• 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!

Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standard

Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Tap dance around the fact all you want Joe, you got busted in your fallacy, now just accept it and move on. The thread isn't about you.



Well, I do apologize for not catching the link to this study you are hanging your hat on. Could you possibly post the link again so that I may review it myself without spending the afternoon searching for it?



The mistake you make here is to assume that you are the judge of what is reasonable.



I didn't ask you that. Can you answer the question?
Click to expand...

J, you making a mistake in your diagnosis isn't me getting busted, sorry. You entered a conversation apparently not understanding at all what was being said.

Try national gun deaths if you can't wait until I get to the computer. Suited deaths are easily verified. So are accidental deaths and deaths where the person not a criminal, but a family member or friend in a dispute. These are all gathered and easily verified. It is also linked on. Few threads.

As for reasonable, find anyone objective who think wild leaps going contrary to what has been said is reasonable. I'd live to see that.

And no, I won't pretend your asked a real question. The amendment is to be read in its entirety and a few words out of hat context.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
J, you making a mistake in your diagnosis isn't me getting busted, sorry. You entered a conversation apparently not understanding at all what was being said.

Try national gun deaths if you can't wait until I get to the computer. Suited deaths are easily verified. So are accidental deaths and deaths where the person not a criminal, but a family member or friend in a dispute. These are all gathered and easily verified. It is also linked on. Few threads.

As for reasonable, find anyone objective who think wild leaps going contrary to what has been said is reasonable. I'd live to see that.

And no, I won't pretend your asked a real question. The amendment is to be read in its entirety and a few words out of hat context.
Click to expand...


Joe, You make me laugh....If I didn't think you were serious, it would only make it more funny....But, it also has its sadness in the fact that I really fear you may think that what you are saying here isn't completely, transparently, and absurdly dishonest, but it is Joe, and you seem to be the only one that doesn't know that.....
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Joe, You make me laugh....If I didn't think you were serious, it would only make it more funny....But, it also has its sadness in the fact that I really fear you may think that what you are saying here isn't completely, transparently, and absurdly dishonest, but it is Joe, and you seem to be the only one that doesn't know that.....
Click to expand...

No j it isn't. I think this tactic comforts some of you as it allows you to avoid dealing with points made. The numbers of deaths, for example, don't support the gun myth, so you try to excuse and avoid them. You don't want hem mentioned. And you have to take the person you seek with beyond what has been said, as it s easier to fight that strawman than the argument before you.
 
Boo Radley said:
No fear and hyperbole.
Click to expand...

You mean like the fear of guns to push for their banishment??

And the hyperbole of stating that "gun deaths" are more important than other ways people die??

If you remove suicide and killing friends and family (accidentally or otherwise) citizens use guns even less, face even less gun need situations, and have no obligation to tackle any if the dangerous situations police do.
Click to expand...

Absolutely false.... 75% of gun crime in the us is gang related.

But take away the guns and people just find other weapons; knives, hammers, rocks, etc... And in fact, people are more likely to be killed by knife or hammer than they are of being shot.

Right, but just because they are not confronting criminals all day does not mean that a criminal will not confront them... And it's at that point where you either have to defend yourself to the extent that you can, or succumb to the criminal.

You are proposing that because people don't get robbed or killed daily in your vicinity means that it doesn't happen. This is such a ridiculously fallacious argument.

Finally, if you see someone being attacked, if you atelier armed then you can easily help someone in need before the cops arrive too late... Or you can just keep walking and justify in your mind.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

boo radley said:
no j it isn't. I think this tactic comforts some of you as it allows you to avoid dealing with points made. The numbers of deaths, for example, don't support the gun myth, so you try to excuse and avoid them. You don't want hem mentioned. And you have to take the person you seek with beyond what has been said, as it s easier to fight that strawman than the argument before you.
Click to expand...


zzzzzzzzzz!
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BmanMcfly said:
You mean like the fear of guns to push for their banishment??

