Portland school shooting and "reasonable" restrictions.

[JT8691]

My own personal preference is that we stop registering guns and start registering gun buyers.

We set the parameters of what would constitute a satisfactory background check, and then if you pass such a check you are authorized to purchase whatever weapons you wish, and of whatever quantity you wish.

How would this have stopped the Portland shooting in question?

It wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

The whole topic is therefore based on a false premise. The better question to ask is what "reasonable" restrictions would reduce gun violence overall, not eliminate a particular event.

Even a complete ban wouldn't stop them. They would get into the country and criminals would still buy them.

Do people REALLY think that people who don't respect life (murderers) will respect laws?

 

[g5000]

How would this have stopped the Portland shooting in question?

It wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

The whole topic is therefore based on a false premise. The better question to ask is what "reasonable" restrictions would reduce gun violence overall, not eliminate a particular event.

Even a complete ban wouldn't stop them.

I said reduce, not stop. Australia has succeeded in reducing gun violence using the policies I described above.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My own personal preference is that we stop registering guns and start registering gun buyers.

We set the parameters of what would constitute a satisfactory background check, and then if you pass such a check you are authorized to purchase whatever weapons you wish, and of whatever quantity you wish.

How would this have stopped the Portland shooting in question?

It probably wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

False.
The object here is to illustrate the fallacy of "reasonable" gun control, and that those who seek to impose it upon others refuse to see that fallacy.

 

[JT8691]

It wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

The whole topic is therefore based on a false premise. The better question to ask is what "reasonable" restrictions would reduce gun violence overall, not eliminate a particular event.

Even a complete ban wouldn't stop them.

I said reduce, not stop. Australia has succeeded in reducing gun violence using the policies I described above.

There's no correlation between the amount of gun owners in a country and homicides via gun. It's true that the US is #1...BUT if that were the case you'd expect the 2nd country to be 2nd in gun homicides right? Or at least close? The other countries aren't proportionate, which suggests that there's something else contributing to the murder rate in the US.

I can supply links to my statements of fact above is necessary.

I personally suggest that the problem is our society as a whole, and not the amount of guns.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

It wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

The whole topic is therefore based on a false premise. The better question to ask is what "reasonable" restrictions would reduce gun violence overall, not eliminate a particular event.

Even a complete ban wouldn't stop them.

I said reduce, not stop. Australia has succeeded in reducing gun violence using the policies I described above.

And the rest of their crime statistics all increased.

How is Mexico's gun ban working for them?

 

[FA_Q2]

It wouldn't. As I said, it is a setup to focus on a single data point and ask what policy could have stopped it. The only thing that could stop a specific event from happening is a total ban on guns, which is what you want someone to say. You were trolling.

The whole topic is therefore based on a false premise. The better question to ask is what "reasonable" restrictions would reduce gun violence overall, not eliminate a particular event.

Even a complete ban wouldn't stop them.

I said reduce, not stop. Australia has succeeded in reducing gun violence using the policies I described above.

And yet it did nothing for the homicide rate for over six years. IOW, those measures actually did nothing for the actual crime rate. Everywhere that gun control has been enacted has amounted to essentially nothing in actual results.

'Gun violence" is a worthless statistic and is only used to muddy the waters in the larger debate. A straight look at homicide rates is the simplest way to factor gun control effectiveness with a larger look at all crime rates giving a more complete picture.

The homicide rate staying rather stable over the next six years after the gun ban taking effect shows that the gun ban IS NOT the reason that homicide rates fell in that nation. Unless there is a good reason that you have for such a long intermission between the event and the result that the pro gun control advocates are trying to assign to it.