You call it anti-gun rhetoric. I call it pro-gun regulation.
After all, I've been arguing for more restriction and regulation. Not a complete banishment of firearms.
So again, do you have any evidence?
I've already made arguments as to why those restrictions would reduce firearm violence. You can continue to ignore them if you'd like.So, you really don't give two shits about firearm violence and crime, you just want to soothe yourself?
Are you attempting to compare the United States to a different country? I remember someone lecturing me about doing just that.Canada has what you want, and 70% of their gun crime is committed with smuggled weapons. Oops.
Can't remember who told me it was bad though. Oh yea, it was you. Hypocrite.
Eat yo vegetables
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.” - General James Mattis
Again, it's the last two plus years of anti-gun rhetoric. You want to repeal the 2nd amendment and implement a de facto ban on anyone who doesn't fit your arbitrary "requirements" while ignoring that those regulations are not proven to work.
Because it worked in Australia, right?
I knew you'd try to make this filmsy comparison. Just like you did with the "deleted post" failed jab. Bwahahaha.
I'm not comparing anything. I'm pointing out that Canada has exactly what you want, and 70% of their gun crime is committed with smuggled weapons. Clearly, it doesn't work in Canada. If you want to prove it works here, you've got a lot of proving to do.
I want to repeal the 2nd Amendment in order to make restriction and regulation possible. If ownership levels remain identical, or even increase, I have zero problems. There's no legitimate reason as to why firearms, as a consumer good, need special treatment, let alone an Amendment in the Constitution.
That's a very small piece to a very large puzzle. Fact is, I've presented dozens of studies that provide support for my position. Like I said, you can continue to ignore them if you'd like.Because it worked in Australia, right?
Flimsy comparison? You're a hypocrite and you've just proved it. Apparently only you get to use studies from other countries to prove a point. If someone else does it, it's "just ridiculous" and "absurd".I knew you'd try to make this filmsy comparison.
Eat yo vegetables
Nice deflection, but regulations and restrictions are already possible. Repealing the second is all about reducing ownership numbers via a de facto ban. Keep pretending it's not if you like.
The position you believed to be true, right?
Please, quote where I compared Canada and the United States. I'll wait.
I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.
I care about comprehensive laws and responsible ownership. I don't care about the ownership rate.
Did it work?
It's still something I believe to be true. I certainly can't know it to be true. That would require irrevocable causative evidence. That will never happen. For either side.The position you believed to be true, right?
So yes. The position I believe to be true.
Comparing isn't the correct term. You never compared Canada to the United States. Just as I never compared Australia to the United States.Please, quote where I compared Canada and the United States. I'll wait.
You used the 70% number from a study to support your position that such action in the United States is not feasible. Just as I used a study on firearm legislation to support my position.
We did the same thing. Yet I'm the only one that's wrong. You're a hypocrite.
Eat yo vegetables
No, because it's contrary to the position you've been building for over two years.
So, it's a "highly scientifically processed" "scientific hypothesis" backed up with "scientific study conclusions."
Science.
No, you said "here are some studies that prove that firearm regulation will reduce crime." You failed to acknowledge it was from another country, and therefore, not applicable to the US.
No where in my post did I say this. Stop lying.
I pointed out that Canada has exactly the regulations you are asking for, and yet, their gun crime is committed mostly by smuggled weapons, and therefore the regulations you won't don't work in Canada.
Then provide a quote directly from me that supports your assumption. It shouldn't be difficult.
Right. My position is based on scientific evidence. But there is no causal evidence, for either side. It's still a belief, albeit one which is strongly supported.So, it's a "highly scientifically processed" "scientific hypothesis" backed up with "scientific study conclusions."
Science.
No. I said "here is some evidence that firearm legislation has had a positive impact on firearm violence."No, you said "here are some studies that prove that firearm regulation will reduce crime." You failed to acknowledge it was from another country, and therefore, not applicable to the US.
Oh you didn't? I figured your "Oppps" was the implication. My mistake then. I suppose the point you were making, whatever it was, is completely moot then. The United States will benefit from these laws.No where in my post did I say this. Stop lying.
I pointed out that Canada has exactly the regulations you are asking for, and yet, their gun crime is committed mostly by smuggled weapons, and therefore the regulations you won't don't work in Canada.
Eat yo vegetables
You want me to find a quote that sums up your 2 plus years of posting history?
lol.
Looks like you're having memory problems again.
The question asked of you was:
You replied by linking a bunch of irrelevant studies from other countries and State regulations (which you openly admitted don't work) claiming it was proof.
You seem to have this inability to actually produce the studies that prove your position, and instead, just Google-fu some keywords, glance at the abstract, engage in confirmation bias, and then pat yourself on the back Charlie Sheen style and proclaim you're "winning."
No, the "oops" was pointing out how it doesn't work in Canada. They have exactly the regulations you want, and yet, 70% of their gun crime is comitted with smuggled weapons.
I mean, let's not get crazy here, but maybe, just maybe, criminals and black markets exist despite government regulation. It's a wild idea, I know.
You're free to have this opinion.
Too bad you haven't shown this to be true.
But you just know it's true! You know it is!
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I want you to find a quote to support the assumption that what I actually seek is reduction in firearm ownership.
I'm not the one with memory problems. It seems as though you forgot that you asked me to supply something that does not exist. I cannot produce a study about a federal law that has never existed. So I did the next best thing.Looks like you're having memory problems again.
The question asked of you was:
Prove? No. Strongly support? I've linked dozens.You seem to have this inability to actually produce the studies that prove your position
Doesn't work? How can you be certain their laws do not work? What's their firearm homicide rate?No, the "oops" was pointing out how it doesn't work in Canada.
You can harp on smuggled firearms all you'd like. I'm more concerned about firearm violence.
Eat yo vegetables
So you changed your opinion. You've been arguing for quite a while about how you want to reduce ownership.
Did that work? I really want to know what science you found that changed your mind to now have no problem with ownership rates.
jugzilla just took care of that. Looks like in addition to your other qualities, you're also a flip-flopper.
The next best thing to "prove your claim" is proving a bunch of other unrelated stuff?
Translation: you can't prove your claim.
Their laws don't work because 70% of their gun crime is committed by firearms that are smuggled into the country. Does regulation, registration, safe storage and training apply to criminals using illegal firearms?
Securing a bunch of legal firearms and training legal owners has no impact on criminals using illegal firearms.
Like I said, are you just interested in soothing your irrational fears? It's okay to be scared of all those dangerous unlocked firearms.
At best, you can hope to reduce accidents. Don't need to repeal the second amendment to achieve that goal, but something tells me you aren't willing to settle for anything less.
Yes, I've spoken to reducing ownership. And to clarify, while additional restrictions and regulations might reduce the ownership rate, it would only do so by disenfranchising individuals that shouldn't (imo) have access to firearms to begin with. That would be the only ownership decrease that I'd actively seek.
But like I said, if the laws were enacted, and ownership rates remained the same, I'd have no problems. Reducing ownership isn't the endgame, comprehensive laws and responsible ownership is.
I'm not sure what you're saying here.Did that work?
Eat yo vegetables
The thing he quoted was blatant sarcasm. Look at the context. Talk about not reading things thoroughly...
No. It was the next best thing to "here's something that impossible to prove. prove it anyway!"The next best thing to "prove your claim" is proving a bunch of other unrelated stuff?
Well gee. Maybe, just maybe, the weak firearm regulations in the United States have something to do with that?Their laws don't work because 70% of their gun crime is committed by firearms that are smuggled into the country.
And again, what's their firearm homicide rate? What's their firearm suicide rate?
Hint, they're both several factors lower than the United States. Yet their laws aren't working? You sure about that?
- - - Updated - - -
How embarrassing. You still haven't read the context of that quote....
Eat yo vegetables