"Senate Dems introduce 'assault weapons' ban bill on 205 gun models"

[AndyS]

45. More deflection I see. That's obviously all you have.

Last edited Thu Mar 18, 2021, 03:41 PM - Edit history (2)

First point of deflection is re-defining suicide as something other than gun violence. First do a google image search on suicide by gun then take into account that a loved one is usually the first to find the body and tell me again that this isn't violence of the worst kind. Further, guns are very effective in suicide. Many, if not most, suicide attempts by other means are unsuccessful and only one in ten attempted suicides is completed in a subsequent attempt. We can safely assume that a number of households would not replace the gun sold [confiscated with compensation] so reducing the number of guns available to suicidal people will necessarily reduce death by suicide.

Second point of deflection is the either/or dilemma of Medicare for all vs gun violence. It is not a binary choice. Stop pretending it is.

Third point of deflection is the offer of an alternative to the immediate purchase [confiscated with compensation] of guns; the 'grandfathering' of existing inventory. Why even bring that into the conversation? (I do appreciate your evaluation of effectiveness though, thanks!)

Fourth point of deflection, the market will react with a substitute for semi auto guns. I've said there is always a work around with gunners and you seem to prove my point. I guess we just need to go the route of Australia and include such things as lever action and pump action as well. When we achieve what I'm advocating it will be a simple matter to include the other methods of rapid fire IF they become an issue which I hope they will not. The goal is not to remove all guns, it is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries.

The final point of deflection is the 'stirring up the Republicans' meme. Do you seriously believe that one more issue will 'stir up' the opposition more than it is now??? You are either demented or mindlessly repeating an NRA talking point.

Now to the next point you will eventually try to make; it costs too much.

Though a lack of data makes it difficult to fully calculate, researchers have estimated that after accounting for direct and indirect costs, gun violence in America has an annual price tag of $229 billion, over two times the size of New Mexico's economy.

https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/a8c89469-30a1-4b88-b3f5-0c5e54ad5df0/economic-impact-of-gun-violence-final.pdf
Reducing gun violence will greatly reduce the cost of a gun buy [confiscated with compensation] program and over time more than pay for it. Plus there's that whole humanity thing . . .

Then there's the fact that mass shootings (four or more shot excluding the shooter) are increasing in number. By this definition there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The majority of these shootings are domestic (in family) incidents. They account for at least 1700 deaths/injuries per year. The weapons of choice are the very ones I'm advocating against. It's hard to shoot that many people with a bolt action rifle or a revolver.

"So why pick this hill to die on?" Interesting choice of words. I don't plan on dying, I plan on saving lives. You?

Hope my edit makes you feel better . . . it's all about your feelings