Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched

"I think most normal people can see the distinction between mass murder and a bathtub slip as threats to society."

No. I addressed exactly what they were saying.

I confess to never remembering what gaslighting even is. I've looked it up a number of times in recent years, but the definition is never important enough for me to remember I guess.

But whatever it is, no. What I am doing is challenging a very bad argument that other people are making.

That is incorrect. I am answering all posts with honor and integrity.

No such lies. Even if I had been wrong, my response would not be a lie since an honest mistake is not a lie.

However, as it happens what I said is completely correct.

None of the above. I am a logical person who is confronting illogical arguments.

The facts that I post are facts, not opinions.

There is no dishonesty in my posting of facts that prove me right.

 

An accidental death matters just as much as a murder by firearm. There is no justification for treating one more seriously than the other.

Of course if you feel that I am wrong, feel free to explain why one death matters more than the other.

Simply stating that "I'm not reasonable if I don't agree with the assertion" doesn't count as explaining why one matters more than the other.

You probably already knew that. But since the only thing that people have done so far is say that I'm not reasonable if I don't agree with their assertion, I thought I'd mention it.

 

We DO treat accidental deaths seriously, this has already been covered. We're subject to risk management and risk aversion every day in all aspects of life. I've already used this example a while back - when someone was killed by a driverless car not long ago production was shut down and a full investigation launched. No one said, oh but people die by guns so therefore we shouldnt do anything about this driverless car death. Which is essentially what you're doing but vice versa

...and with potatoes instead of driverless cars.


Lolz

 

I said prove it, another words show me a post where it says different types of death are taken less seriously.
That doesn't say anyone takes it less seriously. It says there is a distinction. Do you know what the word distinction means? It doesn't mean less serious.

So you have no idea if you're doing it or not since you don't know what it is. While you refresh your memory on what gaslighting is, look up the word distinction.

No, you're a person who spews nonsense in hopes that those who see through it will tire of you and quit responding, while at the same time using faux confidence to sway the weak minded. I'm simply biding my time until you're suspended for the tactic.

Nope, they're not facts just because you say so. In fact the only thing that has been proven is your position is shallow and weak which is why you need to shore it up by declaring yourself correct.

I imagine this is where you say something along the lines of 'I'm correct because I'm correct. I have facts.'
Show us the facts. Not what you claim are facts. Prove them. Use sources beyond the raw numbers of a single pro gun website. Do something beyond acting like a two dimensional shill.

 

I've concluded the guy is a troll. Surely he can't take his nonsense seriously.

 

In your comparison, the car had no driver. The car was defective. Therefore, halting production is the proper response. When someone is killed with a gun, the gun is not the defective factor in the equation. It might serve as a tool of the defective factor, just like all of the other tools of the defective factor, but it is not the defective factor. Therefore, shutting down production of one of the tools of the defective factor is not the proper response.

 

The people who are claiming a distinction are clearly arguing that one should be taken more seriously than the other.

I know that "my defending of my position with facts and logic" is not it, whatever it is.

Facts and logic are hardly nonsense.

Hardly faux. The facts decisively back up my position.

Suspending for providing facts that prove me to be correct?

That is technically true. Facts are naturally true of their own accord, and don't require affirmation from me before becoming true.

If you feel that I've made an error in any of the facts that I linked, feel free to try to explain how my post is in error.

A position that is decisively backed by facts is not particularly shallow or weak.

No such shoring up. I am correct simply because I am correct.

Well, yes. It is reasonable for me to counter an untrue characterization of my position with a factual one.

Are you characterizing Wikipedia as a pro-gun website?

Here are the homicide stats that Balbus posted here:
Justice Thomas: 2a Won't be Touched
with data on gun availability added from here:
Estimated number of guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
and with Taiwan added for a bit of balance:

US
Homicide rate: 5.1
Gun availability: 101

Canada
Homicide rate: 1.6
Gun availability: 30.8

England and Wales
Homicide rate: 0.93
Gun availability: 6.2

France
Homicide rate: 1.2
Gun availability: 31.2

Germany
Homicide rate: 0.8
Gun availability: 30.3

Luxembourg
Homicide rate: 0.8
Gun availability: 15.3

Switzerland
Homicide rate: 0.57
Gun availability: 24.45

Taiwan
Homicide rate: 1.72
Gun availability: 4.6

Note the weak correlation between gun availability and homicide rates.

