• 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!

Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69, 700]

clearly not, being that I just discussed some points with Vance Mack. What I am doing is refusing to let you simply divert from an issue. This is made plainly clear in the quotes I have provided for you on three different occasions already.

This will be the forth occasion:

I reject this claim as bogus. You are hiding behind a silly claim of diversion when this 675 post thread has all sorts of side issues concerning gun laws
 
Yet the killer picked up a handgun during the shootings there.

Hmmmm.

from one of the police officers he shot. they were uniformed and obviously armed. it would have been much tougher if all the other victims had concealed weapons and the killer had to deal with that uncertainty

do you honestly think gun laws will stop suicidal murderers or as a liberal, do you hope to merely harass honest gun owners
 
from one of the police officers he shot. they were uniformed and obviously armed. it would have been much tougher if all the other victims had concealed weapons and the killer had to deal with that uncertainty

do you honestly think gun laws will stop suicidal murderers or as a liberal, do you hope to merely harass honest gun owners

So I guess 'almost no one' means 'some people'.

Sorry. I'm getting used to the odd language here, where 'never' means 'sometimes', etc.
 
So I guess 'almost no one' means 'some people'.

Sorry. I'm getting used to the odd language here, where 'never' means 'sometimes', etc.

no private citizens-pretty much a wet dream for gun haters who only want cops and criminals having guns
 
So I guess 'almost no one' means 'some people'.

Sorry. I'm getting used to the odd language here, where 'never' means 'sometimes', etc.

BTW are you going to answer my question? It seems the gun fearful have a hard time doing that
 
BTW are you going to answer my question? It seems the gun fearful have a hard time doing that

I don't know what it was.

But no. I won't. My direct refutation to very specific arguments were basically ignored and deflection to irrelevancy seems to be SOP. It's pointless to respond.
 
I don't know what it was.

But no. I won't. My direct refutation to very specific arguments were basically ignored and deflection to irrelevancy seems to be SOP. It's pointless to respond.

OK lets try something easier

what laws would have stopped a guy who had the clearance to get into the base from killing people other than arming his intended victims
 
There are, and they seem to think they can outlaw the object of their fear.

You can outlaw it. How effective it will be? Probably as effective as outlawing illegal drugs and DUI. There are many things that could be done other than outlawing them outright.
 
Me, I am not sure I would support life sentences for "violent" gun crime in general. For me, it would need to be limited to things like "deadly" actual and attempted assaults (example: pistol whipping someone wouldn't necessarily be on par with shooting someone, in my book). But over all, I do agree penalties are way too lenient here across the board. I also feel the p2p gun sales need to be tightened and that we need better mental health monitoring, especially in direct relation to gun ownership

PS one area that would also need working on if such penalties were enacted would be those governing self-defense. As it now stands, I would not feel safe with such changes taking place
That kind of backs away from the very thing that DID actually make a dent in the illegal use of firearms in Japan. so...maybe not 'life...just...I dont know...mandatory minimum of 30 PLUS the sentence-no possibility of parole on the mandatory minimum for ALL gun crimes, life if used with deadly intent. Now we are on to something.
 
Vance mack just sited material that asserts the exact opposite and you thanked him for it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-64.html#post1062333004
Thats not the case. i cited an article that stated severe penalties, not more gun cotnrol measures. Those are definitely two different things. Japan passed strict laws...they were routinely broken and weapons were smuggled in. THEN they passed severe sentences on the violation of existing law. No new laws. Stricter sentencing guidelines. THAT is all that did the trick.

Seriously...WHY? WHY a push for new/more/different laws? NOTHING would have made a difference in THIS case and the laws are ALREADY in place to combat day to day violent crime.
 
That kind of backs away from the very thing that DID actually make a dent in the illegal use of firearms in Japan.

What do you mean? I made clear I had practical concerns, but that in principle I supported it
 
What do you mean? I made clear I had practical concerns, but that in principle I supported it
That 'practical concern' is the loophole. Japan didnt engage in loopholes. They hit people HARD with sentences...regardless of the level of use. That did the trick.
 
Your response is to link to a post YOU made, quoting me stating that in fact it was NOT new law but increased sentences for existing law as proving your point? Que?

No, it's a post where i point out that legal penalties are an aspect of law ...
 
