Gun Control needs to be instituted

ONCE AGAIN, your approach is not doable. End of story. You say we need to enforce the laws we have in place. Hey, that makes a whole lot of sense! Nonetheless, the reality is that it HAS NOT HAPPENED even though that solution has been around for 30+ years. As such, how do you suggest it get done NOW?

You keep on talking about our rights (regarding guns) but the reality is that we are seeing more deaths happen (for many, many years) than should be happening under normal conditions. That means that the right to life (which has to be MORE important than the right to carry arms) is not being adhered to. You keep saying that the statistics and graphs that I have shown are false. That they are not true. That we do not have more deaths per 100,000 than in other nations with the same scenarios as we have here. Nonetheless, I have yet to see you provide data, statistics and articles that support your view. As such, I have to go with that I see and read, and not with what you tell me.

You have not yet supplied any solution that is doable and when I mean doable, I mean that solution has been there for years but it has not been done. Oh, and by the way, not being done is not a political problem given that for the last 30 years that this problem has been here, we have had both Democratic and Republican administrations and control....................and neither have been able to get your solutions applied.

My solution is really very simple and very doable. Make rules that prevent sales of automatic weapons to the public and have a limit to the amount of guns that are available to each person. That is doable. And by the way, my solutions DO NOT VIOLATE the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. It just LIMITS the amount of guns sold and the kind sold.

End of story.

 

A false statement, willfully made.

 

End of story.

 

Why do you think new laws will be enforced and be effective if current laws are not? Be specific.

The things you say aren’t doable are simply not priorities. They are doable, you and others just don’t care enough about human life to act.

I will lose interest very quickly when you start making false claims about what I have posted. I have NEVER disputed our death rates per 100,000 or the death rate per 100,000 of your cherry picked comparisons.

I supplied you with lists of false information in your links. For example the claim military rifles were a substantial problem in the US. In reality the percentage of all guns used in firearm violence that fit this description is 3%. You can go back and read about the other disinformation in your links I pointed out. I don’t need to repeat myself. But your claim above is completely fabricated. I have never disputed the figures you claim I have. You are resorting to fallacy.

What are normal conditions? Be very specific. Was it normal in 1960 when the firearm homicide rate was 2.5/100,000 and any child, felon, or mentally ill person could order a gun from Sears or pick one up at Ace Hardware with no background check or was it normal in 1993 when the rate was 7/100,000 and felons, children and mentally ill were prohibited and only licensed dealers could sell with a background check? Was it normal in 2014 when the rate was 4/100,000? Laws have been added all over the country since 2014 and today the rate is north of 6/100,000! What is “normal”?

Neither party want a solution. I told you that and why very early in our conversation. It’s up to YOU and others to be responsible in society. You can’t glorify obesity and fatherlessness for example and expect things to get better no matter what laws you impose.

Society wants to be irresponsible and force others to deal with the problems arising from that irresponsibility. You want government to force others into things they don’t want to do because you won’t voluntarily address societal problems.

“The public “ are already deprived of automatic weapons. To own automatic weapons one must undergo a full background check, be fingerprinted, purchase a tax stamp for the weapon, have it registered with the government, have local law enforcement notified of the ownership, and ensure nobody but themselves has access to the weapon. The number of automatic weapons in the US is statistically insignificant numbers wise and in crime statistics.

The above laws already violate the constitution. According to the SC limiting any weapon in common use is a violation of the Constitution. I provided the evidence, this is not my opinion.

Yes, if people are unwilling to address their personal behaviors and societal causes of violence we are at an impasse. You are welcome to violate more rights, but it will not reduce violence and it will result in severe unintended consequences. There is still a large demographic that does not desire authoritarian rule, but instead wants government by, for, and of the people that operates within the framework of the constitution.

 

You realize you are cheering disinformation, right? Not a good look.

 

that is a really inane suggestion

if the government doesn't have the proper power to ban someone with a clean record from buying a handgun tomorrow-it doesn't suddenly get the power to do so because that citizen has bought 100 handguns over the last 40 years. Your solutions are not designed to reduce crime but to harass people who don't buy into your leftist agenda

 

@Lucky1knows

You tell me. You are the one that doesn’t want to address causes of violence in society.

You chose to compare the US to a small group of specific countries after initially making the false claim the US had the highest rate of firearms deaths in the world. When you chose to pivot to comparing to specific countries based on economics you tacitly admitted economics is more important than firearm law in actually affecting firearms death rates. When you google something you are letting someone else cherry pick the data they wish you to see. Your sources are ensuring you only see curated data.

You can say whatever you want, but you are focused on one specific, not the big picture. You are only focused on firearms regulations. That is not the big picture. The big picture includes the list of things I introduced to the discussion including but not limited to diet, obesity, fatherlessness etc. You are proposing a small band-aid for an arterial bleed. I’m proposing fixing the arterial bleed.

I’m also attempting to get you to understand sources of information that contain disinformation are not sources we should let do our thinking for us or curate our knowledge base for us.

