• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we begin to adopt a far more sensible and mature attitude about firearms. We look at them as tools - nothing more and nothing less. We put them in their proper perspectives and quit elevating them to the level of the Holy and the Perfect.

That would be step one.

The problem you are highlighting is gunners do not look beyond the end of the barrel while the AGs can't see the target at the same time.
 
You're right. Water guns were made to annoy people.

Nope. As I said above, assault rifles -- the M-16 and similar -- were designed specifically to wound.

Not to mention the various types of ammunition designed to do even less damage, such as rubber bullets. They're designed specifically for non-lethal riot suppression.

Look, that you didn't know this doesn't make it any less true.
 
The initial reports make this sound organized and planned, if more than one shooter I personally suspect jihadi or similar anti-western / anti-American motivation. Too many dead and injured, my prayers go out to all the effected people and families.

Post #4 and we're off...
 
The initial reports make this sound organized and planned, if more than one shooter I personally suspect jihadi or similar anti-western / anti-American motivation. Too many dead and injured, my prayers go out to all the effected people and families.

It's amazing how far off you were.

He bought 6000 rounds on the internet.
 
I think we begin to adopt a far more sensible and mature attitude about firearms. We look at them as tools - nothing more and nothing less. We put them in their proper perspectives and quit elevating them to the level of the Holy and the Perfect.

That would be step one.

OK, but we ALL agree that their is no need for a lawnmower permit, or a circular saw permit. We have plenty of laws to restrict legal sales to criminals, and too many laws to restrict non-criminals from legally carrrying their legally purchased handguns. If I can legally walk down the street with a chainsaw, then I can legally walk down the street with a handgun as long as I obey the laws with either. ;-)
 
I think we begin to adopt a far more sensible and mature attitude about firearms. We look at them as tools - nothing more and nothing less. We put them in their proper perspectives and quit elevating them to the level of the Holy and the Perfect.

That would be step one.

True ,that would be a good start.
However the debate over guns is an old debate.
You mention gun control and the N.R.A. makes a speech about the constitution and some redneck says you can take my gun from my cold dead hand , or something like that.

Truth is I don't want to take any responsible person's gun, I just would like it to be more difficult for bad or disturbed people to buy a gun.:peace
 
Nope. As I said above, assault rifles -- the M-16 and similar -- were designed specifically to wound.

Not to mention the various types of ammunition designed to do even less damage, such as rubber bullets. They're designed specifically for non-lethal riot suppression.

Look, that you didn't know this doesn't make it any less true.

The M-16 is a type of gun. I am talking about guns. Guns period. As in.....I don't have the patience for this semantic dance so have fun.

"The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980’s. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic."
http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm
 
Last edited:
OK, but we ALL agree that their is no need for a lawnmower permit, or a circular saw permit. We have plenty of laws to restrict legal sales to criminals, and too many laws to restrict non-criminals from legally carrrying their legally purchased handguns. If I can legally walk down the street with a chainsaw, then I can legally walk down the street with a handgun as long as I obey the laws with either. ;-)

I remember the famous essay written by the superb historian Richard Hofsteder on American Gun Culture written over forty years ago. I doubt today if it would have a chance in hell of getting published as the right has so succeeded in making gun culture as American as apple pie and motherhood.

I do NOT think this should be a debate about only laws. It must be a debate about changing american culture so that firearms are not gloried, worshipped or admired the way they are. They should be looked at as utilitarian tools - no more and no less. We will NOT solve the problem of American violence being three times that of Canada - our closest and most similar neighbor - until we get rid of American gun culture.

I DO NOT want to live in a nation where you or anybody else is openly carrying a gun on the street even if you are obeying the laws. That is simply my preference. You want to get a CCW and have it under your jacket - I can accept that. YOu want a gun in your home for protection - fine and good. You want one in your business for protection against crime - you have my complete support.
 
and why does crazy and evil find its way far more often in the USA than in any other single society?

