100 homicidal home invasions

[Seth]

I cite the fact that more guns and less crime coincide

I cite the fact that in post WWII Germany a decreasing number of storks and a decreasing birth rate coincide, and that's an undeniable fact. Is the stork theory of procreation therefore correct?

You are claiming causation whereas I am simply stating an obvious correlation, therefore your analogy is fallacious.

[Hermit]

I am not making the argument that more guns = less crime either. The crime rate is independent of gun ownership levels. If that is true (which despite the reported numbers many here will claim it isn't) then there is no logical reason to restrict gun ownership.

Good to see we agree on the relationship between guns and crime. There is a difference between restricting ownership and regulating it, though, and the regulations must not merely exist. They also must be effectively enforced. A bit like the ownership of motor vehicles and the right to drive them.

[Hermit]

I cite the fact that more guns and less crime coincide

I cite the fact that in post WWII Germany a decreasing number of storks and a decreasing birth rate coincide, and that's an undeniable fact. Is the stork theory of procreation therefore correct?

You are claiming causation whereas I am simply stating an obvious correlation, therefore your analogy is fallacious.

Way to miss what I wrote. I ridiculed causation.

[Seth]

I am not making the argument that more guns = less crime either. The crime rate is independent of gun ownership levels. If that is true (which despite the reported numbers many here will claim it isn't) then there is no logical reason to restrict gun ownership.

Good to see we agree on the relationship between guns and crime. There is a difference between restricting ownership and regulating it, though, and the regulations must not merely exist. They also must be effectively enforced. A bit like the ownership of motor vehicles and the right to drive them.

And we have 50,000 regulations already that are carefully enforced with respect to the proper and safe operation of firearms. The number of violations of those regulations by otherwise law-abiding gun owners is microscopically small compared to the number of guns in private hands.

But you're not talking about regulating the operation of firearms now are you? Nope, what you want to regulate is the possession of firearms, and you want to restrict the rights of the law-abiding to possess firearms by blaming them for the actions of criminals using guns illegally. You, and every other gun banner have the same exact agenda and it's as mendacious and dishonest as it can possibly get. The Newspeak term "common sense gun control" is a manufactured Marxist Big Lie phrase that is just an encrypted demand for the banning of guns, particularly handguns, based on the false premise that lawful possession of handguns is the cause of unlawful possession and operation of handguns and therefore it is necessary to blame the blameless and ban handguns altogether.

There is no point in denying this sub rosa agenda of disinformation, lies and false equivalences because it's well understood Marxist doublespeak tactic that we have been hearing for about a hundred years now, and we know exactly what you have in mind, and we're not going to let you get away with it.

Once again, for the cognitively impaired: Gun control laws only affect non-criminal law-abiding gun owners and have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the actions of criminals, who by their very nature, don't give a rip about your gun control laws to begin with and therefore are unaffected by them. Therefore, your ONLY possible true agenda in arguing as you do is that you are being deceptive and you are simply lying through your teeth about your true intent and purpose...as we gun owners know perfectly well.

[Seth]

I cite the fact that more guns and less crime coincide

I cite the fact that in post WWII Germany a decreasing number of storks and a decreasing birth rate coincide, and that's an undeniable fact. Is the stork theory of procreation therefore correct?

You are claiming causation whereas I am simply stating an obvious correlation, therefore your analogy is fallacious.

Way to miss what I wrote. I ridiculed causation.

Yes, I know you were. You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding. I declined to play your game and pointed out that you are full of crap, as usual.

[Hermit]

And we have 50,000 regulations already that are carefully enforced

[Hermit]

You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding.

No. I ridiculed the alleged causal relationship between guns and crime. It works both ways, by the way. Guns neither cause significantly more nor less crime.

[Seth]

You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding.

No. I ridiculed the alleged causal relationship between guns and crime. It works both ways, by the way. Guns neither cause significantly more nor less crime.

Okay, then what the FUCK are you bitching about?

[Hermit]

You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding.

No. I ridiculed the alleged causal relationship between guns and crime. It works both ways, by the way. Guns neither cause significantly more nor less crime.

Okay, then what the FUCK are you bitching about?

The alleged causal relationship between guns and crime.

[Seth]

You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding.