The big picture is that firearm regulations are not even consistently correlated with firearms death rates. Your sources claim causality when correlation has not even been established. Many of the details that are used in an attempt to establish correlation are blatant disinformation. Many of the details and the entire premise of your OP are contrary to empirical evidence.

So now you are only concerned with mass shootings? Have you ever asked yourself why they have increased? They didn’t increase because access to firearms increased. Laws restricting access to weapons have become more strict and as they become more restrictive the mass shooting rate increases. Of course the rate of mass shootings is abnormal. But why? More laws has not reduced them. They have increased. So why would more law make a difference?

I don’t make untrue statements. Bringing up an issue is not equivalent to solving a problem. You said neither party has solved the issue when they had a chance. The Democratic Party has had the presidency and majorities in both both chambers yet didn’t solve the problem. Why?

And Republicans bring the societal issues up repeatedly. In fact they predicted this outcome decades ago if societal issues were not addressed. But they haven’t done anything but bring it up either.

Neither party wishes to solve the problem.

LOL. Isn’t firearm violence a societal issue? So you don’t want the government to address firearms? Ok.

The Constitution protects rights the majority wishes to violate. We are not a pure Democracy. Sorry. Study up on the difference.

Oh boy. I spend several sentences describing in detail the legal path to automatic weapon ownership and then you say “false”. If you would actually read my post it does not say automatic weapons are illegal. You really need to avoid fallacy.

Now, please provide a list of mass shootings committed with automatic weapons. Or statistics on how many murders are committed with automatic weapons. Or statistics on suicides with automatic weapons. Go ahead. I’ll wait.

What I said is true. Automatic weapons are statistically insignificant in numbers and in related crime statistics. Period.

You want to prevent ownership of guns used in essentially zero crimes and suicides? Why?

Please provide evidence the numbers of firearms owned influences propensity to violence or unlawful use of firearms. Go…

 

I refuse to believe this is a serious question.

You have some nerve to say that after your previous insinuating question. A theory cannot be "disinformation" and it happens to be a very good theory, one that I agree with. But this is no longer important after your "Why do you think new laws will be enforced and be effective if current laws are not?" Come on, stop playing.

 

I think we have reached an impasse that will not be overcome by either of us. You are not reading what I am writing in a correct way (my meaning and interpretation of the problem) and I am not interested in repeating the same thing over and over again.

I am going to end my responses to you on this thread. I have reached my limit in trying to explain what I believe is true and that is reading all that I have reac about this problem, there is nothing you can now say that will change my mind one inch.

Having said that, I once again thank you for addressing this conversation between us as a debate. We have reached a level where we have to agree to disagree.

Good luck to you.

 

YOU HAVE NEVER explained how any of your ideas are going to do anything useful in terms of making society safer. What you have shown us is that you want laws that are designed to harass lawful gun owners.

 

why do gun banners want to pass more and more laws that only limit what lawful gun owners can do while not supporting enforcing laws that ban malum per se activities?

 

That’s a poor excuse for having an inability to answer the question. It is a serious question. Earlier in the thread I provided evidence only 0.01% of violations of current law on purchasing firearms are prosecuted.

Why, knowing these laws are not enforced, do you believe new laws will be?

LOL. The “theory” is based on information that is incorrect. Automatic weapons are HIGHLY regulated to the point only wealthy individuals can even consider ownership. Automatic weapons are statistically insignificant in the context of the thread OP. They are used in essentially zero crimes and suicides which make up the death rates the OP is supposedly concerned about.

An analogy demonstrating the ridiculousness of regulating automatic weapons to reduce firearm deaths in the US would be new regulations on OTC analgesics to prevent drug overdose deaths.

Why not dispense with your appeal to stone fallacy and answer the questions I’ve asked or address the data I’ve presented?

 

But more guns does not mean more deaths! That’s a false premise that I have shown to be false with many examples including Mexico, Illinois, California, Maryland, racial demographics, urban vs rural demographics, etc.

Remember what happened after sweeping gun laws in 1968 that limited guns sold, to whom guns could be sold, and types of weapons available to the public? Firearm homicide rates TRIPLED after implementation of those laws! How can you know it would be any different now? Why have firearms death rates risen faster in Illinois that has strict gun laws and is adding laws than in states not adding laws?

How can you say addressing causes of violence hasn’t worked? We’ve never tried. Until our discussion you had no idea obesity and sugar consumption contribute to our violence problems. How can you say addressing such problems hasn’t worked when you didn’t even know the problem existed?

I’m glad you keep saying that. It demonstrates that availability of firearms or firearms regulations are not important causal factors in firearms deaths. If less availability and more law caused less deaths Mexico would have far fewer gun homicides than the US. You have destroyed the premise of your thread all on your own by limiting comparisons to only select countries. The countries you compare us to ARE NOT like the US. Not by racial demographics, fatherlessness, obesity rates, sugar consumption, mental health resources, etc.

But the countries you compare to are less like us in many respects than Mexico is! And adding laws here has not decreased deaths or mass shootings. For example, California has some of the most restrictive laws yet is either number one or two (it fluctuates) for mass shooting deaths per capita in the nation! If those laws don’t work there, why implement such laws where there aren’t mass shootings at all?

There is NO evidence your plans have or will have any positive results.

I have supplied SC case law showing prohibitions on firearms in common use for lawful purposes DOES violate the Constitution. This is the law of the land, not my opinion.

Limiting how many guns one can own also violates rights to legally owned property. A clear constitutional violation.

How does one defend themselves in an “extreme” manner?

LOL. We have tried your way. Adding laws has not worked. Firearm deaths are increasing as you add new laws and restrictions.

We have NEVER tried my way.

How can mass shootings increase if they are caused by availability of certain weapons but availability of those weapons has been decreased? Try to use some logic.

How do you know they are not “doable”? You are against even advocating for TRYING!

No, I posted an intellectual argument. Your rebuttal is pure appeal to the stone fallacy. I accept your concession.

Cool. So I was correct. Automatic weapons were not used in ANY of the incidents you are concerned with. Please educate yourself a bit on this subject. It will save you embarrassment in the future.

LOL. “I want to prevent gun ownership but I don’t want to prevent gun ownership “. Why do you want to reduce the amount of guns an individual can own? There is no evidence the number of guns an individual owns affects death rates in any way.

You have stated you want to limit automatic weapons but they are not used in any crimes or suicides to a statistically significant degree. Your own links say so!

Likely? No evidence for your position? I’m shocked! I’m uninterested in unsubstantiated opinions. Sorry.

As I said, I never intended to change your mind. You are enamored with sources of disinformation as a basis for your beliefs. I’m simply using your posts as a backdrop to educate the open minded and the honest.

You have clearly stated on numerous occasions you support violations of constitutionally protected rights. I appreciate your admission to that willingness as well as the rest of your content.

Good luck violating more rights. Remember when firearm deaths continue to increase that I told you violating those rights was in vain.

 

He won't see it that way since stopping firearms deaths is only a pretext for the real goal of harassing lawful gun ownership. As long as that happens, those violations are "not in vain"

 

Like I stated before. I have no desire to continue this conversation. Let's leave it with the statement that "we agree to disagree". I do not agree to the points you are making and evidently, you do not agree with mine. Nothing more to say.

 

No.
You choose to ignore facts that negate your claims.

 

You are welcome to stop responding to my posts. I would not wish to violate your right to reply or not reply to my posts.

However, I will never let disinformation I have the knowledge to correct stand on PF, so be assured if disinformation appears again in your posts (as appeared in your last response with red text) I will address it. I can not in good conscience let those willing to violate constitutionally protected rights post disinformation and then just agree to disagree. It’s imperative the disinformation be corrected.

You don’t need to agree with the facts I’ve presented. I’ve provided evidence from the Constitution, the Supreme Court, your Everytown links, official US crime statistics, the BATFE, etc. to support my posts. You admit your sources are Google hits and I’ve repeatedly pointed out those hits are purveyors of disinformation and misinformation. Your resistance to agree with the facts I’ve presented does not negate their factual status. But no matter who “agrees” with your premises, they are false premises because they are based on statistics and information easily demonstrated to be false.

I’ve said many times on PF the only thing more dangerous than an authoritarian is an authoritarian without a working knowledge of the subject matter they wish to exercise their authoritarianism on. I would encourage even authoritarians to gain enough knowledge of the subject matter to debate facts instead of disinformation.

Thanks for the debate and best wishes.

 

Whatever!

 

Translation-you win 557

 

Yes, that’s about it. It does appear there is still a desire to respond, there just isn’t any evidence or intellectual argument to respond with.

But I know exactly what’s going on in the heads of those confronted with facts that conflict with their preconceived ideas. It took me years of study, research, and critical thought to reverse my worldview (formed as a child and young person) on prohibition of drugs. It’s not easy to accept evidence that destroys deep seated beliefs. For acceptance to happen there has to be a willingness to know the truth. That’s even more difficult today with the Internet deciding what information you see and what is acceptable information to apply critical thought to.

Google is not your friend. Google is your friend in the same way the 300 lb. tattooed 400 lb. bench pressing dude on death row is your friend. It doesn’t keep you close and comfortable because it’s your friend, it keeps you close and comfortable because it’s making you it’s bitch.

 

For some reason, in reading this last post of yours, this meme came to mind. I wonder why?

 

LOL. As I said earlier I’m not into partisan politics so you are barking up the wrong tree. The guy in your meme actually agrees with YOU about violating rights. It’s one reason I’ve never voted for him and never would.

The meme probably came to your mind because you share his beliefs on violating the constitution and you both have similar tendencies to disseminate disinformation.

I’ve made intellectual arguments you have responded to with pure fallacy. Nobody will be impressed except possibly the guy in your meme.

I thought you didn’t want to respond further to my posts?

 

The looney left always reverts to the "Yeah, but what about Trump" mentality when they have no rebuttal. He's still imbedded deep in their skulls.