And the hyperbole of stating that "gun deaths" are more important than other ways people die??



Absolutely false.... 75% of gun crime in the us is gang related.

But take away the guns and people just find other weapons; knives, hammers, rocks, etc... And in fact, people are more likely to be killed by knife or hammer than they are of being shot.

Right, but just because they are not confronting criminals all day does not mean that a criminal will not confront them... And it's at that point where you either have to defend yourself to the extent that you can, or succumb to the criminal.

You are proposing that because people don't get robbed or killed daily in your vicinity means that it doesn't happen. This is such a ridiculously fallacious argument.

Finally, if you see someone being attacked, if you atelier armed then you can easily help someone in need before the cops arrive too late... Or you can just keep walking and justify in your mind.
Click to expand...

You do realize your 75% figure doesn't dispute what I said?

And no, there is nothing easy about shooting straight in a stressful situation.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Redress said:
And now you are just putting words in my mouth. Get back to me if you are ever interested in honest debate.
Click to expand...

We already know that is not possible with you.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
I bet I could not find one single citizen in our largest city here in my state who has pulled a weapon against a criminal in the last year. You are largely supposing the suit your preconceived notion of the gun myth.
Click to expand...
Tell me the state and I have a hunch I could prove you wrong assuming the city allows it's citizens to own firearms.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

BretJ said:
Tell me the state and I have a hunch I could prove you wrong assuming the city allows it's citizens to own firearms.
Click to expand...

Iowa.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Just for Boo.....



You're welcome....
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Just for Boo.....



You're welcome....
Click to expand...


I matched with the opposite opinion earlier.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

For j:

Chiefs vs. sheriffs

The divide reflects a cultural and political gulf between police chiefs and sheriffs in a number of areas, criminal justice experts told NBC News.

Police chiefs run departments in cities where most gun crimes take place, according to FBI crime statistics over the past decade. Sheriffs run departments in counties, some or all of their jurisdictions covering rural areas where hunting and sport shooting are cherished rights. As a result, "you have these wildly different views of guns," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Police chiefs, sheriffs divided over gun control measures - U.S. News
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
For j:

Chiefs vs. sheriffs

The divide reflects a cultural and political gulf between police chiefs and sheriffs in a number of areas, criminal justice experts told NBC News.

Police chiefs run departments in cities where most gun crimes take place, according to FBI crime statistics over the past decade. Sheriffs run departments in counties, some or all of their jurisdictions covering rural areas where hunting and sport shooting are cherished rights. As a result, "you have these wildly different views of guns," said Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee.

Police chiefs, sheriffs divided over gun control measures - U.S. News
Click to expand...


Which is complete nonsense. Trying to equivocate using an absurd, and non blanket description of the differences between sheriff's depts, and city police depts is not only wrong, but ridiculous. I am quite sure that the Milwaukee county sheriff's dept encompasses Milwaukee city within its jurisdiction. Just as the Baltimore county sheriff also covers Balto city, and Dade county sheriff covers Miami, and so on....This Sheriff makes a valid case, and you think you counter it with some egg heads opinion that doesn't seem to know how jurisdictions work, or if he does he is being dishonest purposely to cloud the situation? pfft....Yeah, try again.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Which is complete nonsense. Trying to equivocate using an absurd, and non blanket description of the differences between sheriff's depts, and city police depts is not only wrong, but ridiculous. I am quite sure that the Milwaukee county sheriff's dept encompasses Milwaukee city within its jurisdiction. Just as the Baltimore county sheriff also covers Balto city, and Dade county sheriff covers Miami, and so on....This Sheriff makes a valid case, and you think you counter it with some egg heads opinion that doesn't seem to know how jurisdictions work, or if he does he is being dishonest purposely to cloud the situation? pfft....Yeah, try again.
Click to expand...

It's more about urban versus rural, and across the board, civilian and law enforcement, there is a difference between the two in terms of majority opinion. Notice how you see your opinion echoed as valid, and an opposing opinion as something you throw a name at.

No one is disputing jurisdictions btw.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
It's more about urban versus rural
Click to expand...

Yes, and I am saying that your characterization of what the Sheriff I showed as being some kind of bumpkin rural LEO, that doesn't know, nor speak to the concerns of inner city enforcement is bogus, and a false premise.

and across the board, civilian and law enforcement, there is a difference between the two in terms of majority opinion.
Click to expand...

No, that is dishonest. We were not talking about Civilian v. Law Enforcement in terms of opinion. This is you moving the goalposts.

Notice how you see your opinion echoed as valid, and an opposing opinion as something you throw a name at.
Click to expand...

When the opposing opinion is furthering a dishonest distinction to lie about the issue, then yes he deserves a name.

No one is disputing jurisdictions btw.
Click to expand...

Oh, I believe this professor is when he frames his argument in the false way he does.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Yes, and I am saying that your characterization of what the Sheriff I showed as being some kind of bumpkin rural LEO, that doesn't know, nor speak to the concerns of inner city enforcement is bogus, and a false premise.



No, that is dishonest. We were not talking about Civilian v. Law Enforcement in terms of opinion. This is you moving the goalposts.



When the opposing opinion is furthering a dishonest distinction to lie about the issue, then yes he deserves a name.



Oh, I believe this professor is when he frames his argument in the false way he does.
Click to expand...

You sure project a lot. I didn't characterize him at all?

Nor did I say civilian versus law enforcement. I said across the board regardless of which group we're talking about.

And, your opposition is not lying. Those police officer who give an opinion you don't like cant be called liars. Wrong.

And, no, he is not disputing jurisdictions. He's only making the distinction between rural and urban. It is only about different views due to different circumstances.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
You sure project a lot.
Click to expand...

What ever Joe, Who's name calling now? :roll:

I didn't characterize him at all?
Click to expand...

Oh I am sorry....When you posted the article from US News, that was characterizing a distinction between Sheriff's, and Urban Law Enforcement, as being "culturally, and politically" different, I assumed that the reason you posted it was because you agreed with the article...Was I wrong?

Nor did I say civilian versus law enforcement. I said across the board regardless of which group we're talking about.
Click to expand...

And I highlighted a LEO that was contraindicated to the premise you were advancing. Strange how all you can do now in the face of that is turn your focus on me, rather than the topic.

And, no, he is not disputing jurisdictions. He's only making the distinction between rural and urban. It is only about different views due to different circumstances.
Click to expand...

And I gave you at least three examples where that premise is laughably inaccurate, and only furthered to dishonestly promote that Sheriff's in favor of 2nd amendment rights are somehow catering to hunters, or some other political consideration (the implication is conservative). It is wrong.

In fact upon thinking about it further, I don't think that there is a Sheriff's dept. that doesn't have jurisdiction in a major city if that city is in their county....So, instead of cherry picking some city chief appointee from a liberal mayor, or some professor that tries to pontificate using deceptive language for political consideration that you agree with, stick to the example of what the sheriff said....He sees his dept stretched thin, and response times lengthened, therefore rightly informs people in his county that the first line of defense to protect themselves, and their property.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
What ever Joe, Who's name calling now? :roll:



Oh I am sorry....When you posted the article from US News, that was characterizing a distinction between Sheriff's, and Urban Law Enforcement, as being "culturally, and politically" different, I assumed that the reason you posted it was because you agreed with the article...Was I wrong?



And I highlighted a LEO that was contraindicated to the premise you were advancing. Strange how all you can do now in the face of that is turn your focus on me, rather than the topic.



And I gave you at least three examples where that premise is laughably inaccurate, and only furthered to dishonestly promote that Sheriff's in favor of 2nd amendment rights are somehow catering to hunters, or some other political consideration (the implication is conservative). It is wrong.

