How to ban guns without firing a single shot! (1 Viewer)

[jaeger19]

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?

UMMM ONLY BECAUSE:
SINCE THE RESEARCH IN WHICH THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY WAS QUANTIFIED AGAINST THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN DISEASES and a causal relationship was established between sexual activity and certain diseases.

Sweet baby Jesus you have to work hard at being this obtuse.. or perhaps you are just ignorant.

The only reason you or anyone else knows that the prevalence of sexual activity has a relationship with disease transmission is because that science has already been established!!!

 

[Spock]

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?

Reflect on it a bit.

 

[Spock]

UMMM ONLY BECAUSE:
SINCE THE RESEARCH IN WHICH THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY WAS QUANTIFIED AGAINST THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN DISEASES and a causal relationship was established between sexual activity and certain diseases.

You are struggling. The relationship in general is well-established between sexuality and the transmission of communicable diseases. From that prior understanding of cause and effect it is possible to make general statements. Now, perhaps you think that firearms are unrelated to firearm violence. If so, it will be difficult for you to understand the proposed example.

Sweet baby Jesus you have to work hard at being this obtuse.. or perhaps you are just ignorant.

The only reason you or anyone else knows that the prevalence of sexual activity has a relationship with disease transmission is because that science has already been established!!!

I doubt that anyone precisely knows the prevalence of sexual activity within ANY group of humans.

 

[Spock]

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.

The gun is the agent of injury for firearm violence. You have rejected the triad of necessary components (means, motive, opportunity) because you only want to view firearm violence as a volitional act independent of circumstance or conditions.

 

[jaeger19]

You are struggling.

Please you are floundering about . See below.

The relationship in general is well-established between sexuality and the transmission of communicable wdiseases.

Duh. Now you are finally getting it. It was established through research that QUANTIFIED the prevalence of sexual activity and studied its relationship with certain diseases .
It had to quantify the prevalence to know whether increasing sexual activity increased disease transmission.

From that prior understanding of cause and effect it is possible to make general statements. Now, perhaps you think that firearms are unrelated to firearm violence.

Well as shown there does not appear to be a causal relationship between firearms and violence and in fact not even a consistent positive correlation between firearm prevalence and firearm violence or violence exists .

You are welcome to show the research that shows a causal link.

If so, it will be difficult for you to understand the proposed example.

No difficult at all. Just because a firearm needs to be present for firearm violence to occur does NOT mean tgat more firearm will result in more firearm violence.

I doubt that anyone precisely knows the prevalence of sexual activity within ANY group of humans.

With a large enough number of subjects in the research. “ precision” becomes less necessary. It still needs to be quantified other wise you won’t know if it’s increasing or decreasing but a margin of error is allowable with a larger n.

It’s why research wants a large research pool whenever possible.

 

[Spock]

Please you are floundering about . See below.

Duh. Now you are finally getting it. It was established through research that QUANTIFIED the prevalence of sexual activity and studied its relationship with certain diseases .
It had to quantify the prevalence to know whether increasing sexual activity increased disease transmission.

Every epidemiologic event is not a puzzle until studied anew. Rational people make decisions that can link the agent of injury to prevalence.

Well as shown there does not appear to be a causal relationship between firearms and violence and in fact not even a consistent positive correlation between firearm prevalence and firearm violence or violence exists .

It is certainly not understood by anyone determined to ignore the fact that firearm violence cannot occur without firearms.

You are welcome to show the research that shows a causal link.

You would reject the concept that a firearm can result in injury and death. Your concept of proof ignores the limitations of real world epidemiology and public health.

No difficult at all. Just because a firearm needs to be present for firearm violence to occur does NOT mean tgat more firearm will result in more firearm violence.

There is no need to demonstrate a linear relationship. Firearms are required.

With a large enough number of subjects in the research. “ precision” becomes less necessary.

Doubtful.

It still needs to be quantified other wise you won’t know if it’s increasing or decreasing but a margin of error is allowable with a larger n.

Qualitative change does not require your pedantic level of detail.
Firearms within reach of children place them at risk. We do not need to do that study, for example.

It’s why research wants a large research pool whenever possible.

Your failure to understand the basic connection between firearms and firearm violence, a connection that is foundational and essential, means that you are not capable of understanding the triad of means, opportunity and intent.

 

[RF667799]

Reflect on it a bit.

You never seem to be able to answer the obvious questions concerning your statements.

 

[jaeger19]

Every epidemiologic event is not a puzzle until studied anew. Rational people make decisions that can link the agent of injury to prevalence.

Umm yes it is. Thats why we do research instead of just make half assed assumptions

It is certainly not understood by anyone determined to ignore the fact that firearm violence cannot occur without firearms.

Stop lying . Of course firearm violence can’t occur without firearms
THERE IS NOT A GOD DARN PERSON HERE WHO DOESN’t UNDERSTAND THAT. We’ve all stated it.

You also can’t have a lynching without rope.
So if society uses more rope will it necessarily have more lynchings??

I’d tell you to figure that answer out . Buut clearly it’s above your understanding.

You would reject the concept that a firearm can result in injury and death. Your concept of proof ignores the limitations of real world epidemiology and public health.

cool. Explain the physiological mechanism by which a firearm can cause a person to be violent.

There is no need to demonstrate a linear relationship. Firearms are required.

Of course there is a need to demonstrate a linear relationship.

A rope is required for a lynching . Are you really going to argue that because it’s required for a lynching that means if society has more ropes it will have more lynchings???
Lmao. Good god man is everyone laughing at you.

Doubtful.

Qualitative change does not require your pedantic level of detail.
Firearms within reach of children place them at risk. We do not need to do that study, for example.

Actually we have done those studies to quantify the level of risk, to quantify at what ages is said risks , and what training is effective in reducing or eliminating that risk.

Your failure to understand the basic connection between firearms and firearm violence, a connection that is foundational and essential, means that you are not capable of understanding the triad of means, opportunity and intent.

Naw. Your utter failure to support your premise is well documented.
It’s not like you are capable of understanding that failure.

Just look at the relationship of lynching and rope.

 

[Spock]

Umm yes it is. Thats why we do research instead of just make half assed assumptions

Stop lying . Of course firearm violence can’t occur without firearms
THERE IS NOT A GOD DARN PERSON HERE WHO DOESN’t UNDERSTAND THAT. We’ve all stated it.

So eventually you recognize that firearm prevalence is necessary for firearm violence.

cool. Explain the physiological mechanism by which a firearm can cause a person to be violent.

How does gun violence occur without a firearm?

Of course there is a need to demonstrate a linear relationship.

Wrong. Many types of causal relationship are non-linear.

for a simple example:

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/non-linear-causality

 

[Spock]

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)
2. children are at risk when alone around loaded firearms
3. households with firearms have greater risk of firearm death and injury
4. Any society with firearms will have firearm death and injury
5. Firearms are most commonly used to commit successful homicide and mass murder.
6. Firearm access is a risk factor for completed suicide by adult males.
7. States with fewer controls on firearms have greater firearm death and injury rates.

 

[RF667799]

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)
2. children are at risk when alone around loaded firearms
3. households with firearms have greater risk of firearm death and injury
4. Any society with firearms will have firearm death and injury
5. Firearms are most commonly used to commit successful homicide and mass murder.
6. Firearm access is a risk factor for completed suicide by adult males.
7. States with fewer controls on firearms have greater firearm death and injury rates.

A lot of baby talk and falsehoods.

 

[CLAX1911]

A lot of baby talk and falsehoods.

Thank him for his service to the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms.

If they had an argument based on rationale and reasoning that would be a problem.

 

[Spock]

A lot of baby talk and falsehoods.

out of the mouths of babes....

 

[jaeger19]

So eventually you recognize that firearm prevalence is necessary for firearm violence.

Do you mean does a firearm have to be present for violence to be done by a firearm? Yes.
Does this mean that if a society has 100 firearms one year and the next year has 200 firearms itt means that violence with a firearm will increase ? No.

How does gun violence occur without a firearm?

How does a lynching occur with a rope.?
Does this mean then more ropes equals more lynchings

Wrong. Many types of causal relationship are non-linear.

But you can’t have a causal relationship with a positive correlation one time and a negative correlation the next.

for a simple example:

https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/non-linear-causality

 

[Spock]

Do you mean does a firearm have to be present for violence to be done by a firearm? Yes.
Does this mean that if a society has 100 firearms one year and the next year has 200 firearms itt means that violence with a firearm will increase ? No.


