How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[RF667799]

Slows an active shooter's rate of fire down.

From what to what?

Also explain how active shooters employ a high rate of fire, and what rate of fire that is.

 

[RF667799]

Without a firearm, the police would be obligated to use other methods. They are trained to respond with lethal force for perceived threat. The firearm is the default weapon and therefore response is frequently lethal.

No credit for your non-answer.
Every community is safer without firearms, even a community with drugs and crime.

Repeating the same claims over and over doesn't make them true.

Nope. Data does not support that fewer firearms have more homicide although I am sure you will cherry-pick some dissimilar communities to argue otherwise.

Anything you could respond with would be cherry picked, so what's the problem?

 

[RF667799]

Let's do another stupid proposal.

6. Require a license to buy any firearm and ammunition.
I'm unsure how that is a proposal to ban guns, but nevertheless, I'll rebut it.

No, let's not. There, another one bites the dust.

 

[RF667799]

With the depth of argument the OP displays, the OP could have looked like:

How To Ban Guns Without Firing a Single Shot
by @Feynman Lives!

1. Ban guns.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rebuttal: Nope.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Slows an active shooter's rate of fire down.

No it’s doesn’t. The rate of fire is still one round per a trigger pull with a semi-automatic firearm.

 

[jaeger19]

Cool factoid, dude! What does it have to do with my proposals?

well since handguns are the most used tool by mass shooters and don’t generally have high capacity magazines that hold 20 or 30.

It seems your proposals go through a lot of expense and time fixing a problem that doesn’t exist. But hey. Why inject reality into the equation right?
So… again how do you propose to remove the millions of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds from the current market. ???

 

[jaeger19]

Slows an active shooter's rate of fire down.

No . It’s still one round per trigger pull.

 

[jaeger19]

Without a firearm, the police would be obligated to use other methods. They are trained to respond with lethal force for perceived threat. The firearm is the default weapon and therefore response is frequently lethal.

Interesting. So okay you are now saying that having a firearm makes the police more violent.

No credit for your non-answer.
Every community is safer without firearms, even a community with drugs and crime.

Not true at all. That assumption is based on the idea that firearms cause violence . And since they don’t. Meh.

Nope. Data does not support that fewer firearms have more homicide although I am sure you will cherry-pick some dissimilar communities to argue otherwise.

Sure the data does show that. And stop with the vs about dissimilar communities.

You have no problem comparing the us to the uk.
But when it’s shown that Germany has a lower murder rare than the uk . Despite having more guns you cry. Disparate countries .

Germany and the uk certainly share more similarities than the USA and the uk.

Face it dude. You are done and have nothing but repeating the some old biased bs that’s been refuted.

 

[Spock]

Repeating the same claims over and over doesn't make them true.



Anything you could respond with would be cherry picked, so what's the problem?

Look at the data across many countries.
Fewer firearms means fewer firearm deaths and injuries. It is a simple concept.

 

[RF667799]

Look at the data across many countries.
Fewer firearms means fewer firearm deaths and injuries. It is a simple concept.

Back to "firearm deaths are associated with firearms" as if it is something other than a tautology.

 

[Spock]

Interesting. So okay you are now saying that having a firearm makes the police more violent.

Nope. The end result is more lethal results. The violence of the police cannot be quantified as simply as you want.
If you disagree, quantify the current violence of American police departments.

Not true at all. That assumption is based on the idea that firearms cause violence . And since they don’t. Meh.

Firearms facilitate lethal and injurious outcomes.

Sure the data does show that. And stop with the vs about dissimilar communities.

You are addicted to dissimilar comparisons.

You have no problem comparing the us to the uk.
But when it’s shown that Germany has a lower murder rare than the uk . Despite having more guns you cry. Disparate countries .

Germany and the uk certainly share more similarities than the USA and the uk.

Face it dude. You are done and have nothing but repeating the some old biased bs that’s been refuted.

The facts remain in spite of your need to ignore them.

Gun violence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Spock]

Back to "firearm deaths are associated with firearms" as if it is something other than a tautology.

You were making incremental progress but now seem to be backsliding.
Firearm access is inextricably associated with increased firearm death and injury.

 

[RF667799]

Nope. The end result is more lethal results. The violence of the police cannot be quantified as simply as you want.
If you disagree, quantify the current violence of American police departments.

Firearms facilitate lethal and injurious outcomes.

They certainly can be used for such if someone is bent on lethal or injurious actions. Good thing it's such a rare thing.

You are addicted to dissimilar comparisons.

The facts remain in spite of your need to ignore them.

Gun violence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[RF667799]

You were making incremental progress but now seem to be backsliding.
Firearm access is inextricably associated with increased firearm death and injury.

Reality tells a different story.

However, you are quite correct that firearms are associated with firearm death and injury. Boats are associated with boat death and injury. Ropes with....well, you know.

 

[Spock]

They certainly can be used for such if someone is bent on lethal or injurious actions. Good thing it's such a rare thing.

What is rare?

 

[RF667799]

What is rare?

"Gun deaths". Either in their proper categories or conflated into one idiotic category.

 

[Spock]

Reality tells a different story.

However, you are quite correct that firearms are associated with firearm death and injury. Boats are associated with boat death and injury. Ropes with....well, you know.

The presence of lethal factors in a society increases the risk of death and injury especially if that factor is specifically designed to cause death or injury when used again a human.

 

[Spock]

"Gun deaths". Either in their proper categories or conflated into one idiotic category.

Firearm death rates are exorbitant in the USA.

 

[RF667799]

The presence of lethal factors in a society increases the risk of death and injury especially if that factor is specifically designed to cause death or injury when used again a human.

So? Cars, ropes, boats, knives, motorcycles....all "lethal factors" however you are defining that.

 

[RF667799]

Firearm death rates are exorbitant in the USA.

No they aren't. (Valid rebuttal for an unsupported assertion.)

 

[Spock]

So? Cars, ropes, boats, knives, motorcycles....all "lethal factors" however you are defining that.

Not designed to be used as a weapon, didn't you know?
Do you avoid medical intervention for serious disease because some other disease occurs?
Your false equivalence fallacy is showing again.

 

[Spock]

No they aren't. (Valid rebuttal for an unsupported assertion.)

100,000 deaths and injuries from a limited use device means that firearm violence is exorbitant.
The firearm violence rate is far less than in equivalent high income countries.

 

[RF667799]

Not designed to be used as a weapon, didn't you know?

They can be used as weapons because of aspects of their design. You're just trying to rephrase "designed to kill" because you have failed so miserably to support it.

Do you avoid medical intervention for serious disease because some other disease occurs?
Your false equivalence fallacy is showing again.

Can you go to a doctor appointment and a baseball game on the same day?

Aside from that, I'm not arguing what you might think they I'm arguing. I'm just pointing out the special pleading fallacies you simply swim in.

 

[RF667799]

100,000 deaths and injuries from a limited use device means that firearm violence is exorbitant.
The firearm violence rate is far less than in equivalent high income countries.

100,000 divided by however many people have access to guns. What do you make that number to be?

 

[JMB1911A1]

100,000 deaths and injuries from a limited use device means that firearm violence is exorbitant.
The firearm violence rate is far less than in equivalent high income countries.

1.67 million defensive gun uses.