As per your request: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto...un-shops-not-essential-services-2nd-amendment https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/ https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/mar/23/gun-stores-remain-open-despite-non-essential-class/ The controversy: (more nuanced discussion). https://www.npr.org/2020/03/27/8228...res-are-essential-during-coronavirus-outbreak https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/gun-shops-essential-businesses-pandemic-69828784 More gun control laws, and robust background checks reduce gun related deaths: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...803/do-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-related-deaths More mass shootings with more lax gun laws: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study
This does not apply when the "authority" in question is the "authority" charged with making the decisions. Do you decide what you like to eat? If you declare you do not like lemons, and in a discussion with someone about the food you like, I state "he said he does not like lemons", have I made a fallacious appeal to authority? No? Same thing. You may not like the fact gun stores are essential businesses, but your opinion doesn't matter - and in any case, you cannot demonstrate the necessity for, or efficacy of, closing them.
You cannot explain how your "here, read this" evidence soundly demonstrates the necessity for, or efficacy of, shutting down gun stores in the face of a national crisis.
Again: You cannot explain how your "here, read this" evidence soundly demonstrates the necessity for, or efficacy of, shutting down gun stores in the face of a national crisis.
Yes I can. The idea of keeping firearms sellers open during the coronavirus, as "essential businesses" is erroneous since there is no shortage of firearms/ammunition already among the general public, law enforcement, or the military. Also the 2A is not more important than the other Amendments, so endangering people's lives in contracting and spreading COVID-19 is a public health hazard, and a violation of other elements of the Constitution and associated laws. The links I provided are logical argumentation and evidence presented to support my past and current claims within this thread. It is acceptable to ask for further explanation in my own words and even to be critical of the links provided, but it cannot be said truthfully that I did not provide evidence, data, logical argumentation, and reasoning behind my claims. We can certainly discuss and debate the merits of the claims, but in order to do so, the links must be read, and my responses not cherry picked.
It is not just my opinion, this is based upon legal precedent, the Supreme Court, lower court rulings, and peer reviewed research. However, my opinion does matter to be heard; even your conflicting view to mine is important to be heard under the US Constitution. Having said that, I provided a myriad of reasons for my claims.
And yet not everyone in the united states actually owns firearms. What are those who are without supposed to do under such circumstances? Continue being without a firearm and ammunition? Or should they see about procuring such through illegal channels? To the contrary, the second amendment is, in theory at least, the most important of the first ten amendments of the bill of rights. It is among the most contentious of amendments in existence, and if it could be repealed through ones means or another, it would lay the groundwork for the rest of the amendments to be subjected to the same treatment by some administration. Meaning the so-called "data" cannot actually be explained on the part of yourself, only promoted as if it contained the desired answer.
How does this mean those who did not previously choose to own a gun, but now, in the face of a national crisis, seek to do so will have access to them? How is it necessary to deny these people access to the means to exercise their right to keep and bear arms? Factually demonstrate that keeping gun stores open in any way meaningfully contributes to the spread of the virus. - Quote the data. - Explain how it demonstrates the necessity and efficacy you claim. Else, your entire response to the challenge put to you is a laughable "here, read this".
Unsupportable nonsense. You mal-understand - your opinion that gun store are unnecessary does not matter.
The data indicates that countries with higher gun ownership on average have higher gun-related homicides and illegal use firearms and on average most countries with lax gun laws have more accidental and intentional fatal shootings. The data also states that the US has extremely disproportionate gun related homicides and illegal use due to background check loopholes, and too easy access in many states to firearms without proper verification of the person buying the guns.
I never said they were unnecessary in general, so you are misquoting me. I said not essential during the COVID-19 crisis, so yes, unnecessary, temporarily. I still support the 2A, but not unregulated power of applying it.
With that, I hope my peers in this thread who disagree with me can provide data and logical argumentation to move forward in this debate.
This is a post hoc fallacy run amok. There are no loopholes in background checks, and thus, no amount of data can demonstrate your claim to be true. Demonstrate this to be true.
No further answers from me until you form a logical and evidence based reply. There is zero substance in your reply here. I have other threads where I can enjoy a well-informed debate.
Regardless of context: - You cannot demonstrate gun stores are unnecessary - Your opinion that they are unnecessary means nothing.
Still waiting for you to address post 208 - you know, where you are again challenged to demonstrate the necessity for and efficacy of, closing gun stores during a national crisis.
Then actually get to the point that was intended on the part of yourself, and cease discussing matters that have no direct relation to that point.
Everything presented on the part of yourself has already been read, and there is nothing resembling coherency to be found. There is nothing resembling a logical point, showing that forcibly closing federally licensed firearms dealers is necessary to combat the spread of this virus.
I did. None of them address the issues put to you in post # 208. Disagree? Cite the post(s) and quote the text. Until then, you have presented nothing more than your meaningless opinion, and nonsense supported only by "here, read this".
Background check loopholes: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/13/us/guns-background-checks.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/28/17060024/background-check-guns-charleston-loophole Ofcourse background checks are not a panacea for all cases: https://www.npr.org/2016/01/09/4622...kground-checks-work-but-theyre-not-everything Further reading from actual research: http://www.taleoftwostates.com/wp-c...ecticut-Study-Rudolph_AJPH201411682_Final.pdf https://www.jhsph.edu/research/cent...dgun-purchaser-licensing-law-on-homicides.pdf https://journalistsresource.org/studies/gun-violence/boyfriend-loophole-research/