Guns are not the problem

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

Terryj said:
Rich, let's compare stats. So far this year you stated at that there has been 75 deaths from mass shooting and 203 wounded. Today is the 94th day of the year, in the 94 days there have been 2,726 people killed from "drunk drivers", the average is 29 people a day die from drunk drivers. The reason I use drunk drivers is, there has to be something wrong with them mentally to do such a thing.

No, they might not realize they're over a legal limit

And if we agree that drink impairs your decision making, that would include your decision to drive wouldn't it

How do you explain serving policemen getting caught drunk behind the wheel ?

There are about 300 million fire arms in the U.S. in civilian hands, there are 275 million vehicles in the U.S.

Actually I've seen estimates of 400-450 million privately owned guns

Why are we not doing something about this problem which is far greater than firearms. Why are we not restricting vehicles that travel faster that 25 miles an hour, why are we not limiting vehicles to just 5 gallons of gas, after all we want to restrict firearms and limit their magazine size, fair is fair.

Actually I thought we were doing something to make vehicles safer. It seems every year there are new mandatory regulations. This year I believe all new cars must have a reversing camera

As for your suggestion of limiting vehicles to 25mph and 5 gallons of fuels, make your case to Congress. I don't think you'd be able to construct a convincing case.

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
:roll:Keep the focus on guns, don't get into whataboutisms such as cars, alcohol, swimming pools and other stuff, blah blah blah... That is how Rich2018 will most likely respond.

Besides, won't criminals always be able to get fast cars ?

DebateChallenge · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Yes, there's a correlation there

Well the USA has a higher GDP than Switzerland.

Rich2018 said:
Also high population density (urban areas) tend to have more crime than low population density (rural area).

Switzerland is more densely populated than the USA.

Rich2018 said:
Note this is a generalization and doesn't apply in all cases.Alaska, for instance, is a ow density population state and has high violent crime rates, despite a high ownership level of guns (despite boasts by the gun lobby).

That's because much of their crime happens in places such as Anchorage which is very densely populated.

Rich2018 said:
So gun ownership levels do not significantly affect the crime rate

Then you shouldn't have a problem with gun ownership, not if it doesn't affect the crime rate.

Rich2018 said:
OK

Possession of bomb making equipment and explosives is already illegal without a permit is it not ?

No it's not. Its possible to make a bomb that could blow up a building from materials you can get at a supermarket or hardware store. Not to mention gasoline, which is used for arson, is readily available at gas stations. We certainly can't ban gasoline since we need it for cars and other gas operated machinery.

Rich2018 said:
For the millionth time, yes

You will never eradicate guns completely but you will cause a hugely significant drop in ownership and use.

And any such drop would just be temporary. With the kind of gun control you fantasize about, it would only be a matter of time before criminals are able to get guns just as easily as they did before such gun control was put in place and we would be right back where we were except that good people wouldn't be able to defend themselves from the criminals, or for that matter from the government.

Rich2018 said:
Look at the UK, gun use in committing a crime is very rare since the last gun legislation of 1997

And it was rare before the legislation of 1997, your point?

Rich2018 said:
Gun crime is very rare in any peer country that has banned them

But its not rare in countries such as Mexico and Brazil which have stricter gun control than the USA, and before you say such countries don't count because they aren't "peer countries" if we're going to compare the USA to other countries than all countries are fair game not just "peer countries" as I said before.

Rich2018 said:
Help me understand how Nixon's involvement in the Watergate scandal is in ANY way connected to his opposition to handguns.

The point is, Nixon was a crummy man and so he had crummy ideas.

Rich2018 said:
By making the private ownership of them illegal*

*Requires a repeal of the 2nd amendment
** Subject to exception like bolt action rifles (which, if RF is reading, is done by listing the make/model# and not with some vague description of a "gun type"

And you've raised this objection before and had it explained to you before

Assuming a repeal of the 2A is even possible then how would they get all the 450 million plus guns that are privately owned? That's almost enough to arm everybody twice. The cost and manpower would be astronomical and that's assuming people would just quietly turn in their guns.

