved in firearm violence.
3. More guns, less crime; firearms are a net benefit to society. (unsupported)

 

[Feynman Lives!]

The gun advocacy argument boils down to:
1. I want my gun, any gun. (preposterous)
2. Firearms are not involved in firearm violence.
3. More guns, less crime; firearms are a net benefit to society. (unsupported)

That pretty much summarizes it. I would only add.

4. If mass shooters can't buy an Assault Rifle, they'll use a car to kill dozens of school kids in their classroom.

 

[CLAX1911]

You mean rebut them with facts and logic?

You didn't do that

I sure would!

I'm done debating what I would or wouldn't do.

We all saw what you did. You didn't even make her bottles mostly just personal attacks.

Do you have ANYTHING to even ADDRESS any of the points in the OP? Let's see...

Why so you can avoid it again and carry on with something completely irrelevant?

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

So?

Anyway, that's not a rebuttal.

It's pretty pathetic.

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.

Rebut what?

You haven't rebutted ANY of my points.

The only point I've seen you make is that you just because something is legal that means it's right. I'm not going to robot this because it's stupid.

This was just a pause but, again, a REBUTTAL is what I'm interested in. Do you have any?

Rebuttal for what? Your point is asinine. State something worth rebutting and maybe you'll get somewhere.

....


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

Wasn't interested in debating them.

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

Nobody can waste your time but you.

 

[CLAX1911]

The gun advocacy argument boils down to:
1. I want my gun, any gun. (preposterous)
2. Firearms are not involved in firearm violence.
3. More guns, less crime; firearms are a net benefit to society. (unsupported)

If it was your argument wouldn't have failed for 250 years. But yes go ahead and believe there's a conspiracy against you.

 

[CLAX1911]

That pretty much summarizes it. I would only add.

4. If mass shooters can't buy an Assault Rifle, they'll use a car to kill dozens of school kids in their classroom.

Well I would say they would just use assault rifles because you can't stop him from getting them. They would just break the law to get them.

This is why I don't rebut your points they're so unfathomably stupid.

Laws are not magical spells that make guns disappear.

 

[Spock]

That pretty much summarizes it. I would only add.

4. If mass shooters can't buy an Assault Rifle, they'll use a car to kill dozens of school kids in their classroom.

Yes. Over a given time, the exact same number of people would die in any given society if the only weapons left were bananas.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yes. Over a given time, the exact same number of people would die in any given society if the only weapons left were bananas.

You can't make weapons disappear. You don't do that look at how many people still use heroin.

 

[RF667799]

The gun advocacy argument boils down to:
1. I want my gun, any gun. (preposterous)
2. Firearms are not involved in firearm violence.
3. More guns, less crime; firearms are a net benefit to society. (unsupported)

An almost complete strawman. You should start a thread and argue against yourself in it.

 

[RF667799]

That pretty much summarizes it. I would only add.

4. If mass shooters can't buy an Assault Rifle, they'll use a car to kill dozens of school kids in their classroom.

Does that complete the strawman that @Spock started?

 

[Spock]

An almost complete strawman. You should start a thread and argue against yourself in it.

Those are literally taken from pro-gun arguments on Debate Politics.

 

[RF667799]

Those are literally taken from pro-gun arguments on Debate Politics.

Quote someone arguing that firearms are not involved in firearms violence. Shouldn't be too hard, given you claimed that is literally taken from pro-gun arguments.

 

[Spock]

Quote someone arguing that firearms are not involved in firearms violence. Shouldn't be too hard, given you claimed that is literally taken from pro-gun arguments.

Search "firearm violence" and you will come up with lots of folks who dismiss the concept, reject the involvment of firearms or refuse to accept that firearm access is necessary for firearm violence.
Of course, you yourself have danced around the concept and are more concerned with a perceived tautology than admitting that firearms contribute to firearm violence.

 

[RF667799]

Search "firearm violence" and you will come up with lots of folks who dismiss the concept, reject the involvment of firearms or refuse to accept that firearm access is necessary for firearm violence.
Of course, you yourself have danced around the concept and are more concerned with a perceived tautology than admitting that firearms contribute to firearm violence.

I guess this means you will again fail to support a claim you've made.

You just settle for repeating the claim.

Atrocious bit of foolishness.

 

[Spock]

I guess this means you will again fail to support a claim you've made.

You just settle for repeating the claim.

Atrocious bit of foolishness.

Those previously mentioned attitudes and opinion are all well documented.

 

[RF667799]

Those previously mentioned attitudes and opinion are all well documented.

Except certainly not by you, in support of your claim.

 

[Spock]

Except certainly not by you, in support of your claim.

Having trouble using the search function??

 

[jaeger19]

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.

Pooh. That’s why we questioned your assumption. You’ve shown that saving lives is not your priority as you won’t agree to have restrictions on your vehicle and driving that will save lives.
So spare me your hypocritical drama.

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

No it’s about people and 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.

Yes you don’t care about saving lives . We get that.

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).

No you don’t consider mental health treatment in the op. I pointed that out.

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!

No. You wanted judicial power to take away firearms from people found to be a danger to themselves or others . Judges in every state have that power.
Red flag laws allow firearms to be taken wothout due process. The person does not have to be adjudicated a threat .
You are simple ignorant of the difference between using die process and red flag laws that violate it.

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..

Well fact is you can

. 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.

They are actually NOT designed for that. Actually assault weapons . Which semi automatic rifles are not . Are designed to provide covering fire to allow movement.
But you can’t be deterred from your ignorance.

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....

well first they aren’t assault weapons . But the firearms you are talking about. I own one. My son owns several. We gun owners understand what they are capable of a lot more than you do. It’s why we laugh at your histrionics.

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.

Actually your arguments have all been rebutted.
You’ve shown aren’t even aware of existing firearm laws and what they do and don’t do.
Cripes you didn’t even have common sense.
You could not even address my point that red flag laws are stupid . If a person is truly a threat to themselves or others that person should be removed from society and place in inpatient facility. It’s the height of stupidity to take their firearms and leave them in society to kill by other means.

 

[RF667799]

Having trouble using the search function??

There's no rational reason for you to believe I should be supporting your claims. Support them yourself, or realize they will be considered as bullshit.

 

[Spock]

There's no rational reason for you to believe I should be supporting your claims. Support them yourself, or realize they will be considered as bullshit.

You must not really be interested in proving firearms are involved with firearm violence.
It must be obvious to you that gun advocacy here on Debate Politics has supported all the opinions I mentioned.
What is your opinion of the relationship of firearms to firearm violence? You always dance around that concept without recogizing that a firearm is the sine quo non for gun violence.

I am sure @CLAX1911 and @rahl will agree that firearm violence does not occur.

 

[CLAX1911]

You must not really be interested in proving firearms are involved with firearm violence.

Why nobody is arguing that guns aren't used in criminal violence.

It must be obvious to you that gun advocacy here on Debate Politics has supported all the opinions I mentioned.

That's why we have had gun control for 250 years right?

What is your opinion of the relationship of firearms to firearm violence?

There is no firearm violence.

You always dance around that concept without recogizing that a firearm is the sine quo non for gun violence.

Well gun violence doesn't real but I'll some you mean criminal activity.

It's because of the incompetence of the government to control this that I want firearms.

They are too stupid to protect me I must do it myself

I am sure @CLAX1911 and @rahl will agree that firearm violence does not occur.

It's contributive dissonance.

 

[RF667799]

You must not really be interested in proving firearms are involved with firearm violence.

You've already proven it. Over and over and over. Nobody disagrees. What the corn bread **** are you babbling about?

It must be obvious to you that gun advocacy here on Debate Politics has supported all the opinions I mentioned.

No it isn't. And you won't support that. So we're left with your claims being bullshit.

What is your opinion of the relationship of firearms to firearm violence? You always dance around that concept without recogizing that a firearm is the sine quo non for gun violence.

That's a lie. We recently had an exchange where I agreed with you that a firearm is a sine quo non for firearm violence. Just like ropes are a sine quo non for rope violence, skateboards are a sine quo non for skateboard violence, and so on.

So why lie?

I am sure @CLAX1911 and @rahl will agree that firearm violence does not occur.

I believe they just don't accept that silly premise as having any meaning.

I OTOH often accept your premise for argument's sake, and guess what? You're stuck right there and can't proceed any further.

 

[Spock]

You've already proven it. Over and over and over. Nobody disagrees. What the corn bread **** are you babbling about?


No it isn't. And you won't support that. So we're left with your claims being bullshit.

Try this:

There is no firearm violence.

The outcome of human actions is often dependent upon the available technology or means at hand. In a society with greater firearm prevalence compared to one with lesser firearm prevalence, there will be more firearm trauma as a consequence of non-criminal confrontations, self-harm actions, criminal assaults and inadvertant, accidental firearm misuse.

Dangerous devices, such a firearms, demand regulation to reduce the frequency and extent of the death and injury from the device.
Most people understand that easy availability of explosives or automatic weapons, toxic chemicals, deadly biological agents, and dangeous animals will threaten the safety of a civilian community. That realization seems incomprehensible to some gun fanatics. If there were 100,000 deaths and injuries yearly from biologic agents or grenades, there would be an uproar.

The common thinking about the inherently dangerous devices somehow does not extend to semi-automatic firearms largely because pro-gun propaganda has misrepresented these devices as "modern sporting rifles" or promoted the idea that available means has no impact on the consequences of human behaviors.

