• 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!

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

Black Manta said:
And I ask again, what will this accomplish? Criminals are ignoring the drug laws no matter how harsh. Please explain how regulating guns will make any difference to criminals? Since all you are doing is making legal gun owners outlaws.
Click to expand...

I tend to believe that gun industry, the manufacturers of firearms, and the sellers of guns have a responsibility to ensure that the guns they sell or produce do not end up in the wrong hands.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I tend to believe that gun industry, the manufacturers of firearms, and the sellers of guns have a responsibility to ensure that the guns they sell or produce do not end up in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

So the makers guns etc should monitor all the distributors and all purchases. Then keep records of all those including private sales? Then hire a private police force to monitor gun trafficking from sales to other country's? That is utter nonsense. :roll:

Then we better have the makers of knifes and baseball bats do the same.
 
Black Manta said:
You don't. You attack the root of the problem...

Instead of getting a task force together to register and/or ban assault weapons. Why don't they put together a task force to study the root cause of gang violence and how to address it in minority neighborhoods. Or is that much to complicated?
Click to expand...

In NYC (you know, the city that Bloomberg is actually the Mayor of) they did exactly that. They studied the problem, and came up with a solution. Now, gang-related shootings have dropped dramatically.

Can anyone guess which policies contributed greatly to this reduction in gun crime?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Then how does one deal with guns purchased by gangs.
Click to expand...

End the war on drugs and there won't be the incentives for gangs or cartels to exist and make so much drug money, or engage in so much violence.

Unitedwestand13 said:
I tend to believe that gun industry, the manufacturers of firearms, and the sellers of guns have a responsibility to ensure that the guns they sell or produce do not end up in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

I think that is as unreasonable as holding Ford responsible for a drunk driver with a Mustang. Only the criminal is responsible, not the victim or the means.
 
sangha said:
In NYC (you know, the city that Bloomberg is actually the Mayor of) they did exactly that. They studied the problem, and came up with a solution. Now, gang-related shootings have dropped dramatically.

Can anyone guess which policies contributed greatly to this reduction in gun crime?
Click to expand...

Well it was not the gun laws since Chicago's gun laws were just as restrictive and yet they are high on the crime list. It was aggressive policing that helped turn it around....

"The department began analyzing victim reports daily to target resources to where crime patterns were emerging. Top brass held commanders accountable for the safety of their precincts. And officers were expected to intervene when they observed someone acting suspiciously—maybe asking the person a few questions, perhaps frisking him if legally justified. In so doing, they sent the message in violence-plagued areas that law and order was still in effect. - Heather Mac Donald: How to Return New York City to the Street Gangs - WSJ.com

As Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC shows gun laws had almost nothing to do with it.

A little research goes a long way.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I am not arguing for stoping it, I am arguing for regulating it.
Click to expand...

I find those who ignore our history and continue to claim that their only goal is making it harder for CRIMINALS to get guns to be either ignorant of reality or disingenuous. Because deep down most of you who have accepted the faith based belief that passing laws that only apply to law abiding people will actually impact criminals have already accepted-as a tenet of their faith-that our rights are subordinate to your solutions for "public safety"
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I tend to believe that gun industry, the manufacturers of firearms, and the sellers of guns have a responsibility to ensure that the guns they sell or produce do not end up in the wrong hands.
Click to expand...

Really? Does that apply to makers/sellers of knives, chainsaws, gasoline (sold in handy, "to go" containers) and baseball bats? It is already illegal for felons or the insane to have guns. It is not laws that we lack but enforcement of them.
 
Black Manta said:
Well it was not the gun laws since Chicago's gun laws were just as restrictive and yet they are high on the crime list. It was aggressive policing that helped turn it around....

"The department began analyzing victim reports daily to target resources to where crime patterns were emerging. Top brass held commanders accountable for the safety of their precincts. And officers were expected to intervene when they observed someone acting suspiciously—maybe asking the person a few questions, perhaps frisking him if legally justified. In so doing, they sent the message in violence-plagued areas that law and order was still in effect. - Heather Mac Donald: How to Return New York City to the Street Gangs - WSJ.com

As Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC shows gun laws had almost nothing to do with it.

A little research goes a long way.
Click to expand...

Bloomberg's jihad is easy to understand-its an attitude that one can date back to medieval ages when the introduction of the crossbow meant that a peasant now had the means to kill an armored knight

Bloomberg is filthy rich and has all the power that comes from that. He has the authority of government behind him. What terrifies people like him is the thought that some "peasant" with a pistol can wipe away all the advantages he has over the low born. And deep down I think that is what motivates this gaping asshole's actions
 
TurtleDude said:
Bloomberg's jihad is easy to understand-its an attitude that one can date back to medieval ages when the introduction of the crossbow meant that a peasant now had the means to kill an armored knight

Bloomberg is filthy rich and has all the power that comes from that. He has the authority of government behind him. What terrifies people like him is the thought that some "peasant" with a pistol can wipe away all the advantages he has over the low born. And deep down I think that is what motivates this gaping asshole's actions
Click to expand...

Well I would not go that far... He is a gaping asshole though, lol.
 
Black Manta said:
Well I would not go that far... He is a gaping asshole though, lol.
Click to expand...

I would, I have studied these people for years. Their motivations are patent
 
I just finished readin the article. This is what kills me. They targeted high crime area's with the stop and frisk. It worked as we know minority's are responsible for the majority of violent crime. It is a uncomfortable fact. So we know this program is working due to the drastic drop in crime for the city of New York. Now this is going on...

Such proactive stops (or "stop-and-frisks") have averted countless crimes. But a chorus of critics, led by the New York Times, charges that the NYPD's policy is racist because the majority of those stopped are black and Hispanic. Every declared Democratic candidate for mayor in 2013 has vowed to eliminate stop-and-frisks or significantly reduce them. A federal judge overseeing a class-action lawsuit against the NYPD has already announced her conviction that the department's stop practices are unconstitutional, the prelude to putting the department under judicial control. - Heather Mac Donald: How to Return New York City to the Street Gangs - WSJ.com

Thank you liberals for throwing common sense and what works out the window yet again for PC nonsense. It's a damn shame.
 
Black Manta said:
Well it was not the gun laws since Chicago's gun laws were just as restrictive and yet they are high on the crime list. It was aggressive policing that helped turn it around....

"The department began analyzing victim reports daily to target resources to where crime patterns were emerging. Top brass held commanders accountable for the safety of their precincts. And officers were expected to intervene when they observed someone acting suspiciously—maybe asking the person a few questions, perhaps frisking him if legally justified. In so doing, they sent the message in violence-plagued areas that law and order was still in effect. - Heather Mac Donald: How to Return New York City to the Street Gangs - WSJ.com

As Chicago, Detroit and Washington DC shows gun laws had almost nothing to do with it.

A little research goes a long way.
Click to expand...

Stop and frisk worked because they targetted people they thought were carrying concealed weapons in violation of NYC's tight gun safety regulations.
 
sangha said:
Stop and frisk worked because they targetted people they thought were carrying concealed weapons in violation of NYC's tight gun safety regulations.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They did not have a New York city conceal and carry. That is enforcing the law. It had literally nothing to do with any other gun restriction or law, nothing. Had nothing to do with citizens legally owning guns or assault weapons. If the other gun laws were to disappear tomorrow, it would make no difference in the crime drop. Which coincidentally had not a damn thing to do with Bloomberg.

Like I said a little research goes a long way.
 
Black Manta said:
Exactly. They did not have a New York city conceal and carry. That is enforcing the law.
Click to expand...

You mean "enforcing the laws which gun nuts think are unconstitutional, leave people defenseless, and increase crime"

It had literally nothing to do with any other gun restriction or law, nothing.
Click to expand...

I see. They were arrested for violating law which restrict gun ownership, but it had nothing to do with laws which restrict gun ownership :screwy
 
Black Manta said:
You don't. You attack the root of the problem...

Instead of getting a task force together to register and/or ban assault weapons. Why don't they put together a task force to study the root cause of gang violence and how to address it in minority neighborhoods. Or is that much to complicated?
Click to expand...


If we were to treat violent gangs in the same light we treat terrorist organizations, which in my mind they are, we would solve the problem rather quickly I imagine.
 
sangha said:
You mean "enforcing the laws which gun nuts think are unconstitutional, leave people defenseless, and increase crime"
Click to expand...

No. I mean what I said. Nice dishonest and lame try though. Keep beating that defenseless strawman.

Conceal and carry is a good thing. It is also enforceable for those who don't legally have a license. It requires an FBI background check etc. They don't just give them out. Carrying concealed without a license in NY is a felony which is why the aggressive enforcement worked..

sangha said:
I see. They were arrested for violating law which restrict gun ownership, but it had nothing to do with laws which restrict gun ownership :screwy
Click to expand...

You obviously can't read as I said nothing even close. Conceal and carry has nothing at all to do with ownership.

Try again.

I notice you left this out so you could try to build your strawman and take my statements out of context....

Had nothing to do with citizens legally owning guns or assault weapons. If the other gun laws were to disappear tomorrow, it would make no difference in the crime drop. Which coincidentally had not a damn thing to do with Bloomberg. - Black Manta

Again nice try. :lamo
 
Last edited:
Black Manta said:
No. I mean what I said. Nice dishonest and lame try though. Keep beating that defenseless strawman.

Conceal and carry is a good thing. It is also enforceable for those who don't legally have a license. It requires an FBI background check etc. They don't just give them out. Carrying concealed without a license in NY is a felony which is why the aggressive enforcement worked..



You obviously can't read as I said nothing even close. Conceal and carry has nothing at all to do with ownership.

Try again.

I notice you left this out so you could try to build your strawman and take my statements out of context....

Had nothing to do with citizens legally owning guns or assault weapons. If the other gun laws were to disappear tomorrow, it would make no difference in the crime drop. Which coincidentally had not a damn thing to do with Bloomberg. - Black Manta

Again nice try. :lamo
Click to expand...

The people arrested under S&F were arrested for concealed carry. Carrying a weapon is as much a right as owning one under the 2nd.

However, I am pleased to see that you are not bothered by restrictions on the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is progress IMO.
 
joko104 said:
See my signature line...
Since your study specifically picked SEVEN Years, multiple the number of violent crimes, rapes, murders avoided by 7 and the number of home invaders driven off also by 7.
What doesn't the media EVER report that? Why don't you give a damn? 7,000,000 violent assaults against people avoided and 3,500,000 home invaders driven off due to private gun ownership.
Click to expand...

It might be a bad analogy, but in the same vein as your signature line - the vast majority of people who get a flu shot in order to prevent contracting the flu succeed even though a small percentage of those people die from complications. The government does not move to ban all flu shots nor do they try to discourage people from getting the flu shots simply because a relative few die using them.
 
sangha said:
The people arrested under S&F were arrested for concealed carry. Carrying a weapon is as much a right as owning one under the 2nd.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Nice stretch. It is up to the sates and local governments to decide that issue as upheld by the SCOTUS. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to carry openly or concealed in any municipality. The people were arrested for illegal conceal and carry. Nothing unconstitutional about it as they still must follow state regulations on conceal carry.

sangha said:
However, I am pleased to see that you are not bothered by restrictions on the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is progress IMO.
Click to expand...

Another incorrect strawman.

I am not bothered by the state and local governments exorcising there own laws about conceal and carry. Conceal and carry is a right, but is regulated by each state.

You already look like you have no clue as to what you are talking about. So please continue.
 
Last edited:
Black Manta said:
No it's not. Nice stretch. It is up to the sates and local governments to decide that issue as upheld by the SCOTUS. The right to bear arms has nothing to do with the ability to carry openly or concealed in any municipality. The people were arrested for illegal conceal and carry. Nothing unconstitutional about it.



Another incorrect strawman.

I am not bothered by the state and local governments exorcising there own laws about conceal and carry. Conceal and carry is a privilege, not a right.

You already look like you have no clue as to what you are talking about. So please continue.
Click to expand...

I am pleased that you do not object to restrictions on CCW. I hope that more gun nuts come along to your position on the matter
 
sangha said:
I am pleased that you do not object to restrictions on CCW. I hope that more gun nuts come along to your position on the matter
Click to expand...

It is not a restriction. It is regulated by the state. Illinois tried to stop it, but now they must come up with regulations to allow it.

Stop with the strawman already, you lost. Get over it a move on to something legitimate.
 
sangha said:
I am pleased that you do not object to restrictions on CCW. I hope that more gun nuts come along to your position on the matter
Click to expand...

Here is your original statement...

sangha said:
In NYC (you know, the city that Bloomberg is actually the Mayor of) they did exactly that. They studied the problem, and came up with a solution. Now, gang-related shootings have dropped dramatically.

Can anyone guess which policies contributed greatly to this reduction in gun crime?
Click to expand...

All of which has been proven to be completely and utterly wrong on all fronts.

Trying to redirect and call names like "gun nuts" will not save face. You already have egg on it.
 
Black Manta said:
It is not a restriction. It is regulated by the state. Illinois tried to stop it, but now they must come up with regulations to allow it.

Stop with the strawman already, you lost. Get over it a move on to something legitimate.
Click to expand...

Not allowing the majority of people who want to carry concealed the ability to do so is most certainly a restriction.

It is a constitutionally allowable restriction, but a restriction nonetheless
 
sangha said:
Not allowing the majority of people who want to carry concealed the ability to do so is most certainly a restriction.
Click to expand...

If you can own a weapon legally, you can get a CCW. No one is being denied who can legally own a weapon.

sangha said:
It is a constitutionally allowable restriction, but a restriction nonetheless
Click to expand...

Wrong again. As I said if you can legally own a weapon, you can get a conceal carry in your state of residence. Even out of state in some cases. So no.

Do you know anything on this subject? Or are you just guessing and making things up?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom