• 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]

The problem is there is no compendium of police shootings that is available to the public. I've tried to find one.


But here's the thing: consider how often you hear about police shooting the wrong guy, a bystander, etc. Quite a lot right?

If a CCW'er shot the wrong person it would be national news for the next 6 months. Heard of one?


Nope :)

I still can't find any NRA members who have murdered in the first degree.
 
Someone mentioned this earlier but couldn't provide a real source for it. Do you have one?

you are ignoring the cites I gave you. The 2% vs 11%

When someone pretends not to have seen the evidence, I can only assume dishonesty or the fact that your position is faith based and facts won't convince a true believer
 
The problem is there is no compendium of police shootings that is available to the public. I've tried to find one.


But here's the thing: consider how often you hear about police shooting the wrong guy, a bystander, etc. Quite a lot right?

If a CCW'er shot the wrong person it would be national news for the next 6 months. Heard of one?


Nope :)

in the last week there have been news stories of the often erroneous NYPD shooting two innocent women and I believe cops in NC shooting some innocent 8 times or so

the closest thing we got to this involving a CCW was the overblown racial muckracking case of Zimmerman and Travon Mopin
 
The problem is there is no compendium of police shootings that is available to the public. I've tried to find one.

So there are actually no figures supporting this?


But here's the thing: consider how often you hear about police shooting the wrong guy, a bystander, etc. Quite a lot right?

Yeah, but the police are going to be involved in many more incidents of that nature, because it's their job. It's like saying more fire fighters die in house fires than the general public. Well yeah, because fire fighters spend more time engaging house fires

If a CCW'er shot the wrong person it would be national news for the next 6 months. Heard of one?

Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance
 
So there are actually no figures supporting this?




Yeah, but the police are going to be involved in many more incidents of that nature, because it's their job. It's like saying more fire fighters die in house fires than the general public. Well yeah, because fire fighters spend more time engaging house fires



Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ignorance




Oh I see. I assumed you were asking a sincere question, rather than just looking for a way to shoot down opposing views. Silly me.
 
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

Why are you looking to others for answers? Do your part, I do mine. Lead by example, it can be contagious...
Yeah lol! I need to hear from the Navy guy about leading by example.
I'm not looking for answers bud. I'm telling you there's not one. There's my part.
I will take care of MY family, live away from the urban sprawls of our country, and arm myself in the event the urban sprawls worst citizens decide to spread their crime to my neck of the woods. That, my squid friend, is what should be done. But, it won't. Why? Because our society is so money hungry/centric that they will sacrifice their safety and liberty to live in these places.
 
you are ignoring the cites I gave you. The 2% vs 11%

No, I actually directly addressed them when they were originally posted

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-24.html#post1062323991

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-25.html#post1062324276

and they're the type of citations that wouldn't even make it past a sixth grade english teacher: they are advocacy material offering quotations, not the actual data in question

When someone pretends not to have seen the evidence, I can only assume dishonesty or the fact that your position is faith based and facts won't convince a true believer

Or you don't know what actually constitutes "credible evidence" in a debate ...
 
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

No doubt there would be some errors, but what is the alternative? Simply ignore mental illness?
You know, I'm big enough to admit when I don't know something just as you were with your post. And this is one of those instances. I don't know. The only thing I can say is refer to my signature line and read the words of the great Thomas Jefferson. I think that may be all we can do. And that sucks.
 
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

Yeah lol! I need to hear from the Navy guy about leading by example.
I'm not looking for answers bud. I'm telling you there's not one. There's my part.
I will take care of MY family, live away from the urban sprawls of our country, and arm myself in the event the urban sprawls worst citizens decide to spread their crime to my neck of the woods. That, my squid friend, is what should be done. But, it won't. Why? Because our society is so money hungry/centric that they will sacrifice their safety and liberty to live in these places.

Well, Marine's never were known for their deep thinking...;)
 
Oh I see. I assumed you were asking a sincere question, rather than just looking for a way to shoot down opposing views. Silly me.

I did ask a sincere question, but your opposing view isn't sacred, nor is it above criticism.
 
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

Many things will likely be reported that happened, concerning this latest moron, before he went out in his blaze of glory. The problem is that none were deemed sufficient to remove that moron from society, or even to restrict his access to a "secure" facility. Those that count on the gov't to keep them safe may as well count on Santa Claus to give them all of the items on their wish list. All too often, we read of countless prior offenses committed by these folks yet, as you say, we will never actually lock them up permanently because freedom trumps safety. I, as most, do not want to give up freedom with the silly hope that more gov't power will keep us safe.
Agreed my friend. I will refer you to my signature line as I did Dittohead. Thomas Jefferson said it best. The thing is, for every maniac that commits an atrocity such as this and shows the warning signs he did, there are thousands that show the same warning signs and never commit the atrocity. Do we impede on those people's lives and liberty, and in turn everyone's life and liberty, to catch one guy who will do this? I don't think so. This isn't Minority Report (if you've seen it).
 
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

Well, Marine's never were known for their deep thinking...;)
That, I will agree with lol. We're pretty much functional retards.

No offense to anyone with my use of the "r" word.
 
Maybe so...

Last i read, he was originally from NY, was stationed in Texas for a time, and just recently returned from Japan. But you know how details are constantly changing with these incidents
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69]

No I'm not. Tougher gun laws do not restrict anyone from purchasing a weapon. It would only make the black market more robust and create more problems. Just like the war on drugs.

