How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[rahl]

Absent adequate understanding and measurement of prevalence, all your conclusions are suspect.

Means, opportunity, intent.... and means is the easiest to change.

No it isn’t, as it’s not possible to ban and/or remove firearms from the US. The constitution precludes you from doing so.

 

[rahl]

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.

Except in places where increased access does not result in increased firearm violence. This is why your argument keeps getting curb stomped. N

 

[rahl]

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

Nope. You are the one flailing about using “prevalence” as an argument and causal factor, but you can’t even begin to quantify it. It’s ****ing hilarious.

 

[RF667799]

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

I doubt anyone reading here will survive to see that.

Given the way you've argued that odds stack, the entire world should be depopulated by next Tuesday.

Your deflection is again noted.

 

[RF667799]

You are changing the topic and neglecting to address the fallacies you have presented. Access to firearms is the issue.

That's addressing your accusation of "appeal to the extreme", and it's quite obvious you don't want to answer.

So you just settle for repeating the accusation and deflecting.

So I ask again:
What risks associated with private firearm ownership and use, are you accepting of?

As more firearm access occurs, there is more firearm violence.

No, you can't prove that...especially with the terms of your own argument.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

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.

Do you even have any idea what "due process" MEANS?

Obviously not!

There you have it! You had your chance to engage in a serious debate, and you blew it!

This is exactly why I'm not bothering with this poster anymore.

 

[RF667799]

Do you even have any idea what "due process" MEANS?

Obviously not!

There you have it! You had your chance to engage in a serious debate, and you blew it!

This is exactly why I'm not bothering with this poster anymore.

You're "not bothering", because you'll just be forced to start lying again if you engage. Avoidance is your only other recourse.

 

[Spock]

That's addressing your accusation of "appeal to the extreme", and it's quite obvious you don't want to answer.

So you just settle for repeating the accusation and deflecting.

So I ask again:
What risks associated with private firearm ownership and use, are you accepting of?

I am more interested in getting a consistent answer from you about the causes of firearm violence and access.
You do not seem to have a consistent position.
Anyone who recognizes that firearm access contributes to firearm violence should be able to understand that when more people have access more violence must ensue.

 

[Rich2018]

You still don’t understand a legal trust do you? Do you get your legal knowledge from TV like your forearms knowledge?

Well according to you, you don't technically own the guns, but you keeep them and have full access to them. So this whole "trust" business is not relevant at all is it ?

 

[braindrain]

Do you even have any idea what "due process" MEANS?

Obviously not!

There you have it! You had your chance to engage in a serious debate, and you blew it!

This is exactly why I'm not bothering with this poster anymore.

Translation: you are tired of getting your pathetic arguments destroyed and lack the courage to admit it and instead will play this sad little game.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Well according to you, you don't technically own the guns, but you keeep them and have full access to them. So this whole "trust" business is not relevant at all is it ?

Once again, you prove that you know nothing about the law, legal matters, or firearms. Congratulations.

 

[RF667799]

I am more interested in getting a consistent answer from you about the causes of firearm violence and access.

I know you aren't interested in supporting your accusations. I've pointed it out several times.

The cause of "firearm violence" is someone with a desire to commit violence doing so using a gun. How could it be anything but?


It's a good thing it happens so rarely.

You do not seem to have a consistent position.
Anyone who recognizes that firearm access contributes to firearm violence should be able to understand that when more people have access more violence must ensue.

Not a foregone conclusion. Not even supported in reality.

 

[Spock]

I know you aren't interested in supporting your accusations. I've pointed it out several times.

The cause of "firearm violence" is someone with a desire to commit violence doing so using a gun. How could it be anything but?


It's a good thing it happens so rarely.

Happens more than 100,000 times a year.
Do you now agree that when firearms are accessible, firearm violence can occur and the more widely accessible they are, the more numbers of violent incidents will occur?

Not a foregone conclusion. Not even supported in reality.

You have agreed that accessible firearms are necessary for gun death and injury. Why do you resist the idea that firearm accessibility in a population represents a risk for firearm violence occurring?

 

[jaeger19]

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

That’s Bullcrap and you know it. The judge COULD order an emergency psychiatric hold and should.
No time??? Time to what go to the persons house , search it sufficiently to find firearms. Get into safes etc.
In that time the person should be on a psychiatric hold. So much faster and effective.

They take his guns for “ a couple of days”? . A couple of days when he could steal some, buy some , etc. and he poses a threat to himself and others???

Come now. That’s silly.

As far as one doesn’t preclude the other?
My suggestion is effective at saving lives. Like literally saving all lives

Your suggestion doesn’t do squat as shown.

 

[RF667799]

Happens more than 100,000 times a year.
Do you now agree that when firearms are accessible, firearm violence can occur and the more widely accessible they are, the more numbers of violent incidents will occur?

They become more accessible every year, and homicide rates continue a downward trend.

You have agreed that accessible firearms are necessary for gun death and injury. Why do you resist the idea that firearm accessibility in a population represents a risk for firearm violence occurring?

Firearm accessibility absolutely represents a risk for firearm violence.

Firearms are as inextricably linked to firearms violence as knives are to knife violence. As skateboards are to skateboard violence. As ropes are to....well you get the point.

 

[Spock]

They become more accessible every year,

unproven.

and homicide rates continue a downward trend.

firearm violence is not limited to homicide.

Firearm accessibility absolutely represents a risk for firearm violence.

Therefore, as accessible firearms proliferate, firearm violence will increase. QED

 

[Feynman Lives!]

That’s Bullcrap and you know it. The judge COULD order an emergency psychiatric hold and should.

Do you have ANY idea how mental illness is diagnosed? You think they put something like a "thermometer" up their BUTT and say "Oh yeah! This guy suffers from ASPD!"

Not how it works!!!

But even if they COULD do that, that is NOT what Red Flag Laws are for. Experiencing a traumatic event is NOT a mental disease. Somebody who has a gun and just lost a child and wants to kill themselves, or go out and shoot somebody, for example.... that can happen to people who DON'T have a mental disease. It's temporary and Red Flag Laws would allow a judge to adopt a temporary "cooling period". THAT will save lives.

Like I said, if it's POSSIBLE to diagnose somebody and intern them.... great! Let's do that. But that is NOT what Red Flag laws are for.

 

[RF667799]

unproven.

firearm violence is not limited to homicide.

Therefore, as accessible firearms proliferate, firearm violence will increase. QED

You've now taken to publishing edited versions of my posts. Try to argue on the square, and we can continue.

 

[jaeger19]

Do you have ANY idea how mental illness is diagnosed? You think they put something like a "thermometer" up their BUTT and say "Oh yeah! This guy suffers from ASPD!"

Actually yes I do know how they diagnose mental illness. I also know that if a person has demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves or others they can be held for psychiatric evaluation . Usually at least a 24 hour hold to allow evaluation. I know several state that have a 72hour hold available to if the 24hour isn’t enough time for evaluation and the director of the inpatient facility believes they still represent a danger.

Not how it works!!!

But even if they COULD do that, that is NOT what Red Flag Laws are for. Experiencing a traumatic event is NOT a mental disease. Somebody who has a gun and just lost a child and wants to kill themselves, or go out and shoot somebody, for example.... that can happen to people who DON'T have a mental disease.

It means they are in crisis and still need psychiatric help even . The laws governing a danger to themselves or others cover this as well.

It's temporary and Red Flag Laws would allow a judge to adopt a temporary "cooling period". THAT will save lives.

And during that “ cooling period” period they may kill themselves or others . How does that “ save lives”.
Versus inpatient mental health.

Like I said, if it's POSSIBLE to diagnose somebody and intern them.... great! Let's do that. But that is NOT what Red Flag laws are for.

Which is why red flag laws really do nothing.

 

[Spock]

You've now taken to publishing edited versions of my posts. Try to argue on the square, and we can continue.

You are imaginative in your creation of excuses to avoid sincere discussion.

Actually yes I do know how they diagnose mental illness. I also know that if a person has demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves or others they can be held for psychiatric evaluation . Usually at least a 24 hour hold to allow evaluation. I know several state that have a 72hour hold available to if the 24hour isn’t enough time for evaluation and the director of the inpatient facility believes they still represent a danger.

It means they are in crisis and still need psychiatric help even . The laws governing a danger to themselves or others cover this as well.

And during that “ cooling period” period they may kill themselves or others . How does that “ save lives”.
Versus inpatient mental health.

Which is why red flag laws really do nothing.

As usual, rather than dealing with the true problem (firearm access), pro-gun advocates suggest unreasonable, complex, expensive, and unlikely solutions.
If a young child is playing with a loaded firearm, presumably the best intervention, per @jaeger19, would be to arrange for a court ordered 72 hour observation.
With firearm violence, motivation and opportunity cannot be easily changed; means can.

 

[RF667799]

You are imaginative in your creation of excuses to avoid sincere discussion.

As usual, rather than dealing with the true problem (firearm access), pro-gun advocates suggest unreasonable, complex, expensive, and unlikely solutions.
If a young child is playing with a loaded firearm, presumably the best intervention, per @jaeger19, would be to arrange for a court ordered 72 hour observation.
With firearm violence, motivation and opportunity cannot be easily changed; means can.

As usual, all you can do is set up a strawman to argue with.

Duplicitous characterizations of the posts of others; editing the posts of others. Seems to be the limit of your intellectual arsenal.

 

[Spock]

As usual, all you can do is set up a strawman to argue with.

Sometimes a strawman best demonstrates the inherent absurdity of an argument.

Duplicitous characterizations of the posts of others; editing the posts of others. Seems to be the limit of your intellectual arsenal.

Nope. You seem to be confused about who posted what.
Try to get back on track.

 

[RF667799]

Sometimes a strawman best demonstrates the inherent absurdity of an argument.

No, a strawman is a different position from that which your opponent took. IOW, you just made that shit up.

Nope. You seem to be confused about who posted what.
Try to get back on track.

Made that shit up, example 2.

 

[jaeger19]

You are imaginative in your creation of excuses to avoid sincere discussion.

As usual, rather than dealing with the true problem (firearm access), pro-gun advocates suggest unreasonable, complex, expensive, and unlikely solutions.
If a young child is playing with a loaded firearm, presumably the best intervention, per @jaeger19, would be to arrange for a court ordered 72 hour observation.
With firearm violence, motivation and opportunity cannot be easily changed; means can.

Well, if the child is exhibiting signs of mental health issues that they are a danger to themselves or others? Which was what the other poster and I were discussing?

Then yes it would seem the best solution would be to get them the help they need rather than simply take their firearm away and then allow them to return to society where they can then steal a firearm , find a knife, and do harm.

 

[Spock]

Well, if the child is exhibiting signs of mental health issues that they are a danger to themselves or others? Which was what the other poster and I were discussing?

Then yes it would seem the best solution would be to get them the help they need rather than simply take their firearm away and then allow them to return to society where they can then steal a firearm , find a knife, and do harm.

You know very well that Red Flag Laws deal with a reasonable suspicion of danger, usually to others. No one "needs" firearms and if others are at risk, as in heated domestic arguments, it is reasonable for law enforcement to intervene proactively. These impoundments are not permanent and are a reasonable balance between gun "rights" and risk of firearm violence. Certainly one could make the argument that ANYONE who sincerely views a firearm as essential to their safety or resolution of an argument needs mental health help, so in that regard your 72 hour hold argument would apply.