How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

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.

They are equated by your sine quo non argument. But see? I told you that you wouldn't be able to proceed with your argument, and here you are.

Your sine quo non applies to skateboards and ropes as well as guns. If it is irrelevant in the case of those items, you might examine it in the case of guns as well.

You likely won't.

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.

 

[jaeger19]

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

He has!!
He argued that increasing gun prevalence increased murder .
Then when he was repeatedly shown that states with high gun prevalence didn’t correlate consistently positively with high murder rates,
That countries with higher gun prevalence didn’t correlate positively with higher murder
And when shown that when gun prevalence went up from 1993 to 2012 murder and even gun homicide WENT DOWN.

Suddenly he states “ but but but you CANT MEASURE GUN PREVALENCE”
Lmao

Then after arguing for thread after thread about murder with firearms , crimes with firearms ,,

When it’s shown to him that people who get carry permits are LESS likely to commit crime ??
He states “ but but you can’t measure crime”

The absurdity of gun control advocates knows no bounds.

 

[RF667799]

Try this:

I would say it exists as a meaningless, wholly manufactured bit of agit prop. Nobody else is under any burden to accept the ravings of true believers though.

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

You equated them, when you expressed a concept that is applicable to so many things. I can't help it you're so invested in a special pleading fallacy.

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

It is a silly premise. Quite meaningless. As exemplified by your denial of its broader applications, outside of your attempts to special plead.

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

 

[Spock]

He has!!
He argued that increasing gun prevalence increased murder .
Then when he was repeatedly shown that states with high gun prevalence didn’t correlate consistently positively with high murder rates,
That countries with higher gun prevalence didn’t correlate positively with higher murder
And when shown that when gun prevalence went up from 1993 to 2012 murder and even gun homicide WENT DOWN.

Suddenly he states “ but but but you CANT MEASURE GUN PREVALENCE”
Lmao

Then after arguing for thread after thread about murder with firearms , crimes with firearms ,,

When it’s shown to him that people who get carry permits are LESS likely to commit crime ??
He states “ but but you can’t measure crime”

The absurdity of gun control advocates knows no bounds.

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

 

[Rich2018]

None of the guns in my safe were bought with the intention to kill others, just like my boat.

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.

 

[CLAX1911]

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

Your argument that criminals do criminal things and use guns to do it is not a good at all of argument to take away everyone's rights.

 

[Rich2018]

Your argument that criminals do criminal things and use guns to do it is not a good at all of argument to take away everyone's rights.

Absolutely, 100% it is.

 

[jaeger19]

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

No. You aren’t that subtle. When you are arguing suddenly you know exactly what the gun prevalence is as you state “ increased gun prevalence increases firearm violence.

Then when confronted with the fact that increased gun prevalence does not caused increased violence or even firearm violence then you cry “ but but you can’t know firearm prevalence “
Lmao.

Tell you what you go ahead and explain how gun sales are not a measure of prevalence.
Then you go ahead and explain how you arrive at what constitutes increasing prevalence such that you know that if it increases violence increases.

 

[Spock]

No. You aren’t that subtle. When you are arguing suddenly you know exactly what the gun prevalence is as you state “ increased gun prevalence increases firearm violence.

Then when confronted with the fact that increased gun prevalence does not caused increased violence or even firearm violence then you cry “ but but you can’t know firearm prevalence “
Lmao.

Tell you what you go ahead and explain how gun sales are not a measure of prevalence.
Then you go ahead and explain how you arrive at what constitutes increasing prevalence such that you know that if it increases violence increases.

Let me put it this way, I can state that the prevalence of non-condom sexual activity by teenagers will likely influence the incidence of venereal warts. I can make that statement without knowing precisely the prevalence of sexual activity on a given day. Understanding that prevalence is a critical factor is sufficient.
Therefore, since the prevalence of certain conditions regarding firearms is reasonably likely to influence firearm violence, I can, with some confidence, predict that changes in prevalence of firearm conditions will have certain outcomes.

This concept is as simple as understanding the difference between quantitative and qualitative.
For example during hunting season, one can reasonably predict that there will be more accidental firearm injuries or deaths without know who is hunting with what gun or where. The prevalence of armed individuals increases during hunting season.

 

[CLAX1911]

Let me put it this way, I can state that the prevalence of non-condom sexual activity by teenagers will likely influence the incidence of venereal warts.

I don't think anyone argues that criminals do crimes all sorts of items. I think the thing people are arguing with you about is it's no excuse to suspend everyone's rights.

I can make that statement without knowing precisely the prevalence of sexual activity on a given day. Understanding that prevalence is a critical factor is sufficient.

To suspend everyone's rights?

Therefore, since the prevalence of certain conditions regarding firearms is reasonably likely to influence firearm violence, I can, with some confidence, predict that changes in prevalence of firearm conditions will have certain outcomes.

So essentially become a dictatorship with interfere with criminals.

Every single dictatorship forms based on that philosophy.

If you want to live in a gun for Utopia move to China they'll get run over by cars that happens a lot there not accidentally either.

 

[Spock]

I don't think anyone argues that criminals do crimes all sorts of items. I think the thing people are arguing with you about is it's no excuse to suspend everyone's rights.

To suspend everyone's rights?

So essentially become a dictatorship with interfere with criminals.

Every single dictatorship forms based on that philosophy.

If you want to live in a gun for Utopia move to China they'll get run over by cars that happens a lot there not accidentally either.

Non sequitor response that has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Sorry. No soup for you.

 

[CLAX1911]

Non sequitor response that has nothing to contribute to the discussion.
Sorry. No soup for you.

How did I know you were going to dodge it.

Thank you for your incompetence. I hope everyone in your position delivers an argument is pathetic as this.

 

[jaeger19]

Let me put it this way, I can state that the prevalence of non-condom sexual activity by teenagers will likely influence the incidence of venereal warts. I can make that statement without knowing precisely the prevalence of sexual activity on a given day. Understanding that prevalence is a critical factor is sufficient.
Therefore, since the prevalence of certain conditions regarding firearms is reasonably likely to influence firearm violence, I can, with some confidence, predict that changes in prevalence of firearm conditions will have certain outcomes.

Awesome show me the evidence that non condom sexual activity by teenagers increases transmission of hpv.
Show me any study that does not quantify the prevalence of said sexual activity.

This concept is as simple as understanding the difference between quantitative and qualitative.
For example during hunting season, one can reasonably predict that there will be more accidental firearm injuries or deaths without know who is hunting with what gun or where. The prevalence of armed individuals increases during hunting season.

See above. You make an assumption without evidence.

 

[Spock]

Awesome show me the evidence that non condom sexual activity by teenagers increases transmission of hpv.
Show me any study that does not quantify the prevalence of said sexual activity.



See above. You make an assumption without evidence.

Do you seriously believe that prevalence of sexual activity does NOT have a direct influence on disease transmission?
Firearm violence is directly related to the prevalence of certain firearm conditions (means, motive, and intent) just as illustrated by sexual activity does for venereal disease.

 

[jaeger19]

Do you seriously believe that prevalence of sexual activity does NOT have a direct influence on disease transmission?
Firearm violence is directly related to the prevalence of certain firearm conditions (means, motive, and intent) just as illustrated by sexual activity does for venereal disease.

Tell me exactly HOW you know about the sexual activity and disease transmission?

I implore you to find a study that finds a causal relationship between sexual activity without a condom and disease transmission that does NOT quantify sexual activity.

See. Unlike you I understand that the causal relationship between sexual activity and certain diseases is well established by studies that quantified the prevalence of certain sexual activities and its effect on disease .

That’s why you are safe in assuming that increased sexual activity will result in increased disease because the research in which prevalence of sexual activity was quantified has already been done .

However with firearms ? No such causal relationship between owning a firearm and violence has been found .

 

[Spock]

Tell me exactly HOW you know about the sexual activity and disease transmission?

I implore you to find a study that finds a causal relationship between sexual activity without a condom and disease transmission that does NOT quantify sexual activity.

See. Unlike you I understand that the causal relationship between sexual activity and certain diseases is well established by studies that quantified the prevalence of certain sexual activities and its effect on disease .

That’s why you are safe in assuming that increased sexual activity will result in increased disease because the research in which prevalence of sexual activity was quantified has already been done .

However with firearms ? No such causal relationship between owning a firearm and violence has been found .

So, you do not think that a reasonably prudent person could expect qualitatively that the prevalence of increased sexual activity has any relationship to disease transmission? Is that your position?

 

[RF667799]

So, you do not think that a reasonably prudent person could expect qualitatively that the prevalence of increased sexual activity has any relationship to disease transmission? Is that your position?

It looks like you're trying to argue that a gun has agency to act.

 

[JMB1911A1]

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.

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

 

[Spock]

It looks like you're trying to argue that a gun has agency to act.

You are not following the conversation. However, concerning agency, a firearm is required for firearm violence and that make it instrumental and an agent of injury.

 

[RF667799]

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.

He has said he has full access all along. To shout that out as if you have forced some sort of admission, is just ****ing bizarre.

 

[RF667799]

You are not following the conversation. However, concerning agency, a firearm is required for firearm violence and that make it instrumental and an agent of injury.

Sure I am. I saw you try to compare an inanimate object to a deliberate human action.

 

[Spock]

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

 

[Spock]

Sure I am. I saw you try to compare an inanimate object to a deliberate human action.

Your comments are not logical responses so I am not certain what you point is.
I am willing to argue that a firearm is instrumental and an agent of injury. That appears to fit with one definition of agency, as we have previously discussed.

 

[RF667799]

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

The same people who keep and bear firearms before the season tend to keep and bear firearms during the season as well. How has prevalence increased?

 

[RF667799]

Your comments are not logical responses so I am not certain what you point is.
I am willing to argue that a firearm is instrumental and an agent of injury. That appears to fit with one definition of agency, as we have previously discussed.

Then start saying that a given person was killed by someone using a gun, instead of saying that person was killed by a gun. Knock off the baby talk is all I'm asking.