No. I ridiculed the alleged causal relationship between guns and crime. It works both ways, by the way. Guns neither cause significantly more nor less crime.

Okay, then what the FUCK are you bitching about?

The alleged causal relationship between guns and crime.

Let us assume arguendo that there is no causal relationship. Why then is any sort of gun control called for?

[Tero]

Because the millions of guns you put out there allows the leakage to criminals. We don't register them. Millions of recent well working guns are "lost." If nobody was allowed hand guns, and we eventually collected them all, where would the criminals get them? We would find some solution for police patrols. The police can always use bigger weapons when entering a home where the evil doers are holed up.

[Tero]

double

[Hermit]

You were trying to use sarcasm to cover up your true agenda, which is to disparage gun ownership by the law abiding.

No. I ridiculed the alleged causal relationship between guns and crime. It works both ways, by the way. Guns neither cause significantly more nor less crime.

Okay, then what the FUCK are you bitching about?

The alleged causal relationship between guns and crime.

Let us assume arguendo that there is no causal relationship. Why then is any sort of gun control called for?

For the same reason we insist on regulations for cars and drivers, I suppose.

[Seth]

Because the millions of guns you put out there allows the leakage to criminals.

Yes, it does. That's unfortunate, but it's not a reason to ban guns.

We don't register them.

Correct, because registering them does absolutely nothing to prevent criminals from getting "leaked" guns. Are you incapable of understanding this simple fact?

Millions of recent well working guns are "lost."

And how is registration going to prevent such losses?

If nobody was allowed hand guns, and we eventually collected them all, where would the criminals get them?

They would steal them, smuggle them or manufacture them if need be. Making a gun isn't rocket science. All it takes is a block of metal and some hand tools minimum. Add a CNC mill and criminals can turn out 5 guns an hour. Are you going to ban CNC mills next?

But thanks for again demonstrating that you don't give a damn about criminals with guns, your concern is law-abiding citizens with guns, which you want to take away.

We would find some solution for police patrols.

Yeah, dead cops.

The police can always use bigger weapons when entering a home where the evil doers are holed up.

You falsely assume that evil doers hole up and that the police know where they are.

They don't.

And more people would die because they are disarmed and the criminals aren't.

[Seth]

Let us assume arguendo that there is no causal relationship. Why then is any sort of gun control called for?

For the same reason we insist on regulations for cars and drivers, I suppose.

Which is what, exactly? Do you actually know why cars are registered? It has little to do with auto theft and everything to do with taxation. Autos use the highways, which cost money to build and maintain, so we register cars in order to impose taxes on the owners to pay for the infrastructure. We mandate license plates for the convenience of the police in assessing fines for traffic violations. Cars are huge objects that are amenable to carrying an external license plate visible from a distance.

Handguns are not. The police do not write civil traffic offense tickets for wrongdoing with a gun, they arrest the person who misuses a gun and charge them with an appropriate misdemeanor or felony because society takes quite seriously the criminal, careless or negligent handling of firearms precisely because they can cause injury or death when improperly used, so it's not like we have "gun cameras" all over the place to detect and automatically ticket gun owners.

We also don't tax guns every year because there is no need or justification for doing so. They use no public infrastructure that has to be maintained. Now I'm sure you would LIKE to tax firearms every year to force law-abiding and responsible gun owners to pay for the actions of criminals and the negligent, but there's no rational justification for such confiscatory taxation. Guns are just like any other consumer product, the sale is taxed and that's the end of it.

While it is convenient for the police if a criminal steals a car and doesn't immediately take off the plate and put a stolen on on, but that is not the purpose of license plates and neither the registration of the vehicle nor the use of license plates does ANYTHING to prevent auto theft, just as registration of firearms does nothing to prevent gun theft. You might argue that it provides information to the police if they come across a gun that allows them to determine if it's stolen, which would be technically correct. However, it is not necessary to register 300 million guns in order to keep a list of stolen guns. That's adequately handled by existing stolen property databases into which the identifying information on a stolen gun is entered when the owner reports the theft. It's far easier to keep track of stolen guns than to keep track of all guns. It's cheaper and more effective too. And, it doesn't raise the threat of gun confiscation facilitated by gun registration.