Gunman killed neighbors, child with AR-15-style rifle, sheriff says

I know.
Allow me to repeat myself:



This disproves you claim that "gun ownership has almost always gone up every year since about the mid 80's and in that time, firearm DEATHS, not homicides, have over all gone up."

Better question:
Given your premise, how do you explain, over 20 years, the number of guns going up and the number of deaths going down?
That aside :
Don't have to. These bumps do not change the fact that 1993-2014 the number of guns went up and the number of deaths went down.

Since you are afraid of Latin::
Correlation, which you have not shown, does not prove causation.

If only you had paid attention, eh?

It does not matter how may times you make the claim:
Correlation does not prove causation.

He broke the law.
You have easy access to just about anything when you're willing to break the law.

The USSC discarded your argument in 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2022.

Until then the current jurisprudence stands, and you don't get to ignore it.

You have not once, ever demonstrated to me or anyone else, the necessary relationship you claim.
Because....
Correlation does not prove causation.

And thus, you flee.
Concession accepted.

 

Even if he did the moment he took possession of it it was illegal

 

I did.
You just don't like the answer, because it negates the point you think you can make.

 

Maybe we should ban people who cannot legally own a firearm from acquiring them illegally.
You know, like double-secret probation.

 

So what you're saying is the possibility, and I don't know how he got the gun yet so I'm using the word possibility, he got a gun without a background check isn't at all an issue. The issue is that the bad person did something bad and that's all we should worry about? Not about a loophole that can be exploited by bad people?

 

I don't think it's near as big of an issue as you're making it out to be. Any gun owner with any common sense whatsoever who had legally purchased that gun means that his name is now connected to that serial number should something happen with that gun.

So any owner who sells a gun that has a iota of common Sense is going to at least want the person's first and last name and check the person out for their self

 

Ah. The loophole nonsense. Again.
Demonstrate to us, in detail, how anyone can legally avoid the background checks required by federal law.
Absent this demonstration, it cannot be soundly or honestly argued that there is a loophole in that federal law.

 

Yes they do. They show that gun HOMICIDES went up during a time gun ownership was increasing. So how do you explain the bumps? I have one! As guns increased, more people had them and thus were able to commit more homicides.

Google can make you appear...more Latiny I guess.

Oh, that's right. You want me to prove causation...while you refuse to. Because you realize what you posted above is correlation...not causation. You know how you show causation? Your able to explain anomalies in your data that don't conform to your conclusion. Maybe major in something other than how to google Latin phrases next time you attend school...? Anyway, if you can't come to a logical conclusion based on the data, you have nothing to say with it.

I still do. The trend of gun deaths has risen over all in the US when compared to gun ownership. The logical conclusion is if guns are easier to own legally, they lower the cost barrier for guns to be owned legally and illegally. The more a dangerous weapon is available, the more deaths it will cause. This same trend can be seen in non-weapons that cause death. Automobile accidents were zero before they existed and rose as more people owned cars. They continue to trend that way. Deaths have gone up and down, explained by improved safety measures and regulations on how people drive. The same is true of airplanes. Deaths fluctuate based on mitigating, aka regulating, the risk airlines take. Again, these are all easily explained conclusions based on the available data. That what's causation is, explaining why your data changed. Feel free to start doing that at some point. Or not, I couldn't care less.

No, not at all.

Right when conservative activist judges took over, I agree. But judges dies and sometimes liberal activists ones arrive on the bench. That's my point, the court's word is not the word of anything other than those who paid to put them there. One day it will be dominated by those who oppose guns. Then will sing their praises? Doubtful.

I sure can because one day it will change.

You keep saying that but you don't know what it means.

Oh God, you actually think you CAN win on the internet! That's funny.

 

I would argue that there are plenty of gun owners without common sense...

Doesn't address the issue. Texas has no law requiring such a background check. And what are you saying? We should hold the lawful gun owner who sold the gun without a background check somehow responsible...?

 

Umm...Federal only requires licensed dealers to do background checks. Private dealers are not required. Are you claiming that's somehow false...? Does the state of Texas, which is where I presume he bought the gun until it's shown otherwise, require background checks if someone sells a gun privately to another person?

You can be butthurt over the term "loophole," which is a political term, but the whole point of how the law was written to ensure that private sellers never had to do a background check...

 

If I had said that you would have no problem using the forums quote function to quote me saying that. I said No such thing therefore you will be unable to do any such thing.

I didn't say anything about Texas's laws and you do not know where the man got the gun.
So you are doing nothing more than speculating.

What we do know for a fact is that it is illegal for illegal aliens to possess guns. There is no speculation needed there

 

Said which thing?

As for my speculation, this whole thread is filled with speculation about the topic other than the original news article. Hell, it's speculation when you say gun laws wouldn't have stopped this crime. You have no way of knowing that. But I allow it in the discussion and respond. So if you don't want to claim that this man COULD have gotten this gun from a private seller and that a background check could have stopped the sale and in turn this family could be alive, that's fine. But you won't me stop from following that perfectly logical path.

 

That's the best you can do?
1994-1999 Gun related homicides fell; number of guns went up
2004-2014: Gun related homicides fell; number of guns went up
Keeping your comical claim in mind....
Explain how the number of gun-related homicides fell while the number of guns went up.

You had to Google post hoc?
Why am I not surprised?
Point remains: Correlation does not prove causation.
In fact, correlation doe snot even IMPLY causation.

Well..
-You claim causation
-Burden of proof lies with you
So... yeah.
And you can't

I haven't claimed causation of anything, so...

Yes
You demonstrate the necessary relationship between the cause you claim and the effect you cite
Something you know you cannot do.

See 1993-1999 and 2004-2014, noted above.

You cannot demonstrate this to be true

See 1993-1999 and 2004-2014, noted above.

Translation:
You only accept USSC decisions you agree with.
What a surprise.

You know your statement, above, is false

And I -continue- to win.

 

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part where you demonstrated to us, in detail, how anyone can legally avoid the background checks required by federal law.
Absent this demonstration, it cannot be soundly or honestly argued that there is a loophole in that federal law.

Care to try again?

 

I don't know about winning, but it certainly demonstrates a graph means nothing to those that don't understand them

 

Why do you think a legal requirement for a private-sale background check would have prevented the illegal alien from getting a gun?

 

Hillary-ous, isn't it?

 

I'm glad you have decided what you allow into this conversation...

We know if we had more effective border security he wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having this conversation or any of the speculation coming from it

 

Deported ----- 4 ----- times.

 

Or... just maybe, they can obtain them from our own government through a failed fast & furious program. Our US government gave thousands of firearms to known criminals such as this man.

 

And gave 600,000 actual real assault rifles to our enemies overseas.

 

The US has become EXTREMELY efficient at arming our enemies... all the while, working feverishly to disarm their own citizenry.

 

I didn't say that, I said not every gun sale is subject to a federal background check. I then indicated that loophole is a political term. The law was written to ensure that private dealers are not required to do federal background checks. That is undeniable fact.

 

Buy the gun in a private sale.

 

So you agree:
it is impossible to legally avoid the background checks required by federal law.
As such, there can be no loophole in that law.

Yes - in this case, a term erroneously used by people who need to lie to make a point.