How does a lynching occur with a rope.?
Does this mean then more ropes equals more lynchings

If firearm access is necessary for firearm violence it naturally follows that widely distributed firearms will TEND to result in a greater number of violent episodes.
The accurate measurement of significant firearm prevalence (access) does not exist. However, certain relationships are clear, as noted earlier. Access to firearms promotes firearm violence incidents because the incident cannot occur without a firearm. Relying on gross numbers of sold firearms or equating all firearms or disregarding storage or ignoring parts of the firearm triad all lead to misunderstanding of the impact of firearms.

Your need to draw conclusions from inadequate data demonstrates your bias-driven prejudice.

But you can’t have a causal relationship with a positive correlation one time and a negative correlation the next.

variation around a trend disproves your claim.

 

[jaeger19]

If firearm access is necessary for firearm violence it naturally follows that widely distributed firearms will TEND to result in a greater number of violent episodes.

No it doesn’t. Just as widely distributing ropes will not tend to cause lynchings.

The accurate measurement of significant firearm prevalence (access) does not exist. However, certain relationships are clear, as noted earlier.

“ accurate” as in precise is not needed with a large enough n.
Gun sales,
Surveys of gun ownership, etc are all valid measures of firearm prevalence.

Access to firearms promotes firearm violence incidents because the incident cannot occur without a firearm. Relying on gross numbers of sold firearms or equating all firearms or disregarding storage or ignoring parts of the firearm triad all lead to misunderstanding of the impact of firearms.

No it does not. You are literally throwing out all common sense and rational thought with your premise.
For example you ignore that guns “ in storage” can be stolen, can be sold, can be inherited or gifted.

Your need to draw conclusions from inadequate data demonstrates your bias-driven prejudice.

Your need to ignore data when it suits your purpose and change your understanding of prevalence when it suits your purpose demonstrates your bias driven prejudice.
As does your failure to answer simple
Logical questions like. If a rope is necessary for a lynching, do more ropes equal more lynchings?

variation around a trend disproves your claim.

Variation is one thing. Going from a positive correlation to negative and then back is another.
And that’s what you ignore.

 

[Spock]

No it doesn’t. Just as widely distributing ropes will not tend to cause lynchings.

Firearms are not ropes; firearms are the means to produce violent injury or death. Apparently you do not understand impulsive behavior or accidental firearm death and injury. Those situations should demonstrate to anyone that when a firearm is available, firearm injuries or death can occur.

“ accurate” as in precise is not needed with a large enough n.
Gun sales,
Surveys of gun ownership, etc are all valid measures of firearm prevalence.

Your "valid" is uselessly inaccurate. It is no mystery why your firearm conclusions deviate so much from reality. Garbage in, garbage out.

No it does not. You are literally throwing out all common sense and rational thought with your premise.
For example you ignore that guns “ in storage” can be stolen, can be sold, can be inherited or gifted.

Firearm access is reduced by storage. Firearms in a gun store are "in the community". Firearm owners rarely use more than one firearm at a time so those who possess multiple firearms do not reasonably change the prevalence of firearms in use.

Your need to ignore data when it suits your purpose and change your understanding of prevalence when it suits your purpose demonstrates your bias driven prejudice.
As does your failure to answer simple
Logical questions like. If a rope is necessary for a lynching, do more ropes equal more lynchings?

Can a lynching occur without access to a rope? Firearm shootings cannot occur without access to firearms.

Variation is one thing. Going from a positive correlation to negative and then back is another.
And that’s what you ignore.

Absent adequate understanding and measurement of prevalence, all your conclusions are suspect.
Means, opportunity, intent.... and means is the easiest to change.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

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.

Break WHAT law? Please don't waste our time commenting about a post you haven't read..

 

[Feynman Lives!]

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

That's a funny joke, of course!

They would more likely die of old age. rather than in their kindergarten classrooms.

 

[RF667799]

Firearms are not ropes; firearms are the means to produce violent injury or death.

So are ropes. Ever seen one?

Apparently you do not understand impulsive behavior or accidental firearm death and injury. Those situations should demonstrate to anyone that when a firearm is available, firearm injuries or death can occur.

Your "valid" is uselessly inaccurate. It is no mystery why your firearm conclusions deviate so much from reality. Garbage in, garbage out.

Firearm access is reduced by storage. Firearms in a gun store are "in the community". Firearm owners rarely use more than one firearm at a time so those who possess multiple firearms do not reasonably change the prevalence of firearms in use.

Can a lynching occur without access to a rope? Firearm shootings cannot occur without access to firearms.

Absent adequate understanding and measurement of prevalence, all your conclusions are suspect.
Means, opportunity, intent.... and means is the easiest to change.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Actually your arguments have all been rebutted.

Not wasting my time with this nonsense. But the challenge stands for ANYBODY who wishes to take it on: QUOTE any one of the points in the OP, and rebut it with actual ARGUMENTS.

The pro-assault weapons crowd has been commenting on what I know or don't know, on what I want or don't want, ... IDIOTIC nonsense like that. This poster even DENIES that the OP says what it says (point 10 does not mention "mental health" according to him/her). So I don't expect any better from THIS poster. But maybe somebody is willing to take on the challenge.

But not a SINGLE poster has taken on the plain and simple challenge I pose above. With NO diversion, NO strawman arguments, NO red herrings.. Just... show us what you HAVE! I'll just ignore everything else.

 

[Spock]

So are ropes. Ever seen one?

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.

 

[jaeger19]

Firearms are not ropes; firearms are the means to produce violent injury or death.

So are ropes went it comes to lynching.

Apparently you do not understand impulsive behavior or accidental firearm death and injury.

But I do. I’ve shown you that. Getting a firearm and going to kill doneone are not “ impulsive acts”. Rarely do people have loaded firearms within arms reach at all times or even most of the time.
And if you say” but but concealed carriers”?
We know what those statistics say about permit holders.

Those situations should demonstrate to anyone that when a firearm is available, firearm injuries or death can occur.

Sure.BUT ONLY if someone wants to be violent. They don’t make people become violent.

Your "valid" is uselessly inaccurate.

In no way it is. Researchers quantify prevalence of firearms all the time. You’ve cited some of that research.

It is no mystery why your firearm conclusions deviate so much from reality. Garbage in, garbage out.

Look to yourself my friend. You can’t answer simple questions.

Firearm access is reduced by storage.

By who? Surely not by the OWNER OF THE FIREARM.

Firearms in a gun store are "in the community". Firearm owners rarely use more than one firearm at a time so those who possess multiple firearms do not reasonably change the prevalence of firearms in use.

But it changes the access to firearms as more firearms, the more that can be stolen, be traded, be sold or given away. All to those impulsive people you think will now become violent because they have a firearm.

Can a lynching occur without access to a rope? Firearm shootings cannot occur without access to firearms.

Really. How many people have you seen lynched with a soccer ball? Lmao

Absent adequate understanding and measurement of prevalence, all your conclusions are suspect.
Means, opportunity, intent.... and means is the easiest to change.

exactly. You don’t understand prevalence and use it fluidly to claim one thing when it suits your purpose.

 

[Spock]

So are ropes went it comes to lynching.

Access to ropes, like access to firearms is necessary.

But I do. I’ve shown you that. Getting a firearm and going to kill doneone are not “ impulsive acts”. Rarely do people have loaded firearms within arms reach at all times or even most of the time.
And if you say” but but concealed carriers”?
We know what those statistics say about permit holders.

Stay on topic.

Sure.BUT ONLY if someone wants to be violent. They don’t make people become violent.

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

In no way it is. Researchers quantify prevalence of firearms all the time. You’ve cited some of that research.

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

But it changes the access to firearms as more firearms, the more that can be stolen, be traded, be sold or given away. All to those impulsive people you think will now become violent because they have a firearm.

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?

 

[jaeger19]

Not wasting my time with this nonsense. But the challenge stands for ANYBODY who wishes to take it on: QUOTE any one of the points in the OP, and rebut it with actual ARGUMENTS.

The pro-assault weapons crowd has been commenting on what I know or don't know, on what I want or don't want, ... IDIOTIC nonsense like that. This poster even DENIES that the OP says what it says (point 10 does not mention "mental health" according to him/her). So I don't expect any better from THIS poster. But maybe somebody is willing to take on the challenge.

But not a SINGLE poster has taken on the plain and simple challenge I pose above. With NO diversion, NO strawman arguments, NO red herrings.. Just... show us what you HAVE! I'll just ignore everything else.

Oh Pooh . Cripes they were all debunked. You just can’t accept it.
You’ve done nothing to rebut my rebuttal except say . Nuh uh.

try again with just one.
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.

Sorry but no matter how much you say that when a person is in crisis and is a danger to themselves or others simply taking their firearms away is NOT dealing with their mental health.

Now rebut that.