Hmmm. Just heard that the gunman tried to buy an AR-15, but was prevented from buying one because of a LAW in Virginia, which prevents out of state buyers from buying hanguns and assault rifles. So he settled for a shotgun...if think this was much less lethal.

I guess tougher gun laws in this case DID prevent him from purchasing a weapon. How 'retarded'.

I expect lots of crying and blustering now.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/1...d-gunman-from-buying-rifle-officials-say.html
 
First, you won't likely be successful at evidencing such "probabilities" in a robust way. But worse, please review your reasoning on this. One can take your same "reasoning" and apply it to the ownership of swimming pools. Or automobiles. If you want to eliminate probability of death, you'd never have children and the species would die out. Your reasoning is shown to be absurd. I use to argue your same point until I paid attention to the arguments, just so you know.

Cars and swimming pools are not designed to kill like guns are.
 
So you care little for rights then, noted.

Errr, I am from Dardania and our constitutional rights differ. I care of my rights. I am just trying to constructively criticize this one for I think you are paying a large price just to keep gun manufacturers rolling.
 
Hmmm. Just heard that the gunman tried to buy an AR-15, but was prevented from buying one because of a LAW in Virginia, which prevents out of state buyers from buying hanguns and assault rifles. So he settled for a shotgun...if think this was much less lethal.

I guess tougher gun laws in this case DID prevent him from purchasing a weapon. How 'retarded'.

I expect lots of crying and blustering now.

State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say - NYTimes.com

Let's get one thing straight. The only ones who are crying around here are you and your "teammates" as NIMBY would say. Because you have NO valid argument. When someone decides to buy a gun illegally, they don't have any problems. Your link changes nothing.

BTW, the only reason why he was turned down was because he was from out of state. AND he could have easily purchased any weapon he wanted off the black market. Do you deny that?
 
Hmmm. Just heard that the gunman tried to buy an AR-15, but was prevented from buying one because of a LAW in Virginia, which prevents out of state buyers from buying hanguns and assault rifles. So he settled for a shotgun...if think this was much less lethal.

I guess tougher gun laws in this case DID prevent him from purchasing a weapon. How 'retarded'.

I expect lots of crying and blustering now.

State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say - NYTimes.com

you pretty much disqualify your posts from ever being taken seriously when you call an AR 15 an assault rifle. FEDERAL LAW prevents someone from buying a handgun in a state other than their residence.
 
Cars and swimming pools are not designed to kill like guns are.

yet they do kill more meaning they are more dangerous because they kill without any deliberate intent on the part of the owners to do so.

your argument is specious
 
Yes, and proven untrue...Do you have evidence that the weapons used were recently purchased?

When he purchased his weapons is immaterial. What should be more worrying is the fact his weapons were not confiscated on health grounds. Again, highlighting the ease of gun ownership.

perhaps, my lean is to freedom meaning I won't find convincing even arguments that can prove we can gain more safety by decreasing freedom. However, the anti gun scum in office has not come close to even proving their schemes make us safer. I also tend to me completely truthful when it comes to facts

Unconstrained freedom leads to anarchy, no wait, Libertarianism wants state 'protection' but little else. Often, to simply protect those that have . Facts that suit your dogma, yes. On that note, what facts are we discussing?

such as noting that the stuff scumbags call "assault weapons" are rarely used in crime (which really doesn't matter-criminal misuse does not proffer a strong argument against prohibiting lawful ownership or use)

I'm not for any total ban (on most weaponry), for most people. But I am for a challenge on the 'right to bear arms' on many levels.

Since most anti gunners' positions are based on dishonesty (pretending crime control rather than harassing lawful ownership is their motivation), the rest of their arguments tend to be easily destroyed.

I think most arguments are for finding a reason why America keeps suffering these 'mass shootings'. That's got to be something we can agree on, surly?

Paul
 
Hmmm. Just heard that the gunman tried to buy an AR-15, but was prevented from buying one because of a LAW in Virginia, which prevents out of state buyers from buying hanguns and assault rifles. So he settled for a shotgun...if think this was much less lethal.

I guess tougher gun laws in this case DID prevent him from purchasing a weapon. How 'retarded'.

I expect lots of crying and blustering now.

State Law Prevented Sale of Assault Rifle to Suspect Last Week, Officials Say - NYTimes.com
Which also goes to show you that an assault rifle ban would do nothing. This guy didn't have an assault rifle yet found a way to kill 12 people. Would it have been worse? Idk. I can say that the shotgun, in the type of environment he was using it, was probably more deadly than an assault rifle would have been.
 
When he purchased his weapons is immaterial. What should be more worrying is the fact his weapons were not confiscated on health grounds. Again, highlighting the ease of gun ownership.

Unconstrained freedom leads to anarchy, no wait, Libertarianism wants state 'protection' but little else. Often, to simply protect those that have . Facts that suit your dogma, yes. On that note, what facts are we discussing?



I'm not for any total ban (on most weaponry), for most people. But I am for a challenge on the 'right to bear arms' on many levels.



I think most arguments are for finding a reason why America keeps suffering these 'mass shootings'. That's got to be something we can agree on, surly?

Paul
So what do you propose we do about the mental health issue? Should we have a national, Federally run database that all doctors report mentally unstable patients they deem unfit to buy firearms to?
 
Back
Top Bottom