Rich2018 said:
Yes

So you admit you don't want to be fair.

DebateChallenge · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Actually I thought we were doing something to make vehicles safer. It seems every year there are new mandatory regulations. This year I believe all new cars must have a reversing camera

Well by the same token I would also want guns to be safe. I wouldn't want a gun blowing up when I shoot it. I wouldn't want a gun to go off accidentally. Remington was having issues with some of their guns that were firing without the trigger being pulled, I certainly would not want such a gun.

Rich2018 said:
As for your suggestion of limiting vehicles to 25mph and 5 gallons of fuels, make your case to Congress. I don't think you'd be able to construct a convincing case.

I am against such limitations, I am also against limitations for guns with stuff such as magazine capacity, size requirements for guns (i.e. a ban on "small firearms" AKA handguns) a ban on cosmetic features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, ect. a ban on full automatics, and so forth.

RF667799 · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
No, they might not realize they're over a legal limit

And if we agree that drink impairs your decision making, that would include your decision to drive wouldn't it

How do you explain serving policemen getting caught drunk behind the wheel ?

Actually I've seen estimates of 400-450 million privately owned guns

Actually I thought we were doing something to make vehicles safer. It seems every year there are new mandatory regulations. This year I believe all new cars must have a reversing camera

As for your suggestion of limiting vehicles to 25mph and 5 gallons of fuels, make your case to Congress. I don't think you'd be able to construct a convincing case.

In the same way you haven't been able to make your case for limiting criminals and the law abiding alike to shotguns.

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
Well the USA has a higher GDP than Switzerland.

In total yes, but not per capita (the factor that's really important):

Luxembourg: $114,230
Switzerland: $82,950
Macao: $82,390
Norway: $81,690
Ireland: $76,100
Iceland: $74,280
Qatar: $70,780
Singapore: $64,040
United States: $62,610
Denmark: $60,690

GDP by Country: Top 10 List, OER vs PPP, per Capita

So your average Swiss is wealthier than your average American

Switzerland is more densely populated than the USA.

So what ?

Most Americans live in densely populated areas (where most of the crime is), I daresay the crime rate in the Rocky Mountains is very low...or the Mojave Desert

That's because much of their crime happens in places such as Anchorage which is very densely populated.

My exact point above, Alaska is a huge state with the population (and therefore) concentrated in a small area. It is why Switzerland's population density being higher than the overall density of the USA (with large empty or very sparsely populated areas) is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Alaskan towns like Anchorage have a very low population density than main US cities like NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC or LA, yet still has a high violent crime rate DESPITE its liberal gun laws allowing a high degree of gun ownership

Then you shouldn't have a problem with gun ownership, not if it doesn't affect the crime rate.

I don't have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the crime rate

I have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the homicide rate caused by guns, gun related injuries (70,000+ PA) and mass shootings which happened at MORE than one per day in 2019*

*mass shooting as defined by the FBI and Congress as 4 or more persons being shot (but not necessarily killed) plus the shooter(s)

...its possible to make a bomb that could blow up a building from materials you can get at a supermarket or hardware store....

Yes it is

Or fireworks, and that's why, after the Boston bomb you have to get a rudimentary ID to buy fireworks now

That said, Law Enforcement can and do raid property when they believe equipment necessary for making a bomb is being stored

And any such drop would just be temporary...

Where's your evidence for that ?

...with the kind of gun control you fantasize about, it would only be a matter of time before criminals are able to get guns just as easily as they did before such gun control was put in place..

Where's your evidence for that as well ?

And it was rare before the legislation of 1997, your point?

A low amount of guns in society = a low amount of gun crime and virtually no mass shootings

But its not rare in countries such as Mexico and Brazil which have stricter gun control than the USA...

Or El Salvador where gun crime is rife

These are not peer countries to the USA which should measure itself against other developed economies, not countries that awkwardly straddle the third world

The point is, Nixon was a crummy man and so he had crummy ideas.

