For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.

For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.

Please show me where I said that    I guess actively shooting doesn't help much with comprehension.

I don't support giving up guns.  Trump funded the CDC to do their studies.  Science will prevail like it did before showing how often guns are used for defense purposes.  Can't argue with facts. 

Please show me where I said that    I guess actively shooting doesn't help much with comprehension.

I don't support giving up guns.  Trump funded the CDC to do their studies.  Science will prevail like it did before showing how often guns are used for defense purposes.  Can't argue with facts.

Where did I mention your SN?

Where did I mention your SN?

Didn't you get the memo?

Every post, every topic and every emoji is about HIM.

The universe revolves around him, so anything you say or do will be taken in the context of "How does this include me?"

 

For the two of you that point to giving up guns as a good thing why don't you lead and turn all your firearms in? You two collect and don't shoot much anyways.

Only 1 person cited doing what the government says "in the name of the continuation of our nation/greater good".  So if the CDC says the same phrase about giving up guns, I expect him to comply. Even though there is no legal force behind it (a suggestion by the CDC, not law).  Or if the CDC labels gun deaths/injuries a "pandemic", I expect compliance.  If not, the that means his statements are just full of it like normal.

The example was also used before that there may be a 0.00001% chance his guns are stolen and used by a criminal in a crime to harm someone else. And with his logic toward getting a vaxx because there is a chance it could help, also relates.  Any argument otherwise is BS. He has already tried and failed.

Goal post about to be moved.

Where did I mention your SN?

So he admitted that that post was about him?   

Didn't you get the memo?

Every post, every topic and every emoji is about HIM.

The universe revolves around him, so anything you say or do will be taken in the context of "How does this include me?"

 

Forgetting "if it affects me", then I care.

Forgetting "if it affects me", then I care.

he spells it "if it effects me"...

And to the point of a medical professional entrusted to advise the POTUS and the senior staff to lie to the American People - He should be fired. A President with integrity and with the fiduciary duty to the People of the United States should fire him.

Only 1 person cited doing what the government says "in the name of the continuation of our nation/greater good".  So if the CDC says the same phrase about giving up guns, I expect him to comply. Even though there is no legal force behind it (a suggestion by the CDC, not law).  Or if the CDC labels gun deaths/injuries a "pandemic", I expect compliance.  If not, the that means his statements are just full of it like normal.

The example was also used before that there may be a 0.00001% chance his guns are stolen and used by a criminal in a crime to harm someone else. And with his logic toward getting a vaxx because there is a chance it could help, also relates.  Any argument otherwise is BS. He has already tried and failed.

Goal post about to be moved.

Yup if proven by science and enacted by the government. 

Anyone who puts the two words "gun" and "murder" together has already decided that the problem that causes murders is guns.

So, here you are falling for the anti-gun tactic.  You're so focused on guns, you aren't looking at the root causes of violence.

Sounds like you believe disarming the country of legal guns will solve the problem because "no more gun crimes."

Maine has about the same population as Hawaii.  They also have Constitutional Carry for firearms.  No permit is required for concealed carry.  That law became effective Oct 2015.  Prior to that, Maine was a "Shall Issue" state for CCW Permits.  I have one for non-resident -- expired because I no longer have a need for it.

Maine also has a lower per capital murder rate:  Maine = 1.79, Hawaii = 2.53.  (2018 stats)

As long as there are real world examples where "less strict gun laws" equals fewer murders -- including "gun murders" -- you will never be able to prove your theory applies to every city, state or nation.

it's not the guns.  Every exception to your rule is another case for the Second Amendment to remain.

An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.

We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.

Yup if proven by science "consensus" and enacted by the government.

fify

An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.

We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.

I disagree while access does make it easier it also serves as an deterent.  Most people don't pick on people who can fight back.  The CDC has proven this before by how many times a firearm stops a crime.  You have to look at both sides. 

Though I do agree with you the biggest change is more mental health programs/services. A gun is nothing but a tool.  It's neutral. It's the criminal that is the issue.   Normal people are not criminals.   Treat the abnormal. Fix them. 

But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates.

Back in fantasy island I see.

An absence of a firearm doesn't mean people will be less angry or less likely to do harm but it does make it harder to take a life, both physically and emotionally. A firearm enables a violent person to be more violent.

