Practical discussion: gun storage

Thank you for your opinion ....which is now dismissed for lack of evidence

 

I give up when i see reason, facts, and civility are ignored for hysteria and fallacies..

You can have your beliefs, but don't force them on me.

 

I have presented verifiable facts to back up my claims. I see none from you.

 

you have never identified a specific gun law, and then established that the gun law you support has been proven to decease crime. Rather you make nebulous claims that "gun control" works in various states and counties but refuse to say why and identify which specific law. Many of those areas ban guns and you deny supporting bans but you won't say how the other laws specifically decrease crime.

 

You have failed to present evidence for your plan to reduce gun deaths in this country. You have no right to ask others to present ANY evidence when you have failed to do so yourself. You must step up as an equal player in a debate. Until then your claims are dismissed for lack of evidence.

 

He never will because he cannot, all he is able to do is parrot "I dismiss your claim."

In other words he is full of it.

 

I didn't see any, just hysteria and fallacies.. hence, my avoidance.

 

Thank you for your opinion

 

I have presented my counter evidence to you quite clearly. You have no response.

I accept your concession

 

That's a totally lie, you haven't presented a single bit of evidence to back your specious claims and you cannot because it doesn't exist.

And BTW Wiki and news stories are not evidence, get it form the source or you clearly don't get it at all.

 

I refer you to post number 389 and 390 which have verifiable references at the bottom for you to read.

Here is the CDC reference if you prefer that one

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm

 

You fail to realize that has little to do with the criminal misuse of firearms or gun laws.

 

It has to do with gun deaths. Gun control reduces gun deaths. Don't you WANT to reduce gun deaths?

 

No it doesn't.

 

Oink, oink.

 

Suicides do not matter. Suicides never mattered.

 

An average of ten children per day are unintentionally killed or injured by bathtubs kept at home.

As a bathtub safety advocate this is a topic that deeply concerns me. Here are some tips to safely store your bathtub:

1) Store your bathtub in a secure location that is inaccessible to children and guests.
2) Store your bathtub separately from any water.
3) Use a spigot lock.
4) Discuss bathtub safety with your family.

Find out more at www.commonfrickingsense.com.

 

Thank you for your opinion but the evidence suggests otherwise

 

You conceded long ago

 

Your silly analogy makes me think that you don't take gun safety seriously.

 

Your flippant response leads me to believe you don't care about the 10 children per day harmed by bathtubs.

 

Good luck with that. The anti gun-control side relies on defensive arguments which are a lot easier to make than offensive arguments. They prefer to create doubt about their opponent's position rather that present evidence to support their own position. John Lott is an exception but his arguments are not very persuasive and he got caught fabricating a study years ago.

"These [defensive] arguments are very weak, even if they may be persuasive. Weak in what sense? Weak in that they don’t offer positive evidence to support or challenge a proposal, but merely question the extent to which policy might be efficacious. Argument is as much a science as it is an art, and logic dictates that even an probabilistically small chance that we can avert a large consequence is enough to try....

"Curiously, there is one prominent academic scholar who has attempted to make an 'offensive' argument for why gun control is bad, and that is John Lott. (He’s really wrong by the way). But I can find no such examples of scholars making 'offensive' arguments in other firearm contexts—no one, for example, argues that the presence of guns decrease suicides, or decrease accidental deaths, or decrease injuries, or decrease household violence, or decrease mass shootings. In fact, the most aggressive headline I could find for the latter claim comes from FoxNews: ‘Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease.’....

"This is no way to form substantive public policy. Good ideas rarely come from the belief that problems are inevitable. I’m of the rather controversial opinion that things in the world can change, and that such change doesn’t happen by pretending we are helpless in the face of adversity. We have to recognize the difference between offense and defense, and challenge people who dismiss progress by claiming that failure is inevitable. So the next time somebody makes an argument of the type outlined above, I suggest you use my maxim: 'If the best argument you have against a policy is a defensive one, you haven’t said anything yet.' Defense wins football games, not public policy debates."
https://www.armedwithreason.com/the...ove-it-and-why-thats-just-the-way-things-are/

 

Can public policy desires override Constitutionally protected rights?

 

It took me a while to figure it out but I did come to the conclusion that there are some on here that do not have a plan to reduce gun deaths. They do not wish to make America safer for americans. All they care about is their guns. That's it. So I know insist that they step up as equal players with verifiable evidence. If the only reason they are here is to attack anyone that is trying to reduce gun deaths they are easily identified and dismissed. A few want to engage in rational debate on this subject. We can even agree to disagree. But I will stack my evidence up against anyone else that will do the same. When they go for the personal attack out of frustration that their argument is failing I stack that up as an easy win