The Hypocrisy of Gun Nuts

[Spock]

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?

I have explained repeatedly that prevalence cannot be precisely defined. If you want it defined. explain how it is going to be defined.

 

[Spock]

He doesn't know what a tautology is.

Ironically, he think that label disproves "firearm violence is caused by firearms" when, in fact, tautology describes inherently true statements. I wish these gun huggers would spend some time on grammar and definitions rather than thinking they have made some clever argument.

 

[Spock]

How do you stop someone from harming himself?

Give it a little thought. Eventually you will recognize that not every intervention at saving a life will work but effort should be made.

 

[RF667799]

I have explained repeatedly that prevalence cannot be precisely defined. If you want it defined. explain how it is going to be defined.

If you can't define it or quantify it, quit using it as part of your argument.

 

[RF667799]

Give it a little thought. Eventually you will recognize that not every intervention at saving a life will work but effort should be made.

Uh...weren't you and @Rich2018 just complaining about people not giving straight answers?



Do you really want me to accept that answer?

 

[Spock]

If you can't define it or quantify it, quit using it as part of your argument.

Nope. The concept is essential to firearm violence.
Just because no one knows the prevalence of sexual activity, the consequences can still be discussed and treated or managed.

 

[Spock]

Uh...weren't you and @Rich2018 just complaining about people not giving straight answers?



Do you really want me to accept that answer?

I don't expect you to accept any rational answer.

 

[RF667799]

Nope. The concept is essential to firearm violence.
Just because no one knows the prevalence of sexual activity, the consequences can still be discussed and treated or managed.

It's essential to your argument, but you can't define or quantify it. So you try to misdirect with irrelevancy.

 

[RF667799]

I don't expect you to accept any rational answer.

No...really. I'll be happy to accept your "effort should be made" response.

Of course, nothing specific is included in that. So gun control can be off the table, while still making effort.

 

[rahl]

Presumably you deluded enough to think that everything can be defined.

It’s the crux of your argument. So when you moronically insist that this super important metric is a causal factor, and you run each and every time you’re confronted with having to support that claim, it’s ****ing hilarious.

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.

It’s your argument. You have the sole burden of supporting it. I’m just pointing and laughing at your continued face planting in this thread and having a great time doing it

 

[rahl]

He doesn't know what a tautology is.

It’s so funny when you talk about other people who you are so scared of actually engaging with

 

[rahl]

I have explained repeatedly that prevalence cannot be precisely defined.

Which makes your continued insistence that it’s a causal factor hilariously retarded.

If you want it defined. explain how it is going to be defined.

 

[rahl]

Nope. The concept is essential to firearm violence.

If you can’t define it, it’s monumentally retarded to keep using it as an argument. Which is why everyone is laughing

Just because no one knows the prevalence of sexual activity, the consequences can still be discussed and treated or managed.

FALSE EQUIVALENCE!!!!!!

 

[hecatmoggie]

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

saturated = : full of moisture : made thoroughly wet. a saturated sponge. 2. a. of a solution : unable to absorb or dissolve any more of a solute at a given temperature and pressure

in other words, saturated is full, to the brim, the max ..... you are wrong. We could add 500 million guns in the USA and be fine

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.

then more guns doesn't = more violence

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

have you corrected Spock and other anti-gunners every time they've said it? they're on your side you know

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.

its still just crime/violence - what has changed is they're using different weapons which brings us back to what I've always said. Liberals/anti-gunners do NOT want to stop violence. they just want to control what weapons violence people use AND remove Constitutional Rights

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.

LOL .... you can't talk about Constitutional Rights when you're the one wanting to destroy the 2nd Amendment

you hate these instances don't you ? https://fox59.com/news/wisconsin-tip-leads-to-arrest-in-mooresville-school-shooting-plot/

arrested, in jail - mass killing avoided by this transgender person ..... I say fantastic job .... you say .... what ?

Because violent acts need a gun ?
Wrong again.

Spock and anti-gunners say it yes even though I've proven that false

You said:


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

were the violent people church members? 99.99999999% of church services are violence free

don't you wish inner cities in the Democrat run cities in the USA were that violence free ?

 

[Spock]

If you can’t define it, it’s monumentally retarded to keep using it as an argument. Which is why everyone is laughing

No. Prevalence is situation and often difficult to determine. For example, what is the prevalence of fire extinguishers in mobile homes?
What is the prevalence of unsecured loaded firearms in homes and vehicles?
In your tiny world, these concepts may be particularly difficult to comprehend.

FALSE EQUIVALENCE!!!!!!

It is an example for illustration that was intended to help the cognitively impaired understand how prevalence cannot always be determined. Sorry you did not benefit.

 

[rahl]

No. Prevalence is situation and often difficult to determine.

Which makes your continued insistence that it’s causal, ****ing retarded.

For example, what is the prevalence of fire extinguishers in mobile homes?
What is the prevalence of unsecured loaded firearms in homes and vehicles?
In your tiny world, these concepts may be particularly difficult to comprehend.

Made up metrics are quite difficult to comprehend.

It is an example for illustration that was intended to help the cognitively impaired understand how prevalence cannot always be determined. Sorry you did not benefit.

Since it can’t be determined, the continued insistence that it’s causal is absolutely moronic.

 

[Spock]

Which makes your continued insistence that it’s causal, ****ing retarded.

Made up metrics are quite difficult to comprehend.

Since it can’t be determined, the continued insistence that it’s causal is absolutely moronic.

Learn about firearm prevalence and get back to me before you embarrass yourself more..

 

[Rich2018]

saturated = : full of moisture

Nope, chalk up another stupid assertion from you
Especially as I just explained what "saturated" means in commercial/marketing terms:

Market saturation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Reading is not your forte is it ?

then more guns doesn't = more violence

No, as guns do not cause violence.

its still just crime/violence - what has changed is they're using different weapons...

Specifically different weapons that significantly increase the severity of the consequences to said violence.

you can't talk about Constitutional Rights when you're the one wanting to destroy the 2nd Amendment

Emotive hyperbole from you - I don't want to "destroy" the 2nd Amendment, but rather repeal it as specified in the CONSTITUTION itself

The very Constitution you spit on by saying 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.

were the violent people church members? 99.99999999% of church services are violence free

Irrelevant. 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.

 

[RF667799]

Learn about firearm prevalence and get back to me before you embarrass yourself more..

We certainly won't learn anything about it from you.

 

[hecatmoggie]

No, as guns do not cause violence.

tell your anti-gun buddies that - its a core of their argument

Specifically different weapons that significantly increase the severity of the consequences to said violence.

I suppose - but again, you know what I'm saying, the you don't want to stop violence. You just want to control what weapons they use.
Me? I want to stop them - I added a link showing how https://fox59.com/news/wisconsin-tip-leads-to-arrest-in-mooresville-school-shooting-plot/

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

see link I attached - my idea is to prevent/stop - and it worked https://fox59.com/news/wisconsin-tip-leads-to-arrest-in-mooresville-school-shooting-plot/

you'd have let that shooting happen THEN done something wouldn't you ?

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

utterly ?

ok, I'll ammend to say 99.99999999% of all church services, I'll give you a 100 millionth of a % of the time a church service is interrupted with violence

fair ?

can you say the same thing about downtown Democrat run areas across the nation ? Memphis? Chicago? Detroit ?

 

[rahl]

Learn about firearm prevalence and get back to me before you embarrass yourself more..

Embarrass?

Meanwhile, gun availability has no correlation to homicide/suicide or violent crime rates.

You moronically bloviate about this mythical metric you can’t define and insist it’s a causal factor, which continues to be ****ing hilarious.

 

[Rich2018]

tell your anti-gun buddies that - its a core of their argument

I'm telling you.

I suppose - but again, you know what I'm saying, the you don't want to stop violence. You just want to control what weapons they use.

Absolutely
Guns don't cause violence, but a violent man with a gun is statistically more dangerous and the consequences will be much more severe than a violent act by a man not armed with a gun

Note: I say "statistically", posters like jaeger will say than a violent man stabbing you in the chest is worse than a violent man shooting you in the hand.

Me? I want to stop them - I added a link showing how https://fox59.com/news/wisconsin-tip-leads-to-arrest-in-mooresville-school-shooting-plot/

No, you want to "seriously crack down" on people "known" (I assume known by law enforcement), to be violent or mentally unstable
You would jail them, without them ever being convicted of a crime


The very Constitution you spit on by saying 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

And I have nothing but contempt for your fascist, authoritarian views.

ok, I'll ammend to say 99.99999999% of all church services, I'll give you a 100 millionth of a % of the time a church service is interrupted with violence

fair ?

can you say the same thing about downtown Democrat run areas across the nation ? Memphis? Chicago? Detroit ?

No, 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

Most US schools (maybe 99.something) don't have a shooting every day
But there were still 330 school shootings in 2024:

School shootings in 2024 fell just below prior year’s record high

One researcher predicts that about 30 school shootings could occur in January 2025, with most likely to result from fights that escalate.

www.k12dive.com

Btw: do you now accept what "saturation" means in a commercial/marketing context, because you didn't reply to that pat of my post ?

 

[RF667799]

I'm telling you.



Absolutely
Guns don't cause violence, but a violent man with a gun is statistically more dangerous and the consequences will be much more severe than a violent act by a man not armed with a gun

Note: I say "statistically", posters like jaeger will say than a violent man stabbing you in the chest is worse than a violent man shooting you in the hand.



No, you want to "seriously crack down" on people "known" (I assume known by law enforcement), to be violent or mentally unstable
You would jail them, without them ever being convicted of a crime


The very Constitution you spit on by saying 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

And I have nothing but contempt for your fascist, authoritarian views.

Oh please.

No, you said:


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

Most US schools (maybe 99.something) don't have a shooting every day
But there were still 330 school shootings in 2024:

School shootings in 2024 fell just below prior year’s record high

One researcher predicts that about 30 school shootings could occur in January 2025, with most likely to result from fights that escalate.

www.k12dive.com

Btw: do you now accept what "saturation" means in a commercial/marketing context, because you didn't reply to that pat of my post ?

What does a marketing context have to do with homicides?

 

[hecatmoggie]

I'm telling you.

which makes no sense because I agree with you - Spock and the other anti-gun people on your side are the ones that insist

Absolutely
Guns don't cause violence, but a violent man with a gun is statistically more dangerous and the consequences will be much more severe than a violent act by a man not armed with a gun
Note: I say "statistically", posters like jaeger will say than a violent man stabbing you in the chest is worse than a violent man shooting you in the hand.

right - again, you don't want to stop violent people, just control what weapons they have to choose from, which differs from me views which is to rid this country of violent people

No, you want to "seriously crack down" on people "known" (I assume known by law enforcement), to be violent or mentally unstable
You would jail them, without them ever being convicted of a crime

that's normally the way it works - you get arrested, put in jail and then later there is a trial ..... do you not know that ?

a mass school shooting was prevented thanks to that - and it upsets you doesn't it ?

But there were still 330 school shootings in 2024:

School shootings in 2024 fell just below prior year’s record high

One researcher predicts that about 30 school shootings could occur in January 2025, with most likely to result from fights that escalate.

www.k12dive.com

that's a BS site and you know it

if a bullet falls from the sky and land on school property its considered a "shooting"

All shootings at schools includes when a gun is fired, brandished with intent to harm, or a bullet hits school property for any reason, regardless of the number of victims, time, or day of the week.

what a crock

Btw: do you now accept what "saturation" means in a commercial/marketing context, because you didn't reply to that pat of my post ?

no, I 100% disagree

we could add 500 million more guns to the USA - we're not in any way, shape of form saturated. I'd like to see 90% of women carrying guns

 

[jaeger19]

No. Prevalence is situation and often difficult to determine. For example, what is the prevalence of fire extinguishers in mobile homes?
What is the prevalence of unsecured loaded firearms in homes and vehicles?
In your tiny world, these concepts may be particularly difficult to comprehend.


It is an example for illustration that was intended to help the cognitively impaired understand how prevalence cannot always be determined. Sorry you did not benefit.

1. To find the prevalence of fire extinguishers you can do a poll of mobile home owners.
Just like you can poll home owners and see the prevalence of guns .
If you wish, you could ask whether guns are secured or not.

see how simple?
Sweet baby Jesus you go to the absurd.

2. Personal attacks are not helping your case . LMAO