We do need to focus way more on the reasons why these people are violent. Both the left and the right ignore that most significant aspect way too much. But that doesn't mean there isn't a logical aspect to their argument that getting rid of guns would lower violence rates. Does that mean we should ban guns? No, but my answer is for other reasons.

If someone wants to commit mass murder, they don't need a gun.  Does one make it easier?  That really depends on the intended target, environment and security.

It's funny how people can assume fewer guns equals fewer murders, yet there are no studies to support that theory.  For every case you can name, I can find a case that proves the opposite -- that more guns equals fewer deaths.

You're still unable to grasp that whole "correlation doesn't prove causation" thing, aren't you?  You and I went over this round-and-round before.  I believe you never proved your case -- just left it as "agree to disagree" or some such withdrawal.

No need to dive into that rabbit hole again.

If someone wants to commit mass murder, they don't need a gun.  Does one make it easier?  That really depends on the intended target, environment and security.

It's funny how people can assume fewer guns equals fewer murders, yet there are no studies to support that theory.  For every case you can name, I can find a case that proves the opposite -- that more guns equals fewer deaths.

You're still unable to grasp that whole "correlation doesn't prove causation" thing, aren't you?  You and I went over this round-and-round before.  I believe you never proved your case -- just left it as "agree to disagree" or some such withdrawal.

No need to dive into that rabbit hole again.

No, mass murderers don't need guns but if you compare mass stabbings to mass shootings, the shootings generally have many more deaths. Guns also make it fundamentally easier than many other alternative methods. There is data that suicide is more likely with a gun due to the fact that gun suicides are much more successful than other methods which offer an option to change one's mind and reverse their action.

Let me back up a little and try to illustrate the pointlessness of debating whether banning guns would save more lives. If they did a bunch of studies and could conclusively show that banning all guns would significantly reduce deaths (both homicides and suicides) would you concede defeat? If they could prove that homicide rates would fall greatly, would you be willing to give up your guns? If your answer was no then it was pointless to argue whether legal guns cause more deaths or not because you aren't going to give up your guns either way. Guns serve a number of important roles so even if banning guns would conclusively result in a net number of lives saved I wouldn't give them up. Therefore I don't choose to place my eggs in that basket because my justification for owning a firearm doesn't rest on trying to prove guns save more lives than they cost.

Banning cigarettes and alcohol would definitely result in a net number of lives saved but no one is willing to give up alcohol so the debate about how many lives would be saved ends up being moot.

Bombs are a far better way to mass kill than guns will ever hope to achieve. 

No, mass murderers don't need guns but if you compare mass stabbings to mass shootings, the shootings generally have many more deaths. Guns also make it fundamentally easier than many other alternative methods. There is data that suicide is more likely with a gun due to the fact that gun suicides are much more successful than other methods which offer an option to change one's mind and reverse their action.

Let me back up a little and try to illustrate the pointlessness of debating whether banning guns would save more lives. If they did a bunch of studies and could conclusively show that banning all guns would significantly reduce deaths (both homicides and suicides) would you concede defeat? If they could prove that homicide rates would fall greatly, would you be willing to give up your guns? If your answer was no then it was pointless to argue whether legal guns cause more deaths or not because you aren't going to give up your guns either way. Guns serve a number of important roles so even if banning guns would conclusively result in a net number of lives saved I wouldn't give them up. Therefore I don't choose to place my eggs in that basket because my justification for owning a firearm doesn't rest on trying to prove guns save more lives than they cost.

Banning cigarettes and alcohol would definitely result in a net number of lives saved but no one is willing to give up alcohol so the debate about how many lives would be saved ends up being moot.

Defeat to whom? 

The anti-gunners who want to pretend they can take away all legal guns, and that somehow magically all illegal guns will no longer be available?

The politicians who paint every problem as a simplistic subset of causes that never fix anything?

The only "defeat" I would concede is the loss of our second amendment, and the loss of freedoms to a government that already displays a desire to trample on individual rights time after time.

That's a defeat that other countries have experienced, only to wish they had their guns back when everything went to hell in a hand basket as the government leaders raided the treasury and private industry, then left the public to fend for itself in the face of armed police and military.

There's no Constitutionally protected right to vices: booze, tobacco, etc.  Funny how the ATF regulates firearms in addition to alcohol and tobacco, even though one of them is supposed to be left alone without infringement.   Anyway, arguing that banning a substance to save lives can be a valid discussion, since there is no civil right being violated.  Guns are on the opposite end of that spectrum.

You like to create hypothetical straw arguments.  "If" a study says fewer guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners saves more lives than it costs, and "if" the study can be proven independently across a broad variety of demographics, social environments, etc., then I'd be able to view the data and make a judgment.  Asking if I'd make that choice before any details are offered is a red herring, meant to paint me as uncompromising.  That's a leftist tactic, meant to prove your case without having to prove anything.

Ever see the movie "The Village?"  The residents all had some tragedy in their lives that they blamed on society.  So, they all moved into an isolated village to escape the forces of violence and bad decision making that lead to their life altering events.

The result was a murder -- something many residents joined the village to ensure would never happened again.

Humans love to think they can control their destinies by forcing others to live by rules that limit freedom of choice. 

Bombs are a far better way to mass kill than guns will ever hope to achieve.

In the right circumstances yes, but harder to accomplish as well.

Defeat to whom? 

The anti-gunners who want to pretend they can take away all legal guns, and that somehow magically all illegal guns will no longer be available?
The politicians who paint every problem as a simplistic subset of causes that never fix anything?
The only "defeat" I would concede is the loss of our second amendment, and the loss of freedoms to a government that already displays a desire to trample on individual rights time after time.

That's a defeat that other countries have experienced, only to wish they had their guns back when everything went to hell in a hand basket as the government leaders raided the treasury and private industry, then left the public to fend for itself in the face of armed police and military.

There's no Constitutionally protected right to vices: booze, tobacco, etc.  Funny how the ATF regulates firearms in addition to alcohol and tobacco, even though one of them is supposed to be left alone without infringement.   Anyway, arguing that banning a substance to save lives can be a valid discussion, since there is no civil right being violated.  Guns are on the opposite end of that spectrum.

You like to create hypothetical straw arguments.  "If" a study says fewer guns in the hands of law abiding gun owners saves more lives than it costs, and "if" the study can be proven independently across a broad variety of demographics, social environments, etc., then I'd be able to view the data and make a judgment.  Asking if I'd make that choice before any details are offered is a red herring, meant to paint me as uncompromising.  That's a leftist tactic, meant to prove your case without having to prove anything.

Ever see the movie "The Village?"  The residents all had some tragedy in their lives that they blamed on society.  So, they all moved into an isolated village to escape the forces of violence and bad decision making that lead to their life altering events.
The result was a murder -- something many residents joined the village to ensure would never happened again.
Humans love to think they can control their destinies by forcing others to live by rules that limit freedom of choice. 

Defeat to their argument.

This is not a straw argument, I am simply asking you to consider a stance if the oppositions arguments ended up being proven. It's not some complicated thing that you have to dodge the question by saying you would need to see the data first. It's basically one of three possibilities, banning all guns would either produce a decrease in deaths, an increase in deaths, or no significant change in deaths. It isn't a gotcha type question, it's meant to merely make you think through

When I look at how people argue the point of whether legal guns save more lives or cost more lives I often see pro gun rights people who almost cling to the idea that were it not for guns we would be awash in blood. They are very invested in the idea that guns can't possibly be playing a role in homicide and suicide rates to the point that they fail to be objective about the data and are letting their interest in firearms lead their conclusions instead of the data. For example I notice this when they all point towards the liberal estimate of 2 million crimes stopped per year instead of a more conservative and documented number of 60,000 instances per year according to the FBI (which by the way is still doubt the amount of gun deaths). Its not that I want guns to be banned, I want to be able to keep owning firearms, but I can see past that bias where sometimes the data supports guns and sometimes it doesn't.  Some data does show/correlate with a reduction in homicide or suicide when guns are more strictly controlled and some other data swings the other way as well. The real scientific position is to look at both sides of the data.

However I am pointing out to you why it is not a key argument that we have to hold so dear to. We don't have to prove that guns don't cause more deaths because our interest, our justifications, and our rights to have guns do not rest on whether the guns can be proven to have a net lives saved or lives lost. Even if we could prove that a revocation of the 1st amendment would save more lives it is something I (and I assume you as well) would never give up. Since my assertion that guns are an important right does not hinge on whether there is a net life savings or a net lives lost I do not become so attached to this idea that I must defend at all costs the idea that guns being legal cannot have anything to do with our homicide and suicide rate problems.