How to ban guns without firing a single shot!

[Rich2018]

So why should criminals be the only ones that have them?

They shouldn't
A gun ban should apply to them too.

Yes, this is why your position is insane

"Firearms don't make people become mass shooters"
How is that position "insane" ?

The firearms are available you can't do anything to make them unavailable.

You can seize them.

Laws don't stop people who want to commit mass murder.

Really ?
So laws against murder don't stop people (not all perhaps) from committing murder
Laws against rape don't stop people from committing rape
Laws against highway speeding don't stop people from committing speeding when driving on highways ?

Tell me, what laws do you actually think DO stop people (at least a great number of them) from doing what that law in question proscribes ?

Do you not understand there's already a law against murder? Making it double ultra illegal won't stop it.

You make a good point
Trying to stop shootings/mass shootings by trying to control demand doesn't work

We need to try and stop them by controlling supply - namely the supply of guns.

I don't know why this doesn't sink in.

 

[jaeger19]

You have cherry-picked countries that are not equivalent and ignored comparison with countries very similar to the US.

Stop lying. You cherry pick countries that aren’t equivalent to the us. Then ignore data from countries equivalent with each other.

Death and injury of any kind from firearms is a public health problem.

But they are very different problems . Murder is not a “ health” problem.

You do not see any similarity whatsoever between firearm suicide and firearm homicide?

No. No I do not see a similarity between the cause of suicide and murder.

Do you also ignore accidental firearm death and injury because it is not in the arbitrary category you think is the only concern of society (ie, homicide)?

Nope. I instead understand that accidents , suicides , and murder/homicide all have different causes and thus different solutions and should NOT be lumped in together .
Just as lynchings are not the same as suicide. Though both use a rope.

Why are you afraid to compare the USA to similar countries in the anglosphere?

Because they are not similar countries differing greatly in their histories , medical systems , cultures, educational systems , economics . And social systems from the USA .

Canada, Australia, and the UK have fewer firearms, less firearm homicide and less suicide generally.

Due to their universal healthcare, strong social safety nets , lack of institutional racism , and strong public education. Which they all share with each other and which all differ with the us.

Meanwhile the uk has far fewer guns than Australia , but has about 4 times the murder rate.
Hmmm. It ain’t the firearms my friend.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jaeger19]

So let's see. You want me to explain to you why the parents of the children in Newtown or Uvalde or Parkland... or maybe those at the concert in Las Vegas.... would have preferred if the murder had been throwing knives at the victims instead of bullets.

If those children were dead? Yeah explain why they should feel happier if their children were murdered with knives instead of a firearm .
Let’s hear it.

As I said: SERIOUS arguments, please.

You wouldn’t u destined a serious argument if it hit you in the face. You run from serious arguments.

It's not that complicated. Simply quote the proposal you think you have the BEST rebuttal for, and give it your best shot. I'm not interested in NONSENSE!

Already did . I started with your magazine ban and you fell to pieces . Lmao

Or just admit that you don't HAVE any arguments.

You need to admit to yourself you have no idea what you are talking about. You don’t have to admit it to us. Anyone with any knowledge would know you are full of it when you said “ the magazines will rust”!!!
Lmao.

At this point I think it's pretty clear that you don't have any anyway. So why not admit it?

Yeah we all know you’ve run from every discussion here. I suggest you stop posting and start doing some research and thinking on your op so that when you get asked a simple detail on how it’s going to work. ? You could answer with a cogent response.

 

[jaeger19]

They shouldn't
A gun ban should apply to them too.

They are already banned from guns but still have them. So why will your ban suddenly work?
Are they going to just turn them in because you say so?

"Firearms don't make people become mass shooters"
How is that position "insane" ?




You can seize them.

Great. Explain how that will work exactly. I really want you to explain how you think that’s going to work.

Really ?
So laws against murder don't stop people (not all perhaps) from committing murder
Laws against rape don't stop people from committing rape
Laws against highway speeding don't stop people from committing speeding when driving on highways ?

Not directly no. Only when a person is incarcerated after committing said crime do they reduce crime ..

Tell me, what laws do you actually think DO stop people (at least a great number of them) from doing what that law in question proscribes ?

None. We have laws because most people believe in them anyway. Laws are completely unnecessary for the vast vast majority of people.

You make a good point
Trying to stop shootings/mass shootings by trying to control demand doesn't work

We need to try and stop them by controlling supply - namely the supply of guns.

Been tried. Doesn’t work.

 

[Spock]

Stop lying. You cherry pick countries that aren’t equivalent to the us. Then ignore data from countries equivalent with each other.

But they are very different problems . Murder is not a “ health” problem.

Of course murder is a public health problem as is accidental firearm injuries and firearm suicide.

No. No I do not see a similarity between the cause of suicide and murder.

Hint: firearm

Nope. I instead understand that accidents , suicides , and murder/homicide all have different causes and thus different solutions and should NOT be lumped in together .

The agent of injury is the same, just as cigarettes cause heart disease as well as cancer. Multiple consequences of injurious behaviors are appropriate concerns.

Due to their universal healthcare, strong social safety nets , lack of institutional racism , and strong public education. Which they all share with each other and which all differ with the us.

Nonsense. You are missing the most obvious reason-- firearm prevalence.

Meanwhile the uk has far fewer guns than Australia , but has about 4 times the murder rate.

What is the total firearm violence in the UK, Australia, NZ and Canada?
Far less than in the USA because there are better firearm laws and fewer firearms.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

If those children were dead?

They weren't dead. They were alive. And some may STILL have been alive if killing them were more difficult than just pulling a trigger.

Anyway... Let me know if you can stand up to the challenge: quote ANY of my proposals and tell us why it's wrong. Or we will understand that you agree with my proposals.

Already did . I started with your magazine ban and you fell to pieces . Lmao

Oh.... I remember. Because it was... what was it... too expensive to publish a law banning the sale.... something like that. To which I responded that it would cost... about as much as the ink and paper used to sign it and publish it. After that, gun shop owners can decide if they want to follow it, or risk huge fines (which would actually be income) or prison if the magazines they sell are used to commit a crime.

So that was the best you had, huh! I'm happy to hear that!

 

[Spock]

Firearms are a risk factor for fatal domestic assault, accidental firearm injury and death, and for completed suicide:

Firearm Suicide in the United States

Firearm suicide is preventable, and addressing it is an essential element of any strategy to reduce gun violence in America.

everytownresearch.org

 

[RF667799]

They weren't dead. They were alive. And some may STILL have been alive if killing them were more difficult than just pulling a trigger.

Anyway... Let me know if you can stand up to the challenge: quote ANY of my proposals and tell us why it's wrong. Or we will understand that you agree with my proposals.

Here is one. You don't seem to explain how licensing equates to banning guns. It doesn't make sense in terms of your own OP theme. That's likely because your proposals are just a laundry list from the Gun Control Industry.

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.

Oh.... I remember. Because it was... what was it... too expensive to publish a law banning the sale.... something like that. To which I responded that it would cost... about as much as the ink and paper used to sign it and publish it. After that, gun shop owners can decide if they want to follow it, or risk huge fines (which would actually be income) or prison if the magazines they sell are used to commit a crime.

So that was the best you had, huh! I'm happy to hear that!

 

[jaeger19]

No. Murder is not a “ public health problem”

Hint: firearm

The agent of injury is the same, just as cigarettes cause heart disease as well as cancer.

No because firearms do not CAUSE violence nor cause suicide nor injury.
Cigarette smoke causes cancer.

Multiple consequences of injurious behaviors are appropriate concerns.

And each cause and effect should be evaluated . Not lumped together.

Nonsense. You are missing the most obvious reason-- firearm prevalence.

Great tell me exactly what the firearm prevalence is in Idaho . To prove that its prevalence of firearms.

What is the total firearm violence in the UK, Australia, NZ and Canada?

Again. The minute you give me a cogent reason I should care about firearm violence vs murder rates , I’ll give a rats ass about firearm violence.
How about you deal with murder rates.

Far less than in the USA because there are better firearm laws and fewer firearms.

No. As pointed out, Australia is better than the uk despite having way more firearms.

It’s not firearms then obviously. The difference is in strong social safety nets , universal healthcare, strong public education and lack of substantial institutional racism .
All things that that the uk , Canada and Australia have and the us doesn’t.

Face facts

 

[Spock]

No. Murder is not a “ public health problem”


No because firearms do not CAUSE violence nor cause suicide nor injury.
Cigarette smoke causes cancer.

Cigarettes are no different from firearms. Firearm use produces death and injury just as cigarette use produces death and injury.

And each cause and effect should be evaluated . Not lumped together.

No. The same agent, firearms or cigarettes, produces multiple sorts of death and injury. Your argument is buried.

Great tell me exactly what the firearm prevalence is in Idaho . To prove that its prevalence of firearms.

Throughout the US, generally wider firearm availability is associated with more firearm death and injury.
That association is reasonable, of course, since firearms pose a risk in any household or situation.

Again. The minute you give me a cogent reason I should care about firearm violence vs murder rates , I’ll give a rats ass about firearm violence.
How about you deal with murder rates.

No. As pointed out, Australia is better than the uk despite having way more firearms.

The firearm violence rate in Australia and the UK is fraction of the firearm death and injury in the USA
.Australia has about 1/30th of the firearm death and injury of the US

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.

www.healthdata.org

You cannot escape the truth.

It’s not firearms then obviously. The difference is in strong social safety nets , universal healthcare, strong public education and lack of substantial institutional racism .
All things that that the uk , Canada and Australia have and the us doesn’t.

Face facts

No. You might as well claim that Australia is safer because of Vegemite.
Reduction of firearms in Australia has reduced firearm death and injury, especially from mass shootings, since Port Arthur.

 

[RF667799]

Cigarettes are no different from firearms. Firearm use produces death and injury just as cigarette use produces death and injury.

Just as rope use produces death and injury. Just as skateboard use...well...you know.

No. The same agent, firearms or cigarettes, produces multiple sorts of death and injury. Your argument is buried.

Throughout the US, generally wider firearm availability is associated with more firearm death and injury.
That association is reasonable, of course, since firearms pose a risk in any household or situation.


The firearm violence rate in Australia and the UK is fraction of the firearm death and injury in the USA
.Australia has about 1/30th of the firearm death and injury of the US

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.

www.healthdata.org

You cannot escape the truth.

No. You might as well claim that Australia is safer because of Vegemite.
Reduction of firearms in Australia has reduced firearm death and injury, especially from mass shootings, since Port Arthur.

 

[CLAX1911]

You have cherry-picked countries that are not equivalent and ignored comparison with countries very similar to the US.

So it's not about guns then. You have proven yourself wrong for the billionth time.

Death and injury of any kind from firearms is a public health problem.

No committing suicide or murder is not a disease.

You do not see any similarity whatsoever between firearm suicide and firearm homicide?

Because it's propaganda. You'll never trick people into believing this stupid shit if they don't already believe it

Do you also ignore accidental firearm death and injury because it is not in the arbitrary category you think is the only concern of society (ie, homicide)?

It's not very big you are vastly overestimating it because propaganda.

Why are you afraid to compare the USA to similar countries in the anglosphere?

Doing so proves that it isn't the guns.

Canada, Australia, and the UK have fewer firearms, less firearm homicide and less suicide generally.

This is an idiotic observation.

I bet there were more people killed with swords during the medieval period.

List of countries by suicide rate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This undermines your propaganda that's what truth does you should probably quit posting it you make yourself look ridiculous.

 

[jaeger19]

Cigarettes are no different from firearms. Firearm use produces death and injury just as cigarette use produces death and injury.

Absolutely not. That’s ridiculous
You are of course welcome to provide the evidence of how a firearm physiologically interacts with the human body as does tobacco

No. The same agent, firearms or cigarettes, produces multiple sorts of death and injury. Your argument is buried.

No they are not the same. See above.

Throughout the US, generally wider firearm availability is associated with more firearm death and injury.

And again the moment you provide a cogent reason why anyone should care about firearm death and injury vs all forms of injury , I’ll give a rats butt.

That association is reasonable, of course, since firearms pose a risk in any household or situation.

Nope.

The firearm violence rate in Australia and the UK is fraction of the firearm death and injury in the USA
.Australia has about 1/30th of the firearm death and injury of the US

On gun violence, the United States is an outlier | Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation

When we look exclusively at high-income countries and territories with populations of 10 million or more, the US ranks first for its high levels of gun violence.

www.healthdata.org

You cannot escape the truth.

What truth? That firearm violence is a meaningless statistic? I’ve debunked your statistic over and over.

No. You might as well claim that Australia is safer because of Vegemite.

Um no. Australia has a significantly lower murder rate.
Are you now going to claim your chances of being murdered is not a measure of safety?

Reduction of firearms in Australia has reduced firearm death and injury, especially from mass shootings, since Port Arthur.

So what? Firearm violence is a meaningless statistic.
Can you prove that the people intent on killing in Australia somehow decided not to kill or were unable because they didn’t have a firearm?
Can you prove that?
Let’s see it.

 

[Spock]

Just as rope use produces death and injury. Just as skateboard use...well...you know.

You should have no objection to eliminating all firearms and substituting ropes and skateboards.

 

[Spock]

Absolutely not. That’s ridiculous
You are of course welcome to provide the evidence of how a firearm physiologically interacts with the human body as does tobacco

No they are not the same. See above.

And again the moment you provide a cogent reason why anyone should care about firearm death and injury vs all forms of injury , I’ll give a rats butt.

Nope.

What truth? That firearm violence is a meaningless statistic? I’ve debunked your statistic over and over.


Um no. Australia has a significantly lower murder rate.
Are you now going to claim your chances of being murdered is not a measure of safety?


So what? Firearm violence is a meaningless statistic.
Can you prove that the people intent on killing in Australia somehow decided not to kill or were unable because they didn’t have a firearm?
Can you prove that?
Let’s see it.

Do you understand that firearm access represents a risk factor for ANY death or injury?

 

[jaeger19]

You should have no objection to eliminating all firearms and substituting ropes and skateboards.

In South Korea they did exactly that which is why hanging is the preferred method of suicide ( which is among the highest suicide rates in the world despite no firearms).

 

[jaeger19]

Do you understand that firearm access represents a risk factor for ANY death or injury?

No it doesn’t anymore so than a chainsaw. In fact probably less statistically.
You simply can’t get over the fact that firearms are just a tool and dependent on the intent of their user.
Without firearm . People who want to commit harm simply switch to another equally deadly tool.

 

[Spock]

No it doesn’t anymore so than a chainsaw. In fact probably less statistically.
You simply can’t get over the fact that firearms are just a tool and dependent on the intent of their user.
Without firearm . People who want to commit harm simply switch to another equally deadly tool.

You are admitting that firearms, like a tool, is a risk factor for death and injury.

 

[Spock]

In South Korea they did exactly that which is why hanging is the preferred method of suicide ( which is among the highest suicide rates in the world despite no firearms).

If you do not understand that firearms are are unique, you should have no objection to eliminating all firearms and carrying a rope for your hunting and perceived defense needs.

 

[Spock]

In South Korea they did exactly that which is why hanging is the preferred method of suicide ( which is among the highest suicide rates in the world despite no firearms).

What would the likely effect be on suicide in South Korea by the sudden introduction of firearms?

 

[RF667799]

You should have no objection to eliminating all firearms and substituting ropes and skateboards.

No...you should have no objection to firearms is the point.

 

[Feynman Lives!]

Here is one. You don't seem to explain how licensing equates to banning guns.

Are you talking about the proposal to require a license to buy a gun? OF COURSE it doesn't equate to banning guns. Not any more than getting a license to build a house means banning houses.

If that's not what you're talking about (because it sounds so absurd), this is why I ask that you QUOTE the point you want to debate so we all know what the hell it is you're talking about.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Are you talking about the proposal to require a license to buy a gun? OF COURSE it doesn't equate to banning guns.

If that's not what you're talking about, this is why I ask that you QUOTE the point you want to debate so we all know what the hell it is you're talking about.

What other rights would you like people to get a license for? Religion? Speech?

 

[Feynman Lives!]

What other rights would you like people to get a license for? Religion? Speech?

Anything that can kill people: flying a plane, driving a car, practice medicine .... I'm sure you can figure it out because it's off topic (and therefore a dumb question) here

 

[RF667799]

Are you talking about the proposal to require a license to buy a gun? OF COURSE it doesn't equate to banning guns. Not any more than getting a license to build a house means banning houses.

If that's not what you're talking about (because it sounds so absurd), this is why I ask that you QUOTE the point you want to debate so we all know what the hell it is you're talking about.

So that proposal should not even be included in your lost titled "How to ban guns..."

So there's one proposal rebutted. Are you going to re -write your list, or just leave the error in place?

BTW, I did quote your proposal #6. You can quit lying and people won't think less of you for it.