How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[jaeger19]

Access to ropes, like access to firearms is necessary.

Bingo. Now should we assume more ropes lead to more lynching like you assume with firearms?

Stay on topic.

I am.

You do not see a difference between violence committed by use of a firearm or by use of a rope??

No. Is the person killed with a firearm less dead than one killed by a rope?

List the proxies for prevalence and I will, again, explain the shortcomings for

Great . Percentage of people who report they own a firearm to surveys.

If you want to make that argument, you will have to show that ALL new firearms added to existing collections got stolen. Do you really believe that?

No I don’t.
why would I ? That’s stupid.
Let’s say just 1% of all new firearms to existing owners are stolen .
That 1% represents an increase in the firearms available to criminals does it not?
And this when gun sales are high, crime should go up accordingly due to the increase in available guns.

You would have to show that NO new firearms to existing owners are ever stolen, ever traded , or given , ir ever the result of a strawman purchase etc.

Can you show that.?

 

[Spock]

Bingo. Now should we assume more ropes lead to more lynching like you assume with firearms?

The triad must exist and means are an essential component. Firearm access is essential, just as it is for ropes.

I am.

No. Is the person killed with a firearm less dead than one killed by a rope?

Why are ropes not used as the primary means of murder in the USA?

It is beyond absurd to conclude that firearm purchases by existing gun owner result in an overall prevalence increase in gun owners.

Theft risk exists for all gun owners but does not offset the overall new purchases made by existing gun owners.

Firearm prevalence is best viewed as real time access to firearms. Firearms in secure storage are not carried or readily accessible.
Firearms poorly stored are accessible to children, impaired adults, and criminals. The firearm ACCESS prevalence is the best measure of firearm risk to a community and, like most human behavior, survey data is unreliable.

You have not listed the proxies for prevalence, so you apparently have not adequately studied the firearm prevalence question.

 

[jaeger19]

The triad must exist and means are an essential component. Firearm access is essential, just as it is for ropes.

Yep. Doesn’t mean more ropes equals more lynchings

Why are ropes not used as the primary means of murder in the USA?

Because they are the primary means of lynchings.

It is beyond absurd to conclude that firearm purchases by existing gun owner result in an overall prevalence increase in gun owners.

Explain why not. Does this not mean more firearms that can be stolen , sold, traded, lent . And the result of a strawman purchase?
Yes or no.
Can you state unequivocally that none of those firearms will ever be stolen traded etc?
And can you saw unequivocally that all new purchases are ONLY to existing gun owners?

If you cannot state those two conditions exist?
Then firearm sales are a measure of increasing prevalence.

Theft risk exists for all gun owners but does not offset the overall new purchases made by existing gun owners.

If theft exist then new gun purchases even to existing gun owners represent an increase in prevalence.

Firearm prevalence is best viewed as real time access to firearms. Firearms in secure storage are not carried or readily accessible.

Define “ readily”.
If a gun owner wants to kill his spouse it’s only a matter of under a minute to get into a traditional safe. A more modern safe ? Faster.

Firearms poorly stored are accessible to children, impaired adults, and criminals.

Define “ poorly” I don’t have children in my home nor impaired adults . Any criminal has to break into my house to access my firearms.

The firearm ACCESS prevalence is the best measure of firearm risk to a community and, like most human behavior, survey data is unreliable.

No . It’s not . Besides t you can’t even define “ access”
But you try.
Let’s hear it. How fast is access that makes a difference to an adult gun owner.

You have not listed the proxies for prevalence, so you apparently have not adequately studied the firearm prevalence question.

Sure I did.
Just started with one. Not to confuse you.
But again
“Great . Percentage of people who report they own a firearm to surveys.”

 

[Feynman Lives!]

1. Why do you think the proper solution to a person being adjudicated a danger to themselves or others is to remove their firearms and allow them back into society.
Doesn’t it make more sense to put them I to inpatient mental health so they can’t harm anyone and get treatment.

The point applies to those who CAN'T be put in an impatient mental health facility. If they CAN, we most certainly MUST.

Red flag laws are for individuals that have not been diagnosed with any mental health issue that would warrant internment but STILL might pose a threat to themselves or others. They are normally temporary orders issued by a judge (in some states, law enforcement can make the decision) for a period of crisis. Often there is no time. Somebody just underwent a traumatic event, and they have a gun, and there are indications (red flags) that they're going to use it. Pending diagnosis by a mental health professional who will decide to intern that person, they just take away the gun for a day or two. Sometimes until they are evaluated by a mental health professional

But one thing does not preclude the other....

So.... that was it?

 

[Spock]

Yep. Doesn’t mean more ropes equals more lynchings

There is no limiting step to rope access. Firearms are far less accessible than ropes. So, access is a rate limiting factor and when firearms are available, domestic abusers, the mentally ill, hunters, children, and those with anger management grab firearm rather than the less effective rope. So, yes, reducing the access to firearms will reduce firearm violence.

Because they are the primary means of lynchings.

Why are ropes not commonly used for homicide since they are readily available? Hint: firearms are more effective

Explain why not. Does this not mean more firearms that can be stolen , sold, traded, lent . And the result of a strawman purchase?
Yes or no.

Explained repeatedly previously.

Can you state unequivocally that none of those firearms will ever be stolen traded etc?

Logic would suggest that single firearms are less likely to be secured than the gun collection of a multiple gun owner.

And can you saw unequivocally that all new purchases are ONLY to existing gun owners?

You claim expertise on prevalence, explain what fraction of gun purchases go to existing gun owners.

If you cannot state those two conditions exist?
Then firearm sales are a measure of increasing prevalence.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Define “ readily”.

common parlance.

If a gun owner wants to kill his spouse it’s only a matter of under a minute to get into a traditional safe. A more modern safe ? Faster.

Define “ poorly”

common parlance

I don’t have children in my home nor impaired adults . Any criminal has to break into my house to access my firearms.

So what? Your experience is completely irrelevant to firearm policy and epidemiology.

 

[RF667799]

You love your false equivalencies.
However, you have created a problem for yourself and you must now agree that firearm access leads to firearm violence.
Rope lynching cannot happen without access to a rope. Therefore, firearm access is necessary for firearm violence.

That's been "admitted" so many times, it's hilarious that you keep demanding it be admitted. I'd don't believe I've ever denied it.

Your problem is you can't go any further with that "admittance", and so settle for continued crying that your tautology is not being accepted.

 

[Spock]

That's been "admitted" so many times, it's hilarious that you keep demanding it be admitted. I'd don't believe I've ever denied it.

Your problem is you can't go any further with that "admittance", and so settle for continued crying that your tautology is not being accepted.

Your next challenge is to explain what will happen as access increases in a society. 1 + 1 = ?

 

[RF667799]

The point applies to those who CAN'T be put in an impatient mental health facility. If they CAN, we most certainly MUST.

Red flag laws are for individuals that have not been diagnosed with any mental health issue that would warrant internment but STILL might pose a threat to themselves or others. They are normally temporary orders issued by a judge (in some states, law enforcement can make the decision) for a period of crisis. Often there is no time. Somebody just underwent a traumatic event, and they have a gun, and there are indications (red flags) that they're going to use it. Pending diagnosis by a mental health professional who will decide to intern that person, they just take away the gun for a day or two. Sometimes until they are evaluated by a mental health professional

But one thing does not preclude the other....

So.... that was it?

Your argument is that some individuals can't be deprived of their liberty without due process, but can be deprived of their property without due process.

 

[RF667799]

Your next challenge is to explain what will happen as access increases in a society. 1 + 1 = ?

No, your challenge is to proceed with your argument.

I'm not sure anyone here feels so sorry for your inept flailing that they want to make your arguments for you.

 

[Spock]

Your argument is that some individuals can't be deprived of their liberty without due process, but can be deprived of their property without due process.

Every police action compromises personal liberty in some way.

 

[Spock]

No, your challenge is to proceed with your argument.

I'm not sure anyone here feels so sorry for your inept flailing that they want to make your arguments for you.

You do not seem to be able to make the extrapolation from access by a person to a firearm and violence risk and the access of many people to firearms and violence risk. It is a simple addition problem.

 

[RF667799]

Every police action compromises personal liberty in some way.

Did you see those words "without due process", or did you just ignore them?

 

[Spock]

You have not listed the proxies for prevalence, so you apparently have not adequately studied the firearm prevalence question.

Sure I did.
Just started with one. Not to confuse you.
But again
“Great . Percentage of people who report they own a firearm to surveys.”

There are multiple proxies for firearm prevalence because accurate data is not available.
You listed one-- purchases (without understanding the inherent errors)

What are the other proxies and what are their shortcomings?

 

[RF667799]

You do not seem to be able to make the extrapolation from access by a person to a firearm and violence risk and the access of many people to firearms and violence risk. It is a simple addition problem.

It doesn't seem to have much application in real life.

Risks are not evenly distributed, and you seem to define any risk as unacceptable when it comes to firearms.

 

[Spock]

Did you see those words "without due process", or did you just ignore them?

The point is regardless of due process, every police action compromises personal liberty.
Furthermore, due process is whatever SCOTUS decides it is in our system, so your concern about pre-emptive police action is just that much more NRA posturing that ignores responsible efforts to reduce firearm violence.

 

[Spock]

It doesn't seem to have much application in real life.

Access to firearms is, of course, what firearm violence is all about.

Risks are not evenly distributed, and you seem to define any risk as unacceptable when it comes to firearms.

Meaningless protest with a fallacious appeal the extreme. Fail.

Firearm violence involves access, opportunity and intent. Reduce access and one leg is off the 3 legged stool.

 

[RF667799]

The point is regardless of due process, every police action compromises personal liberty.
Furthermore, due process is whatever SCOTUS decides it is in our system, so your concern about pre-emptive police action is just that much more NRA posturing that ignores responsible efforts to reduce firearm violence.

You're leaning hard on SCOTUS.

I'm sure you accept their authority when they say keeping and bearing arms is an individual right that exists independently of the Constitution.

 

[RF667799]

Access to firearms is, of course, what firearm violence is all about.

Meaningless protest with a fallacious appeal the extreme. Fail.

Firearm violence involves access, opportunity and intent. Reduce access and one leg is off the 3 legged stool.

So what risks associated with private firearm ownership and use, are you accepting of?

 

[rahl]

Apparently the subilty of measuring prevalence has been difficult for you to master. You probably think that gun sales equate to prevalence.

Then show us your numbers for prevalence. Break it down by state, city, and household. After you do that, show us the causal factor that exists.

 

[rahl]

So you you now admit that you ***DO*** have full access to your guns - despite them being in a "trust"

After all, they are in YOUR safe.

Troll troll troll your boat, gently down the stream……….

 

[rahl]

Returning to the topic:
Here is an example of prevalence and firearm risk without precise measurement of prevalence:
Any reasonable person will accept the premise that firearm prevalence increases during hunting season with knowing the precise prevalence day to day:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2822218

Did the hunter acquire a firearm only during hunting season and then relinquish it after the season?

Prevalence did not increase during hunting season. Good lord you are bad at this

 

[Spock]

You're leaning hard on SCOTUS.

I'm sure you accept their authority when they say keeping and bearing arms is an individual right that exists independently of the Constitution.

We should all look forward to the repeal of 2A to find out.

 

[Spock]

So what risks associated with private firearm ownership and use, are you accepting of?

You are changing the topic and neglecting to address the fallacies you have presented. Access to firearms is the issue.
As more firearm access occurs, there is more firearm violence.

 

[rahl]

The role of firearm access to firearm violence can be inferred from many situations:
1. hunting season, with carried firearms, has greater risk of firearm death and injury than when firearms are in storage (presumably)

No it doesn’t

2. children are at risk when alone around loaded firearms

They are at risk around pools, stairs, knives, motor vehicles as well.

3. households with firearms have greater risk of firearm death and injury

No they don’t.

4. Any society with firearms will have firearm death and injury

Meaningless tautology.

5. Firearms are most commonly used to commit successful homicide and mass murder.

This is hilariously false. Firearms are rarely used in such a manner.

6. Firearm access is a risk factor for completed suicide by adult males.

No it isn’t.

7. States with fewer controls on firearms have greater firearm death and injury rates.

No they don’t.

 

[Spock]

Did the hunter acquire a firearm only during hunting season and then relinquish it after the season?

Prevalence did not increase during hunting season. Good lord you are bad at this

Define the prevalence in your argument and explain how to measure it.