No, it's a post where i point out that legal penalties are an aspect of law ...
They are not 'new laws'. They are increased sentences on EXISTING laws. Radically different.
 
That 'practical concern' is the loophole. Japan didnt engage in loopholes. They hit people HARD with sentences...regardless of the level of use. That did the trick.


I'm not following the argument here. How is practical concern about a law application a 'loophole"?
 
They are not 'new laws'.

Why would they need to be "new laws"?


They are increased sentences on EXISTING laws. Radically different.

It's a distinction without difference: they are both changes to current legislation
 
I'm not following the argument here. How is practical concern about a law application a 'loophole"?
If you make allowances for lighter sentences for people that use a gun but didnt REALLY mean to hurt someone...you have created a loophole. Not going to work. Pass a universal sentencing law...ANYONE using a gun in the commission of a crime. You want to claim the effectiveness and legacy of the changes in Japan...well...thats what did the trick.
 
Why would they need to be "new laws"?
It's a distinction without difference: they are both changes to current legislation
Then your comment to ChrisL was a blatant misrepresentation.

"If your dumb gun control measures worked, the incident that we are discussing would never have happened. It doesn't work. Criminals don't follow laws genius."
to which you replied...
"Vance mack just sited material that asserts the exact opposite and you thanked him for it."

Gun control measures are NOT hving a desired impact. Passing MORE gun control measures would not have a greater impact. INCREASING SENTENCES on existing gun laws HAS been proven to have the desired impact.

So lets just be really clear. No 'new laws'. No 'new gun control measures'. Increased sentences for violation of existing laws. Now we are happy...right?
 
If you make allowances for lighter sentences for people that use a gun but didnt REALLY mean to hurt someone...you have created a loophole.

This is like arguing the practical differences between assault and murder is a legal loophole. It's an argument, who on it's face, makes no sense

Not going to work. Pass a universal sentencing law...ANYONE using a gun in the commission of a crime.

on what basis are you claiming it won't work any other way? You need to offer up more than "because I said so"


You want to claim the effectiveness and legacy of the changes in Japan...well...thats what did the trick.

1) Uh, you and others claimed gun control has no impact on availability. i cited Japan because, among many other things, it proves you wrong. And during that discussion, I made clear pointing such out, in no way, indicates that I support such controls

2) Again, why do you think exactly mimicking Japanese legislation would be the only means of increased legislation that would reduce availability? You need to explain why if you want anyone to take you seriously, not simply assert it
 
Then your comment to ChrisL was a blatant misrepresentation.

feel free to explain that one, because I'm not following

Gun control measures are NOT hving a desired impact. Passing MORE gun control measures would not have a greater impact. INCREASING SENTENCES on existing gun laws HAS been proven to have the desired impact.

I'm not getting what you are going on about and think you have yourself really agitated and confused at this point. Let's start from the beginning: What exactly is your argument?

So lets just be really clear. No 'new laws'. No 'new gun control measures'. Increased sentences for violation of existing laws. Now we are happy...right?

I made clear I was supported increased sentencing when you first asked me about it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-67.html#post1062333172

Which is why i think you are confused about something
 
This is like arguing the practical differences between assault and murder is a legal loophole. It's an argument, who on it's face, makes no sense



on what basis are you claiming it won't work any other way? You need to offer up more than "because I said so"




1) Uh, you and others claimed gun control has no impact on availability. i cited Japan because, among many other things, it proves you wrong. And during that discussion, I made clear pointing such out, in no way, indicates that I support such controls

2) Again, why do you think exactly mimicking Japanese legislation would be the only means of increased legislation that would reduce availability? You need to explain why if you want anyone to take you seriously, not simply assert it
GUN CONTROL has not been effective in stopping violent crimes. INCREASING SENTENCES has been shown to be effective in other places. In THIS country, gun control laws without enforcement have been shown to be ineffective. And yet, a whole group of mindless morons advocate for more of the same. More gun laws meant to target law abiding citizens. When it comes to actually targeting the violent criminals? Crickets.

See...I think you are full of **** personally. I think you cant come right and say what you mean because at the end of the day, you are no different than tres goofus. You want more inane ineffective gun laws passed knowing full well they will never impact criminals...only law abiding citizens.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The personal attacks, trolling, and baiting needs to stop or infractions/thread bans will be issued.
 
Back
Top Bottom