• 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 . . .

CRUE CAB said:
I can walk in on something at any time just as easily as any cop, I can come home to find someone in my home. I make be awakend by people in my home.
Click to expand...

Not really. They are doing more walking into than the average citizen.
 
opendebate said:
Do you think that importing role models has any real impact? Like Big Brother programs or athletes and musicians who set more positive examples.

BTW, loved Eastwood in GT
Click to expand...

Some. Not as much as actual role models in your daily life. Connections, human connections pay off best.
 
TurtleDude said:
rejected as being contrary to known reality. You apparently don't know much about police matters either. Convenience store night shift workers and cab drivers are more dangerous professions in terms of being confronted by armed robbers than cops. Most cops never draw their weapons for self defense. But you are apparently afraid to tell us why honest citizens should be limited to 10-7-5 rounds when criminals and cops are not. It is because you cannot make a sound argument for that nonsense
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The job demands involvement. And more, much more involvement than most ever see. That is reality.

And I have made a sound argument. You just don't need it. 7 rounds are more than enough. And it might make bad guys have to reload more often. it's a minor thing all the way around. Minor effect on the crime they want to stop and minor effect on you. hardly worth anyone whining about.
 
MACS-24 said:
In response to:





So show us?

But nice dodge per the norm.
Click to expand...

What is it exactly I am suppose to show you? Another poster makes a drive-by post on theside of gun proliferation and I match it with my own poking fun at the very idea of proliferation.

And what am I suppose to show you from this?
 
VanceMack said:
Its not over the top...its just outright moronic. Its stupid at every level. Kids dont have the right to own handguns and absolutely DO have the right to healthcare. Parents can buy a firearm and teach their kid how to shoot, just as they can buy their children healthcare. Pretty ****ing stupid to try to blame gun owners for the pathetic irresponsible parent that refuses to provide adequate support for their own child.
Click to expand...

It's over the top. The point it makes is largely true, that calls for family values usually lose to American mythology. That some get more worked up over the 2nd amendment than the health care needs of the nation, which includes children and the elderly, does show a priority that is not in keeping an honest definition of family values.
 
In Canada we don't go to bed worrying about a burglar with a gun coming into our homes in the middle of the night and so we don't sleep with guns under our pillows, under the bed, in our noses, etc. Most Americans would love to have it the same way obviously.

But the gungoons are different in that many of them are hoping and praying for a chance to use his gun against a armed burglar. If you listen to them and read what they say, it's pretty obvious that they wish it to happen. This is the American gungoon mentality. It's the same mentality that causes them to go out and buy AR type weapons and then to be seen using one at a range. Complete with the camo costume and all. They consider it's cool and it makes them look tough. Also makes up for their deficiency in the between the legs equipment they are lacking in.
 
Ikari said:
It's not a comfort, it's a reality. Free is not safe by the very nature of freedom. I'm not making emotionalized arguments, I'm merely stating facts.
Click to expand...

Of course it is not a comfort to the the inocent dead or their families....... thus the sarcasm.
 
haymarket said:
Of course it is not a comfort to the the inocent dead or their families....... thus the sarcasm.
Click to expand...

It was a ridiculous comment built upon nothing other than wanting to get someone to respond emotionally rather than rationally. Not so much sarcasm as much as it is intellectually dishonest propaganda.

Many people can die and will die on any given day from a variety of things. Freedom only increases the potential for the abuse and given enough people and time it will happen. It's statistics, probabilities and population distributions. Most freedoms cost lives in some way or another.
 
Boo Radley said:
Some. Not as much as actual role models in your daily life. Connections, human connections pay off best.
Click to expand...

I always thought that a potential byproduct of communication technology was the lack of real connections. Having 500 "friends" on Facebook doesn't mean you actually have 500 friends. Having an internet family is just not the same. I guess, for some, it is better than nothing and can be a nice supplement to real friendships and a pleasent escape. Maybe when it gets down to it though those connections are to innate a need in humans, perhaps all this tech love is just a temporary distraction. Derail...sorry
 
Ikari said:
Most freedoms cost lives in some way or another.
Click to expand...

Therein lies one of the major flaws in the libertarian mindset. It's a completely distorted view of what makes up freedom.
 
Michael66 said:
Therein lies one of the major flaws in the libertarian mindset. It's a completely distorted view of what makes up freedom.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. It's merely an acknowledgement of human behavior and statistics. If anything, it is perhaps your major flaw in understanding humans and math.
 
Boo Radley said:
It's over the top. The point it makes is largely true, that calls for family values usually lose to American mythology. That some get more worked up over the 2nd amendment than the health care needs of the nation, which includes children and the elderly, does show a priority that is not in keeping an honest definition of family values.
Click to expand...
No...its not over the top. its stupid. It is in no way a 'comparison'. The only people that would try to force that square peg into a round hole are people that WANT it to fit.

Most of those people that get worked up over the second amendment are tired of ****heads attacking their rights on a regular basis. Oh...and we also already TAKE CARE OF our children. And since you like comparisons, its pretty ridiculous that people that are so readily pro slaughter of the unborn actually pretend to care about 'the children'.
 
opendebate said:
I always thought that a potential byproduct of communication technology was the lack of real connections. Having 500 "friends" on Facebook doesn't mean you actually have 500 friends. Having an internet family is just not the same. I guess, for some, it is better than nothing and can be a nice supplement to real friendships and a pleasent escape. Maybe when it gets down to it though those connections are to innate a need in humans, perhaps all this tech love is just a temporary distraction. Derail...sorry
Click to expand...

I tend to agree.
 
VanceMack said:
No...its not over the top. its stupid. It is in no way a 'comparison'. The only people that would try to force that square peg into a round hole are people that WANT it to fit.

Most of those people that get worked up over the second amendment are tired of ****heads attacking their rights on a regular basis. Oh...and we also already TAKE CARE OF our children. And since you like comparisons, its pretty ridiculous that people that are so readily pro slaughter of the unborn actually pretend to care about 'the children'.
Click to expand...

Then I say grow a pair. Criticism and what you call attacks are part of life. And while I don't support abortion, those who do actually argue it is not yet viable life. So even there you find a difference.

So, someone went over the top. You matched them. Feel better?
 
Higgins86 said:
It's a shame that a country full of so many intelligent people can't sit down and have a discussion about something as important as gun control without ripping each others faces off.
Click to expand...

Because there is no middle ground for giving up ones rights.
 
haymarket said:
What is it exactly I am suppose to show you? Another poster makes a drive-by post on theside of gun proliferation and I match it with my own poking fun at the very idea of proliferation.

And what am I suppose to show you from this?
Click to expand...

Show me a link supporting this claim:

haymarket said:
Ah yes - the gun lobby dream of 300 million people armed to the teeth ready and willing to engage in battle at the drop of a hat anytime, anyplace and anywhere. :roll:
Click to expand...
 
haymarket said:
Ah yes - the gun lobby dream of 300 million people armed to the teeth ready and willing to engage in battle at the drop of a hat anytime, anyplace and anywhere. :roll:
Click to expand...

Then show where TD said this as you claimed.
 
Verax said:
OH **** ITS ON!

Mothers lock up your daughters, CRUE CAB is putting up his dukes.
Click to expand...
No fear here. Any way he was the one telling me I would get my ass whooped in Oz for speaking like this there. I highly doubt it seeing as we get quite a few tourists from there and I have met many.
And everyone I spoke to hates their country's gun laws.
 
Slyfox696 said:
....Can't the pro gun crowd show a little respect and at least let the bodies cool before they turn this into a political issue?
Click to expand...

MaggieD said:
You mean like this?
Click to expand...

Or maybe like this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...m-shooting-oikos-university-california-5.html

MaggieD said:
Where are the Congressional hearings on this violence?
Click to expand...

Bull****. The OP does not even comment on the shootings outside the quote. It's the lowest form of politics, exploiting the dead. I can just see Maggie running to the computer "YES! A bunch of people dead so I can bitch about congress!".
Click to expand...

You provided no insight on the story other than suggesting that congress should look into it. If people wish to comment on the motives of your request, the legitimacy of the request, or the idea of such a request in relation to the action that occured then they are discussing the topic YOU presented in the OP. YOU chose to be exploitative and attempt to capitalize on the deaths of others to push your own political issues with the Trayvon Martin case, and if people disagree with doing such a thing or using this horrific incident to do such, YOU have to deal with it just like anyone else that makes a disgusting political point has to deal with people disagreeing with them about it
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

No not surprised at all that you started this thread with:
MaggieD said:
....Here.We.Go.Again.
Click to expand...

:2no4:
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
Hardly. If there was no push form the populace, there would be no movement. That's how it works. If you take the time to look, you would see a majority of urban folk want gun laws and a majority of rural people don't, for the most part.
Click to expand...

Have any sort of link to back that up or just another lie.
 
Ikari said:
This is a lot of assumption and hysteria. The major assumption is that everything else except government remains constant so that direct comparison can be made. That is of course untrue. What makes a country first or third is a build up of many dynamics and not based solely on the government. It assumes that the various successful countries of Europe all succeeded similarly and based predominately on their government. You further imply that because some weak government countries are third world countries, then all small and constrained government can only produce third world countries. This is of course untrue, as many of the now established first and second world countries came about from environments that initially had a more constrained government. Additionally, it does not say that a constrained government is no government or an ineffective government as may be found in the third world states. Your entire argument is just one big logic fail.

So thus isn't hard data, it's assumption and supposition.
Click to expand...

You're tap-dancing around the issue. Look again at the data and ask yourself, what do ALL first-world democracies have in common? They all share certain characteristics...so what are those characteristics? I pointed them out, if you don't remember.

Likewise, look at all the nations that have weak government, low effective taxes, and little or no regulation - what do they all have in common?

Guy, you're always going to be able to find this or that small 'dynamic'...but that's focusing on one or two trees and thinking they represent the whole forest. Step back and take the WIDE view, see the whole forest...

...and ask yourself why it is that conservative dogma cannot explain why all first-world nations have the exact kind of governmental and economic systems that should run their respective economies to ruin...yet all the nations which have the kind of governmental and economic systems that conservatives say would lead a nation to economic prosperity...these nations are all third-world nations.

And if you can't explain it, don't feel bad - I've asked conservatives this question a hundred times or more, and every single time, they flail around trying to point out this or that small 'dynamic', or they just toss out insults.
 
VanceMack said:
You want to keep playing the silly implication game, be my guest. You created the stupid...you might as well continue to dwell in it.

And thanks for proving the point. You care not a damn about the 'victims'...but boy, dont you love your pet 'cause'.
Click to expand...

Why, you MUST be absolutely right in everything, 'cause obviously gun-rights supporters, being the Real Red-Blooded Americans they are, are the ONLY people in America who really care for other people! They KNOW that if one helps out his fellow man, he's only hurting his fellow man by making it too easy on him...so they show their love for their fellow man (and woman and child) by NOT helping them - "tough love", y'know. They KNOW that liberals like myself, when we're out there helping the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed, we're only trying to destroy conservatives and take away their guns!

That's why Real Red-Blooded Gun-Owning Americans want to slash funding for Head Start, for food stamps, for rape kits, for people who lost their jobs (it's always their fault and of course could NEVER be the fault of the company responding to a crappy economy)...these are all just wastes of time and taxpayer dollars - it's MUCH better to take ALL the money away from social programs and give it to the Defense Department, because, you know, liberals and terrorists!
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Why, you MUST be absolutely right in everything, 'cause obviously gun-rights supporters, being the Real Red-Blooded Americans they are, are the ONLY people in America who really care for other people! They KNOW that if one helps out his fellow man, he's only hurting his fellow man by making it too easy on him...so they show their love for their fellow man (and woman and child) by NOT helping them - "tough love", y'know. They KNOW that liberals like myself, when we're out there helping the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed, we're only trying to destroy conservatives and take away their guns!

That's why Real Red-Blooded Gun-Owning Americans want to slash funding for Head Start, for food stamps, for rape kits, for people who lost their jobs (it's always their fault and of course could NEVER be the fault of the company responding to a crappy economy)...these are all just wastes of time and taxpayer dollars - it's MUCH better to take ALL the money away from social programs and give it to the Defense Department, because, you know, liberals and terrorists!
Click to expand...
You know...if you actually pick a track for your arguments you might look just a tiny bit less silly. Maybe. MAYbe....
 
Utility Man said:
Or maybe like this:



No not surprised at all that you started this thread with:

:2no4:
Click to expand...

Really??? You equate my "Where are the Congressional hearings on this" and "Here.we.go.again" with THIS???

Utility Man said:
tumblr_mmp5he2T6l1qinrtgo1_1280.jpg


:screwy
Click to expand...

REALLY?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom