How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[jaeger19]

That is not the argument. Specific and isolated "cause" is not the issue. However, since there are multifactor influences on firearm violence, the availability of a firearm makes for different outcome than would occur without the firearm access.

Of course it’s the issue. No intelligent objective person would argue that the cause of violence or suicide ideation is not the issue.
And no intelligent objective person would argue that a person who dies from being shot is more dead ( is of more importance) than someone being killed by lynching, run over, or stabbed to death.

Violent actions become more likely lethal when a firearm is involved. This occurs decisively with self-harm by males, domestic violence assaults, and when actions taken for fear in defense.

Violent actions though are more likely to OCCUR when alcohol is involved.
An intelligent person understands that it’s the behavior that’s the issue.
One fellow non violent surrounded by firearms is a crap ton less of a threat than a violent angry person with a hammer.
No one intelligent is going to believe that the best way to reduce violence is to take away the non violent persons firearms.
You unfortunately do.

You have a problem understanding multifactor social problems. Firearm violence involves intent, opportunity, and means.

Exactly . You however forget that intent is the main factor. Without that everything else is inconsequential.
You have nothing to fear from 100 of your gun owning neighbors who don’t want to kill you.
You have to fear the one neighbor with a rock that Intends to kill you.

Intelligent objective people understand that. You of course cannot. It’s simply that you can’t get passed your bias. You think guns make people violent and fear anyone or everyone with a firearm.
You are really no different than the man who changes to the other side of the street when he sees a black man walking toward him, but stops to chat with the white stranger asking for directions who then robs him and stabs him six times.

UK has lower homicide rate than the USA. In fact, it is 1/5 the US rate because the most common cause of homicide in the USA is a firearm.

And yet the uk has a higher murder rate than Germany Sweden et al who have more firearms.

An intelligent person understands that the difference isn’t firearms it’s things like social safety nets , racial inequities , education and universal healthcare. All of which the us is an outlier compared to other countries .

Misrepresentation of the argument. Firearms in the calculus result in more lethal and injurious outcomes on average.

Not necessarily. Intent is what matters and someone shot in the foot is not as deadly as being stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife.

Opinion. Disproven.

Nope. The evidence is clear.

Idahoans are at greater risk of firearm death or injury than New York or California.

But overall are less likely to be murdered. Thus Idaho is safer . You can’t get around that fact.

I am no more concerned with the association between alcohol than I am with associating underwear with firearm violence.

Exactly. Proving your lack of intelligent and objective reasoning

It is an intentional distraction manufactured by those who cannot face the reality of firearm access and firearm violence

Exactly, you can’t see the reality. Try to understand . You have nothing to fear from the 100 neighbors with firearms that have no intention of killing you.
You have to fear the ONE neighbor with a rock tgat DOES have the intention kill you.

 

[Rich2018]

Of course it’s the issue. No intelligent objective person would argue that the cause of violence or suicide ideation is not the issue.
And no intelligent objective person would argue that a person who dies from being shot is more dead ( is of more importance) than someone being killed by lynching, run over, or stabbed to death.

Just like no intelligent person would argue that dif you defend your home with a baseball bat or a firearm, it makes no difference

Your home is just as defended either way.

 

[RF667799]

Just like no intelligent person would argue that dif you defend your home with a baseball bat or a firearm, it makes no difference

Your home is just as defended either way.

Then soldiers occupying defensive positions can be armed with nothing but spitwads. It makes no difference. They're defending either way.

In your argument, whether something is successfully defended seems to be disregarded.

Which makes for an uncommonly stupid argument.

 

[Spock]

Means are virtually unlimited and opportunity is ever-present. Indeed, opportunity can even be manufactured through intent.

Didn't seem to be a problem in Australia.

You want to narrowly focus on one specific means of a specific, rare sort of crime- at the expense of Constitutional rights and civil liberties. To the detriment of the overwhelming majority of the citizens.

The issue is firearm violence, which takes many forms and shares a simple common means.

 

[Spock]

Of course it’s the issue. No intelligent objective person would argue that the cause of violence or suicide ideation is not the issue.
And no intelligent objective person would argue that a person who dies from being shot is more dead ( is of more importance) than someone being killed by lynching, run over, or stabbed to death.

No intelligent person would claim that firearms access does not result in more firearm violence.

Violent actions though are more likely to OCCUR when alcohol is involved.
An intelligent person understands that it’s the behavior that’s the issue.
One fellow non violent surrounded by firearms is a crap ton less of a threat than a violent angry person with a hammer.
No one intelligent is going to believe that the best way to reduce violence is to take away the non violent persons firearms.
You unfortunately do.

I am not interest in your pursuit of rare and exceptional circumstances which are simply deflection from the primary problem.

Exactly . You however forget that intent is the main factor. Without that everything else is inconsequential.
You have nothing to fear from 100 of your gun owning neighbors who don’t want to kill you.
You have to fear the one neighbor with a rock that Intends to kill you.

Intelligent objective people understand that. You of course cannot. It’s simply that you can’t get passed your bias. You think guns make people violent and fear anyone or everyone with a firearm.
You are really no different than the man who changes to the other side of the street when he sees a black man walking toward him, but stops to chat with the white stranger asking for directions who then robs him and stabs him six times.



And yet the uk has a higher murder rate than Germany Sweden et al who have more firearms.

So what. The UK is far safer as regards homicide than the USA because it has few firearms.

An intelligent person understands that the difference isn’t firearms it’s things like social safety nets , racial inequities , education and universal healthcare. All of which the us is an outlier compared to other countries .

Nope. Simple issue is firearms and that fact remains paramount in spite of your determined strawman arguments.

Not necessarily. Intent is what matters and someone shot in the foot is not as deadly as being stabbed in the chest with a kitchen knife.

You are positing a exception as the rule. The choice of weapon importantly determines the lethality of self-harm and violent human interactions.

Bur, you are welcome to leave your guns at home and carry a knife if you think it is equivalent to a firearm. I would encourage that.

Nope. The evidence is clear.

But overall are less likely to be murdered. Thus Idaho is safer . You can’t get around that fact.

Idaho, as regards firearm violence, is less safe than New York.

Exactly. Proving your lack of intelligent and objective reasoning

Exactly, you can’t see the reality. Try to understand . You have nothing to fear from the 100 neighbors with firearms that have no intention of killing you.

You don't believe in accidental firearm discharge and injury or death? Most municipalities prevent discharge of firearms for sport or display because that discharge can injury bystanders or innocents. So, in fact there is a degree of danger from anyone having firearms.

You have to fear the ONE neighbor with a rock tgat DOES have the intention kill you.

Firearms are not rocks. Any intelligent person understands that concept.

 

[jaeger19]

Just like no intelligent person would argue that dif you defend your home with a baseball bat or a firearm, it makes no difference

Your home is just as defended either way.

Yeah . Apparently the leading UK firearm experts state that since shotguns aren’t portable they are inferior to baseball bats for self defense.

Interesting these same UK experts also believe that an 84 year old man isn’t in any mortal danger when facing a 225 pound 22 year old thug with a baseball bat.

 

[CLAX1911]

He includes injuries when he thinks that is convenient to his arguments.

It's a good thing people who argue against you and me are so dishonest

 

[jaeger19]

No intelligent person would claim that firearms access does not result in more firearm violence.

No intelligent people would point out that firearm access doesn’t CAUSE firearm violence and would know that a person who isn’t violent doesn’t suddenly become more violent if they buy a firearm or more off they have 2 or 3 .

I am not interest in your pursuit of rare and exceptional circumstances which are simply deflection from the primary problem.

Alcohol use and violence are hardly rare.
Any intelligent and objective person will recognize the science.

So what. The UK is far safer as regards homicide than the USA because it has few firearms.

No. An objective and intelligent person recognizes If it was “ safer due to few firearms” then it should be safer than not only to the us but to Germany , Sweden , New Zealand et all as all of them have more firearms .
But the uk isn’t. Proving that it’s not firearms .

Nope. Simple issue is firearms and that fact remains paramount in spite of your determined strawman arguments.

Thats just unintelligent bias talking .

You are positing an exception as the rule. The choice of weapon importantly determines the lethality of self-harm and violent human interactions.

Only as a determinative of intent . Without access to firearms , criminals simply turn to other weapons that are just as deadly to kill.
It’s why ny state with fewer firearms than Idaho , and with lower “ gun violence “ still has a higher murder rate.

Bur, you are welcome to leave your guns at home and carry a knife if you think it is equivalent to a firearm. I would encourage that.

Well in some situations for self defense that’s EXACTLY what I do. It’s just a tool in a tool box. However a defensive situation is completely different from an offensive one , particularly when it’s a criminal choosing a victim for violence.

Idaho, as regards firearm violence, is less safe than New York.

No. Because as pointed out firearm violence has no validity to safety.
You are less likely to be murdered in Idaho. Period. Why would you care if you are murdered with a firearm or murdered with a knife? Are you less dead murdered with a knife.

You don't believe in accidental firearm discharge and injury or death? Sure

Most municipalities prevent discharge of firearms for sport or display because that discharge can injury bystanders or innocents.

Absolutely

So, in fact there is a degree of danger from anyone having firearms.

Less so than danger from them having cars , etc. surely you are in less danger from your neighbors “ accidental discharge” than you are from you neighbor that intends to kill you with something other than a firearm.

Firearms are not rocks. Any intelligent person understands that concept.

Oh but intelligent people do. That’s why they understand that a police officer carrying a firearm with no intent to harm them is not as much of a dangerous threat than a man with a rock that plans on killing tgem.

You of course would fear the policeman more.

 

[Spock]

No intelligent people would point out that firearm access doesn’t CAUSE firearm violence and would know that a person who isn’t violent doesn’t suddenly become more violent if they buy a firearm or more off they have 2 or 3 .

Alcohol use and violence are hardly rare.
Any intelligent and objective person will recognize the science.

No. An objective and intelligent person recognizes If it was “ safer due to few firearms” then it should be safer than not only to the us but to Germany , Sweden , New Zealand et all as all of them have more firearms .
But the uk isn’t. Proving that it’s not firearms .

Thats just unintelligent bias talking .

Only as a determinative of intent . Without access to firearms , criminals simply turn to other weapons that are just as deadly to kill.

You must know the circumstances of all homicide. What portion of homicide is due to an intent to kill the victim?
Surely you to not think that all robbery or argument is the result of pre-mediated intent to kill.

It’s why ny state with fewer firearms than Idaho , and with lower “ gun violence “ still has a higher murder rate.

Idaho causes of death include a greater risk rate than New York for firearm death.

Well in some situations for self defense that’s EXACTLY what I do. It’s just a tool in a tool box. However a defensive situation is completely different from an offensive one , particularly when it’s a criminal choosing a victim for violence.

Sell all your guns and just carry a knife.

No. Because as pointed out firearm violence has no validity to safety.

Grammar error

You are less likely to be murdered in Idaho. Period. Why would you care if you are murdered with a firearm or murdered with a knife? Are you less dead murdered with a knife.

Firearm violence is greater in Idaho. Fact.

 

[rahl]

Of course special pleading is about hypocrisy and inconsistency, which is why it does not apply to criticism of firearms. Firearms are a unique category of lethal weapon and are not equivalent to every other type of weapon.

This is called special pleading

Special pleading would apply to concern about compound bows and no concern about crossbows. Your need to ignore the special characteristics of firearms makes you resort to use of false equivalence fallacies so that fits with your misunderstanding of special pleading.


and WC Fields had a bit about jumping out of a hot air balloon at 10,000 feet. So what?

 

[rahl]

I am sure that 100,000 deaths and injuries at a cost of $500 billion yearly will be insignificant to anyone determined to ignore the facts.

Not even a fraction of motor vehicle accidents and deaths. Those are over 30x’s as bad.

 

[CLAX1911]

Not even a fraction of motor vehicle accidents and deaths. Those are over 30x’s as bad.

Que the accusations of false equivalence.

 

[rahl]

No intelligent person would claim that firearms access does not result in more firearm violence………

Reality shows access to more firearms doesn’t cause more firearm violence. It’s why some places with more firearms have less violence than places with less firearms.

 

[RF667799]

Didn't seem to be a problem in Australia.

The issue is firearm violence, which takes many forms and shares a simple common means.

None of that is responsive to what I've said. It's like you're using a random text generator.

 

[CLAX1911]

None of that is responsive to what I've said. It's like you're using a random text generator.

He can't address what you said

 

[RF667799]

You must know the circumstances of all homicide. What portion of homicide is due to an intent to kill the victim?
Surely you to not think that all robbery or argument is the result of pre-mediated intent to kill.

Idaho causes of death include a greater risk rate than New York for firearm death.


Sell all your guns and just carry a knife.

Grammar error

Firearm violence is greater in Idaho. Fact.

Illinois has a higher rate of "gun death" than Vermont or New Hampshire. Fact.

Must be those lenient gun control laws in Illinois.

 

[jaeger19]

You must know the circumstances of all homicide. What portion of homicide is due to an intent to kill the victim?
Surely you to not think that all robbery or argument is the result of pre-mediated intent to kill.

Intent is not just premeditation. It’s hard to argue that when you stab a person with a knife out of anger you didn’t “ intend “ to kill them.
What portion of homicide has intent .
Homicide minus accidental killings

Idaho causes of death include a greater risk rate than New York for firearm death.

Changing those goalposts still doesn’t work.
Idaho has less chances of deaths by subway.. so it’s safer.

Sell all your guns and just carry a knife.

No. That’s like saying sell all my knives and only use my paring knife.

Grammar error

Firearm violence is not a valid measure of safety. Fact. Lmao.

Firearm violence is greater in Idaho. Fact.

So what? You are less likely to be murdered in Idaho. Fact.

Would you tell you daughter living in Idaho…
Hey you should move to New York State. You are twice as likely to get murdered but… it’s less likely your murderer will use a gun.
Lmao.

 

[Spock]

None of that is responsive to what I've said. It's like you're using a random text generator.

Yet, strangely more rational and factual than your posts.

 

[Spock]

Illinois has a higher rate of "gun death" than Vermont or New Hampshire. Fact.

Must be those lenient gun control laws in Illinois.

What is your point?
You do understand that there are many firearms in Chicago, right?

 

[RF667799]

Yet, strangely more rational and factual than your posts.

You've never been able to prove them as such. Nor have you been able to prove my posts to be irrational or counterfactual,

You're mainly here being an asset for the gun rights people.

 

[RF667799]

What is your point?
You do understand that there are many firearms in Chicago, right?

And just like that, state "gun death" rates no longer mattered.

 

[JMB1911A1]

And just like that, state "gun death" rates no longer mattered.

 

[Spock]

Intent is not just premeditation. It’s hard to argue that when you stab a person with a knife out of anger you didn’t “ intend “ to kill them.
What portion of homicide has intent .
Homicide minus accidental killings

Apparently you do NOT know the circumstances of all homicide.

Changing those goalposts still doesn’t work.
Idaho has less chances of deaths by subway.. so it’s safer.

Firearm death rate is greater in Idaho that more than half the other states.

No. That’s like saying sell all my knives and only use my paring knife.

You assert the equal risk from knife wounds but do not admit they are equal to firearms. Hypocrisy!!

Firearm violence is not a valid measure of safety. Fact. Lmao.

Firearm violence is a well-accepted and professionally correct measure for the impact of firearms on a society.

So what? You are less likely to be murdered in Idaho. Fact.

Firearm death and injury risk is greater in Idaho.

Would you tell you daughter living in Idaho…
Hey you should move to New York State. You are twice as likely to get murdered but… it’s less likely your murderer will use a gun.
Lmao.

Australia, Canada or the UK would be better than anywhere in the USA.

 

[Spock]

And just like that, state "gun death" rates no longer mattered.

Clearly they do not matter to you.

 

[CLAX1911]

Yet, strangely more rational and factual than your posts.

Like you're statement that comparing death to death is a false equivalence?