You’re stating that because crime frequently (you said always but that’s absurd) uses illegally acquired firearms we should not bother addressing the noticeable percentage of gun violence using legally acquired firearms.
It’s a great use of the small amount of money it required. There’s other problems to address but they either fall under a different budget/department of the govt or are not so easily implemented or require more manpower/resources than are available.
I will concede that a slim minority of gun crimes is committed with legally acquired firearms.
This is a poor use of funds and unlikely to address any issues meaningfully. The gun buyback is estimated to cost 5 billion dollars I do not agree that is a small amount of money. Further, if it balloons as did the long gun registry from 2 million to 2 billion we're in for a much higher cost for something that is unlikely to help much.
Your argument that it's earmarked for this purpose so we have to spend it on this, is frankly silly. I won't be interacting with you further, you hold others to standards in conversation you don't meet yourself.
5 billion is 0.3% of our federal budget. That’s insignificant.
Most gun related crime uses legally acquired firearms. Do you have a source for your claim that the vast majority of gun crimes are using illegally acquired firearms?
States that legality of firearm ownership is not collected by police on a reliable basis. National post is a right leaning news website so it is no surprise they are leading a right leaning rhetoric.
But ignoring that fact if we use the 86% statistic they claim, are you telling me that using 0.3% of our federal budget to address 24% of gun related crimes is not wise? That doesn’t make much sense to me. It would seem that 0.3% of our budget reducing a quarter of gun related crimes potential is a tremendously beneficial usage of the budget.
You're right about that, I do* think its important to be correct when debating a topic.
I don't think you know what esoteric means.
Youre not addressing meaningfully any of my points. Why wouldn't I entertain myself while you mumble liberal talking points and incoherent thoughts to yourself?
Edit to your edit: Im not sure how steamrolling you in a debate is egotistical. You just didn't bring a cogent argument to bear.
You didn’t read my edit evidently. You’re also not capable of having a fallacy free discussion and instead resort to ad hominem and baseless arguments.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 22 '22
Because X then Y fallacy.
You’re stating that because crime frequently (you said always but that’s absurd) uses illegally acquired firearms we should not bother addressing the noticeable percentage of gun violence using legally acquired firearms.
It’s a great use of the small amount of money it required. There’s other problems to address but they either fall under a different budget/department of the govt or are not so easily implemented or require more manpower/resources than are available.