In fact upon thinking about it further, I don't think that there is a Sheriff's dept. that doesn't have jurisdiction in a major city if that city is in their county....So, instead of cherry picking some city chief appointee from a liberal mayor, or some professor that tries to pontificate using deceptive language for political consideration that you agree with, stick to the example of what the sheriff said....He sees his dept stretched thin, and response times lengthened, therefore rightly informs people in his county that the first line of defense to protect themselves, and their property.
Click to expand...

Noting you we're wrong is not name calling j. Nor does being culturally and politically different isn't calling anyone a bumpkin. Being different doesn't make either one bad. So, yes, you are wildly wrong about a few things here.

J, you turned the focus on you by getting what was said wrong. I corrected you, and instead of addressing the correct point, you think I'm turning the docs on you?

J, I've showed more than one in many cases, from different parts of the country. You have a ways to go before you catch up with my number. You get forgetful of past posts sometimes. And the difference between rural and urban still stands.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
Noting you we're wrong is not name calling j. Nor does being culturally and politically different isn't calling anyone a bumpkin. Being different doesn't make either one bad. So, yes, you are wildly wrong about a few things here.

J, you turned the focus on you by getting what was said wrong. I corrected you, and instead of addressing the correct point, you think I'm turning the docs on you?

J, I've showed more than one in many cases, from different parts of the country. You have a ways to go before you catch up with my number. You get forgetful of past posts sometimes. And the difference between rural and urban still stands.
Click to expand...


Well, I didn't realize that the number of your side v. my side was the determination of who is right....Seems rather childish if you ask me...What I forget or don't is irrelevant here, and the fact remains that Sheriff's depts. have jurisdiction in most, if not all major cities. And this particular sheriff was expressing a widely held belief in the LE community regardless of what your examples of city police chief's say.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Well, I didn't realize that the number of your side v. my side was the determination of who is right....Seems rather childish if you ask me...What I forget or don't is irrelevant here, and the fact remains that Sheriff's depts. have jurisdiction in most, if not all major cities. And this particular sheriff was expressing a widely held belief in the LE community regardless of what your examples of city police chief's say.
Click to expand...

Nit saying that either. You brought up number, not me. Again, jurisdiction is not the issue. It's rural versus urban.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
Nit saying that either. You brought up number, not me. Again, jurisdiction is not the issue. It's rural versus urban.
Click to expand...

Ok, so go with that. One more reason that people flee the cities.....Yeah, that'll work out well...As far as I understand the LEO's saying what your saying in the cities are speaking about illegal guns, so your solution is to restrict legal guns? Sounds foolish to me.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

j-mac said:
Ok, so go with that. One more reason that people flee the cities.....Yeah, that'll work out well...As far as I understand the LEO's saying what your saying in the cities are speaking about illegal guns, so your solution is to restrict legal guns? Sounds foolish to me.
Click to expand...

More to easy access and the violence they face. The mistake is in thinking your can hold someone off, as if they said, "j, go get your gun and try and stop me." In any gun fight, he who has the gun out first usually wins. Neither easy access to guns or limiting guns is entirely effective. Both sides can point to what ifs, and both are are weak arguments.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Boo Radley said:
Again, jurisdiction is not the issue. It's rural versus urban.
Click to expand...

This statement is six kinds of stupid. If the sheriff has jurisdiction over the city (urban) and the county (rural) your argument is null and void of logic and reasoning.

No surprise there...
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

Dammitboy! said:
This statement is six kinds of stupid. If the sheriff has jurisdiction over the city (urban) and the county (rural) your argument is null and void of logic and reasoning.

No surprise there...
Click to expand...

You six shades of lost in the discussion, but the point isn't jurisdiction in any way. it is about the different views on average found in rural and urban ares.
 
Re: Biden: Obama Considering 'Executive Order' to Deal With Guns | The Weekly Standar

What are these different views according to you? I've lived in both and find no difference. Still waiting to find a post of yours that involves reason or logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom