How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Bum]

Again...post your links or quotes supporting your statement.

This SCOUTS legislated. The next one can undo that legislation.

 

[jaeger19]

No! I'm not Trump. i don't make up definitions!

You are trump. You make broad sweeping generalizations that are off the wall and demonstrate zero understanding of the subject.
Cripes you are trump to a capital T!!!
Not to mention your narcissism.

I'm not asking anybody to trust anything. I'm asking them to rebut them.

Well we can’t rebut what you aren’t willing to define. You say for example look at this definition. “ a pistol grip “.
Okay. Explain why a pistol grip is an important feature making a firearm an assault weapon.

You can’t. So how can anyone give a rebuttal when you are unable to make an argument supporting your assertion!!!!

If the "experts" cant rebut that the proposals that this person, who doesn't know what greenhouse gases are, made... if they can't find any reason why they WOULDN'T work... I'd say he never NEEDED to know what greenhouse gases are.

But they can. Because the person EXPLAINED why he thought greenhouses were bad.

You won’t explain why a pistol grip is a “ bad” item. By the way. Most rifles and shotguns have some form of pistol grip.

In fact (off-topic alert, but as a counter example) if we ever debate AGW, you'll see that my MAIN argument is that you don't NEED to know what greenhouse gases are in order to be aware that we need to control them.

Sure you do. If you are going to make a law and or support a law that supposedly controls greenhouse gases you damn well better know what’s up with greenhouse gases.
But since you brought up trump let’s use him as an example.
So trump says “ I am going to get rid of all the government waste , fraud and abuse?”
Is that all it takes for you? As long as he says he’s reducing “ waste” he can cut vital research into cancer and other diseases. ?
He can cut educational programs tgat help disadvantaged children?
Cause all he has to say is “ it’s waste” and you accept it?
Because you don’t have to know what he is actually doing and whether it’s really waste and fraud?
Sweet baby Jesus you probably do.

Just like you don't need to know what a cancer is in order to get chemotherapy. The ONLY thing you need to know in either case is that SCIENCE (peer-reviewed scientific studies) have ALL determined that AGW or cancer (depending on which example you use) could KILL you.

Well let’s point out that peer reviewed studies have not found assault weapons bans to be effective in reducing mass shootings .
As far as cancer? You would certainly want to know that the person who was giving the treatment understood what cancer you had and what treatment was most effective.
Or would you want to waste your money on all sorts of scenes and gimmicks that didn’t really work ?
Rather than on treatments that are based in science?
Clearly the science shows a strong association with undiagnosed mental health problems or even diagnosed ones and mass shooters.
Does it not make sense then to spend effort and resources on preventing and treating these mental disorders rather than wasting resources buying back firearms from people who aren’t a threat?

And BTW, NONE of these proposals is mine. All I did was compile the proposals that have been made and that COULD pass without creating a civil war.

Actually none of your proposals has much chance of passing. And all these proposals do is divert effort , time and money away from things like mental health access, social safety nets , reducing racial inequity , universal healthcare insurance.
Things that ACTUALLY WORK.
But instead we are busy arguing why a magazine with 11 rounds is substantially more dangerous than 10.

I'm sure MOST responsible gun owners wished that guns were only in the hands of OTHER responsible gun owners. And that's what these proposals are intended to do.

No they don’t address that. That’s what we are trying to explain to you but you refuse to listen.

You pushed for firearm buybacks. Are you really going to believe that a person who plans on doing a mass shooting is going to decide to sell his firearm to the police???

 

[jaeger19]

Whatever violence is connected with alcohol ingestion is made much worse by access to firearms. Is that your point?

The point is drinking alcohol actually causes the violence. Owning a firearm does not.

Of course they cause death. Just like any other agent of injury.

No.

Their lethality is unchanged by intent.

Sure it is. If I intend to scare you off and shoot into the tree beside you. You aren’t going to die. If I stab you in the throat and slice your carotid because I want to kill you. Different story.

They are lethal whether or not the intent is to kill.

Wrong. Cripes if they aren’t loaded they aren’t as dangerous as a kitchen knife and they don’t load themselves. Nor vock the hammer. Nor release it by themselves.

No other weapons are so manifestly lethal as firearms available to civilians.

Cars are. Alcohol certainly is more lethal .

Once again, your appeal to extreme and anecdote does not support your claim. If you really believe your own statements you would not defend self-defense picking a victimwith a firearm.

Why. Explain that.
See, I understand violence and violent people.
The wife who wants to kill her husband ? If she doesn’t have a firearm? She waits until he is asleep and slits his throat.
In almost all cases where someone is a criminal and aggressor it’s a person larger, stronger etc picking a victim.
Tgat means in a defensive situation , you aren’t going to have the advantage of strength , speed , surprise etc. that’s why firearms are GREAT for defense. Because it helps cancel out the edge an attacker usually has.

A 22 year old doesn’t need a firearm to kill my 84 year old father. He could do it with his bare hands and feet. Having a firearm gives him little real advantage . In fact may give him a disadvantage in noise, leaving gun residue , shell casings etc.
but my father DEFENDING HIMSELF? A firearm lessens the attackers advantage.

You no the result of every self-harm attempt. I'm impressed.

wtf are you talking about? You just make up crap.

Doubtful. To prove your point you would have to no one is rejected based on incomplete application or failed NICS or police/ sheriff assessment

Umm. The NICS IS THE BACKGROUND CHECK.

The police sheriff assessment would only be based on the result of the persons background for the most part. Though places like New York were known to discriminate based on race.

 

[RF667799]

It doesn't. Because it would be idiotic to point in a SERIOUIS OP that you can't shoot somebody if you don't have a gun. We reserve those kind of things for people who can't make a serious argument.

I didn't say anything about that. I said your OP doesn't indicate how removing guns at random will save lives.

Now you've agreed that it doesn't.

So the assertion that it will, is unsupported.

 

[RF667799]

No! I'm not Trump. i don't make up definitions!

You're making up an entire category of guns and refusing to say what includes them in that category.

I'm not asking anybody to trust anything. I'm asking them to rebut them. If the "experts" cant rebut that the proposals that this person, who doesn't know what greenhouse gases are, made... if they can't find any reason why they WOULDN'T work... I'd say he never NEEDED to know what greenhouse gases are.

In fact (off-topic alert, but as a counter example) if we ever debate AGW, you'll see that my MAIN argument is that you don't NEED to know what greenhouse gases are in order to be aware that we need to control them. Just like you don't need to know what a cancer is in order to get chemotherapy. The ONLY thing you need to know in either case is that SCIENCE (peer-reviewed scientific studies) have ALL determined that AGW or cancer (depending on which example you use) could KILL you.

And BTW, NONE of these proposals is mine. All I did was compile the proposals that have been made and that COULD pass without creating a civil war. I'm sure MOST responsible gun owners wished that guns were only in the hands of OTHER responsible gun owners. And that's what these proposals are intended to do.

 

[Spock]

The point is drinking alcohol actually causes the violence. Owning a firearm does not.


No.

Sure it is. If I intend to scare you off and shoot into the tree beside you. You aren’t going to die. If I stab you in the throat and slice your carotid because I want to kill you. Different story.

Wrong. Cripes if they aren’t loaded they aren’t as dangerous as a kitchen knife and they don’t load themselves. Nor vock the hammer. Nor release it by themselves.

Cars are. Alcohol certainly is more lethal .

Why. Explain that.
See, I understand violence and violent people.
The wife who wants to kill her husband ? If she doesn’t have a firearm? She waits until he is asleep and slits his throat.
In almost all cases where someone is a criminal and aggressor it’s a person larger, stronger etc picking a victim.
Tgat means in a defensive situation , you aren’t going to have the advantage of strength , speed , surprise etc. that’s why firearms are GREAT for defense. Because it helps cancel out the edge an attacker usually has.

A 22 year old doesn’t need a firearm to kill my 84 year old father. He could do it with his bare hands and feet. Having a firearm gives him little real advantage . In fact may give him a disadvantage in noise, leaving gun residue , shell casings etc.
but my father DEFENDING HIMSELF? A firearm lessens the attackers advantage.

wtf are you talking about? You just make up crap.

Umm. The NICS IS THE BACKGROUND CHECK.

The police sheriff assessment would only be based on the result of the persons background for the most part. Though places like New York were known to discriminate based on race.

The point is drinking alcohol actually causes the violence. Owning a firearm does not.

The presence of, or access to, a firearm will exacerbate any act of violence. Means, intent, opportunity all conspire to produce firearm violence.

No.

Sure it is. If I intend to scare you off and shoot into the tree beside you. You aren’t going to die. If I stab you in the throat and slice your carotid because I want to kill you. Different story.

Silly hypothetical. Try again with some fact-based statement.

Wrong. Cripes if they aren’t loaded they aren’t as dangerous as a kitchen knife and they don’t load themselves. Nor vock the hammer. Nor release it by themselves.

It is general principle. Firearms are more lethal than most other weapons.

Cars are. Alcohol certainly is more lethal .

Those are not weapons.

Why. Explain that.
See, I understand violence and violent people.
The wife who wants to kill her husband ? If she doesn’t have a firearm? She waits until he is asleep and slits his throat.
In almost all cases where someone is a criminal and aggressor it’s a person larger, stronger etc picking a victim.
Tgat means in a defensive situation , you aren’t going to have the advantage of strength , speed , surprise etc. that’s why firearms are GREAT for defense. Because it helps cancel out the edge an attacker usually has.

A 22 year old doesn’t need a firearm to kill my 84 year old father. He could do it with his bare hands and feet. Having a firearm gives him little real advantage . In fact may give him a disadvantage in noise, leaving gun residue , shell casings etc.
but my father DEFENDING HIMSELF? A firearm lessens the attackers advantage.

You are all tangled up in your hypothetical fantasies.

wtf are you talking about? You just make up crap.

Umm. The NICS IS THE BACKGROUND CHECK.

A police background check is different from NICS.

The police sheriff assessment would only be based on the result of the persons background for the most part.

Most part of what? You are just making stuff up again.

Though places like New York were known to discriminate based on race.

Firearm violence is indiscriminate and now worse against black Americans because there are too many firearms in those communities.

 

[RF667799]

The presence of, or access to, a firearm will exacerbate any act of violence. Means, intent, opportunity all conspire to produce firearm violence.

Silly hypothetical. Try again with some fact-based statement.

It is general principle. Firearms are more lethal than most other weapons.

Those are not weapons.

You are all tangled up in your hypothetical fantasies.

A police background check is different from NICS.

Most part of what? You are just making stuff up again.

Firearm violence is indiscriminate and now worse against black Americans because there are too many firearms in those communities.

So disarming black people is a primary concern of yours.

You're in bad company. Racists have historically directed gun control against black people.

 

[jaeger19]

The presence of, or access to, a firearm will exacerbate any act of violence. Means, intent, opportunity all conspire to produce firearm violence.

Possibly or not. It goes to intent. Certainly you are not arguing that all police officers who carry firearms become more violent in their confrontations, or are you saying that?

Silly hypothetical. Try again with some fact-based statement.

It is fact based. We know firearms get used all the time for defensive purposes with a round being even fired. Again it goes to intent.

It is general principle. Firearms are more lethal than most other weapons.

No that’s not a general principle. They can be. Particularly in trained hands . But certainly not always.
Have you ever even fired a handgun? Ever fired under duress?

Those are not weapons.

They can be based on intent.

You are all tangled up in your hypothetical fantasies.

Nah. You just hate objective realities .

A police background check is different from NICS.

No it’s not. They use the same federal database . They look for the same things as well .
There is nothing special ” double secret background check”.
If a person can pass a NICS, they are eligible for a firearm .

Most part of what? You are just making stuff up again.

No . I just know that in some rare instances like applying for an out of state permit in a state that doesn’t have reciprocity with my state. I had to have an affidavit from my county sheriff that I had not been judged mentally incompetent in the last 30 days.
That requirement was NOT for residents of tge state in question nor for residents in my home state.

Firearm violence is indiscriminate and now worse against black Americans because there are too many firearms in those communities.

Really. Show me the statistics on black gun ownership vs white ownership.
Okay , I’ll help you.

“And while 36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%)”

The demographics of gun ownership

Understanding gun ownership in America is not as simple as knowing who does and does not own a gun. Some Americans who don’t personally own guns live with

www.pewresearch.org

Gee white people own significantly more guns than black folks.

Hmm

 

[Spock]

So disarming black people is a primary concern of yours.

You're in bad company. Racists have historically directed gun control against black people.

You want more guns in high crime areas but it is the firearms that have promoted the violence.

 

[Spock]

Possibly or not. It goes to intent. Certainly you are not arguing that all police officers who carry firearms become more violent in their confrontations, or are you saying that?

Police are trained to use lethal force whenever there is a perceived threat to life. Unfortunately, not always do they get it right.

It is fact based. We know firearms get used all the time for defensive purposes with a round being even fired. Again it goes to intent.

No that’s not a general principle. They can be. Particularly in trained hands . But certainly not always.
Have you ever even fired a handgun? Ever fired under duress?


They can be based on intent.

Nah. You just hate objective realities .

No it’s not. They use the same federal database . They look for the same things as well .
There is nothing special ” double secret background check”.
If a person can pass a NICS, they are eligible for a firearm .

They are eligible even if the NICS is delayed without a pass.

No . I just know that in some rare instances like applying for an out of state permit in a state that doesn’t have reciprocity with my state. I had to have an affidavit from my county sheriff that I had not been judged mentally incompetent in the last 30 days.

That requirement was NOT for residents of tge state in question nor for residents in my home state.\

It is unlikely that you know enough to comment about the spectrum of requirements for carry permits.

Really. Show me the statistics on black gun ownership vs white ownership.
Okay , I’ll help you

What is your point?

“And while 36% of whites report that they are gun owners, about a quarter of blacks (24%)”

The demographics of gun ownership

Understanding gun ownership in America is not as simple as knowing who does and does not own a gun. Some Americans who don’t personally own guns live with

www.pewresearch.org

Gee white people own significantly more guns than black folks.

Hmm

You seem to be struggling with the complex nature of black on black crime and violence.
Clearly there are too many firearms in high crime areas.

 

[RF667799]

You want more guns in high crime areas but it is the firearms that have promoted the violence.

A lie and an unsupported claim in a single sentence. Congratulations.

I've never said anything about wanting any certain number of guns in high crime areas.

Firearms promoting violence is baby talk. Firearms are inanimate objects and don't promote any of their uses. Violence being a minor one.

 

[rahl]

This SCOUTS legislated. The next one can undo that legislation.

It’s not possible for a court to legislate. Perhaps a basic 6th grade civics class could help you?

 

[rahl]

The presence of, or access to, a firearm will exacerbate any act of violence.

No it won’t.

Means, intent, opportunity all conspire to produce firearm violence.

No it doesn’t.

Silly hypothetical. Try again with some fact-based statement.

It is general principle. Firearms are more lethal than most other weapons.

Those are not weapons.

You are all tangled up in your hypothetical fantasies.

A police background check is different from NICS.

Most part of what? You are just making stuff up again.

Firearm violence is indiscriminate and now worse against black Americans because there are too many firearms in those communities.

 

[rahl]

You want more guns in high crime areas but it is the firearms that have promoted the violence.

Guns have no correlation to violent crime rates. As guns increased, violent crime decreased.

 

[CLAX1911]

You want more guns in high crime areas but it is the firearms that have promoted the violence.

Sometimes violence is to answer. Do you know how you're able to sit here and talk about how people shouldn't have any rights at all it's because someone did violence for you.

 

[jaeger19]

Police are trained to use lethal force whenever there is a perceived threat to life. Unfortunately, not always do they get it right.

Oh so now a firearm doesn’t make violence worse.

They are eligible even if the NICS is delayed without a pass.

Yep. But that’s all that disqualifies you for a carry permit is a background check.

It is unlikely that you know enough to comment about the spectrum of requirements for carry permits.

As if YOU do. ? Come now silly. I hold a carry permit that’s good in the majority of states in the us and I hold a carry permit in a state that doesn’t allow reciprocity with other states.

What is your point?

You seem to be struggling with the complex nature of black on black crime and violence.
Clearly there are too many firearms in high crime areas.

You seem to be struggling with the complexity as you devolved the complexity of violence in the black community to “ too many guns”. When clearly white people without said rates of violence have more firearms

What’s next “ unwed mothers”?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Pointing out that the concept of assault weapons as a category is propaganda....

Then don't! See them as a list of weapons that are included in a bill. Which we only call "assault weapons" for short. But you can call them "Blue Banana Peels", for all I care.

It's just a NAME so they don't have to repeat the 5+ page (or so) list that is in the legislation.

What is significant is that "I don't like the name" is the type of counter arguments we can expect from people who have NO arguments . Or, even worse, your INSISTANCE in that I make up a definition for something when a clear definition ALREADY exists.

But NOT that any of my points wouldn't work. And the fact that NOBODY can rebut them (and instead go after trivial nonsense like the above) is CONFIRMATION that they WOULD.

Again that you see ignorance as a virtue.

I see it as making NO difference when you can't rebut what the so-called "ignorant" person SAYS.. And it's clear that you can't.

There is a reason why the statement "you are wrong because you are ignorant" is considered an ad-hominem fallacy. Because ignorant people CAN be right. And we can safely assume that they ARE right when the self-proclaimed "expert" can't rebut them.

If you can't do better, just admit.... if not to us, at least to yourself... that you are UNJABLE to rebut the points.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Link or post your facts supporting that statement.

Oh... by all means. Hold my bear!

Now... at this point you can do one of two things: you can either go to that thread (it's off-topic here) and try to REBUT them. But, if you do that, make sure you have arguments that are not already rebutted in the OP of that thread. Or you can just come back here and exclaim "that is nonsense!" (or something to that effect). I recommend the latter. It's what most people who have no clue about the topic do.

 

[RF667799]

Then don't! See them as a list of weapons that are included in a bill. Which we only call "assault weapons" for short. But you can call them "Blue Banana Peels", for all I care.

It's just a NAME so they don't have to repeat the 5+ page (or so) list that is in the legislation.

What is significant is that "I don't like the name" is the type of counter arguments we can expect. Or, even worse, your INSISTANCE in that I make up a definition for something when a clear definition ALREADY exists.

But NOT that any of my points wouldn't work. And the fact that NOBODY can rebut them (and instead go after trivial nonsense like the above) is CONFIRMATION that they WOULD.





I see it as making NO difference when you can't rebut what the so-called "ignorant" person SAYS.. And it's clear that you can't.

There is a reason why the statement "you are wrong because you are ignorant" is considered an ad-hominem fallacy. Because ignorant people CAN be right. And we can assume they ARE right when the self-proclaimed "expert" can't rebut them.

If you can't do better, just admit.... if not to us, at least to yourself... that you are UNJABLE to rebut the points.

Right. It's a category. You can't explain what merits inclusion in the category- so you don't know what's in the category- yet you want to see the category banned.

Ignorance drips from your narrative. I can't call it an argument. You won't allow yourself to argue your position.

 

[Bum]

Oh... by all means. Hold my bear!

Now... at this point you can do one of two things: you can either go to that thread (it's off-topic here) and try to REBUT them. But, if you do that, make sure you have arguments that are not already rebutted in the OP of that thread. Or you can just come back here and exclaim "that is nonsense!" (or something to that effect). I recommend the latter. It's what most people who have no clue about the topic do.

Militia act of 1792 and Title 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia composition and classes.
Rebuttal complete.
Bye.

 

[CLAX1911]

Then don't! See them as a list of weapons that are included in a bill. Which we only call "assault weapons" for short. But you can call them "Blue Banana Peels", for all I care.

It's just a NAME so they don't have to repeat the 5+ page (or so) list that is in the legislation.

What is significant is that "I don't like the name" is the type of counter arguments we can expect from people who have NO arguments . Or, even worse, your INSISTANCE in that I make up a definition for something when a clear definition ALREADY exists.

But NOT that any of my points wouldn't work. And the fact that NOBODY can rebut them (and instead go after trivial nonsense like the above) is CONFIRMATION that they WOULD.





I see it as making NO difference when you can't rebut what the so-called "ignorant" person SAYS.. And it's clear that you can't.

There is a reason why the statement "you are wrong because you are ignorant" is considered an ad-hominem fallacy. Because ignorant people CAN be right. And we can safely assume that they ARE right when the self-proclaimed "expert" can't rebut them.

If you can't do better, just admit.... if not to us, at least to yourself... that you are UNJABLE to rebut the points.

Your op was rebutted eloquently in post 1370 by Bum.

So there's no point in me doing it again it's already done.

If you don't know what the words mean that you're using then you're ignorant of the subject that's not a personal attack it's just a fact.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Now... at this point you can do one of two things: you can either go to that thread (it's off-topic here) and try to REBUT them. But, if you do that, make sure you have arguments that are not already rebutted in the OP of that thread. Or you can just come back here and exclaim "that is nonsense!" (or something to that effect). I recommend the latter. It's what most people who have no clue about the topic do.

Rebuttal complete.

As predicted!

 

[Feynman Lives!]

So there's no point in me doing it again it's already done.

There WOULD be if you could. I have rebutted yours over and over ... even the SAME ones you keep repeating. But only somebody who knows what they're talking about would be able to do that.

So I understand... You tried and failed.... You're not the only one.

 

[RF667799]

As predicted!

You failed again? Aww. Don't let it dismay you.

 

[Bum]

You failed again? Aww. Don't let it dismay you.

Someone failed to read and comprehend the Second Amendment and the Militia Act and connect the dots, even when they are this close together: ..