• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We have a plan to end gun violence.

I see you cannot deal with the clear difference between medical problems and traumatic death and injury.
The US is likely comparable to other countries with alcohol deaths but far exceed other similar countries with firearm prevalence and consequent death and injury.
Only someone who does not understand the unique American firearm problem would attempt to treat is like a medical condition. Firearms are a public health problem, but not a medical condition.
False equivalence discussion is the last resort of the intellectually bankrupt.

You've previously referred to "firearm deaths" as a disease. It's duplicitous to be objecting on that basis now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
So you are saying that the manner of death matters more than the death itself, correct? More deaths are less relevant if the manner of death is subjectively acceptable to you.
Everyone dies typically from medical conditions. However, because firearm death and injury is preventable, traumatic, and uniquely American it cannot be compared to alcohol.
I understand that you need to establish a false paradigm to protect the unnecessary firearm deaths in the US, but it is disingenuous and hypocritical.
By your reasoning, you must be comfortable with firearm homicide, accidents, and suicide. Sad.

 
Everyone dies typically from medical conditions. However, because firearm death and injury is preventable, traumatic, and uniquely American it cannot be compared to alcohol.
I understand that you need to establish a false paradigm to protect the unnecessary firearm deaths in the US, but it is disingenuous and hypocritical.
By your reasoning, you must be comfortable with firearm homicide, accidents, and suicide. Sad.


Alcohol deaths are preventable. Firearm death is not "uniquely American". If you have to lie to try to point out relevant differences, chances are there aren't any.

You must be comfortable with alcohol deaths, the way you are twisting your arguments to avoid any criticism of alcohol. That, or you feel personally invested in alcohol to the point the associated deaths don't even register on your radar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
Everyone dies typically from medical conditions. However, because firearm death and injury is preventable, traumatic, and uniquely American it cannot be compared to alcohol.
Alcohol deaths are equally preventable, are they not?


I understand that you need to establish a false paradigm to protect the unnecessary firearm deaths in the US, but it is disingenuous and hypocritical.
By your reasoning, you must be comfortable with firearm homicide, accidents, and suicide. Sad.

How does my reasoning require me to be comfortable with firearm homicide, accidents, and suicide? Are you comfortable with drunk drivers killing children and grandmothers?
 
Alcohol deaths are equally preventable, are they not?



How does my reasoning require me to be comfortable with firearm homicide, accidents, and suicide? Are you comfortable with drunk drivers killing children and grandmothers?
Alcohol is a medical problem and irrelevant to firearm death and injury.
Why do you insist on avoiding the issue of firearm death and injury?
What do you think about the firearm deaths and injuries in the US that exceed those is similar countries?
 
Alcohol is a medical problem and irrelevant to firearm death and injury.
Why do you insist on avoiding the issue of firearm death and injury?
What do you think about the firearm deaths and injuries in the US that exceed those is similar countries?
I think there are fewer deaths from firearms in countries where firearms are outlawed for the same reason that there are fewer deaths from alcohol consumption in countries where alcohol consumption is outlawed. So whatever conclusion I come to about preventable firearm deaths applies equally to preventable alcohol-related deaths.
 
I think there are fewer deaths from firearms in countries where firearms are outlawed for the same reason that there are fewer deaths from alcohol consumption in countries where alcohol consumption is outlawed. So whatever conclusion I come to about preventable firearm deaths applies equally to preventable alcohol-related deaths.
IOW, you agree that firearm death and injury can be reduced or eliminated by outlawing firearms. You are learning.
 
IOW, you agree that firearm death and injury can be reduced or eliminated by outlawing firearms. You are learning.
I do agree with this. I never claimed otherwise. We can reduce a lot of deaths in America by outlawing a lot of things, correct?
 
I do agree with this. I never claimed otherwise. We can reduce a lot of deaths in America by outlawing a lot of things, correct?
No. We cannot outlaw addiction, birth defects or heart disease. You seem obsessed with a false equivalence argument.
Firearm trauma is not equivalent to medical pathology.
 
No. We cannot outlaw addiction, birth defects or heart disease. You seem obsessed with a false equivalence argument.
Firearm trauma is not equivalent to medical pathology.
Neither is recreational alcohol consumption equivalent to medical pathology. While we can't outlaw addiction to alcohol, we could outlaw the recreational use of alcohol, couldn't we?
 
IOW, you agree that firearm death and injury can be reduced or eliminated by outlawing firearms. You are learning.

But then we reduce or eliminate the firearm benefits as well.
 
Neither is recreational alcohol consumption equivalent to medical pathology. While we can't outlaw addiction to alcohol, we could outlaw the recreational use of alcohol, couldn't we?
We can outlaw many things, including stupidity or false equivalence arguments.
 
We can outlaw many things, including stupidity or false equivalence arguments.
Yes we can. The question is: Should we? ;)
 
I’m in no way conceding.
Of course you are.
You just keep saying the same things over and over and it becomes hard to take them seriously.
Reality has not changed since the first time I refuted your position and showed everyone you are lying.
Looking at the Heller 2008 decision it’s self evident what it was intended to do and what it did.
This has been proven to be a lie.
It doesn’t really matter what SCOTUS calls it, or if it’s a right as opposed to an interpretation, or any of the legal precedent so far. What will matter is what we do going forward.
You can’t do anything going forward. You don’t have a day. Nor does anyone care what you do have to say.
 
Of course you are.

Reality has not changed since the first time I refuted your position and showed everyone you are lying.

This has been proven to be a lie.

You can’t do anything going forward. You don’t have a day. Nor does anyone care what you do have to say.
What else would a pro gun advocate say when faced with an irrefutable argument or one they would rather not discuss rationally?

Eventually, the only thing left is what Charleton Heston famously said “…from my cold dead hands.”

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
 
What else would a pro gun advocate say when faced with an irrefutable argument or one they would rather not discuss rationally?
But your position has been thoroughly refuted. You know this.
Eventually, the only thing left is what Charleton Heston famously said “…from my cold dead hands.”

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that.
I’m sorry you lied and got caught.
 
And?

As I pointed out, gun sales have been increasing year over year for decades. Both violent crime and homicide rates have declined during that same time.
gun sales were in decline prior to heller
and gun incidents have risen since heller

wanted to show some factual proof to refute the bullshit argument that we are safer since heller
 
But your position has been thoroughly refuted. You know this.

I’m sorry you lied and got caught.
Hmm… maybe ask all the other posters if my points have been “refuted” by you.

Here, I’ll help…

Have my points been refuted by rahl?

Anybody can answer this question.
 
gun sales were in decline prior to heller
and gun incidents have risen since heller

wanted to show some factual proof to refute the bullshit argument that we are safer since heller
The issue is presence of firearms in households and in the overall population. Prevalence. Simple numbers of guns does not mean that the guns are evenly present in the population because many gun owners have multiple guns but can only really use one at a time. The presence of any gun in a household is associated with greater risk of homicide, death by suicide, or accidental death/injury compared to households without firearms.
Guns have a 100 year life span of functional use, so sales are a poor indicator of prevalence.
 
gun sales were in decline prior to heller
and gun incidents have risen since heller

wanted to show some factual proof to refute the bullshit argument that we are safer since heller
Gun incidents?
 
Back
Top Bottom