More than which societies? Germany? Spain? Cambodia? Vietnam? North Korea? Bosnia? Serbia? Russia? China? Argentina? El Salvador? Venezuala? Nicaragua? Mexico? Finland? Latvia? Plenty of crazy has gone found it's way in those societies. Lot's societies have way more crazy mother****ers than us.
 
I remember the famous essay written by the superb historian Richard Hofsteder on American Gun Culture written over forty years ago. I doubt today if it would have a chance in hell of getting published as the right has so succeeded in making gun culture as American as apple pie and motherhood.

I do NOT think this should be a debate about only laws. It must be a debate about changing american culture so that firearms are not gloried, worshipped or admired the way they are. They should be looked at as utilitarian tools - no more and no less. We will NOT solve the problem of American violence being three times that of Canada - our closest and most similar neighbor - until we get rid of American gun culture.

I DO NOT want to live in a nation where you or anybody else is openly carrying a gun on the street even if you are obeying the laws. That is simply my preference. You want to get a CCW and have it under your jacket - I can accept that. YOu want a gun in your home for protection - fine and good. You want one in your business for protection against crime - you have my complete support.

Now, there's a leftist bullet that I haven't heard in a while.
 
The M-16 is a type of gun. I am talking about guns. Guns period. As in.....I don't have the patience for this semantic dance so have fun.

You're giving up and running away; I get it.

Look, you're wrong. Not all guns are designed to kill. It's a fact. A fact you don't want to acknowledge, but a fact nonetheless.
 
The M-16 is a type of gun. I am talking about guns. Guns period. As in.....I don't have the patience for this semantic dance so have fun.


It's not semantics, it's fact: The 5.56mm ball was developed to wound, not to kill. The logic being, if you wound one man, two other men are taken out of the fight to care for him.
 
I think we begin to adopt a far more sensible and mature attitude about firearms. We look at them as tools - nothing more and nothing less. We put them in their proper perspectives and quit elevating them to the level of the Holy and the Perfect.

That would be step one.

What perspective should we put them in? An outright ban?
 
More than which societies? Germany? Spain? Cambodia? Vietnam? North Korea? Bosnia? Serbia? Russia? China? Argentina? El Salvador? Venezuala? Nicaragua? Mexico? Finland? Latvia? Plenty of crazy has gone found it's way in those societies. Lot's societies have way more crazy mother****ers than us.

I provided two links for all to look at the facts. The first was a list of murder sprees from around the world and you will note the dominance of the USA on that list. Yes, other nations have had bad incidents of mass murder. But find us one that can match the USA in incident after incident after incident after incident year after year after year after year. The second was the murder rate where America is far worst than most other non third world nations with similar economies such as Canada, Japan, England, Ireland, germany, Spain, Italy and many others.
 
What perspective should we put them in? An outright ban?

Why do you ask dishonest questions that I have already answered before they were ever asked? Your answer was in the portion of my post you reporduced. Like my kids used to say as teenagers...... DUH.
 
And on a slightly different, but related point, assault rifles such as the M-16 were designed specifically to wound, not to kill.

(Different assuming you mean the blank to be "lay down suppression.")
Yep, exactly right. Full autos are not worthless, but they will suppress better than kill, rideup makes them laughably inaccurate for a majority of shooters, the reason our military went to burst fire was to save money on wasted rounds. The M-16 is designed to different specs as well, the older models had more stopping power, the A4 is more of a defensive "to wound" on target rifle, little tumble, more velocity than it's counterparts meaning less fatal in most circumstances.
 
Yep. Killing an enemy soldier removes ONE from the battle, wounding removes at least TWO from the fight and requires expensive treatment to keep morale up. ;-)
Correct, one of the nastiest things Vietcong snipers did was to wound the point man in a battallion and pick off the rest of the soldiers that tried to get him out of the line of fire.
 
Why do you ask dishonest questions that I have already answered before they were ever asked? Your answer was in the portion of my post you reporduced. Like my kids used to say as teenagers...... DUH.

Well, go ahead and clarify things for us. Please?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom