• 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!

School shooting this morning . . .

I doubt the state would pursue a case like that. There has to be a bad act. If someone had their gun locked up in a gun safe and the key appropriately unavailable, what criminal negligence would there have been? Although in a civil trial, the parents would probably still lose.

But let's face it. If this kids' parents had HAD a gun safe and the key appropriately unavailable, we wouldn't be posting in this thread.

That or if the parents were able to conceal or open carry and had it with them. ;)
 
1) there is no gun lobby. Guns don't lobby.

People from the gun lobby have personally lobbied both myself and the State Rep I am chief of staff for in the very office I now am typing this in.

But let me take a wild guess at what is really behind your statement: in the past you hate it when I state that there is no such thing as GUN RIGHTS since people have rights and not guns. So this is your rather unique way of doing the same or at least trying to.

They same that imitation is the sincerestform of flattery.
 
People from the gun lobby have personally lobbied both myself and the State Rep I am chief of staff for in the very office I now am typing this in.

Oh that is people who are lobbying for other people to have their second amendment rights protected. Guns weren't lobbying. You made a huge issue about us using the term gun rights so I wanted to make sure we were being consistent. If guns don't have rights (duh) then guns don't lobby either
 
Oh that is people who are lobbying for other people to have their second amendment rights protected. Guns weren't lobbying. You made a huge issue about us using the term gun rights so I wanted to make sure we were being consistent. If guns don't have rights (duh) then guns don't lobby either

Predictability is a wonderful thing. You are just as I predicted in 428. :roll::mrgreen::2wave:
 
Predictability is a wonderful thing. You are just as I predicted in 428. :roll::mrgreen::2wave:

predict all you want. I have stated facts and I also state my position clearly without any evasion or attempt to disown prior statements
 
again, another attempt to deflect from the fact that you have uttered opinions that are not supported by reality or expertise. The dishonesty is all on your side

I'm not the issue. Trying to make me the issue is you deflecting. And I have linked support. Try reading it. :coffeepap
 
Yup - I followed your logic exactly, Master.

Baloney. I providd a raft of evidence and all you provided was this type of na na na na BS.
 
The point was clear: you challenged me to support my previous statement with evidence and I have done just that.

Sorry I did not see any evidence. You must have forgotten to hit "post". Retry sending your clear pointed evidence.

Part two must be lost in cyberspace too: What is the point of gun free zones?
 
Baloney. I providd a raft of evidence and all you provided was this type of na na na na BS.

Seriously?

You have providded nothing of substance, and continually refuse to commit to any concrete position, as usual.
 
Seriously?

You have providded nothing of substance, and continually refuse to commit to any concrete position, as usual.

You have proven over and over again that you do not recognize any evidence or concrete position outside of your own willful belief of what you want to recognize.
 
Ignorant gungoons screaming about evidence when all the evidence needed is to look at the US's gun violence statistics and compare it with normal countries that control guns and the slaughter they are responsible for.
 
I'm not the issue. Trying to make me the issue is you deflecting. And I have linked support. Try reading it. :coffeepap

the issue is your cavalierly dismissing the rights of gun owners with moronic claims that silly laws are "minor" infringements (shall not be infringed was not followed by "major") and then spewing nonsense that has no basis in fact
 
You are clearly anti private gun ownership. Most people own guns for defence of home and protection of life.

That may be what the think they own them for but the data shows different. Every study find owning a gun INCREASES your risk of gun death.

Having a gun in your home significantly increases your risk of death — and that of your spouse and children.

And it doesn’t matter how the guns are stored or what type or how many guns you own.

If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost
 
Ignorant gungoons screaming about evidence when all the evidence needed is to look at the US's gun violence statistics and compare it with normal countries that control guns and the slaughter they are responsible for.

well another hall of fame stupid post. "gun goons" that's really smart. why are you so afraid of people in another country owning guns? Do you engage in activities that would justify an honest person shooting you?
 
That's may be what the think they own them for but the data shows different. Every study find owning a gun INCREASES your risk of gun death.


The health risk of having a gun in the home | MinnPost


every study finds armed victims are less likely to be harmed than disarmed ones.

most of those studies you cite are BS-for example-if someone brings a gun to your home and shoots you, the study counted that as a gun in your home.
 
You have proven over and over again that you do not recognize any evidence or concrete position outside of your own willful belief of what you want to recognize.

How is that different than the anti gun posters who pretend that magazine limits are "not major" or that massive infringements on our 2A rights does not violate the prohibition "Shall not be infringed"
 
the issue is your cavalierly dismissing the rights of gun owners with moronic claims that silly laws are "minor" infringements (shall not be infringed was not followed by "major") and then spewing nonsense that has no basis in fact

No right us absolute. And the courts have allowed for some regulation. So you being a little hyperbolic.
 
No right us absolute. And the courts have allowed for some regulation. So you being a little hyperbolic.


Regulation has to be reasonable and narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate objective. There is absolutely no evidence that magazine limits are either. The asshole Cuomo used a guy killing firemen with already illegal 30 round magazines to demand a move from 10 to 7 rounds

bottom line-it is dishonest for ANY political entity to issue weapons to its civilian employees for self defense against criminals and then tell other civilians that those weapons have no legitimate use that would prevent those citizens being banned from owning such firearms

Your persistent and ill reasoned argument is that we should presume that scumbag politicians are "right" when they want to limit our rights and the duty is upon us to prove their actions are more than a "minor infringement". That sort of deference is sickening. And when I asked you to tell us what experience or expertise you have, you could not post anything

bottom line

you don't like people owning guns and you will always give the benefit of doubt to anti gun regulations
 
Regulation has to be reasonable and narrowly tailored to accomplish a legitimate objective. There is absolutely no evidence that magazine limits are either. The asshole Cuomo used a guy killing firemen with already illegal 30 round magazines to demand a move from 10 to 7 rounds

bottom line-it is dishonest for ANY political entity to issue weapons to its civilian employees for self defense against criminals and then tell other civilians that those weapons have no legitimate use that would prevent those citizens being banned from owning such firearms

Your persistent and ill reasoned argument is that we should presume that scumbag politicians are "right" when they want to limit our rights and the duty is upon us to prove their actions are more than a "minor infringement". That sort of deference is sickening. And when I asked you to tell us what experience or expertise you have, you could not post anything

bottom line

you don't like people owning guns and you will always give the benefit of doubt to anti gun regulations

Your last sentence is a wild emotional leap. Try to temper that.

The rest is highly debatable. It makes logical sense that having to stop to reload would allow more time for victims to react. But that isn't anything I've research or claimed. I've claimed that it's not significant restriction. We don't live in a war zone. I've heard no rational argument or statistics that show a need for mire than seven rounds.

NIE you can argue it's your right. Take that to court. I'd be interested in the out come. Show the flaw in the reloading logic. I'll listen. But don't pretend you can't protect yourself without more than seven rounds. I don't buy it.
 
Your last sentence is a wild emotional leap. Try to temper that.

The rest is highly debatable. It makes logical sense that having to stop to reload would allow more time for victims to react. But that isn't anything I've research or claimed. I've claimed that it's not significant restriction. We don't live in a war zone. I've heard no rational argument or statistics that show a need for mire than seven rounds.

NIE you can argue it's your right. Take that to court. I'd be interested in the out come. Show the flaw in the reloading logic. I'll listen. But don't pretend you can't protect yourself without more than seven rounds. I don't buy it.

That's really stupid. You don't understand the reloading issue. Why should honest people be so handicapped. people PLANNING to murder others will have large capacity magazines. they already are violating OTHER laws
 
That's really stupid. You don't understand the reloading issue. Why should honest people be so handicapped. people PLANNING to murder others will have large capacity magazines. they already are violating OTHER laws

Feel free to explain it, but you've said nothing so far suggests it's an important issue. But you don't have gun fights in the street. A few shots and such, but not a war zone.
 
Back
Top Bottom