• 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]

ANY desirable commodity that is banned can and will be procured. Gangs and violent criminals will get guns.

Yet, this hasn't played out in Japan

The drug ban is evidence of that reality.

I just outlined how drugs are different than guns. You are free to disagree with that argument, but to be effective you will need to actually address it, not simply dismiss and ignore it


Its simply stupid beyond words to pretend that violent criminals would NOT find a way to import guns, right in that crate next to the one marked "crack". Japan has very restrictive gun laws and stiff penalties for illegal gun ownership. You know who has no problem procuring illegal firearms in Japan? Their gangs.

You said this before, but presented no evidence to support it, and I cited the lack of significant gun crime to undermine it. So one of us made a convincing argument, but it wasn't you
 
I bet these people are like this in real life:
ALEX JONES vs PIERS MORGAN - YouTube
Nope.Alex Jones simply looked silly. His immediate response to Morgan should have been to point out how wrong he was about the Aurora Colorado shooting. The AR15...Morgans pet cause...jammed approx a third of the way through the magazine. He then switched to a shotgun and handguns. Then it should be pointed out that the VAST MAJORITY of school shootings involve handguns, and lower caliber handguns at that. It should have been pointed out that Morgans tirade against AR15s was completely irrelevant with regard to the Az shooting as well as the VaTech shootings. All handguns. It should have been pointed out that calling for MORE background checks was pure stupidity using the tragedy at Sandy Hook and Aurora Co because background checks did nothing to stop the crimes from occurring. Then it should have been pointed out that the vast majority of violent crimes occur in inner city's involving gangs, and what, pray tell, did Morgan propose to do about the REAL problems? He should have been asked why he was so focused on law abiding citizens and legal gun ownership and why he was too cowardly to go after the violent thugs actually COMMITTING those 11,000 murders you cited earlier.

And that same question should be asked of people like you.
 
Actually that is more of a function of how drastically different the definition of violent crime is between the two societies

PolitiFact | Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does

Fact-Checking Ben Swann: Is the UK really 5 times more violent than the US? | The Skeptical Libertarian

PS I would probably hold off on calling chain emails "studies". The later suggests something of actual academic merit

<<<What Swann either doesn’t know, or simply doesn’t bother to tell his viewers, is that the definitions for “violent crime” are very different in the US and Britain, and the methodologies of the two statistics he cites are also different. (He probably simply doesn’t realize this: it appears that he lifted his data wholesale from a story in the Daily Mail, without checking it–something you might expect a fact checker to have done.)

First, it should be noted that the figures Swann gives are out of date: in 2010, according to the FBI, the reported rate of violent crime in the US was 403 incidents per 100,000 people–the 466 figure comes from 2007. Second, and more importantly, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a “violent crime” as one of four specific offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The British Home Office, by contrast, has a substantially different definition of violent crime. The British definition includes all “crimes against the person,” including simple assaults, all robberies, and all “sexual offenses,” as opposed to the FBI, which only counts aggravated assaults and “forcible rapes.”>>>

LETS CUT THE CRAP, I oppose the following as being both unconstitutional (on both second and tenth amendment grounds) and worthless in controlling criminals

1) registration of weapons

2) waiting periods

3) limitations on how many weapons you can own or buy

4) restrictions on magazine capacity or operation (ie semi auto or full auto)

5) the NFA and the Hughes Amendment

6) special (ie in addition to normal sales taxes) taxes on ammo or guns

7) gun free zones in general

8) insurance requirements on gun owners



so tell me what you approve of
 
maybe you should read your own posts and tell us what part of them actually supports gun rights.

The fact that I am not making silly claims like "knives are more deadly than guns" and making all gun advocates look like mindless ideologues?


I find it interesting that this forum is full of people who want to whine about pro gun posters and posts and then pretend they aren't anti gun.

Being pro gun doesn't mean I need to support every moronic argument made by a gun advocate.
 
LETS CUT THE CRAP, I oppose the following as being both unconstitutional (on both second and tenth amendment grounds) and worthless in controlling criminals

1) registration of weapons

2) waiting periods

3) limitations on how many weapons you can own or buy

4) restrictions on magazine capacity or operation (ie semi auto or full auto)

5) the NFA and the Hughes Amendment

6) special (ie in addition to normal sales taxes) taxes on ammo or guns

7) gun free zones in general

8) insurance requirements on gun owners



so tell me what you approve of

So we're just going to ignore the fact that you claimed to be thoroughly educated on a subject despite not knowing the very basics of the discussion, and that your idea of "a study" wouldn't even pass muster in a grade school research paper?
 
I don't believe he had any to start with. You see, its obvious that his motivations for gun restrictions are based on a desire to harass honest gun owners rather than the facade he spews of crime control. When one's entire argument is based on a dishonest premise, the house of cards quickly collapses

Obviously when you spend the whole time to type out a bunch of punctuation marks. :mrgreen:
 
Yet, this hasn't played out in Japan



I just outlined how drugs are different than guns. You are free to disagree with that argument, but to be effective you will need to actually address it, not simply dismiss and ignore it




You said this before, but presented no evidence to support it, and I cited the lack of significant gun crime to undermine it. So one of us made a convincing argument, but it wasn't you
Drugs are no different. They are a banned substance smuggled into this country for ready and illegal sale and distribution. Guns would be NO different. The only difference would be only the criminals would have them in your fantasy world.

And guns were actually quite regularly smuggled into Japan. What changed that was not the ban...it was increased and harsh sentences on illegal gun possession and use.
21st-Century Yakuza: Recent Trends in Organized Crime in Japan ~Part 1 ???????? ?? ??????????????? :: JapanFocus
 
wrong, the burden is on freedom hating control freaks who want to limit our freedom and rights to prove that their schemes will make us safer without unduly burdening the rights of free men. That you and people like you make asinine comparisons to countries that have different cultures, different ethic mixes etc (and its interesting how you avoid countries like Mexico, the RSA and Russia as well as Switzerland) proves you cannot find any evidence that your hoplophobic wet dreams can be justified by what has gone on in the USA-such as Chicago and DC having massive murder and crime rates despite complete handgun bans for YEARS

I just learned a new word:

hoplophobe


A person who is afflicted with an irrational fear of firearms.

from the Urban Dictionary
 
Drugs are no different. They are a banned substance smuggled into this country for ready and illegal sale and distribution.

I just outlined how they were different. Simply ignoring those differences doesn't make your argument effective. You need to actually address those points

And guns were actually quite regularly smuggled into Japan. What changed that was not the ban...it was increased and harsh sentences on illegal gun possession and use.

So stricter gun control laws restricted access to guns in your argument that stricter laws ***do not*** limit access to guns?

Again, think before you write
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard, the thread, was there more than one?
None of you folks will talk about solutions.Why?
Can't wait til Dec. 14 with you dysfunctionals.
Meanwhile, schools and states move ahead of the D.C. and blogger BS, with CC.
This gunmen doesn't mass-murder this way with CC.
 
Last edited:
Re: Active gunmen in US navy Yard

What a tragic event. This is just another incident that shows Obama and his administration are weak and can not protect us from terrorism like the Bush administration did.

You are totally right. Without Bush in office, we might have had an attack on the World Trade Center.
 
The fact that I am not making silly claims like "knives are more deadly than guns" and making all gun advocates look like mindless ideologues?




Being pro gun doesn't mean I need to support every moronic argument made by a gun advocate.

You are right. Perhaps the news story should have read "Gun kidnaps a mentally deranged man, then goes on rampage, killing 12 people". :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I just outlined how they were different. Simply ignoring those differences doesn't make your argument effective. You need to actually address those points



So stricter gun control laws restricted access to guns in your argument that stricter laws ***do not*** limit access to guns?

Again, think before you write
You should try that yourself. Thats not what that report said. There was no shortage of ACCESS. They were smuggling in firearms routinely. Japan increased the PENALTY to such a level that the CRIMINALS decided it wasnt worth it. Now...show me how that is ANYTHING different than what I have said all along. The BAN didnt stop criminal possession...the PENALTY did. So...how about it...are you ready to institute life sentences for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a crime?
 
You are right. Perhaps the news story should have read "Gun kidnaps a mentally deranged man, then goes on rampage, killing 12 people". :mrgreen:

I understand this is an attempt at humor, but it seemingly makes no sense. So I must ask, what point were you attempting to address with this?
 
I understand this is an attempt at humor, but it seemingly makes no sense. So I must ask, what point were you attempting to address with this?

The point is this: The gun did not murder 12 people. The shooter did, and gun owners should not have to pay the price for the rampage. But gun control advocates will, of course, insist on it.
 
You should try that yourself. Thats not what that report said. There was no shortage of ACCESS. They were smuggling in firearms routinely. Japan increased the PENALTY to such a level that the CRIMINALS decided it wasnt worth it.

right, so those stricter gun laws *limited access* ...

Now...show me how that is ANYTHING different than what I have said all along. The BAN didnt stop criminal possession...the PENALTY did.

You have been arguing gun laws do not deter criminals. Above you directly cite "gun laws" "deterring criminals"
 
So we're just going to ignore the fact that you claimed to be thoroughly educated on a subject despite not knowing the very basics of the discussion, and that your idea of "a study" wouldn't even pass muster in a grade school research paper?

when I give someone an easy opportunity to tell us what gun laws he opposes and which ones he supports and he then engages in such silly evasions, I have to conclude that you are not able to honestly post your beliefs because they tend to be more sinister than you would have us believe
 
The point is this: The gun did not murder 12 people.

Ok? And how does that address anything I wrote here?


The shooter did, and gun owners should not have to pay the price for the rampage. But gun control advocates will, of course, insist on it.

So in response to me pointing out that I support gun ownership and am simply arguing against people making silly arguments like "gun laws do not restrict firearm access" and "knives are more deadly than guns, in general" you bring up the above?

Again, I ask, how does that make sense?
 
right, so those stricter gun laws *limited access* ...



You have been arguing gun laws do not deter criminals. Above you directly cite "gun laws" "deterring criminals"
GUn laws do NOT deter criminals. Thats not what deterred criminals in Japan. The laws were already on the books. What CHANGED was increased PENALTIES.

So..how about it...all for life sentences for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, right? Notice...that requires NO new gun laws...just harsher sentences for EXISTING gun laws. You know...like what caused the criminals to rethink their strategy in Japan.
 
GUn laws do NOT deter criminals. Thats not what deterred criminals in Japan. The laws were already on the books. What CHANGED was increased PENALTIES.

So..how about it...all for life sentences for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, right? Notice...that requires NO new gun laws...just harsher sentences for EXISTING gun laws. You know...like what caused the criminals to rethink their strategy in Japan.


gun haters don't acknowledge that there are good gun owners who use guns for good purposes and bad gun owners who misuse or intentionally harm others with guns

gun restrictions tend to have little if any impact on the latter but impacts the latter a great deal. We can only conclude that those who push for gun laws are either ignorant of that fact or intend to obstruct legal gun ownership for reasons that have nothing to do with crime control
 
when I give someone an easy opportunity

lol, I guess you could define it as such. But to me, it looked like someone trying to gloss over the fact they were adopting the role of an expert on a topic they knew absolutely nothing about.
 
gun haters don't acknowledge that there are good gun owners who use guns for good purposes and bad gun owners who misuse or intentionally harm others with guns

gun restrictions tend to have little if any impact on the latter but impacts the latter a great deal. We can only conclude that those who push for gun laws are either ignorant of that fact or intend to obstruct legal gun ownership for reasons that have nothing to do with crime control
All he wants to do is pass them laws. More laws..ANY laws...but...hes a gun owner...honest!!!
At least he has some new buddies that share his vision.
 
GUn laws do NOT deter criminals. Thats not what deterred criminals in Japan. The laws were already on the books. What CHANGED was increased PENALTIES.

Penalties are the functional aspect of "gun laws"


So..how about it...all for life sentences for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, right? Notice...that requires NO new gun laws...just harsher sentences for EXISTING gun laws. You know...like what caused the criminals to rethink their strategy in Japan.

You realize a change in penalties would require a functional and textual change to "gun laws"? You're making a distinction without a difference
 
Back
Top Bottom