Yet another shooting thread

[bilby]

Loren's argument is that if guns were not ubiquitous, nobody would be able to employ lethal force in self-defense, and so more people would be shot, because guns are ubiquitous.

This only makes sense if the only way someone can be killed is with a gun.

Or just if the only EASY way to kill someone is with a gun.

Which it is.

It's really difficult for most people to kill someone else, without using a gun. While killing someone else with a gun is so easy, that it often happens by mistake.

Reality Irrelevant non-sequitur: More murders are done with no weapon at all than with rifles.

FTFY.

 

[Tigers!]

Every day 120 people in the US are killed by guns. More than twice that number are wounded.

An Examination of US School Mass Shootings, 2017–2022: Findings and Implications

Gun violence in the USA is a pressing social and public health issue. As rates of gun violence continue to rise, deaths resulting from such violence rise as well. School shootings, in particular, are at their highest recorded levels. In this study, we ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you had 120 persons dying each day by a dread disease surely you would move heaven and earth to try to cure it or at least mitigate it's effects?

 

[bilby]

Every day 120 people in the US are killed by guns. More than twice that number are wounded.

An Examination of US School Mass Shootings, 2017–2022: Findings and Implications

Gun violence in the USA is a pressing social and public health issue. As rates of gun violence continue to rise, deaths resulting from such violence rise as well. School shootings, in particular, are at their highest recorded levels. In this study, we ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you had 120 persons dying each day by a dread disease surely you would move heaven and earth to try to cure it or at least mitigate it's effects?

Were you not paying attention during Trump's "handling" of COVID?

 

[laughing dog]

It is a pointless statistic: hands are not optional. The frequency with which a weapon is used to kill people is interesting but a compelling reason to allow legal ownership. Using your rationale, private individuals should be allowed to own nuclear weapons.

The disingenuous arguments are getting ever more ridiculous. Personal nuclear weapons? WTF?

Your evasion reveals your double standard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Exactly--the key piece of information isn't presented because it would destroy the whole narrative.

You're trying to close the barn door because the chickens are escaping.

BULLSHIT. We KNOW that certain types of firearms are more likely to be used in certain situations. Handguns are almost always used for killing people So are AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles. The semi-automatics are able to kill many more people very very rapidly. WHY are such weapons available to the general public?

Because some people think they are fun? Fun to shoot? Well, some people think it's fun to shoot people, including children. It is a disgrace that we think letting some people feel that they are big tough men is more important than letting kids grow up with their parents. Or to live at all.

You're looking at the chickens (handgun murders) and going after the barn (rifles.)

Why do you think Toni doesn't care about the "chickens"?

Following that logic, we shouldn't worry about handgun murders until we've cured heart disease.

Think about where chickens live.

I wasn't saying anything about whether she cares about chickens or horses, but rather I was addressing the (lack of) effectiveness of what she wants. Closing the barn doors will have no effect on the chickens flying the coop.

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

 

[Janice Rael]

The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting.

 

[Toni]

Exactly--the key piece of information isn't presented because it would destroy the whole narrative.

You're trying to close the barn door because the chickens are escaping.

BULLSHIT. We KNOW that certain types of firearms are more likely to be used in certain situations. Handguns are almost always used for killing people So are AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles. The semi-automatics are able to kill many more people very very rapidly. WHY are such weapons available to the general public?

Because some people think they are fun? Fun to shoot? Well, some people think it's fun to shoot people, including children. It is a disgrace that we think letting some people feel that they are big tough men is more important than letting kids grow up with their parents. Or to live at all.

You're looking at the chickens (handgun murders) and going after the barn (rifles.)

Why do you think Toni doesn't care about the "chickens"?

Following that logic, we shouldn't worry about handgun murders until we've cured heart disease.

Think about where chickens live.

I wasn't saying anything about whether she cares about chickens or horses, but rather I was addressing the (lack of) effectiveness of what she wants. Closing the barn doors will have no effect on the chickens flying the coop.

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

Of course you do. You don't care about children being murdered at school. Perhaps you also do not go to shopping malls or concert venues or movie theaters or clubs or places of worship. Probably not. Unless they start shooting up the trails where you hike or your basement, you don't much care.

5% is a beginning. Eliminating handguns or at the very least, strictly limiting their ownership would also decrease the murder rate.

I strongly suspect that you do not like the idea of limiting ownership of AK style rifles because they comprise part of your personal toy collection. Which of course is more important to you than the lives of children.

 

[Tigers!]

Every day 120 people in the US are killed by guns. More than twice that number are wounded.

An Examination of US School Mass Shootings, 2017–2022: Findings and Implications

Gun violence in the USA is a pressing social and public health issue. As rates of gun violence continue to rise, deaths resulting from such violence rise as well. School shootings, in particular, are at their highest recorded levels. In this study, we ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If you had 120 persons dying each day by a dread disease surely you would move heaven and earth to try to cure it or at least mitigate it's effects?

Were you not paying attention during Trump's "handling" of COVID?

Obviously they did not move heaven and earth.

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly--the key piece of information isn't presented because it would destroy the whole narrative.

You're trying to close the barn door because the chickens are escaping.

BULLSHIT. We KNOW that certain types of firearms are more likely to be used in certain situations. Handguns are almost always used for killing people So are AR-15 style semi-automatic rifles. The semi-automatics are able to kill many more people very very rapidly. WHY are such weapons available to the general public?

Because some people think they are fun? Fun to shoot? Well, some people think it's fun to shoot people, including children. It is a disgrace that we think letting some people feel that they are big tough men is more important than letting kids grow up with their parents. Or to live at all.

You're looking at the chickens (handgun murders) and going after the barn (rifles.)

Why do you think Toni doesn't care about the "chickens"?

Following that logic, we shouldn't worry about handgun murders until we've cured heart disease.

Think about where chickens live.

I wasn't saying anything about whether she cares about chickens or horses, but rather I was addressing the (lack of) effectiveness of what she wants. Closing the barn doors will have no effect on the chickens flying the coop.

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

First, if someone doesn't have an AR15 type weapon, then they cannot use it for a mass shooting, so it will stop them if they don't have something else.

Second, what do you have against camel's? So what if it is the camel's nose? A first step towards reducing the number of firearms in the US is still the first step.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

First, if someone doesn't have an AR15 type weapon, then they cannot use it for a mass shooting, so it will stop them if they don't have something else.

In other words, it's just a prelude to banning all guns.

You're admitting it's a camel's nose.

Second, what do you have against camel's? So what if it is the camel's nose? A first step towards reducing the number of firearms in the US is still the first step.

Do you not understand the meaning of "camel's nose" in this context?!?!

 

[Tigers!]

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

First, if someone doesn't have an AR15 type weapon, then they cannot use it for a mass shooting, so it will stop them if they don't have something else.

In other words, it's just a prelude to banning all guns.

Only if you live in a US-centric binary world.
One can severely restrict gun access and ownership without banning them.
Commonwealth countries generally manage to achieve it.

 

[laughing dog]

Banning "assault" rifles can't have more than a 5% effect on the murder rate and in reality almost all of it would probably simply be displaced to other weapons. The lack of a rifle isn't going to stop someone from shooting. Thus I very much think this is a camel's nose.

First, if someone doesn't have an AR15 type weapon, then they cannot use it for a mass shooting, so it will stop them if they don't have something else.

In other words, it's just a prelude to banning all guns.

You're admitting it's a camel's nose.

No, it means if shooters don’t have access to those types of weapons, they can’t use them to kill as many people.

Second, what do you have against camel's? So what if it is the camel's nose? A first step towards reducing the number of firearms in the US is still the first step.

Do you not understand the meaning of "camel's nose" in this context?!?!

No, I do. Apparently, you don’t understand what “first step” means.

 

[bilby]

In other words, it's just a prelude to banning all guns.

That's absurd. No western nation has banned all guns, and no attempt has been made to do so, despite all bar one having no constitutional protection for gun ownership.

IF the mythical cohort if "gun grabbers" you fear so much actually existed, then "banning all guns" should already have happened in places similar to the USA, but without the protection of the second amendment.

In short, if your slippery slope were not fallacious, we would expect to see a Canada in which all guns are banned.

We don't, so it is, because they aren't.