That's a lie. We recently had an exchange where I agreed with you that a firearm is a sine quo non for firearm violence. Just like ropes are a sine quo non for rope violence, skateboards are a sine quo non for skateboard violence, and so on.

So why lie?

No lies. Why do you insist on undermining your awareness by false equivalence responses? Equating firearms with skateboards and ropes does not demonstrate understanding.

I believe they just don't accept that silly premise as having any meaning.

So now you do not acknowledge the "silly premise" of firearm violence? Just as I predicted.

I OTOH often accept your premise for argument's sake, and guess what? You're stuck right there and can't proceed any further.

The next step for you would be to recognize the extent of firearm violence and the factors essential for that violence to occur.

 

[CLAX1911]

Try this:





No lies. Why do you insist on undermining your awareness by false equivalence responses? Equating firearms with skateboards and ropes does not demonstrate understanding.

So now you do not acknowledge the "silly premise" of firearm violence? Just as I predicted.

The next step for you would be to recognize the extent of firearm violence and the factors essential for that violence to occur.

Why do you run away from any hypothetical by lying about it being a false equivalency?

You're not fooling anybody here.

 

[SMTA]

To be clear, I don't think banning all guns is possible in this country in any of our lifetimes. So relax. But we might be able to reduce the number of mass shootings by banning some. I also don't mean "banning" in the sense that cops are going to walk into homes and grab guns.

Be sure to read at the end of this post some silly and irrelevant arguments that some have made in the past, so you don't repeat them. But if you do, I'll just refer you to the proper "Irrelevant argument" number.

Remember: there is likely NO way to stop ALL mass shootings. But the idea here is to make them more difficult. So that there are less shootings. And when shootings are unavoidable, that less people get killed.

The whole process will take years... maybe decades. But we need to start now!

All we want to do is make mass shooting more difficult.

The following might help:

1. Ban the sale to the public of "assault weapons". As well as parts and ammunition. Reinstate the Assault Weapon sales ban.
2. No confiscation (except what is already in the law). But adopt a voluntary buy-back program with strong compensation, for guns and ammunition.
3. Ban so-called "cop-killing" bullets.
4. Ban the sale of high-capacity magazines.
5. Ban ghost guns.
6. Require a license to buy any firearm and ammunition.
7. Require a "graduation process" to obtain and maintain a gun license.
8. Mandatory buy back program for weapons acquired with a license for anybody who fails to renew their license.
9. Implement a federal mandatory background check for all gun sales. No loopholes. And hold private sellers accountable if the gun sold without a check or to an unlicensed buyer is used in a crime.
10. Give courts the authority to confiscate guns from people who they consider a threat to themselves and others. (Red Flag Law)
11. Raise the age limit for buying any kind of guns to 21 (at least)
12. Implement strong nationwide cash-for-guns programs focusing primarily on assault weapons.
13. Repeal the PLCAA and investigate gun manufacturers and gun lobbyists' role in passing it.
14. Require manufacturers to alter design of guns sold to public to make them as difficult to be modified as possible.
15. Declare gun violence a preventable public health problem. Give the CDC funding an resources to study the relation between certain mental illnesses and gun violence.
16. Repeal DoC v Heller given that the decision is based on factual historical and linguistic inaccuracies.

Feel free to skip the following absurd or irrelevant arguments

• Irrelevant argument 1: People can print their guns: Sure... but that would be more difficult than just running down to the store. It's easy to print a gun with a kit. So selling kits must be outlawed. But many crazy people might not know HOW to print a gun without one. Some might not bother and just go jump of a bridge... or something. And then there are the bullets....
• Irrelevant argument 2: They can kill people with .... (cars, bombs, knives, forks...): Read the sentence in "bold" at the top. It's HARDER to kill a lot of people with any of those items, than it is with a gun. Learning how to pull a trigger is easier than learning how to make a bomb without blowing yourself up in the process.
• Irrelevant argument 3: You can't stop ALL shootings: Then we don't! That doesn't mean we can't stop ANY shootings.
• Irrelevant argument 4: Guns don't kill people... people kill people: Bullshit!!
• Irrelevant argument 5: But but but... the 2nd Amendment: Start here and continue through all the threads mentioned which debunk this inaccurate claime
• Irrelevant argument 6: This xxxx [bump stock, cop killer bullets, assault rifles, ...] don't exist: MORE Bullshit! They do!
• Irrelevant argument 7: What we need is more guns, not less (and variations like "arm teachers" and similar): There are more guns than there are people. So we have tried this. It hasn't worked! Countries have done the contrary (Australia, UK, Japan, ...etc) and it HAS worked.
• Irrelevant argument 8: This is just a mental issue: There are as many nuts in other countries as there are in this one. And NO country has anywhere near as many shootings as we do. Over 600 every year since 2020, and almost 400 so far this year. Second place this year among developed countries: France with 6!)

Poor baby.
Not going to happen.