The Problem Of Bad Facts About Guns

[suncowiam]

If facts were really important to you, you'd address
the plethora that apply. I recommend considering
the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS rulings on it, the
content & efficacy of the 1994 law, etc, etc.

Don't just praise facts...use some in a cogent
argument for a change.

Exactly my point. The difference with other countries that have reduced gun violence is that those countries do not have the second amendment.

So the correlation not causation is that gun violence is correlated with the second amendment.

From my own personal experience, when I state facts that has helped reduce gun violence, the second amendment is asserted...

This is the only saving grace of pro-gunners.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why don't you actually address the...

Because you've made conversing with you unpleasant.
You've stated that you don't care about facts I've presented.
So there's nothing to discuss.

 

[suncowiam]

Simple. You want to control guns in the USA with the current amount. So all other countries who have done that started with the same amount per capita. You know that is not true. So they started from another level.

What is your hypothesis and what are you trying to conclude with that?

Yes, obviously not all countries started with the same amount of guns, but what does that actually imply? You are asking me to read between the lines but I can't do that because I honestly do not know what the implication of your point is.

 

[suncowiam]

Because you've made conversing with you unpleasant.
You've stated that you don't care about facts I've presented.
So there's nothing to discuss.

I never said that I don't care about facts.

If you feel unpleasant then that's you and how you control your emotions.

I do care about facts, but I said I only care in the context of gun violence.

Oh boy, no wonder you're in a tussle. You haven't been reading my statements and assumed some things.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never said that I don't care about facts.

From post #23 onward, you make it
clear that you don't care about most
facts that I & others find relevant.

 

[suncowiam]

From post #23 onward, you make it
clear that you don't care about most
facts that I & others find relevant.

Ok... I only care about facts that are relevant to gun violence.

If it's relevant to gun violence and I didn't acknowledge it, then I'm wrong.

What about your facts pertain to gun violence?

Or does gun violence play any role in this thread? If not, then I can just simply exit.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok... I only care about facts that are relevant to gun violence.

Except for facts about guns & related laws.
I tire of your merely arguing about arguing,
& have nothing to add. Perhaps you should
continue with that Danish guy. 2 peas in a pod.

 

[suncowiam]

Except for facts about guns & related laws.
I tire of your merely arguing about arguing,
& have nothing to add. Perhaps you should
continue with that Danish guy. 2 peas in a pod.

if you don't care to discuss gun violence then put a big disclaimer in your title or OP, to not discuss gun violence.

For example, this thread is to only discuss all facts about guns except gun violence.

There, you've solved your issue with me and others.

 

[Revoltingest]

if you don't care to discuss...

You've yet to become discussion-worthy.

 

[Suave]

You are talking about 2 different levels of engineering. If you have the important part of a magazine, namely that it fits and works with the gun altering its capacity is minor.
It is not the same level of making a semi into auto, though there are kits for that. Remember the shooting in Las Vegas and the concert. Look into that.

How scary! Since semi-auto weapons can be converted into fully automatic weapons with high load capacity magazines, then please let us extend the ban on fully automatic weapons to also include semi auto weapons. U.S, civilians don't need them anyhow, we can just as well use non-semi-auto firearms like revolvers, bolt-action rifles or pump action shot guns for legitimate purposes like self defense or hunting of food.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, some more "facts."

In the United States, you must be 21 years old to buy and drink a beer, or buy and smoke a pack of cigarettes. One presumes that younger than that is not considered mature enough to make an informed choice about such things.

And yet, you need be only 18 to buy an AR-15 rifle and 1600 rounds of ammo for it. Again, one has to assume that you are, at 18, old enough to make decisions about hunting for dinner.

(And another fact -- that gun, and that number of rounds, you are not hunting for dinner, you're planning on opening a butcher shop capable of supplying a medium-sized town.)

 

[Suave]

So, some more "facts."

In the United States, you must be 21 years old to buy and drink a beer, or buy and smoke a pack of cigarettes. One presumes that younger than that is not considered mature enough to make an informed choice about such things.

And yet, you need be only 18 to buy an AR-15 rifle and 1600 rounds of ammo for it. Again, one has to assume that you are, at 18, old enough to make decisions about hunting for dinner.

(And another fact -- that gun, and that number of rounds, you are not hunting for dinner, you're planning on opening a butcher shop capable of supplying a medium-sized town.)

Nobody needs an AR 15 for deer hunting, a bolt action rifle would suffice!

 

[Revoltingest]

Nobody needs an AR 15 for deer hunting, a bolt action rifle would suffice!

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was added?

 

[Suave]

Why do you think the 2nd Amendment was added?

Maybe to perhaps form a well regulated militia,(edit) * since there was no well organized U.S, army back in 1791*?

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe to perhaps form a well regulated militia?

And the purpose of that?
(Hint: Not deer hunting.)

 

[Suave]

And the purpose of that?
(Hint: Not deer hunting.)

State militias providing a common national defense?

 

[Revoltingest]

State militias providing a common national defense?

I agree.
Although "militia" meant something different
from what's commonly thought today. It was
more general then.
Militia (United States) - Wikipedia

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nobody needs an AR 15 for deer hunting, a bolt action rifle would suffice!

This argument always strikes me as myoptic. It assumes that no criminal will use anything other than what the law abiding citizens possess.

 

[Suave]

This argument always strikes me as myoptic. It assumes that no criminal will use anything other than what the law abiding citizens possess.

I am confident a skilled user of a ,357 Magnum revolver might very well be able to defend himself even against a nearby criminal possessing a fully loaded AR-15.
I doubt there is always an advantage having a semi-auto rifle loaded with thirty shots for attacking an able bodied defender who has a revolver loaded with six shots.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is your hypothesis and what are you trying to conclude with that?

Yes, obviously not all countries started with the same amount of guns, but what does that actually imply? You are asking me to read between the lines but I can't do that because I honestly do not know what the implication of your point is.

There are too many guns out there to practically ban them and get them off the street. Start by restricting access to guns to types of people, who have a higher probability of doing gun crimes. There is even more you can do, but that is the main thing.