You're not very good at this debate thing are you? Why not just come out and say that merely owning a gun is irresponsible? It wouldn't be true but at least you wouldn't be wasting your time and breath..
I have said that. Several times. I have said repeatedly that gun owners are inherently irresponsible.
That is a sweeping generality based on nothing more than opinion, bias and hatred of gun owners and cannot be backed up. Every one of your posts is dripping with contempt for gun owners and has caused you to lose all objectivity on the issue.
You guys can't seem to keep track of your weapons, and even when you can you are inconsistent when it comes to reporting those weapons lost or stolen to the authorities. Despite braying and bleating that you're "responsible", you refuse to act responsibly and subject every transaction involving your guns to a background check. So like "No true Scotsman", "responsible gun owner" is a fallacy.
Who, exactly, is "you guys"? I've always known where my firearms were and, (this may be difficult for you to believe but it's true nonetheless), I would report it if it was stolen. And citing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is itself, a fallacy in this case because no one has said "no true gun owner...". What was said was "responsible gun owners...". A true gun owner may be responsible or irresponsible whereas, a responsible gun owner is, by definition, responsible. You can't be that friggin' blind as to not see the distinction. And I've told you at least two times now and you keep sidestepping it and that is: NO ONE SAID ALL GUN OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
The problem is, not all gun owners are guilty of the irresponsible behavior you cite. That's the problem with your entire argument. Either you're telling us that irresponsible gun owners purchase their guns illegally and don't report them stolen or you're telling us that every single one of the millions of gun owners in the country purchased their guns illegally and wouldn't report them stolen. You can't have it both ways.
"No true Scotsman" fallacy. You are eating a big, heaping plate of your own bullshit. The problem is that you can't call yourself a "responsible gun owner" until after your period of gun ownership ends. That's why it's a question not of how responsible you are, but how negligent you are. Because your gun could get stolen at any time; you could lose it; you could give it to someone dangerous. Most of what determines the likelihood of that is due to how negligent you are with your weapons.
Bullshit. That's the stupidest goddamn thing I've read in a long time. What if I'm not negligent? That's like saying that, even though I was not a robbery victim until yesterday when I got robbed, I was always a robbery victim.
Do you listen to yourself? Jesus Christ.
Let's apply this reasoning to another area: According to 2015 figures, 10,265 people died that year in drunk driving accidents. That's nearly 30% of all auto fatalities. Why isn't it 0%? If this is what "responsible drivers" looks like then there are no responsible drivers. What's more, car manufacturers and liquor companies are to blame..
Sigh. First of all, drunk driving deaths have been cut in half since 1980 thanks entirely to; regulations, laws, rules, and a public campaign discouraging drunk driving. So thanks for helping me prove my point that government regulations, laws, rules, and public campaigns work.
Secondly, to combat drunk driving is your solution to make more drunk drivers? Because your solution to gun violence is to add more guns. So if we employ that rhetoric to drunk driving, that would mean you would think the best way to reduce drunk driving is to make sure everyone who drives does do inebriated.
Thirdly, if you want to compare guns to cars, then I'm totally fine with that. Fewer people died from cars than guns last year (and the year before). If you want to use cars as your point of comparison, then by all means let's put guns under the same lens that cars are put under, namely; register your gun with the State, insure your gun, have your gun inspected every year, have your gun tested every year, gun operation test, and required gun training. If you want to do all that, I'm totally down.
Christ, this is like herding cats. I didn't bring that up to talk about drunk driving statistics, I brought it up to apply your reasoning to a different topic to illustrate how ridiculous it is.
See how ridiculous that sounds? Besides, 600,000 is only a fraction of all the firearms owned in the U.S. Also, (if you're getting your numbers from the same article I'm looking at) the ATF says that burglaries of gun stores are“a significant source of illegally trafficked firearms”. Firearm dealers have to go through a process of applying for a dealer license with the ATF. After that, the ATF comes and inspects your business as to location in relation to schools and whatnot, and the security of the store and the firearms themselves. Only after the ATF is satisfied can he sell guns.
It doesn't matter if it's 600,000 or 1. The point is that "responsible gun ownership" isn't something you can do while you own a gun, because at any time you could act irresponsibly.
Then again, I might never act irresponsibly.
No, chances are that an irresponsible gun owner will act irresponsibly.
This is an idiotic line of reasoning that might cover all the bases for you but it's still idiotic and does not stand up under logical scrutiny.
It's not a matter of if your gun gets stolen, but when.
Which would mean that every gun ever purchased has been and will be stolen. You're not so stupid as to believe this so why say it?
1 gun can kill 58 people and wound 900 in 60 seconds. As many as 600,000 guns disappear from their owners each year. And of those 600,000, 84,000 aren't even notified to the authorities. You all can't even break 90% when it comes to the rate at which you inform police that your gun is stolen. You can't even get an "A" for that. If that's what "responsible gun ownership" looks like...lol...**** that shit.
So even if there's only 1 gun stolen a year, that 1 gun stolen invalidates all efforts at "responsible gun ownership" simply because you cannot profile someone for being negligent enough to let their guns get stolen, give their guns to someone dangerous, or accidentally harm someone with their gun.
Have you actually read anything I said? I've already told you twice that no one has suggested that all gun owners are responsible so why the hell do you keep parroting this crap?