Like ending the Vietnam War

Or thawing diplomatic relations with China

Nixon engaged in negotiations with Soviet premier Brezhnev and forged a treaty for increased trade and 2 landmark arms control treaties: SALT I, & the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (which banned the development of systems designed to intercept incoming missiles)

The Nixon presidency witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South

In 1972, Nixon won re-election with over 60% of the vote. (Trump didn't even get 50% and was actually beaten in the popular vote). So Nixon must have been doing something right.

"Crummy ideas" you really don't know what you're talking about, when you talk about Nixon's presidency, do you ?

Assuming a repeal of the 2A is even possible then how would they get all the 450 million plus guns that are privately owned?

You've asked this before countless times (excuse 3.1), and the answer is still always the same - people will meekly hand them in
Those that don't will be seized by Law Enforcement

And yes there is an astronomical number and it will take years, perhaps a decade or more

So you admit you don't want to be fair.

No, I would LOVE to be fair

I would love to know which guns will never, ever be misused....but I don't have such foresight and neither do you or anyone.

So all guns (with the exceptions caveat) need to be banned.

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
Well by the same token I would also want guns to be safe. I wouldn't want a gun blowing up when I shoot it. I wouldn't want a gun to go off accidentally. Remington was having issues with some of their guns that were firing without the trigger being pulled, I certainly would not want such a gun.

How about deactivating them so they're incapable of shooting a projectile ?

I am against such limitations, I am also against limitations for guns with stuff such as magazine capacity, size requirements for guns (i.e. a ban on "small firearms" AKA handguns) a ban on cosmetic features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, ect. a ban on full automatics, and so forth.

So am I, IMO they're just paying lip service to gun control and at best are half measures and will be ineffective at reducing the gun related death and injury rate.

DebateChallenge · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
How about deactivating them so they're incapable of shooting a projectile ?

No that would be like deactivating an engine in a car so it won't go.

Rich2018 said:
So am I, IMO they're just paying lip service to gun control and at best are half measures and will be ineffective at reducing the gun related death and injury rate.

So you're against all the limitations that I posted about?

Terryj · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
No, they might not realize they're over a legal limit

And if we agree that drink impairs your decision making, that would include your decision to drive wouldn't it

How do you explain serving policemen getting caught drunk behind the wheel ?

Actually I've seen estimates of 400-450 million privately owned guns

Actually I thought we were doing something to make vehicles safer. It seems every year there are new mandatory regulations. This year I believe all new cars must have a reversing camera

As for your suggestion of limiting vehicles to 25mph and 5 gallons of fuels, make your case to Congress. I don't think you'd be able to construct a convincing case.

Rich, the reason I used the analogy of a drunk driver is both "the person driving drunk and a person who does a mass shooting is mentally unstable." A car could be used as a weapon, we've seen this over and over in Europe, and a weapon in the wrong hands is dangerous. A firearm is the hands of a person who is mentally unstable is dangerous, however, not all firearm owners are mentally unstable just as not all people who drive automobiles are mentally unstable.

So, do we punish the masses for the actions of a few????

RF667799 · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
In total yes, but not per capita (the factor that's really important):

Luxembourg: $114,230
Switzerland: $82,950
Macao: $82,390
Norway: $81,690
Ireland: $76,100
Iceland: $74,280
Qatar: $70,780
Singapore: $64,040
United States: $62,610
Denmark: $60,690

GDP by Country: Top 10 List, OER vs PPP, per Capita

So your average Swiss is wealthier than your average American

So what ?

Most Americans live in densely populated areas (where most of the crime is), I daresay the crime rate in the Rocky Mountains is very low...or the Mojave Desert

My exact point above, Alaska is a huge state with the population (and therefore) concentrated in a small area. It is why Switzerland's population density being higher than the overall density of the USA (with large empty or very sparsely populated areas) is irrelevant.