 

You may not like what facts show, but facts are not nonsense, nor is it trolling for someone to provide facts that prove they are correct.

 

I'll give you an opportunity to show that you're not a troll.

You recently said that you want to ban "all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor."

How many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle they are aware of? Does a folding stock makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting? How many mass shootings are you aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting. Also, how does a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? I mean, who do you think they're trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

You also said that you would ban all semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but then you mentioned that the law does ban magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So you want to ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but not 10-round magazines. What's up with that?

Given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shootings to date (12 of which involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why are you focused on the least used weapons?

 

So in other words I am correct to state that one death is just as important as the other.

Not quite the same. First, the cause of murders by gun is not the gun, but the person who decided to commit a murder. Absent the gun, if someone decided to commit a murder they would still kill, just using a different tool.

Second, we don't respond to car accidents and bathtub slips by preventing people from having cars and bathtubs. We respond to car accidents and bathtub slips by trying to make cars and bathtubs safer. A comparable response regarding guns would be to make them safer as well, not to prevent people from having them.

That is incorrect. I did not use potatoes in any of my arguments, other than to address other people's arguments about potatoes.

 

Good thing I didn't recommend shutting down gun production then. I was referring more to the complete inability to even consider how we can revamp the background system and other measures in order to mininize risk in terms of the human element

 

Good thing I dont want to prevent sane and reasonable, law abiding citizens from owning guns then.

 

Good, you're on board. Lets go from here. What are some things we can do to minimize risk when it comes to gun ownership? I dont think much needs to be done at the manufacturer level, do you? Guns already come with safety features and accidental shootings are largely in part due to negligence of the owner

So perhaps we should focus more on the legal aspects

 

Okay, so you find out that the person who wants to purchase a gun is not a convicted violent felon and not legally insane. Now what?

 

Yeah, I'll just wait until Balbus comes back from the weekend and takes care of it. He's either extraordinarily dishonest, stupid, or as you said, a troll. Complete waste of time dealing with him.

 

I like the idea of longer waiting periods.

If a person is buying a gun with the intention of doing harm longer waiting periods give them time to think.

I dont know how effective this would be in terms of mass shooters but I do think it could potentially make an impact on suicides. Suicides are often brushed aside as a non issue in the gun debate but the fact is a large portion of gun violence is self inflicted and guns are by far the easiest and most effective way of killing yourself

I also think gun owners should be required to take a gun safety class

And there should be laws on the storage of firearms in homes with minors, similar to Australia's laws. Not sure if we could enforce it like Australia does though, I don't know if that would be realistic. But having a law on the books could help with pursuing criminal negligence charges when someone's unsecured gun causes someone harm. It would be a good deterrent .

And all guns ahould be registered on a national registry

Thats all ive got now because I'm out of time but I'll be back later

 

You offer no argument and no rebuttal, and you wrap that failure in an ad hominem attack, and you're totally unaware of it.

 

You clearly haven't been following the conversation. My posts are literally littered with rebuttals to his claims. Thanks for chiming in though.

 

None of the above. All I have done is provide facts that you wish were not true.

That is incorrect. My claim is that gun availability has only a weak correlation with homicide rates. You have not offered any rebuttal to that claim.

 

The main problem with strengthening the background check system is, the Obama Administration tried to abuse the existing background check system by pushing to deny gun sales to people who were no danger to anyone.

Until the courts begin strongly enforcing the Second Amendment, there is too great a danger that a more comprehensive background check system could be similarly abused.

Requiring gun safety training and mandating safe/secure storage requirements could prevent a number of problems.

Can we implement waiting periods for abortion too? Delaying the exercise of one right is little different from delaying the exercise of another right.

Until such time as the courts start actively enforcing the Second Amendment, there is too great a danger that such a list will be abused by the government to violate our rights.