• 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!

Armed man arrested near White House wanted ‘fire a couple of shots,’ police say

ttwtt78640 said:
They are indeed violent, and we should give these perps the DP - woops, that would be moot. Why not compare the number of deaths from motor vehicles to those of guns? More deaths and far, far more injuries could be prevented by banning cars (or reducing the speed limit to 10 mph) than by banning (or limitting the ammo capacity of) guns and there are no constitutional issues to make that hard to do.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to compare cars, which are heavily regulated, to guns. In addition to requiring licensing and restricting where they can be, we also use cars more often, and the amount of time used should be included in the calculation to determine how dangerous they should be considered.
 
Kal'Stang said:
He said "It is clear that a higher percentage of folks are armed in the rural area where I live than in a nearby city like Austin"

He was talking about where he lived...not in general.
Click to expand...

You're right, but in that case, it's nothing but an anecdote.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because one is done willingly. The other is not. One is illegal. The other is not. The only reason those that are anti-gun use suicide is to make the problem seem bigger than it actually is.

The whole arguement of the anti-gun side is about criminals using guns to harm other people. That arguement by itself is a legitimate arguement. But as everyone knows the degree matters alot when it comes to the Rights outlined in the BoR. Which is why they want to use suicide statistics also because it beefs up the numbers and makes it seem more severe than it really is. Those that commit suicide are not harming anyone but themselves. They are not breaking any laws. Those two things right there takes them out of the equation for any legitimate claim to limit peoples 2nd Amendment Right.
Click to expand...

I disagree about it being "willing" when the person doing so is afflicted with a mental disorder. And suicides by gun often involve the person committing some type of crime, such as firing a weapon in a residential area, etc.

And you are wrong to misrepresent the gun safety advocates as being only about criminals using guns. That is a straw man
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Suicide is a self preventing crime as it has a ZERO recidivism rate and perp = victim in every case. I am not at all opposed to holding those criminally responsible for gun "accidents" if gross negligence can be proven, thus they would count as criminal gun deaths and not accidents.

It is silly to assert that criminal gangs would be deterred by gun bans, as these gangs make most of their money dealing in illegal drugs (also banned nationwide). Mexico has very strict gun and drug laws, yet has plenty of both. The police state required to enforce any ban is well beyond that which the public would be willing to tolerate, thus the failure of nearly all national attempts at "gun control".

The war on drugs "succeeds" only in briefly locking up morons (at high cost) that are either simply users or low level "dealers" in the supply chain. As long as there is demand, and huge profits to be made, the supply/distribution of recreational drugs will continue, so gangs will survive and maintain power primarily using that drug money.
Click to expand...

Never said criminal gangs are deterred- just the opposite as it seems gang/drug killings are the same no matter the restrictions- so niether an armed citizenry nor a 'defenseless' one figures into that side of the equation.

The rest is way off track for this discussion- even slicing out all but the murders the difference between the deterrent affect of Concealed carry and highly restricted ownership is a push... .02 per 100,000. Seems the addition of firearms in the home doesn't greatly reduce murders but rather significantly increases firearm deaths overall.
 
sangha said:
And suicides by gun often involve the person committing some type of crime, such as firing a weapon in a residential area, etc.
Click to expand...

That sounds serious. :roll:
 
sangha said:
The quote I posted did not say that the govt can only limit the possession of guns in a GFZ. I don't know why you keep bringing that up.

I don't think it's unreasonable to consider the area around the White House to be a "sensitive" location.

I'd also like to point out that before he pulled the weapon out of his backpack, it was being concealed.
Click to expand...

Gun free zones are what is considered "sensitive areas". Hence why they are gun free. A government building is a sensitive area. A school with a bunch of children is a sensitive area. Anything else is not unless you want to expand that into "any area where a person could shoot lots of people. Which would mean any public area period. There has to be a limit to these "sensitive areas" otherwise you could claim any area as "sensitive" and ignore the 2nd Amendment period. There's a reason why that ruling gave examples of government buildings and schools.

And I don't consider the area around the white house grounds as being a "sensitive area". Like I said...there has to be a limit.
 
Lukas105 said:
I can probably guess who he wanted to shoot those "Couple of Shots" at, And I wouldn't blame him.
Click to expand...

I'm a little biased toward "not killing the President." Whichever party he's from.
 
notquiteright said:
You are correct there is no law against suicide, my bad. however it is still killing someone who is no threat or danger to any other person- the standard for justifiable killing. I see suicide by firearm as a firearm death that wasn't in self defense or defense of others.
Click to expand...

Again, it is not killing "someone". It is killing "yourself". BIG difference. You are right though that it is not in defense of others. As for self defense? That's debateable.

notquiteright said:
Now since the reality is firearms cause all manner of deaths past murder including those victims in the discussion as the cemetery includes the bodies of those victims as well....
Click to expand...

So do cars, hammers, knives and many other objects. And in greater numbers than guns. Yet you don't see "common sense safety regulations" on any of those with the exceptions of cars...and yet they still manage to kill more than guns.
 
Lukas105 said:
I can probably guess who he wanted to shoot those "Couple of Shots" at, And I wouldn't blame him.
Click to expand...

So...some shirtless idiot should with a bullet have the power on his own to overturn the democratic process. Basically take out the leader of a country elected by 10's of millions of Americans?