Nevertheless, Alaskan towns like Anchorage have a very low population density than main US cities like NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington DC or LA, yet still has a high violent crime rate DESPITE its liberal gun laws allowing a high degree of gun ownership

I don't have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the crime rate

I have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the homicide rate caused by guns, gun related injuries (70,000+ PA) and mass shootings which happened at MORE than one per day in 2019*

*mass shooting as defined by the FBI and Congress as 4 or more persons being shot (but not necessarily killed) plus the shooter(s)

Yes it is

Or fireworks, and that's why, after the Boston bomb you have to get a rudimentary ID to buy fireworks now

That said, Law Enforcement can and do raid property when they believe equipment necessary for making a bomb is being stored

Where's your evidence for that ?

Where's your evidence for that as well ?

A low amount of guns in society = a low amount of gun crime and virtually no mass shootings

Or El Salvador where gun crime is rife

These are not peer countries to the USA which should measure itself against other developed economies, not countries that awkwardly straddle the third world

Like ending the Vietnam War

Or thawing diplomatic relations with China

Nixon engaged in negotiations with Soviet premier Brezhnev and forged a treaty for increased trade and 2 landmark arms control treaties: SALT I, & the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (which banned the development of systems designed to intercept incoming missiles)

The Nixon presidency witnessed the first large-scale integration of public schools in the South

In 1972, Nixon won re-election with over 60% of the vote. (Trump didn't even get 50% and was actually beaten in the popular vote). So Nixon must have been doing something right.

"Crummy ideas" you really don't know what you're talking about, when you talk about Nixon's presidency, do you ?

You've asked this before countless times (excuse 3.1), and the answer is still always the same - people will meekly hand them in
Those that don't will be seized by Law Enforcement

And yes there is an astronomical number and it will take years, perhaps a decade or more

No, I would LOVE to be fair

I would love to know which guns will never, ever be misused....but I don't have such foresight and neither do you or anyone.

So all guns (with the exceptions caveat) need to be banned.

Reference bold:

After which, everyone will be armed exclusively with shotguns and rifles, according to your plan.

DebateChallenge · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
In total yes, but not per capita (the factor that's really important):

Luxembourg: $114,230
Switzerland: $82,950
Macao: $82,390
Norway: $81,690
Ireland: $76,100
Iceland: $74,280
Qatar: $70,780
Singapore: $64,040
United States: $62,610
Denmark: $60,690

GDP by Country: Top 10 List, OER vs PPP, per Capita

So your average Swiss is wealthier than your average American

So then the problem is a low GDP per capita not guns.

Rich2018 said:
I don't have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the crime rate

I have a problem with gun ownership with regard to the homicide rate caused by guns,

Newsflash, homicide is a crime.

Rich2018 said:
gun related injuries (70,000+ PA)

If people want to take the risk of injuring themselves that's their choice, although I know and practice gun safety so its not much of a concern for me.

Rich2018 said:
and mass shootings which happened at MORE than one per day in 2019*

*mass shooting as defined by the FBI and Congress as 4 or more persons being shot (but not necessarily killed) plus the shooter(s)

If you're talking about mass shootings as defined by what you claim the FBI and Congress defines them as than they don't concern me since the vast vast majority of them are criminals shooting other criminals (i.e. gang shootouts). If they want to kill each other off they're doing us a favor, I would just sit back and watch the fireworks. Its mass murders that concern me, where innocent people are targeted.

Rich2018 said:
Yes it is

Or fireworks, and that's why, after the Boston bomb you have to get a rudimentary ID to buy fireworks now

That said, Law Enforcement can and do raid property when they believe equipment necessary for making a bomb is being stored

And how would Law Enforcement know when to raid what properties? Because somebody is buying fertilizer or cleaning chemicals? Those are materials that can be used to make bombs but just because somebody is buying them doesn't mean they're making a bomb nor does it give LE probable cause to suspect they are and grounds to raid their property.

Rich2018 said:
Where's your evidence for that ?

Where's your evidence for that as well ?

The prohibition on alcohol was an utter failure. The war on drugs has been an utter failure, the streets are infested with tons of drugs that are banned despite them being banned, it would be the same way with guns.

Rich2018 said:
A low amount of guns in society = a low amount of gun crime and virtually no mass shootings

Again, the UK had a low amount of gun crime and hardly any mass shootings before 1997, so their new gun control measures in 1997 did nothing that hadn't already been done in terms of reducing gun crime.

Rich2018 said:
Or El Salvador where gun crime is rife

These are not peer countries to the USA which should measure itself against other developed economies, not countries that awkwardly straddle the third world

No, if some countries are fair game all countries are fair game.

Rich2018 said:
"Crummy ideas" you really don't know what you're talking about, when you talk about Nixon's presidency, do you ?

Nixon was a nitwit but enough about him.

Rich2018 said:
You've asked this before countless times (excuse 3.1), and the answer is still always the same - people will meekly hand them in
Those that don't will be seized by Law Enforcement

And you're contradicting yourself countless times, you've made many claims, as you have here, that people would quietly turn in their guns. Yet you've also said that us gun owners would rather see the world burn than turn in our guns, you said that in post 100 and in many other posts. You contradict yourself.

Rich2018 said:
And yes there is an astronomical number and it will take years, perhaps a decade or more

More like an eternity.

Rich2018 said:
No, I would LOVE to be fair

I would love to know which guns will never, ever be misused....but I don't have such foresight and neither do you or anyone.

So all guns (with the exceptions caveat) need to be banned.

How about knowing which people will never ever misuse guns, or for that matter which people will never ever commit crime, be it with guns or not? I like that better.

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
No that would be like deactivating an engine in a car so it won't go.

Why, if a car won't go, you nullify its use

If a gun won't shoot, you still retain the majority of its use

So you're against all the limitations that I posted about?

They offer some control but only half measures

If the gun control lobby think it will make a significant difference, they are wrong

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

Terryj said:
Rich, the reason I used the analogy of a drunk driver is both "the person driving drunk and a person who does a mass shooting is mentally unstable."

Why do you say that ?

Were the 9/11 terrorists of sound mind or "mentally unstable"

Are all criminals "mentally unstable" or just mass shooters ?

What do you call "mentally unstable" anyway ?

Would that include anyone committing homicide or just mass shooters ?

...a firearm is the hands of a person who is mentally unstable is dangerous, however, not all firearm owners are mentally unstable just as not all people who drive automobiles are mentally unstable.

So how can we tell the difference before they start shooting

So, do we punish the masses for the actions of a few????

Yes

Using the same rationale that saw all steak knives removed from airport concourse restaurants after 9/11, were future customers who wanted a steak before flying "penalized"

Ten of thousand of people would use a metal knife to eat food on an airport concourse and NEVER use such a knife to hijack an airplane
Yet why were they punished ?

Rich2018 · Apr 3, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
So then the problem is a low GDP per capita not guns.

Largely so, yes

Newsflash, homicide is a crime.

And in the USA there's a lot of it caused by guns
Gun related injuries too

If gun related homicides numbered just a handful a year, there'd be no gun control debate

If people want to take the risk of injuring themselves that's their choice...

Why do you think we have seat belt laws ?

Also who said anything about self inflicted gunshot injuries, I meant people being shot and surviving
(a mass shooting is defined by Congress and the FBI as a shooting where at least four people are shot, but not necessarily killed, not counting the shooter or shooters. As I've frequently told you)

If you're talking about mass shootings as defined by what you claim the FBI and Congress defines them as than they don't concern me since the vast vast majority of them are criminals shooting other criminals...

Like Vegas, Santa Fe, Parland, Orlando, Pensacola, El Paso, Virginia Tech, Sutherland Springs church shooting, San Bernardino, Pittsburgh synagogue, Molson Coors, Milwauke shooting?

How many more do you need to "concern" you ? Is there ANY number ?

What's your evidence that most mass shootings are done by criminals on criminals ?

And how would Law Enforcement know when to raid what properties?

I've already told you, there are a ton of ways LEOs can use to figure out if a gun may be present at a property. EG: if you have a CCW

Note: Not proof but enough for "reasonable suspicion" and a search warrant

The prohibition on alcohol was an utter failure. The war on drugs has been an utter failure, the streets are infested with tons of drugs that are banned despite them being banned, it would be the same way with guns.

Where's your proof that because prohibition was a failure, a gun ban would be also ?

Again, the UK had a low amount of gun crime...

Because of a LOW amount of guns
And there is not a massive underground market for guns in the UK, though there ***IS** a massive illegal drug trade

No, if some countries are fair game all countries are fair game.

Says who ?

There is a reason why the US is only compared to peer countries

I've provided you with several studies of the USA and peer countries. You have never provided any that included the likes of Mexico but omitted the UK
So it's just your personal, and wholly incorrect, opinion

Nixon was a nitwit but enough about him.

Says who ?

Back up your claims, he won the 1972 presidential election by getting over 60% of the vote - a figure Trump can't even dream about. So most Americans seemed to have thought otherwise

Another example of you using personal opinion (and totally unsubstantiated at that) as "evidence"

You have a propensity for uttering ill thought out remarks, with zero evidence

...you've made many claims, as you have here, that people would quietly turn in their guns....

Based on evidence

Most people obey the law and are afraid of jail
British gun owners handed their guns in
Louisiana, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, did the same (and yes it may well have been an illegal seizure)

...you've also said that us gun owners would rather see the world burn than turn in our guns...

Based on comments from gun owners.
You yourself said some BS statement of they can have your guns bullets first

I asked you again (above) how many mass shootings (not of criminals) would it taker to "concern" you...I bet you've already said there is no number
You, like other gun owners, would rather see the world burn than give up your guns

Unless there was a law that made you
Hence the reason for repealing the 2nd amendment and banning guns, hence the reason why solutions are rejected as being merely half measures.

More like an eternity.

Where's your evidence on that ?

How about knowing which people will never ever misuse guns...

Sure but the movie "Minority Report" is science fiction.

Terryj · Apr 3, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Why do you say that ?

Were the 9/11 terrorists of sound mind or "mentally unstable"

Are all criminals "mentally unstable" or just mass shooters ?

What do you call "mentally unstable" anyway ?

Would that include anyone committing homicide or just mass shooters ?

So how can we tell the difference before they start shooting

Yes

Using the same rationale that saw all steak knives removed from airport concourse restaurants after 9/11, were future customers who wanted a steak before flying "penalized"

Ten of thousand of people would use a metal knife to eat food on an airport concourse and NEVER use such a knife to hijack an airplane
Yet why were they punished ?

Rich, anyone who take the life of another just for the sake of killing them, well, there is something very wrong with them.

So we remove 300 million firearms from the citizens, we'll need to remove 275 million automobiles from the mass also for they have the potential of killing someone. We'll remove all knives for they have the potential to be used as weapons.

Rich, if you desire a safe and secure society, then we'll need to lock everyone in a room and just leave them there.

Rich2018 · Apr 4, 2020

Terryj said:
Rich, anyone who take the life of another just for the sake of killing them, well, there is something very wrong with them.

That's a very simplistic argument

What are your psychiatric qualifications for saying such a thing ?

Who are you aware of that has killed "just for the sake of killing" ?

People willing to kill others are a small minority of the population
Studies done after WWII showed that most soldiers aimed high and deliberately missed the enemy and the actual killing was done by a small percentage of soldiers

Everything is normally distributed, including social awareness and willingness to kill.

Killers are just not like most people. That doesn't mean they can be "cured"

...we'll need to remove 275 million automobiles from the mass also for they have the potential of killing someone.

It's not potential that is the problem, it's reality

If there were no mass shootings and all guns were just used for recreation, there'd be no gun control lobby

We'll remove all knives for they have the potential to be used as weapons....

Knives (metal knives that is) WERE removed from airport concourse restaurants after 9/11 not because of their potential to kill, but because of just ONE incident

Now with guns we have way more than one incident, in 2019 there was more than one mass shooting per day*

* as defined by Congress and the FBI

Rich, if you desire a safe and secure society, then we'll need to lock everyone in a room and just leave them there.

Why ?

Why can't we be safe living normal lives, without people armed with guns trying to kill us ?

DebateChallenge · Apr 4, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Why, if a car won't go, you nullify its use

If a gun won't shoot, you still retain the majority of its use

And just what would you use a gun that won't shoot for?

Rich2018 said:
They offer some control but only half measures

If the gun control lobby think it will make a significant difference, they are wrong

Well having a size requirement for guns, where they have to be over a certain size, is definitely a no go, whether we have half measures or full measures.

DebateChallenge · Apr 4, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Largely so, yes

So then we should work on raising the GDP per capita not on limiting and/or banning guns.

Rich2018 said:
If gun related homicides numbered just a handful a year, there'd be no gun control debate

Most gun homicides in the USA are criminals shooting other criminals.

Rich2018 said:
Why do you think we have seat belt laws ?

It keeps insurance prices down, and besides I don't think somebody else would want to see your brains splattered all over the road.

Rich2018 said:
(a mass shooting is defined by Congress and the FBI as a shooting where at least four people are shot, but not necessarily killed, not counting the shooter or shooters. As I've frequently told you)

Mass murders concern me far more than mass shootings.

Rich2018 said:
( How many more do you need to "concern" you ? Is there ANY number ?

Banning guns from good people will not decrease the number.

Rich2018 said:
What's your evidence that most mass shootings are done by criminals on criminals ?

If you've been on this forum long enough, and you have, then you would know from numerous posts that most mass shootings are gang related.

Rich2018 said:
I've already told you, there are a ton of ways LEOs can use to figure out if a gun may be present at a property. EG: if you have a CCW

Note: Not proof but enough for "reasonable suspicion" and a search warrant

A CCW is the only way they might figure out that somebody has guns, all the other ways you've talked about, such as "he said she said" are not adequate.

Rich2018 said:
Where's your proof that because prohibition was a failure, a gun ban would be also ?

Why would people not have guns when there's a gun ban if people had alcohol when there was an alcohol ban?

Rich2018 said:
Because of a LOW amount of guns
And there is not a massive underground market for guns in the UK, though there ***IS** a massive illegal drug trade

Maybe there's just not a big demand for guns in the UK, including from the criminals.

Rich2018 said:
Says who ?

There is a reason why the US is only compared to peer countries

If some countries are fair game all countries are fair game, not just those countries you or some study might consider "peer countries."

Rich2018 said:
Says who ?

Says me. Nixon was a douchebag, end of story.

Rich2018 said:
Most people obey the law and are afraid of jail

Then tell me why the jails are so full.

Rich2018 said:
British gun owners handed their guns in

American gun owners are not British gun owners.

Rich2018 said:
Louisiana, in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, did the same (and yes it may well have been an illegal seizure)

And that was a wakeup call for us American gun owners and we will make sure it will never happen again.

Rich2018 said:
I asked you again (above) how many mass shootings (not of criminals) would it taker to "concern" you...I bet you've already said there is no number

I do have to give you credit this time for being right, and there are many others like me.

Rich2018 said:
You, like other gun owners, would rather see the world burn than give up your guns

Unless there was a law that made you

So you're saying that for us gun owners that a law requiring us to do so would get us to turn in our guns but seeing the world burn wouldn't, do you know how absurd that sounds?

Rich2018 said:
Hence the reason for repealing the 2nd amendment and banning guns, hence the reason why solutions are rejected as being merely half measures.

As I said, good luck Charlie.

Rich2018 said:
Where's your evidence on that ?

This is the USA, that's evidence enough.

DebateChallenge · Apr 4, 2020

Rich2018 said:
If there were no mass shootings and all guns were just used for recreation, there'd be no gun control lobby

Guns aren't just used for recreation they're also used for self defense which I believe you labeled as one of your excuses. I've got news for you, its not an excuse its a highly justifiable reason.

Rich2018 · Apr 4, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
And just what would you use a gun that won't shoot for?

Display

A common use for guns

Well having a size requirement for guns, where they have to be over a certain size, is definitely a no go...

Of course
The British government banned handguns in 1997 - but they defined a handgun by length. So you can keep your handgun if you permanently attach some kind of rod, which so far hasn't been a problem...but...

Guns aren't just used for recreation they're also used for self defense which I believe you labeled as one of your excuses. I've got news for you, its not an excuse its a highly justifiable reason.

Yes, excuse 2.2

And to quote your hero president, that's "fake news".

Fledermaus · Apr 4, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Yes, excuse 2.2

Rich2018 rote regurgitation 1.0

Rich2018 · Apr 4, 2020

DebateChallenge said:
So then we should work on raising the GDP per capita not on limiting and/or banning guns.

Yes to the former, no to the latter (as they're not needed)

Most gun homicides in the USA are criminals shooting other criminals.

So what ?

Do I care that most people who die from COVID-19 aren't in the USA ?

It keeps insurance prices down, and besides I don't think somebody else would want to see your brains splattered all over the road.

But the state governments have taken the responsibility to protect your life, by mandating that you do so

Some states make riders of two wheel vehicles wear head protection

I dare say that people don't want to see dead bodies of their children shot dead either...

Mass murders concern me far more than mass shootings....

Why do mass murders concern you more than mass shootings ?

You're going to tell the parents of a child shot in a school shooting who's survived but has his/her life permanently damaged, that protecting them is down your list of priorities because he/she wasn't hurt badly enough ?

Banning guns from good people will not decrease the number.

So there is no number of mass shootings that would persuade you to give up your guns? You really would rather see the world burn

If you've been on this forum long enough, and you have, then you would know from numerous posts that most mass shootings are gang related.

No, you said most "mass shootings" are criminal on criminals
So I ask you to show tour evidence - or is this yet another unsubstantiated claim you pull from your @ss ?

A CCW is the only way they might figure out that somebody has guns...

How about if they'd bought ammunition on line and had it shipped to their home ?

Again it's not proof they have a gun, but enough "reasonable suspicion" to get a search warrant

Why would people not have guns when there's a gun ban if people had alcohol when there was an alcohol ban?

Again that's an argument from ignorance

Because I'd impose very heavy fines and/or jail sentences for anyone caught with an illegal gun

How many people are you aware of who went to jail for possessing a bottle of whiskey at home ?

Maybe there's just not a big demand for guns in the UK, including from the criminals.

Nope, because getting a gun is very hard, consequently gun crime is quite rare in the UK

If some countries are fair game all countries are fair game...

Nope, that's cherry picking

And comparing apples to oranges

Says me. Nixon was a douchebag, end of story.

Your opinion is worthless against the 60%+ of voters, who voted for him in 1972

Why do you say Nixon was bad ?
What did he do that makes you think that way ?
Do you actually know what he was accused of doing ?

Then tell me why the jails are so full.

Better still tell me why the vast majority of Americans are NOT in jail ?

American gun owners are not British gun owners.

They will behave the same

And that was a wakeup call for us American gun owners and we will make sure it will never happen again.

It's evidence that when law enforcement comes to take your guns (even if it was illegal) gun owners will meekly habd them over...I don't think there was a single instance of your bombastic claim "bullets first"
Proof that US gun owners will behave like British gun owners

I do have to give you credit this time for being right, and there are many others like me.

You'd rather see the world burn

So you're saying that for us gun owners that a law requiring us to do so would get us to turn in our guns but seeing the world burn wouldn't, do you know how absurd that sounds?

Nope, you'd rather see the world burn than hand in your guns
But if you were told to, or if law enforcement came knocking at your door for your guns, you'd meekly had them over

As I said, good luck Charlie.

Thank you Charlie
The gun control lobby will need all the luck it can get

This is the USA, that's evidence enough.

So you don't have any, just you unsubstantiated opinion.

Yet one more claim/fact you've pulled from your @ss.

Rich2018 · Apr 4, 2020

Fledermaus said:
Rich2018 rote regurgitation 1.0

"rote" ?

Fledermaus · Apr 4, 2020

Rich2018 said:
"rote" ?

Got dictionary?

It means mechanical or habitual repetition....

Rich2018 · Apr 4, 2020

Fledermaus said:
Got dictionary?

It means mechanical or habitual repetition....

You learn something new all the time.

It's a word I've never come across before.