How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Feynman Lives!]

See. The fallacy in your argument is that as long as something “ just makes “ any” fewer shootings it’s a worthy thing to do.

Ok. So let's hear why saving lives is not a worthy thing to do.

But using trump and your logic ( one and the same) as long as trump finds “ just one “ company that was helped by the tariffs then “ it’s all worth it”

So your point is that saving one life is not worth it?

You equate saving a life to saving a company. The false equivalence is more than obvious. The ratio of companies vs people alive in this country is.... well... NOT comparable.

Just one example of the absurdity, it's EASY to prove that tariffs will destroy MORE than one company. To make the equivalence you would need to argue that one of my points would cause more deaths than it saves. So if you're going to insist on this equivalence, why don't you do THAT? Choose ANY of my points and SHOW that it could cost more lives than it saves.

Here is some realities you need to consider. In your research. All the research “ showing smaller magazine size led to fewer deaths”.
Did ANY of those studies showed that the mass shooter was stopped from obtaining a high capacity magazine by any law?

I don't know. I fail to see the relevance. The studies were about the magazines USED in shootings. Not about how they were obtained. They show why the need for more frequent loading could SAVE lives. But if you are making the above equivalence with tariffs, you would need to prove that more frequent loading would cause MORE deaths than it saves.

Oh... and before we forget. I believe you mentioned at the very top that my assumption that stopping "any" shootings was a worthy thing to do, was a fallacy. But then I guess you forgot to explain why it's not.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Where?

In the LINK included in the post you quoted. Do you know how to follow links? THAT is my rebuttal.

 

[RF667799]

Ok. So let's hear why saving lives is not a worthy thing to do.

There's intrinsic loss of life associated with any human activity and associated with all sorts of consumer items. "Save lives at any cost" or "If it saves one life..." are fraudulent positions, bereft of honesty.

People don't call for banning ropes because they are sometimes used to kill other people or to commit suicide. Maybe because there isn't a Rope Control Industry profiting from bleating about the evils of ropes.

So your point is that saving one life is not worth it?

You equate saving a life to saving a company. The false equivalence is more than obvious. The ratio of companies vs people alive in this country is.... well... NOT comparable.

Just one example of the absurdity, it's EASY to prove that tariffs will destroy MORE than one company. To make the equivalence you would need to argue that one of my points would cause more deaths than it saves. So if you're going to insist on this equivalence, why don't you do THAT? Choose ANY of my points and SHOW that it could cost more lives than it saves.





I don't know. I fail to see the relevance. The studies were about the magazines USED in shootings. Not about how they were obtained. They show why the need for more frequent loading could SAVE lives.

"could save lives"

Speculation.

But if you are making the above equivalence with tariffs, you would need to prove that more frequent loading would cause MORE deaths than it saves.

Oh... and before we forget. I believe you mentioned at the very top that my assumption that stopping "any" shootings was a worthy thing to do, was a fallacy. But then I guess you forgot to explain why it's not.

 

[RF667799]

In the LINK included in the post you quoted. Do you know how to follow links? THAT is my rebuttal.

I've quoted a lot of your posts. Being cryptic instead of forthcoming is another indication of bad faith.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

There's intrinsic loss of life associated with any human activity ...

Yep! And this thread refers to ONE of them. The one associated with guns. Feel free to open ANOTHER thread if you can think of ways to address any others. This thread is not it!

 

[jaeger19]

Ok. So let's hear why saving lives is not a worthy thing to do.

well first you have zero idea if what you are doing will save any lives. There is no evidence that any high capacity bans in any way deterred a mass shooter from obtaining a high capacity magazine.
In all likelihood, your magazine ban and assault weapons ban will “ cost” lives as it diverts attention and resources away from things like mental health access that would ACTUALLY save lives.

So your point is that saving one life is not worth it?

When it comes at the cost of actually more lives? Well yes.
Would you say trump did a great thing if his tariffs help “ one company” but cause a recession hurting thousands of other companies.

You equate saving a life to saving a company. The false equivalence is more than obvious. The ratio of companies vs people alive in this country is.... well... NOT comparable.

No . I just give a real world example. Just having good intentions isn’t enough. Plans have to be detailed and thought through.
Let me give you an example
One community was having a huge number of prescription opiod overdose deaths.
So to combat this . To save lives. The community implemented a crackdown on prescription opioids .
It did reduce the number of prescription opiod deaths . Yeah right?
But wait. The number of street drug overdoses exploded as patients couldn’t get opioids went to the street. The result was actually more deaths.

Why Overdose Deaths Skyrocketed After Opioid Prescriptions Dropped​

Why Overdose Deaths Have Increased

Opioid prescriptions have dropped in every state over the last decade, but the effort to prevent overdose deaths is an abject failure

time.com

Just one example of the absurdity, it's EASY to prove that tariffs will destroy MORE than one company. To make the equivalence you would need to argue that one of my points would cause more

Well the problem is that you offer zero details of your “ solution” you say “ ban” but offer no details on how it would be implemented and enforced.
It’s like trump saying. “I will provide you with great big beautiful healthcare it will be awesome”

Then saying “ now prove my plan won’t work”
lol. There is no plan. Just as how you have no plan and won’t discuss it. Refuse even

I don't know. I fail to see the relevance. The studies were about the magazines USED in shootings. Not about how they were obtained.

Exactly. So in other words there is no proof that a magazine ban would work UNLESS you have proof that a shooter couldn’t get his hands on a high capacity magazine.

They show why the need for more frequent loading could SAVE lives.

Sure. But see above.

But if you are making the above equivalence with tariffs, you would need to prove that more frequent loading would cause MORE deaths than it saves.

No I don’t. I only have to show that there is no evidence that the the ban will work and that the efforts and enforcement will divert resources from things that will work like mental health access.

I think that’s pretty evident .

Their findings showed a high prevalence of undiagnosed psychiatric illness in mass shooters:

• The majority of surviving shooters (87.5%) had misdiagnosed and incorrectly treated, or undiagnosed and untreated, psychiatric illness. Researchers found psychiatric illnesses including schizophrenia, mood disorders, delusional disorder, severe personality disorders, substance-related disorders and PTSD. There was insufficient information in three cases.

Mass Shooters: A Systematic Psychiatric Study

A new study investigates the psychiatry of American mass shooters. Here's what researchers found and how that can help prevent future violence.

www.psychologytoday.com

Yet after every mass shotging the conversation becomes a fight over whether 11 round is safer than 10 and background checks that the shooters ALREADY PASSED

I’d submit that the anti gunners constant hammering on gun control that has no evidence of working. Zero.
Is what diverts attention and resources from real solutions like access to mental health.

Oh... and before we forget. I believe you mentioned at the very top that my assumption that stopping "any" shootings was a worthy thing to do, was a fallacy.

But I did. If stopping one shooting , diverts money and attention away from solutions that could stop ALL mass shootings, then it’s not a worthy thing to do.

Understand.

 

[RF667799]

Yep! And this thread refers to ONE of them. The one associated with guns. Feel free to open ANOTHER thread if you can think of ways to address any others. This thread is not it!

Yes, this is the thread to point out that your "save lives at any cost" is something you don't believe in yourself. We can tell because you absolutely refuse to have that examined.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

well first you have zero idea if what you are doing will save any lives.

I have no power to foretell the future, if that's what you mean. And there is certainly no way of counting a negative number of how many people were NOT killed. But those would be a very low strawman even for you.

If that's all you have.... you have AGAIN made my case!

There is no evidence that any high capacity bans in any way deterred a mass shooter from obtaining a high capacity magazine.

There is RARELY evidence of a negative statement. What would evidence that somebody was "deterred" even LOOK like?

A SERIOUS discussion assumes that those who participate are serious people. Your whole argument appears to be devolving into one or another absurd version of "you can't predict the future"

A REASONBLE scenario is that some future mass shooter walks into a store and asks for the LARGEST magazine they sell. If they can get one with 50 rounds.... that's what they'll buy. If they can only get 10 rounds.... they could say "no thank you..... I'll just buy it in the black market". It's POSSIBLE. But it's REASONBLE to assume that some will just buy more of what they can buy legally.

Please let's try to keep this conversation withing REASONBLE parameters. We ALREADY have too many posters here whose best argument is "Ah! You said 'likely". That's speculation!"... and nonsense like that. It only reveals lack of SERIOUS arguments. And it would be disappointing that somebody who is NOT a Trump cult follower would resort to something like that.

In all likelihood, your magazine ban and assault weapons ban will “ cost” lives as it diverts attention and resources away from things like mental health access that would ACTUALLY save lives.

Banning the sale of a magazine doesn't cost a PENNY more than the paper the law is printed on. And if it does... let's just wait until the Trump tax cuts expire. Or add to the deficit! Who cares! We can spare a few hundreds setting up a few more honeypots in the Dark Web. "It costs too much" is ANOTHER nonsensical argument!

Please let's hear a GOOD one. Do you have one?

One community was having a huge number of prescription opiod overdose deaths.

It's idiotic to crack down on PRESCRIPTIONS.

Which of my points are you supposed to be addressing? Magazines? People addicted to opioids could DIE (or feel like they're dying) if they don't have their "fix". NOBODY dies because they can only get a 10 round magazine instead of a 50 round .

Well the problem is that you offer zero details of your “ solution” you say “ van” but offer no details on how it would be implemented and enforced.

It will be enforced like ANY law is enforced. If your neighborhood gun stores sells high capacity magazines after they are banned, a couple of cops hop by on their way from Dunkin' arrest the owner and shut the store down. Easy!

.... looks like I may be exceeding the maximum length quota. So I'll finish this in the next post.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Exactly. So in other words there is no proof that a magazine ban would work UNLESS you have proof that a shooter couldn’t get his hands on a high capacity magazine.

If they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted a 50 round magazine, and not the 10 round they are being offered, they can surely go to the black market. But with a federal law, the folks who run the black market won't be able to just run down to Texas where the sale of 50-round magazines is legal, and sell it to somebody in California where it's illegal. So they will become more and more expensive. And manufacturers will produce less because they can't just sell them at your local gun shop. That means they will become more and more scarce and difficult to obtain. Thus even MORE expensive. Until..... maybe one day a mass shooter will just say "The hell with it! I'll just take the 10 round magazine!"

This is what a REASONABLE argument looks like. To demand some sort of PROOF of something that is 100% RATIONAL is sign of desperation.

Do you have some REASONBLE arguments of this type?

I think that’s pretty evident .

Anything that is evident requires NO proof.

And it IS evident that enforcing this, just like enforcing ANY law, has a monetary cost. I mean, those cops who had to arrest the shop owner who was selling 20-round magazines DO get a salary. But using that as an argument means that we can never have ANY laws.

I hope you can do better than "it costs money to enforce a new law". Especially because THIS one is PARTICULARLY inexpensive to enforce. For the most part, it only requires checking legal gun sellers. Even if we weren't willing to spend a few hundred bucks adding honeypots to the dark web, the black market would take care of itself through the process I described above.

 

[RF667799]

I have no power to foretell the future, if that's what you mean. And there is certainly no way of counting a negative number of how many people were NOT killed. But those would be a very low strawman even for you.

If that's all you have.... you have AGAIN made my case!

You shouldn't make predictions then, if you don't like it being pointed out they are nothing but speculation.

There is RARELY evidence of a negative statement. What would evidence that somebody was "deterred" even LOOK like?

A SERIOUS discussion assumes that those who participate are serious people. Your whole argument appears to be devolving into one or another absurd version of "you can't predict the future"

A REASONBLE scenario is that some future mass shooter walks into a store and asks for the LARGEST magazine they sell. If they can get one with 50 rounds.... that's what they'll buy. If they can only get 10 rounds.... they could say "no thank you..... I'll just buy it in the black market". It's POSSIBLE. But it's REASONBLE to assume that some will just buy more of what they can buy legally.

Please let's try to keep this conversation withing REASONBLE parameters. We ALREADY have too many posters here whose best argument is "Ah! You said 'likely". That's speculation!"... and nonsense like that. It only reveals lack of SERIOUS arguments. And it would be disappointing that somebody who is NOT a Trump cult follower would resort to something like that.



Banning the sale of a magazine doesn't cost a PENNY more than the paper the law is printed on. And if it does... let's just wait until the Trump tax cuts expire. Or add to the deficit! Who cares! We can spare a few hundreds setting up a few more honeypots in the Dark Web. "It costs too much" is ANOTHER nonsensical argument!

It's an argument you accept when it comes to other consumer items. The only difference is that you figure in the case of guns, you have no skin in the game anyway.

Please let's hear a GOOD one. Do you have one?


It's idiotic to crack down on PRESCRIPTIONS.

Which of my points are you supposed to be addressing? Magazines? People addicted to opioids could DIE (or feel like they're dying) if they don't have their "fix". NOBODY dies because they can only get a 10 round magazine instead of a 50 round .


It will be enforced like ANY law is enforced. If your neighborhood gun stores sells high capacity magazines after they are banned, a couple of cops hop by on their way from Dunkin' arrest the owner and shut the store down. Easy!

.... looks like I may be exceeding the maximum length quota. So I'll finish this in the next post.

 

[RF667799]

If they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted a 50 round magazine, and not the 10 round they are being offered, they can surely go to the black market. But with a federal law, the folks who run the black market won't be able to just run down to Texas where the sale of 50-round magazines is legal, and sell it to somebody in California where it's illegal. So they will become more and more expensive. And manufacturers will produce less because they can't just sell them at your local gun shop. That means they will become more and more scarce and difficult to obtain. Thus even MORE expensive. Until..... maybe one day a mass shooter will just say "The hell with it! I'll just take the 10 round magazine!"

This is what a REASONABLE argument looks like. To demand some sort of PROOF of something that is 100% RATIONAL is sign of desperation.

Do you have some REASONBLE arguments of this type?



Anything that is evident requires NO proof.

And it IS evident that enforcing this, just like enforcing ANY law, has a monetary cost. I mean, those cops who had to arrest the shop owner who was selling 20-round magazines DO get a salary. But using that as an argument means that we can never have ANY laws.

I hope you can do better than "it costs money to enforce a new law". Especially because THIS one is PARTICULARLY inexpensive to enforce. For the most part, it only requires checking legal gun sellers. Even if we weren't willing to spend a few hundred bucks adding honeypots to the dark web, the black market would take care of itself through the process I described above.

You've nothing to support it will save any significant number of lives.

 

[RF667799]

Let's destroy #12.

12. Implement strong nationwide cash-for-guns programs focusing primarily on assault weapons.

How will you focus on something you don't know what it is?

Assuming they are some sort of rifle, why "focus primarily"on the guns used to commit an even smaller number of homicides than the already minuscule number of homicides committed with all types of guns.

One of your fellow travellers in the Gun Control Industry explained why. "Assault weapons" are easy to focus on for ignorant people who might support an idiotic ban.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

It's an argument you accept when it comes to other consumer items.

Saving lives is a "consumer item"?

Hilarious! Your post might not contribute much of substance to the debate, but always funny!

 

[RF667799]

Saving lives is a "consumer item"?

Hilarious! Your post might not contribute much of substance to the debate, but always funny!

Way to display reading incomprehension!

Guns are a consumer item.

Now try reading again, since you have been corrected.

BTW, every time you post an edited version of one of my posts, it is likely you understood you were badly beaten on the points you deleted.

 

[jaeger19]

Mm

I have no power to foretell the future, if that's what you mean. And there is certainly no way of counting a negative number of how many people were NOT killed. But those would be a very low strawman even for you.

Well. You ARE saying that you can predict the future. You are saying that a magazine capacity ban WILL SAVE LIVES.
That’s predicting the future.
And you are basing that on studies that have stated that lower magazine capacity means more reloading and fewer deaths.
That in itself is problematic . However, even if we go with that. There is no evidence that assault weapons bans have restricted a mass shooter from getting a high capacity magazine if they wanted one.
I’m

If that's all you have.... you have AGAIN made my case!


There is RARELY evidence of a negative statement. What would evidence that somebody was "deterred" even LOOK like?

A SERIOUS discussion assumes that those who participate are serious people. Your whole argument appears to be devolving into one or another absurd version of "you can't predict the future"

A REASONBLE scenario is that some future mass shooter walks into a store and asks for the LARGEST magazine they sell. If they can get one with 50 rounds.... that's what they'll buy. If they can only get 10 rounds.... they could say "no thank you..... I'll just buy it in the black market". It's POSSIBLE. But it's REASONBLE to assume that some will just buy more of what they can buy legally.

Please let's try to keep this conversation withing REASONBLE parameters. We ALREADY have too many posters here whose best argument is "Ah! You said 'likely". That's speculation!"... and nonsense like that. It only reveals lack of SERIOUS arguments. And it would be disappointing that somebody who is NOT a Trump cult follower would resort to something like that.



Banning the sale of a magazine doesn't cost a PENNY more than the paper the law is printed on. And if it does... let's just wait until the Trump tax cuts expire. Or add to the deficit! Who cares! We can spare a few hundreds setting up a few more honeypots in the Dark Web. "It costs too much" is ANOTHER nonsensical argument!

Please let's hear a GOOD one. Do you have one?


It's idiotic to crack down on PRESCRIPTIONS.

Which of my points are you supposed to be addressing? Magazines? People addicted to opioids could DIE (or feel like they're dying) if they don't have their "fix". NOBODY dies because they can only get a 10 round magazine instead of a 50 round .


It will be enforced like ANY law is enforced. If your neighborhood gun stores sells high capacity magazines after they are banned, a couple of cops hop by on their way from Dunkin' arrest the owner and shut the store down. Easy!

.... looks like I may be exceeding the maximum length quota. So I'll finish this in the next post.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Mm

Well. You ARE saying that you can predict the future.

No I'm not. I'm stating reasonable expectations. While you're demanding PROOF of what will happen in the future.

That's a strawman fallacy. You don't need "proof". You need to show that my conclusions are not REASONABLE.

You're not a MAGA. So I suspect you might have debated with MAGAs in the past. And that you have seen their tactics first hand: strawman arguments, change the subject, refusal to use REASON.... . So you know how they try to hide the fact that they know they're wrong and you know what to avoid so you don't project that impression.

You are saying that a magazine capacity ban WILL SAVE LIVES.

I don't know where you got that quote from, so I don't know the context. But whenever you read something like that, it's OBVIOUIS that the intention is not to predict the future. It's to say "it's REASONBLE to conclude that it will save lives".

NOTHING that I say. In NO way whatsoever.... is intended to mean that I can predict the future. Every time you read something and you think that's what I'm doing, feel free to assume it's a typo on my part and that what I really meant to say was "the most reasonable assumption (or the most rational expected outcome) is that...." So you can stop asking for "proof" of what will happen in the future.

If you don't agree, you could show why it's NOT a reasonable conclusion. You can ask me to explain the reasons if they're not clear to you. But PLEASE... not if they're obvious!

That in itself is problematic . However, even if we go with that. There is no evidence that assault weapons bans have restricted a mass shooter from getting a high capacity magazine if they wanted one.

They won't be able to get it at the neighborhood gun store like they do now. Is that not what you would call "restrict"?

 

[jaeger19]

Mm

I have no power to foretell the future, if that's what you mean.

Well. You ARE saying that you can predict the future. You are saying that a magazine capacity ban WILL SAVE LIVES.
That’s predicting the future.
And you are basing that on studies that have stated that lower magazine capacity means more reloading and fewer deaths.
That in itself is problematic . However, even if we go with that. There is no evidence that assault weapons bans have restricted a mass shooter from getting a high capacity magazine if they wanted one.
Basically you’ve gone from claiming your ban will save lives to admitting you don’t know if it will save any lives.

If that's all you have.... you have AGAIN made my case!

Yeah no. You just admitted you didn’t know if you ban will save any lives!!!

There is RARELY evidence of a negative statement. What would evidence that somebody was "deterred" even LOOK like?

Well it could be done with interviews with surviving mass shooters. Or interviewing family members etc. to determine if a mass shooters had tried to obtain a high capacity magazine and failed.

A SERIOUS discussion assumes that those who participate are serious people.

Absolutely. You aren’t being serious. You are being trump like. “ my ban will work”
Well okay what do you plan to do with the millions of high capacity magazines out there”
“ nothing”. My ban will work “
Okay, do you have any evidence that any past bans have deterred mass shooters from getting their hands high ccapacity magazines

“ ha , I can’t predict the future” but I can predict “ my ban will work”

Lmao. You are one of the least serious posters on this forum.

A REASONBLE scenario is that some future mass shooter walks into a store and asks for the LARGEST magazine they sell.

Your assumption is that it will be illegal for anyone to sell high capacity magazines . The last ban private sellers could sell to whomever they liked . There simply was a ban that no new magazines could be manufactured or imported .

Please let's try to keep this conversation withing REASONBLE parameters.

Reasonable parameters is that there is a large private market for firearms that individuals buy and sell , collect and trade that has nothing to do with licensed dealers .

We ALREADY have too many posters here whose best argument is "

Well as your posts demonstrate you are exactly like a trump cultist. “ it will work” you cry and when questioned on any practice details of the ban you wig out and scream “ no it will work, it will be big and beautiful”.
Lmao

Banning the sale of a magazine doesn't cost a PENNY

But enforcing such a ban does cost more . And without any means of enforcement your ban isn’t worth even the paper it’s written on.

And if it does... let's just wait until the Trump tax cuts expire.

Yep. Just like you. It’s not going to cost us anything to enforce banning magazines and Mexico is going to pay for building a wall “ that won’t work either”)
Lmao.
Well prescription medication was accounting for a number of addictions and overdoses .
And it was done to “save lives”
Are you against” saving lives”
???
Think about that for more than a minute .

Which of my points are you supposed to be addressing? Magazines?

Well it just illustrates that your ban isn’t even as thought out as the crackdown on prescription meds . So it could backfire or not work just the same.

It will be enforced like ANY law is enforced.

If your neighborhood gun stores sells high capacity magazines after they are banned, a

Cool. Explain the cops know they are looking at a high capacity magazine . Since it’s the exact same size as a magazine only holding 10 rds.
Oh and explain how these cops are going to monitor the millions of private party transactions
“Today, private parties can buy and sell many guns a year while claiming not to be engaged in the business. Perhaps 40% of all gun sales nationwide — roughly 6.6 million transactions in 2008 — are made by private parties.”

 

[Spock]

In other words you are admitting that you can’t quantify the violence of the police.

You were the one who accused the police of violent intent.

For all you know , armed police actually decreases violence as it acts as a deterrent to criminals who otherwise would be more inclined to fight with police.

Provide the data.

It’s your argument that the police having firearms increases the violence level.

It is my argument that lethal response is greater when firearms are involved.

Classic Spock . You make an assumption then admit you have no evidence of said assumption and act like that supports your argument.

I think you are having trouble processing simple statements and respond without thinking accurately.

Police being armed may actually reduce violence as armed police act as a deterrent to criminals.

When there is INTENT.
Firearms also can be used to diffuse situations as in defensive gun use. Such as a man stalking a woman to beat and rape her in the parking lot and she reaches into her purse and says “ I have a gun leave me alone”. And he moves on instead of beating and raping her.

Or he takes the gun, rapes her and goes off to use that gun in another crime. Or that gun in her purse is discovered by a child who shoots himself or others . The bad scenarios are endless. Or she forgets where she left her purse and the gun is taken. How often do you misplace your cellphone?

No I understand their value and weaknesses. You however simply use them when you wish.
And again. You need to explain why I should care about gun violence versus violence of all kinds.

Firearm violence is linked to a uniquely lethal and uniquely controllable device.

You’ve never been able to do that and that’s because gun violence is a useless statistic.

 

[Rich2018]

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

Reloading shows the rate of fire

Another ignorant comment from someone ignorant of firearms.

 

[jaeger19]

If they REALLY REALLY REALLY wanted a 50 round magazine, and not the 10 round they are being offered, they can surely go to the black market. But with a federal law, the folks who run the black market won't be able to just run down to Texas where the sale of 50-round magazines is legal, and sell it to somebody in California where it's illegal. So they will become more and more expensive. And manufacturers will produce less because they can't just sell them at your local gun shop. That means they will become more and more scarce and difficult to obtain. Thus even MORE expensive. Until..... maybe one day a mass shooter will just say "The hell with it! I'll just take the 10 round magazine!"

What “ black market”. There are millions of private sales where gun owners private sellers could legally sell high capacity magazines . You could buy them all through the last ban through a private dealer. For decades firearms have come with magazines that are more than 10 rds. Your expectation is that all these firearms can never be sold again because the they have a high capacity magazine ?
That makes no sense.

This is what a REASONABLE argument looks like. To demand some sort of PROOF of something that is 100% RATIONAL is sign of desperation.

Yeah no. Sorry nan but you are making claims that don’t hold up to reality.

Do you have some REASONBLE arguments of this type?



Anything that is evident requires NO proof.

And it IS evident that enforcing this, just like enforcing ANY law, has a monetary cost. I mean, those cops who had to arrest the shop owner who was selling 20-round magazines DO get a salary. But using that as an argument means that we can never have ANY laws.

No. Tge question becomes how many cops are you going to devote to running down the millions of private sales where gun owners are selling a firearm with the high capacity magazine it came with in 1994. Or 2007 till 2025. Millions of guns.
How many cops are you going to put out on the streets doing this . Rather than having them go to a domestic violence call?

I hope you can do better than "it costs money to enforce a new law". Especially because THIS one is PARTICULARLY inexpensive to enforce.

No it’s not in expensive to enforce

For the most part, it only requires checking legal gun sellers.

Legal gun sellers are private individuals. Some 40% of gun sales are done through private sellers which the government has zero ability to regulate or even know about.

Even if we weren't willing to spend a few hundred bucks adding honeypots to the dark web, the black market would take care of itself through the process I described above.

See above. You obviously don’t understand simple firearm sales.

 

[jaeger19]

You were the one who accused the police of violent intent.

No you were the one that said simply carrying a firearm increased the amount of violence.
I pointed out police and you first said “ well no they aren’t more likley to be violent. And then later you said they were .
Then you admitted you had no idea what a firearm did in regards to violence.

Provide the data.

It is my argument that lethal response is greater when firearms are involved.

And as you admit that’s based on nothing but your pure speculation. An interaction with someone armed like a policeman may make people more likley to step away and not be violent.

I think you are having trouble processing simple statements and respond without thinking accurately.

I know you can’t articulate a cogent thought.

Or he takes the gun, rapes her and goes off to use that gun in another crime.

Wait. I thought her having a firearm made her more likley to kill him stopping the rape?
Which is it with you anti gunners??? Lmao.

One minute you are claiming having a firearm turns you into a killer able to kill at will, the next minute it’s a piece of cake to disarm a person with a firearm…

Lmao silly goose.

Or that gun in her purse is discovered by a child who shoots himself or others . The bad scenarios are endless. Or she forgets where she left her purse and the gun is taken. How often do you misplace your cellphone?

Cellphones are like firearms now. What’s with the false equivalence?lmao.

Look. The data is clear. Defensive gun uses far outweigh the number of guns used in criminal acts or accidents.

Firearm violence is linked to a uniquely lethal and uniquely controllable device.

No it’s not.

 

[rahl]

Reloading shows the rate of fire

Reloading has no relevance to rate of fire.

Another ignorant comment from someone ignorant of firearms.

 

[Spock]

That's not a rebuttal. That's naysaying.

Your Gun Control Industry talking point list failed you again.

Fallacious statements must be identified.

 

[Spock]

No it is t.

Non sequitur.

No. I don’t debate strawmen.

I don’t cherry pick.

I don’t have to do better. I have repeatedly and sufficiently refuted your position

Wasted bandwidth that does nothing to advance a civil discussion.
Surely you can do better.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Yeah no. You just admitted you didn’t know if you ban will save any lives!!!

I see. So all you got is "prove that you can predict the future"

That's good enough. Any RATIONAL person reading this understands that this is what people who find themselves with no REAL arguments do.

Well it could be done with interviews with surviving mass shooters. Or interviewing family members etc. to determine if a mass shooters had tried to obtain a high capacity magazine and failed.

My proposals have not been implemented. You are asking me for PROOF of what will happen in the future when my proposals are implemented.

Okay, do you have any evidence that any past bans have deterred mass shooters from getting their hands high ccapacity magazines

Sure!!!! And you can try yourself. Walk into a gun store in any of the states where the sale of high capacity magazines are banned and ask them to sell you one!

Now I haven't personally tried to do this. But if that's the "proof" you need, here I can even predict the future: They won't sell them to you!

Is THAT what you meant with all this talk about "proof" and "predicting the future"?

I guess it was easier than I thought!

Your assumption is that it will be illegal for anyone to sell high capacity magazines .

That's not my "assumption". It's my PROPOSAL! God! Are you even paying attention?

The last ban private sellers could sell to whomever they liked

So mine is better....

But enforcing such a ban does cost more . And without any means of enforcement your ban isn’t worth even the paper it’s written on.

No means of enforcing it? What the hell are you talking about? We're not going to get rid of police! Why would we not enforce it?

Your arguments are becoming weaker and more desperate by the second! You're losing all pretense of being in touch with reality now...

Well prescription medication was accounting for a number of addictions and overdoses .

I'm pretty sure the gun addiction is different.

Cool. Explain the cops know they are looking at a high capacity magazine . Since it’s the exact same size as a magazine only holding 10 rds.

So you're saying cops can't tell the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 50 round magazine?

Clearly you ran out of rational arguments.,...

Oh and explain how these cops are going to monitor the millions of private party transactions

The same way they monitor ANY illegal transaction.

Ok. I invited you to a RATIONAL debate, and you refused. So you can't say I didn't try!