I knew Libertarians weren't too keen on Democracy but that's just anarchy.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Gun free zones are what is considered "sensitive areas". Hence why they are gun free. A government building is a sensitive area. A school with a bunch of children is a sensitive area. Anything else is not unless you want to expand that into "any area where a person could shoot lots of people. Which would mean any public area period. There has to be a limit to these "sensitive areas" otherwise you could claim any area as "sensitive" and ignore the 2nd Amendment period. There's a reason why that ruling gave examples of government buildings and schools.

And I don't consider the area around the white house grounds as being a "sensitive area". Like I said...there has to be a limit.
Click to expand...

"Sensitive areas" does not mean "govt buildings and GFZ's only"

While there does need to be limits on the definition, I think any reasonable definition would include the area around the White House.
 
iliveonramen said:
So...some shirtless idiot should with a bullet have the power on his own to overturn the democratic process. Basically take out the leader of a country elected by 10's of millions of Americans?

I knew Libertarians weren't too keen on Democracy but that's just anarchy.
Click to expand...

They're not too keen on liberty either
 
sangha said:
I disagree about it being "willing" when the person doing so is afflicted with a mental disorder. And suicides by gun often involve the person committing some type of crime, such as firing a weapon in a residential area, etc.
Click to expand...

"Mental disorder" is used way too much. Many that kill themselves do so because they believe they have a terrible life or will never be able to recover from something they consider tragic. (perhaps for example the death of ones child or some major disease). Yeah, some may be due to some mental disorder. But the majority of suicides is because of something environmental. Bully's, death of loved ones, etc etc.

As for shooting in a residential area....sorry but that's just grasping.

sangha said:
And you are wrong to misrepresent the gun safety advocates as being only about criminals using guns. That is a straw man
Click to expand...

I don't believe I am wrong at all. You are of course free to think so. ;)
 
Kal'Stang said:
"Mental disorder" is used way too much. Many that kill themselves do so because they believe they have a terrible life or will never be able to recover from something they consider tragic. (perhaps for example the death of ones child or some major disease). Yeah, some may be due to some mental disorder.
Click to expand...

Gee, you think? :shrug:

But the majority of suicides is because of something environmental. Bully's, death of loved ones, etc etc.
Click to expand...

Of course. People who are mentally healthy kill themselves all the time!! :screwy:
 
Kal'Stang said:
Again, it is not killing "someone". It is killing "yourself". BIG difference. You are right though that it is not in defense of others. As for self defense? That's debateable. So do cars, hammers, knives and many other objects. And in greater numbers than guns. Yet you don't see "common sense safety regulations" on any of those with the exceptions of cars...and yet they still manage to kill more than guns.
Click to expand...

It is killing someone, yourself is a someone or have we slipped into right wing re-definitions again?

I wondered when someone would start the hammers kill more people than my pistol crap. This isn't about ALL murders, a very ill informed 'conservative' tried to fly more 'gun' deaths in Illinois than Texas crap, PLEASE try and stay on topic, PLENTY of threads to rant about screwdrivers and broken bottles.

And we have gone down the car road before- far more cars in constant USE than firearms. A rifle in the closet isn't the same as speeding down the highway in 1.5 tons of metal at 65 mph for 3 hours a day, every day. Well not until a boy pulls the rifle out to play with and shoots his sister. :(
 
Erod said:
Do you think if he was from Chicago, it would begin "An Illinois man......". Of course not. Typical media bias.

And by the way, a LOT more people die in Illinois from gun violence than Texas. And they have laws against guns.
Click to expand...

THIS is what the discussion over Texas vs Illinois centered on. GUN VIOLENCE, not murder, not excluding suicides, not excluding accidental- GUN VIOLENCE and everyone should admit that includes suicides and accidentals.

I know some desperately want to deflect the topic but this is what we were discussing.... :2wave:
 
Henrin said:
We do have the right to end our own lives. You know, the whole controlling your destiny thing. Besides, its a mental health problem, not a gun problem. Guns are just a means to an end and if you ban them they will just pick other means towards that end.
Click to expand...

Research shows this to not actually be true. Making suicide even slightly more inconvenient actually has a notable impact on the rates of suicide. Turns out that extra couple seconds of thinking about it makes many change their minds.
 
Deuce said:
Research shows this to not actually be true. Making suicide even slightly more inconvenient actually has a notable impact on the rates of suicide. Turns out that extra couple seconds of thinking about it makes many change their minds.
Click to expand...

Are you perhaps pushing for waiting periods? Sorry, you're a bit transparent. The fact is if you ban guns as I said they would never pick that method to start with and if you make the period to long they will decide on some other method. I don't happen to care regardless as I don't happen to find it's the government job to limit peoples liberty so they will change their minds.
 
Last edited:
iliveonramen said:
So...some shirtless idiot should with a bullet have the power on his own to overturn the democratic process. Basically take out the leader of a country elected by 10's of millions of Americans?

I knew Libertarians weren't too keen on Democracy but that's just anarchy.
Click to expand...

Why is it the peoples duty to fund for the protection of the president? Just wondering.

This is a guy involved in killing American citizens and I'm supposed to be interested in keeping him safe? Why? So basically I should support the protection of a traitor and a killer.
 
rcart76 said:
I think I would know considering I live in Texas. Oh and by the way, the a**holes out here comes in all colors.
Click to expand...

I've lived in Texas and yes, assholes-just like any other part of the country-come in all colors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom