• 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!

Clackamas man, armed, confronts mall shooter

2) All internet sales of guns need to be banned. Deadly weapons should only be sold face-to-face by a federally lic. dealer.



You do realize all guns sold through the internet must be sent to a someone with a federal firearms license (FFL) in your state of residence. After the gun has shipped to the dealer in you state your must still fill out a 4473 (background check) before you may take possession of the weapon. You cannot just simply buy the gun online and have it shipped to your home with no paper trail.

its amazing the amount of idiocy spewed by the media, politicians and the fuzzy-brained gun haters. I cannot tell you how many fools have whined about automatic weapons
 
2) All internet sales of guns need to be banned. Deadly weapons should only be sold face-to-face by a federally lic. dealer.



You do realize all guns sold through the internet must be sent to a someone with a federal firearms license (FFL) in your state of residence. After the gun has shipped to the dealer in you state your must still fill out a 4473 (background check) before you may take possession of the weapon. You cannot just simply buy the gun online and have it shipped to your home with no paper trail.

the only way to buy a gun by mail without going to a dealer (and assuming you are not a dealer or holder of a Federal "Curio and relic license) is through the ODCMP-the Civilian Marksmanship program

to buy a gun (usually a GARAND surplus rifle) you have to sign an affidavit and prove

1) you are a member of a CMP certified program (gun clubs affiliated with the program)

2) proof of firearms activity-such as a CCW permit. the ODCMP conducts the same background check on you that a dealer does before the rifle is shipped to you.

but true, there is no internet sales to non license holders. it like the "Gun show loophole" is a figment of the deliberately lying anti gun thugs
 
Well, that is probably true. Haven't heard of a mass shooter taking on a gun club yet.

But on the other side of that coin is that there are some damn idiots who want to carry guns. It is like the local moron here who went into a Costco restroom to take a dump and ended up dropping his pistol on the floor causing it to fire a shot off. Fortunately nobody got hit. There are a number of stories of morons shooting their best friend because they ignored the basic rules of gunmanship.

I like the idea of this 22 year old man having a gun but not fond of the nervous Rambos waving that gun around. It is just like car drivers. Some are quite excellent and respectful and then you have the idiots.

I absolutely have no idea how you separate the idiots from intelligent people.

you do know that such accidents are often more prevalent with police officers? You also know that cops are more likely to hit the wrong target or miss the bad guy?

there are two reasons for that

armed civilians who are NOT LEOs generally are being attacked before they shoot and thus easily identify the bad guy. Cops sometimes "provoke" the conduct that leads to shootings such as the riot causing action in Cincinnati ten years ago where a cop was told Timothy Thomas had 14 WARRANTS when in reality it was 14 minor traffic capiases. The cop therefore chased after Thomas through the most dangerous area of town in the early hours of the morning only to corner Thomas in an alley. Like many black youths, Thomas didn't believe in belts or properly sized trousers and after being cornered he realized his pants were at his knees. He tried to pull his pants up only to be fatally shot by Officer Steven Roach who claimed TT was going for a gun.

the second is many cops don't like to practice-we who have CCWs tend to shoot a lot

and of course we have that story in NYC where an immigrant was shot at 41 times-hit a bunch less.

Another cincinnati incident involved a mope who drove a car up onto fountain square. The local constabulary engaged in a gun fight with the mope and his car. The training sargent was a friend of mine. THe closest cop (this was back in the days of 6 shot SW model 19 357 revolvers) got behind hard cover, aimed carefully and squeezed off 6 shots. He told the TO that he was trying to shoot a small group hoping the 5 or 6th bullet would be able to go through the hole previously created by the first few rounds and hit the mope

forensics indicate that his first shot hit the front tire, the second the hood, the third the front door-the last ended up in the trunk

this was at a stationary vehicle 17 feet away and the mope was firing at cops 120 degrees away from the cop shooting. He was shooting two handed with the weapon braced against the corner of a wall.
 
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.

I find it hilarious that you A) recognize that those who abuse guns obtain them illegally and B) think that the problem can thus be reduced by attacking legal gun sales.

Make guns difficult to get, and all that means is that the only people who will have them are those who really want them.
 
Deterence.. hahaha.. Well, if we are one dimensional thinkers, maybe. However, some of us can think beyond and rationalize the situation. Yes, you are safer in an ARMED society by being armed. However, if guns were not so easily available, it begs to question weather many of these instances would have taken place to begin with. If there were no one there with a gun, you would not need to defend yourself against it. Simple logic... All guns start out being sold legally to someone or some organization. It is what happens after that, that causes the problems. So the only way to control that, is to very tightly control, or ban guns. Those who obtain guns illegally, obtain them from someone who got them legally at some point.

You are completely correct. This represents the reality of the world. An important question to ask, however, is whether such a solution would be feasible in the US. The US compared to other countries that have implemented strict gun control policies did not have to deal with the shear volume of firearms already available to citizens in the US. Initiating a gun ban in the US would be extremely ineffective given the vast amount of firearms already in the "market" and various constitutional barriers (illegal search and seizure, 2nd amendment, etc). So what you are saying is true, but the solution is not feasible. We would not be able to meaningfully reduce the size of the pool of guns from which criminals can get them.
 
Last edited:
its amazing the amount of idiocy spewed by the media, politicians and the fuzzy-brained gun haters. I cannot tell you how many fools have whined about automatic weapons

I agree, why discriminate! Regardless of its capacity or capability, it should be heavily regulated or banned.
 
the only way to buy a gun by mail without going to a dealer (and assuming you are not a dealer or holder of a Federal "Curio and relic license) is through the ODCMP-the Civilian Marksmanship program

to buy a gun (usually a GARAND surplus rifle) you have to sign an affidavit and prove

1) you are a member of a CMP certified program (gun clubs affiliated with the program)

2) proof of firearms activity-such as a CCW permit. the ODCMP conducts the same background check on you that a dealer does before the rifle is shipped to you.

but true, there is no internet sales to non license holders. it like the "Gun show loophole" is a figment of the deliberately lying anti gun thugs


You are 100% correct about the C&R license and the CMP; I did not mention them because it is not a very common way to procure firearms, especially for criminals. I also have no idea what the "Gun show loophole" is because at least in my state you must have a background check done the same as going to a gun store.
 
You are completely correct. This represents the reality of the world. An important question to ask, however, is whether such a solution would be feasible in the US. The US compared to other countries that have implemented strict gun control policies did not have to deal with the shear volume of firearms already available to citizens in the US. Initiating a gun ban in the US would be extremely ineffective given the vast amount of firearms already in the "market" and various constitutional barriers (illegal search and seizure, 2nd amendment, etc). So what you are saying is true, but the solution is not feasible. We would not be able to meaningfully reduce the size of the pool of guns from which criminals can get them.

It certainly is feasible. It would take action on an immense scale, and this is exactly what needs to happen. I am completely flabbergasted that there are people who believe throwing more guns into this perilous situation is the answer. I just don't understand how increasing the availability of guns will solve this issue. All you would be doing is making it even cheaper to get a gun on the streets illegally.
 
It certainly is feasible. It would take action on an immense scale, and this is exactly what needs to happen. I am completely flabbergasted that there are people who believe throwing more guns into this perilous situation is the answer. I just don't understand how increasing the availability of guns will solve this issue. All you would be doing is making it even cheaper to get a gun on the streets illegally.
If a handful of robbers are waylaying merchants as they traverse common routes, isnt the answer to grab a sword yourself?

I bet you dont believe in controlled fires during dry seasons.
 
It certainly is feasible. It would take action on an immense scale, and this is exactly what needs to happen. I am completely flabbergasted that there are people who believe throwing more guns into this perilous situation is the answer. I just don't understand how increasing the availability of guns will solve this issue. All you would be doing is making it even cheaper to get a gun on the streets illegally.

Action would be required on an immense scale because of the vast amount of firearms involved and would require more than just sacrificing gun rights given the political realities in the US (things like privacy, illegal search and seizure, private property, etc). This would go so far that in my opinion the ends would no longer justify the means. I completely agree with you on everything else though.
 
If a handful of robbers are waylaying merchants as they traverse common routes, isnt the answer to grab a sword yourself?

I bet you dont believe in controlled fires during dry seasons.

No, that is not the answer. Maybe in a materialist world where you believe life is more valuable than posessions. The best solution is to empower law enforcement.

Yes, but I also believe that the majority of fires are set by the very people trying to control them.
 
Action would be required on an immense scale because of the vast amount of firearms involved and would require more than just sacrificing gun rights given the political realities in the US (things like privacy, illegal search and seizure, private property, etc). This would go so far that in my opinion the ends would no longer justify the means. I completely agree with you on everything else though.

Well, it would not be considered illegal seizure if the item you are concealing is illegal to own. And yes, you would be correct in saying that it would be nearly impossible to seize every gun due to the illegal search laws, but unless we figure out a way to accomplish this, we will all simply have to accept the reality that by living in a highly armed society, these things will happen.
 
So lets say we somehow magically get rid of all the guns, and these violent acts still happen; as they have for hundreds of years before the gun was invented; then what? What would be the new inanimate object to blame? Maybe one day we will Instead focus on trying to find the real answers for why people commit such heinous acts. But instead we play the blame game because that is far more easy.
 
So lets say we somehow magically get rid of all the guns, and these violent acts still happen; as they have for hundreds of years before the gun was invented; then what? What would be the new inanimate object to blame? Maybe one day we will Instead focus on trying to find the real answers for why people commit such heinous acts. But instead we play the blame game because that is far more easy.

I understand what you are saying completely. These things will still happen, they just wont happen nearly as often with the use of firearms. The fact that ALL of the most recent mass killings have occurred via firearms suggests this is the easiest way to kill many people quickly. Are there other ways, yes. However, if there were easier ways, these people would have utilized them rather than using guns. Guns are the issue right now that needs to be addressed.
 
Entirely false! Law enforcements motto is to PROTECT and serve. It is the motto almost every police force is based on. If the police were there only to investigate after the fact, then why is so much money put in to protecting society? If this were true, calling 911 would be pointless. They would just tell you they could not do anything until you were dead or someone else was dead. Thats just insane.

Just to let you know, courts have upheld that the police don't actually have a duty to protect you. They don't exist to serve you. They exist to protect and serve the law.
 
I understand what you are saying completely. These things will still happen, they just wont happen nearly as often with the use of firearms. The fact that ALL of the most recent mass killings have occurred via firearms suggests this is the easiest way to kill many people quickly. Are there other ways, yes. However, if there were easier ways, these people would have utilized them rather than using guns. Guns are the issue right now that needs to be addressed.

They are not. Mental health care is. Our mental stability is. Any other idea is bunk. Why? We can't stop people from being violent, but maybe we can at least give some people an outlet to stop them from going on a killing spree. Btw people don't need a gun to do this, that just happens to be what they see on the news. How many dangerous chemicals and items can you lay your hands on in a day? I know scores for me...and I am not ever in a tool store or chemical facility.

Why not address why so many mass killers are white? Educated? Do you know anything about mass killers mind set? Their drive? Motive? Does CNN? The media can't even tell you who the correct mass shooter is, and where his mother works. Maybe we should talk about how the news should only be on once a day and how we have no responsible journalism and they beat us over the head with this depressing crap.
 
I understand what you are saying completely. These things will still happen, they just wont happen nearly as often with the use of firearms. The fact that ALL of the most recent mass killings have occurred via firearms suggests this is the easiest way to kill many people quickly. Are there other ways, yes. However, if there were easier ways, these people would have utilized them rather than using guns. Guns are the issue right now that needs to be addressed.


There is nothing new in the horrible tragedy that befell NewTown CT this past week, nor is the Gun responsible for anything. It worked as designed. The person is responsible. However, it may shock some to realize that this was not even the biggest mass killing of elementary school kids...

The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan, on May 18, 1927, which killed 38 elementary school children, two teachers, and four other adults; at least 58 people were injured. The perpetrator first killed his wife, and committed suicide with his last explosion. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–14 years of age[1]) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.
The bomber was the school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, 55, who was angry after being defeated in the spring 1926 election for township clerk. He was thought to have planned his "murderous revenge" after that public defeat; he had a reputation for difficulty on the school board and in personal dealings. For much of the next year, a neighbor noticed Kehoe had stopped working on his farm and thought he might be planning suicide. During that period, Kehoe carried out steps in his plan to destroy the school and his farm by purchasing and hiding explosives.
Kehoe's wife was ill with tuberculosis and he had stopped making mortgage payments; he was under pressure for foreclosure. Some time between May 16 and the morning of May 18, 1927, Kehoe murdered his wife by hitting her on the head. On the morning of May 18 about 8:45, he exploded incendiary devices in his house and farm buildings, setting them on fire and destroying them.
Almost simultaneously, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many schoolchildren. Kehoe had used a timed detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of incendiary pyrotol, which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers gathered at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and used a rifle to detonate dynamite inside his shrapnel-filled truck, killing himself, the school superintendent, and several others nearby, as well as injuring more bystanders. During rescue efforts at the school, searchers discovered an additional 500 pounds (230 kg) of unexploded dynamite and pyrotol planted throughout the basement of the south wing. Kehoe had apparently intended to blow up and destroy the entire school.

Bath School disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notice the only gun mentioned in this tragedy was the one used to kill himself....Guns won't stop this kind of horrible event from happening.
 
Just to let you know, courts have upheld that the police don't actually have a duty to protect you. They don't exist to serve you. They exist to protect and serve the law.

Unless I am mistaken, individual rights are protected by the law. As long as things like murder, assault and harassment are protected rights by law, then police are obligated to PROTECT us and arrest those who violate these basic individual rights to be free of these things.
 
They are not. Mental health care is. Our mental stability is. Any other idea is bunk. Why? We can't stop people from being violent, but maybe we can at least give some people an outlet to stop them from going on a killing spree. Btw people don't need a gun to do this, that just happens to be what they see on the news. How many dangerous chemicals and items can you lay your hands on in a day? I know scores for me...and I am not ever in a tool store or chemical facility.

Why not address why so many mass killers are white? Educated? Do you know anything about mass killers mind set? Their drive? Motive? Does CNN? The media can't even tell you who the correct mass shooter is, and where his mother works. Maybe we should talk about how the news should only be on once a day and how we have no responsible journalism and they beat us over the head with this depressing crap.

Yes, we have a societal issue as well. One that goes very deep. I believe it all started with the feminist movement and the destruction of the family. The issue is that with our societal problems combined with the easy access to guns, we now find ourselves with these situations occurring. But, you don't get off that easy, no. Mass shootings is not the only issue we have with firearms. If that were the only issue we were having, then I would agree that this should be addressed via mental health clinics and more public awareness of mental health issues. However, even without these mass shootings, we have a gun issue in this country. To many crimes committed in connection with the use of firearms. To many firearms leaving this country into mexico killing those poor people there. Those are much larger issues than mass shootings. Mass shootings like this make up a small percentage of the total victims of gun violence every year.
 
Unless I am mistaken, individual rights are protected by the law. As long as things like murder, assault and harassment are protected rights by law, then police are obligated to PROTECT us and arrest those who violate these basic individual rights to be free of these things.

LMAO!!! WRONG! The police do NOT hace a duty to protect you. The only duty they have is to arrest someone commiting the crime. Here is the summed up wiki article that is accurate. But you can go in depth on it.

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You clearly aren't up to date on this stuff.
 
Yes, we have a societal issue as well. One that goes very deep. I believe it all started with the feminist movement and the destruction of the family. The issue is that with our societal problems combined with the easy access to guns, we now find ourselves with these situations occurring. But, you don't get off that easy, no. Mass shootings is not the only issue we have with firearms. If that were the only issue we were having, then I would agree that this should be addressed via mental health clinics and more public awareness of mental health issues. However, even without these mass shootings, we have a gun issue in this country. To many crimes committed in connection with the use of firearms. To many firearms leaving this country into mexico killing those poor people there. Those are much larger issues than mass shootings. Mass shootings like this make up a small percentage of the total victims of gun violence every year.

ALL of the issues you have listed as "problems" with firearms have been depated a thousand times over in this thread. If you want to talk about "criminal access to guns," then you are STILL talking about something we have debated up and down and left and right. We do NOT enforce our gun laws in this nation. Fast and Furious debacle ring a bell? Come on. Our government is a JOKE when it comes to actually enforcing firearms legislation.

Firearms getting IN to Mexico? Many of these are already illegal, and on top of THAT...that is an issue of BORDER SECURITY! You want to make this an emotional debate by talking about "those poor Mexicans." Don't try that. You need to keep yourself out of the emotional response zone. You stop talking logic when you do that. You are ABSOLUTELY right that Mass shootings are MINISCULE portion of gun violence. On TOP of that...the overall totals of firearms related deaths have been going DOWN in the recent years as well. This is DESPITE firearms legislation becoming MORE lax. Did you know that? No. I doubt it.

Capters the FACT of the matter is that if you google gun sales and violent crime rates over the past 10 years...crime rates have dropped and firearms have increased. YOUR position of being anti-gun is NOT one of logic. The FACT is that the 2nd Amendment protects my right to bear arms, and there is NO just cause to remove them. YOUR objective MUST be to link increased FIREARMS to INCREASED deaths, and despite ALL the banter across ALL the boards, you STILL have no evidence that this is the case. You WILL and HAVE tried to bring up the UK, Australia, and other nations. The fact is that THOSE nations cannot be used as comparison. The reason is because they do not have nearly the numbers of firearms, and they never did (the UK...their citizenry not being as well armed since the 1600s), they do NOT have the same inner city numbers, numbers of people, easier social wellfare (massive numbers making it much more difficult for our nation to do anything about social wellfare), and the list goes on. Violence is NOT a factor of arms. Violence has many contributing causes, and it has been proven time and again that the cause isn't the weapons. It is the society and what is going on IN that society.
 
Back
Top Bottom