The Hypocrisy of Gun Nuts

[Spock]

You can not support this claim. Every time you are challenged to do so, you deflect and try to shift the burden of proof. You fool nobody.

Your false analogy and equivalence arguments demonstrate you cannot prove the safety of firearm.
I would say that anyone who cannot see a connection between firearm violence and firearms should never own one.. or one hundred as my be the case for you.

You can’t even support your premise, let alone offer a “solution” lol

Sorry for your failure to read and think about this important social problem.

 

[Spock]

Yes I have don't kill yourself that's easy I like being alive, don't deal drugs. So far I had 20 years of OD guns had never was even slightly tempted.

The whole range of human behavior is not represented by your choices..

 

[CLAX1911]

The whole range of human behavior is not represented by your choices..

Right and I bought so not every single human being on the planet so I should have to be unable to defend myself because law enforcement is incompetent

 

[jaeger19]

Firearm violence does not just reflect firearm homicide. Discussed endlessly. You are perseverating at promoting a fantasy and unable to accept reality.

Exactly. And since firearm violence encompasses “ firearm homicide, firearm suicide and firearm accidents”
It’s not valid for a discussion on safety.

It’s another example of why you cannot defend the use of “ firearm violence” as a statistic.

You are of course welcome to explain to us all its value.

Maybe you can explain its value and how it can be used to make society have fewer deaths and accidents
Let’s hear it.

Because just like your last answer you didn’t discuss it at all.

 

[jaeger19]

The whole range of human behavior is not represented by your choices..

Well. Then why are you determined to make him responsible and tge rest of gun owners responsible for the choices of an extreme minority.

 

[rahl]

Your false analogy and equivalence arguments demonstrate you cannot prove the safety of firearm.
I would say that anyone who cannot see a connection between firearm violence and firearms should never own one.. or one hundred as my be the case for you.

Meaningless tautology

Sorry for your failure to read and think about this important social problem.

It’s not an important social problem.

Why did you run away when i called you out on your prevalence claim? Show me the prevalence broken down by state, city and then household and prove a causal link. Then explain why it doesn’t hold true everywhere.

 

[Rich2018]

its not - we can have 500 million more guns in the USA or 999 million more guns - there is no "saturation level" with inanimate objects

LOL - let's just add this line to the list of stupid things that you have said

"Saturation Level", applies specifically to inanimate objects - again your posts betray your lack of post high school education
When a company focuses on one target area in selling an item - be it HD televisions, electric cars, swimming pools (all inanimate objects) etc, the market is said to be "saturated" when pretty much everyone in it either has one or doesn't want one:

Market saturation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

ie: the company would have to expend a great amount of money/man hours to reap what would be an uneconomic return (measured in the number of sales). So typically it begins to target another geographic area/demographic
This is also referred to the "Law of Diminishing Returns" - a concept which I am also confident that you're not familiar with

You could add 500m more guns to US society and not see any significant increase in shootings/gun crime, because US society is "saturated" with regard to gun ownership.

Whereas if you added just 1m guns to UK society, this would represent a significant increase in gun ownership, and consequently would result in a significant increase in shootings/gun crime

(gun crime being crime involving the use of at least one firearm).

no, the only way more violent acts would happen is if more violent people did more violent things

And conversely, the only way you'd get significantly more shootings/gun crime - is if significant more criminals/violent people, had guns.

why do you think prison (which is the liberal Utopia of a weapons free environment) is so violent? because its filled with violent people

Specifically bored violent people with too much time on their hands
Yet there is a negligible amount of gun crime in prisons - why do you think that is ? (talking US prisons).

a church, police station, NRA convention, the woods in the fall with millions of hunters .... the people in these places are NOT violent people .... thus there is no violent acts

The Charleston Church Shooting wasn't a violent act ?

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that's not an isolated incident:

Church Shootings – Homicide Center

homicidecenter.org

 

[Spock]

Exactly. And since firearm violence encompasses “ firearm homicide, firearm suicide and firearm accidents”
It’s not valid for a discussion on safety.

It’s another example of why you cannot defend the use of “ firearm violence” as a statistic.

You are of course welcome to explain to us all its value.

Maybe you can explain its value and how it can be used to make society have fewer deaths and accidents
Let’s hear it.

Because just like your last answer you didn’t discuss it at all.

Your definition of safety does not apparently include self harm and accidental death and injury. 'Nuff said.

 

[Spock]

Well. Then why are you determined to make him responsible and tge rest of gun owners responsible for the choices of an extreme minority.

The choices and actions of individuals can have adverse impact on society as a whole.

 

[Rich2018]

Your definition of safety does not apparently include self harm and accidental death and injury. 'Nuff said.

And coming from a self professed practicing doctor too

 

[Maidenrules29]

Concealed Carry Killers:

VPC: Concealed Carry Killers

concealedcarrykillers.org

sinc 2007:
Currently, Concealed Carry Killers documents 2,277 incidents in 40 states and the District of Columbia resulting in 2,541 deaths. In 95 percent of the incidents (2,154) the concealed carry killer died by suicide (1,505), has already been convicted (561), perpetrated a murder-suicide (64), or was killed in the incident (24). Of the 83 cases still pending, the vast majority (67) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, five were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and 11 incidents are still under investigation. An additional 40 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder. Twenty-four of the victims were law enforcement officers. Thirty-eight of the incidents were mass shootings, resulting in the deaths of 186 victims.

Debunking the Myth of "Concealed-Carry Killers"

The Violence Policy Center—a gun control advocacy group—released a study last month it wrongly claims shows that “too many concealed-carry permit holders are a direct threat to public safety.” That claim rests on an analysis of a database documenting “non-self-defense incidents,” which the...

www.heritage.org

 

[hecatmoggie]

LOL - let's just add this line to the list of stupid things that you have said

nice hate comment, thank you

"Saturation Level", applies specifically to inanimate objects - again your posts betray your lack of post high school education
When a company focuses on one target area in selling an item - be it HD televisions, electric cars, swimming pools (all inanimate objects) etc, the market is said to be "saturated" when pretty much everyone in it either has one or doesn't want one:

Market saturation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

record gun sales last few years - saturation would indicate less gun sales, not more. You are wrong

ie: the company would have to expend a great amount of money/man hours to reap what would be an uneconomic return (measured in the number of sales). So typically it begins to target another geographic area/demographic
This is also referred to the "Law of Diminishing Returns" - a concept which I am also confident that you're not familiar with

You could add 500m more guns to US society and not see any significant increase in shootings/gun crime, because US society is "saturated" with regard to gun ownership.

whoa whoa ... I thought more guns=more violence ?

@Spock you paying attention here ?

Whereas if you added just 1m guns to UK society, this would represent a significant increase in gun ownership, and consequently would result in a significant increase in shootings/gun crime

no, it wouldn't ..... you didn't increase the numbers of violent/mentally ill people wanting to commit violence, violence would be very similar.

(gun crime being crime involving the use of at least one firearm).

I'm concerned about violence. You are right, you could probably really reduce the knife violence by introducing more guns - you're just reallocating what choices in weapons violent people use. bravo

And conversely, the only way you'd get significantly more shootings/gun crime - is if significant more criminals/violent people, had guns.
Specifically bored violent people with too much time on their hands
Yet there is a negligible amount of gun crime in prisons - why do you think that is ? (talking US prisons).

there is no guns allowed in prison = no violence

oh ........... right ............. there is much violence. See? weapons don't create violence. They never have

100,000 Gateway church members on Sunday morning .. . give each adult a loaded shotgun. There wouldn't be a single accident or murder.

Give 100,000 prison inmates guns - what do you think would happen ?

its the people - not the guns - and you know it

The Charleston Church Shooting wasn't a violent act ?

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that's not an isolated incident:

Church Shootings – Homicide Center

homicidecenter.org

violent people - now, what % of church services has had such incidents ? I'm guessing its 99.999999% no incidents. Incredibly safe

 

[Spock]

Meaningless tautology

Accurate identification of the factor central to many incidents of death and injury.
Do you understand that a tautology is a statement that is always true?
If so, you must agree that firearms are always necessary for firearm violence.

It’s not an important social problem.

120,000 deaths and injuries is undeniably an important social problem.

Why did you run away when i called you out on your prevalence claim? Show me the prevalence broken down by state, city and then household and prove a causal link. Then explain why it doesn’t hold true everywhere.

Your infantile comments demonstrate that you have not understood prevalence or why it is impossible to accurately determine prevalence (generically) for firearms. Furthermore, you must assume that access to firearms has no relationship to accidental injury or death of children playing with guns.

 

[Spock]

Debunking the Myth of "Concealed-Carry Killers"

The Violence Policy Center—a gun control advocacy group—released a study last month it wrongly claims shows that “too many concealed-carry permit holders are a direct threat to public safety.” That claim rests on an analysis of a database documenting “non-self-defense incidents,” which the...

www.heritage.org

Critically analyze your post.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Critically analyze your post.

I've read the article plenty of times before. Have you ever read it?

 

[Maidenrules29]

Critically analyze your post.

I've also read the one that you posted before.

 

[Maidenrules29]

Critically analyze your post.

When I have time I'll "critically analyze" both articles and let you know what I may or may not agree with from both.

 

[P_T]

Your false analogy and equivalence arguments demonstrate you cannot prove the safety of firearm.
I would say that anyone who cannot see a connection between firearm violence and firearms should never own one.. or one hundred as my be the case for you.

Sorry for your failure to read and think about this important social problem.

Actually its you that has the one track social mind problem.

Here you go, spent the rest of your life in research.

Our Approach To Dangerous Organizations and Individuals | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions

transparency.meta.com

Meta eliminates fact-checking in latest bow to Trump

Facebook and Instagram owner Meta says it’s scrapping its third-party fact-checking program and replacing it with “community notes” written by users similar to the model used by Elon Musk’s social platform X.

apnews.com

Oh wait, The Donald want them to shut up and quit fact checking stuff.

 

[Spock]

Actually its you that has the one track social mind problem.

Here you go, spent the rest of your life in research.

Our Approach To Dangerous Organizations and Individuals | Transparency Center

Meta regularly publishes reports to give our community visibility into community standards enforcement, government requests and internet disruptions

transparency.meta.com

Really? What is the subject of this discussion? Firearms???
I seem to be able to address the firearm problem while gun apologists insist on making false comparisons with everything from swimming pools to ropes.

 

[Rich2018]

nice hate comment, thank you

You said:

...there is no "saturation level" with inanimate objects

Do you now understand what a "saturated" market is and how it does indeed apply to "inanimate objects" ?
Showing that you were quite wrong.

record gun sales last few years - saturation would indicate less gun sales, not more. You are wrong

Nope, the US society is saturated with guns. Sure more are always being bought, but ownership has reached saturation level
ie: any increase in gun ownership will not be reflected by a similar increase in shootings/gun crime. In sharp contrast to a society with relatively few guns, like the UK

So you are quite wrong.

I thought more guns=more violence ?

You thought wrong - as usual
Guns do not cause crime, nor do they make people suicidal.

..... you didn't increase the numbers of violent/mentally ill people wanting to commit violence, violence would be very similar.

But if you added a significant number of guns to a society with relatively few guns, the consequences of this violent/gun crime will be much more severe.

I'm concerned about violence. You are right, you could probably really reduce the knife violence by introducing more guns - you're just reallocating what choices in weapons violent people use. bravo

So much so that you want to "seriously crack down" on people you claim are "known" to be violent/mentally unwell, without them ever having been convicted of a crime

To hell with Habeas Corpus
To hell with the law and innocent until proven guilty
To hell with the Constitution and "Due Process"
To hell with rights like trial by jury

You would imprison people without trial and I have nothing but contempt for your fascist, authoritarian views.

there is no guns allowed in prison = no violence

Because violent acts need a gun ?
Wrong again.

100,000 Gateway church members on Sunday morning .. . give each adult a loaded shotgun. There wouldn't be a single accident or murder.

Give 100,000 prison inmates guns - what do you think would happen ?

You said:

...a church, police station, NRA convention, the woods in the fall with millions of hunters .... the people in these places are NOT violent people .... thus there is no violent acts

But there ARE violent acts in churches as I alluded to
Showing that you are utterly wrong once again.

 

[rahl]

Accurate identification of the factor central to many incidents of death and injury.

Meaningless tautology.

Do you understand that a tautology is a statement that is always true?
If so, you must agree that firearms are always necessary for firearm violence.

Meaningless tautology.

120,000 deaths and injuries is undeniably an important social problem.

No it isn’t. 3,000,000 motor vehicle deaths and injuries is though.

Your infantile comments demonstrate that you have not understood prevalence or why it is impossible to accurately determine prevalence (generically) for firearms. Furthermore, you must assume that access to firearms has no relationship to accidental injury or death of children playing with guns.

It’s so funny when you insist prevalence is a causal factor and are completely unable to define this super important metric. It’s ****ing hilarious.

 

[Spock]

Meaningless tautology.

Meaningless tautology.

No it isn’t. 3,000,000 motor vehicle deaths and injuries is though.

It’s so funny when you insist prevalence is a causal factor and are completely unable to define this super important metric. It’s ****ing hilarious.

Presumably you deluded enough to think that everything can be defined. Prevalence is particularly difficult because guns are hidden and records sparse. So, if you think prevalence can be defined, tell me what the prevalence of firearm is currently and how you arrived at that conclusion.

 

[RF667799]

Your definition of safety does not apparently include self harm and accidental death and injury. 'Nuff said.

How do you stop someone from harming himself?

 

[RF667799]

Presumably you deluded enough to think that everything can be defined. Prevalence is particularly difficult because guns are hidden and records sparse. So, if you think prevalence can be defined, tell me what the prevalence of firearm is currently and how you arrived at that conclusion.

That's your job, considering your claim depends on it.

How many times are you going to be caught in your laughably inept attempt at shifting that burden?

 

[Rich2018]

Presumably you deluded enough to think that everything can be defined. Prevalence is particularly difficult because guns are hidden and records sparse. So, if you think prevalence can be defined, tell me what the prevalence of firearm is currently and how you arrived at that conclusion.

He doesn't know what a tautology is.