Gun Control Debunked

We can do more than one thing at a time

 

So, you just shot down your own argument.

Really, did you even read the excerpt that you quoted?

Or did you make up out of thin air some kind of notion that I think too much or too little of single chemicals is what causes depression?

 

ALL avoidable deaths should be addressed. I care about ALL avoidable deaths.

 

Oh, it'd be lovely if you could tell me what it is, because medical care and having seen more psychologists and psychiatrists than I can actually count for the last 15 years hasn't revealed anything.

Want to know why? Because I don't have any traumatic experiences. Not even close.

It is what it is. Either the relevant chemicals are identified, isolated, refined, and administered properly, or it's what you call "natural". You can't have both.

 

And there's the perfect solution fallacy; the silly idea that if something does not fix everything in the entirely world at once, then it is useless.

I'm not surprised.

 

Except guns aren't banned in any of those cities. You know, that's kind of a biggie, in terms of affecting your credibility.

 

If the person laughing was of any consequence, that might bother me.

 

You're the one who asserted that fallacy in the first place by bringing up the fact that people committed suicide in the past. Well, people still commit suicide. Ergo your attempt at a point was fallacious.

 

If your psychiatric opinions were of any consequence....wait....I am still laughing...

 

Strange, I don't see many threads about reducing deaths from falling down. It's almost as if the compassionate liberals don't really care about it.

 

*chuckles* It didn't occur to you that I was talking about people who would today have taken antidepressants?

If I was unclear, I apologize. Now you know what I mean.

 

Do you have some kind of point? Because I don't see one.

 

That's probably because not even the loony right oppose reducing deaths from falling down. It is therefore a non-issue unlike gun control.

 

Perhaps you are just in denial. Maybe you hate your job or your significant other. Maybe you gave up on your dreams and resolved yourself to a life of petty drudgery. Maybe you want something more out of life than consumerism, materialism, and an increasingly atomized social structure. Or maybe you are one of the very rare individuals who has a genetic abnormality in their brain.

Yes, you can have both. Just because something has been assayed for quality and quantity does not mean it ceases being natural.

 

You started it when you attacked my "credibility".

 

Nobody opposes reducing deaths from guns either. That is just a strawman that loony gun-grabbers trot out because they have no argument.

Either way, what are liberals doing about it? Nothing as far as I can tell. They are content with the amount of falling deaths, which exceed firearm homicides by a factor of three.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/us/bundy-trial-nevada-verdict.html

No Guilty Verdicts in Bundy Ranch Standoff Trial

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...dy-trial-mistrial-federal-government-land-use

Cliven Bundy: judge declares mistrial in case against Nevada rancher and family
Judge says prosecutors withheld evidence in case stemming from 2014 armed standoff, handing Bundy family another victory its fight against the government

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2017/11/outcome_of_latest_bundy_trial.html

Outcome of latest Bundy trial will have repercussions for national lands debate

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...uilty-at-nevada-trial-newspaper-idUSKCN1B302Z

Bundy followers found not guilty at Nevada trial: newspaper

http://katu.com/news/local/ammon-bu...ldlife-consensus-jury-federal-portland-oregon

Jury finds 7 wildlife refuge occupiers, including Ammon Bundy, not guilty on all counts

Is such supposed to discourage the idea of resistance? Because those who resist may not live to see the fruits of their labors? Such will likely be the rallying cry to boost numbers with suicidal individuals, as it will provide them the perfect opportunity to end their own existence without fear of being interrupted.

The united states could not even wipe them out of existence, despite their having far inferior weaponry compared to what is available in the united states.

Thus demonstrating a lack of critical thinking skills, and a complete absence of knowledge pertaining to the matter of asymmetrical warfare. If the united states military was ever deployed on united states soil, it would have to regard all three hundred and ten million individuals, every single man, woman, and child present, as being a potential enemy combatant. That toddler roaming the streets without their parents present? Potentially equipped with a remote-detonated suicide vest. The elderly individual stumbling about in public in a confused and possibly intoxicated manner? The same thing. Knowing that so many individuals have to be treated as potential threats is very debilitating for mental health.

Who is likely to engage government in combat? Those who are fully aware of the fact that they may very well be killed in their attempts, but do not care about such. In other words, those who have nothing to lose, and thus have no reason to refrain from doing such.

The superior weaponry of the united states military? Such cannot be utilized within the united states, due to the infrastructure being nothing but one big exposed nerve, and easily undone by collateral damage. How long could the military possibly hold authority if their attempts at putting down an insurgent lead to the destruction of a critical power relay node, or a sewage treatment facility, resulting in cascade failures that will negatively impact millions? How long can order be maintained if a major overpass is destroyed by a missile launched from a drone to take out an insurgent, thus cutting off food and other vital supplies from being delivered to where they need to go? Military supply is dependent upon a functioning infrastructure, and without they will descend into chaos as the chain of command evaporates. It is basic human nature.

 

The above demonstrates only the number of individuals who are willing to admit to firearms ownership. It does not demonstrate actual firearms ownership. It is nothing more than a poll, devoid of scientific validity.

 

Apparently NOT!

Where are the marches on Washington?

 

When are you organizing a March on Washington to demand something be done about Teen texting and driving deaths. 11 Teens die everyday while texting and driving.

 

I know one person that's had side effects, yes. I've read about millions. I'm not sure that your appeal to authority of a university study fits my definition of reputable. on top of your argumentative fallacy, you've shown your standard of authority.

 

Do you understand that you are wrong? Guns are not banned in Chicago. What you are saying is false or you don't understand the words you are typing. Gun fanatics always have to resort to this hyperbole about banning guns and overthrowing the government. My god you people are sick.

 

No, it is not wrong.

The Supreme Court ruled that Chicago had unconstitutionally banned handguns in McDonald v. City of Chicago.

Before that ruling, it was virtually impossible to legally own any firearms within city limits. The city banned gun shops, so you could not buy any firearms within the city itself. The city required registration of firearms, yet made the process of registration so byzantine, opaque, and capricious, that no normal person could actually navigate it.

So even though the city never directly banned guns, they created a system of regulations that had the same effect. Nobody knew how to get a gun in the city or how to make their guns legal, and that was done intentionally by the gun-grabbing Democrats who run the city.

And that is exactly what Democrats will do on the federal level if they get their way.

 

Gun deaths in the US, violence generally, is tied to the percent of young males in society to a large extent. It is why it soared in the sixties and has been falling recently. Multiple fatalities has been rare until recently. It is not clear why it is increasing so rapidly although it should be noted this is an increase (I believe) from a small base and remains small today in terms of the number of events .

 

Same question for you. This is an important issue.....right?