• 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 . . .

Boo Radley said:
We can measure what will do the job, yes. We can Go over the known measurable events requiring a gun, and measure how many need multiple rounds, and assess how many were actually needed. There us a certain amount of subjectivity in muscle building as well. The difference between the is not that great, and both can be approached scientifically.
Click to expand...

You must know the skill of the user and how they react under pressure, the second of which can not be established beforehand. They might react well and shoot them all in the head or torso in one shot or they might miss like a noob and barely get out alive.

You are trying to pin it down to seven shots and frankly there is no reason to think you can.
 
VanceMack said:
Just out of curiosity...how exactly is mag capacity relevant in this story?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I didn't bring it up. I just participated in a conversation already going on.
 
TurtleDude said:
what a silly dichotomy

why don't you tell us what sort of laws would guarantee no more school shootings
Click to expand...

Yes, its a complete hypothetical. Forget the law, I just want you to tell us that if you believed that a particular regulation or restriction would, in all reasonable probability, significantly reduce public shootings (schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, etc), you would be in favor of such. Call it Panacea Gun Control Act.

I simply am putting you to the test: Would you sacrifice unfettered gun rights to save 25-50 kids per year; or, is it, as I believe it is to you, an acceptable level of collateral casualty in maintaining absolute gun rights?

I believe my charge is absolutely correct....many to most gun rights advocates find losing 25-50 kids per year to be an acceptable level of collateral casualties... we are sorry for their loss, but its the "price we pay"..... its ugly, but I believe it true.... because some of those people will accept ZERO compromise in how we handle guns in our society.

Now, I respect the notion that people are not in favor of gun control because they believe it would not solve the problem. I want to strip away that facade of shelter from those that simply would not tolerate any restrictions on guns in any circumstances, even if it would solve the problem. So, the Panacea Gun Control Act of 2016 will not take away individual ownership of guns, but will include some restrictions or regulations we do not have today, but, it is guaranteed to significantly reduce public shootings.....

Are you in favor of the Panacea Gun Control Act 0f 2106?
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Yes, its a complete hypothetical. Forget the law, I just want you to tell us that if you believed that a particular regulation or restriction would, in all reasonable probability, significantly reduce public shootings (schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, etc), you would be in favor of such. Call it Panacea Gun Control Act.

I simply am putting you to the test: Would you sacrifice unfettered gun rights to save 25-50 kids per year; or, is it, as I believe it is to you, an acceptable level of collateral casualty in maintaining absolute gun rights? Now, I respect the notion that people are not in favor of gun control because they believe it would not solve the problem. I want to strip away that facade of shelter from those that simply would not tolerate any restrictions on guns in any circumstances, even if it would solve the problem. So, the Panacea Gun Control Act is guaranteed to significantly reduce public shootings.....

Are you in favor of the Panacea Gun Control Act?
Click to expand...
No...because as your example and words point out...fairy tales dont keep people safe.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, and yet those countries allow their military to have such weaponry. I find it very strange to trust the government with weapons you do not trust the people with.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of Class III stuff, so not sure what you are talking about. My 1919A4 belt fed crew served machine gun is the largest of my present weapons, but I had owned an AN-M2 until recently as well. And there are people out there that own GE Miniguns. There are definitely things the US Military owns that civilians should not own. Why do people need LAWS rockets? Why do people need M16 launched grenades? Flame throwers? Mid size mortars? Heck, nuclear weapons? And yet, Americans can legally own all of those except for the nuclear weapons. You might want to youtube Knob Creek.

 
Boo Radley said:
Yes, for the average citizen, it is unlikely to ever arise.
Click to expand...

fires are unlikely as well. unlikely is not a reason to be unprepared
 
upsideguy said:
Yes, its a complete hypothetical. Forget the law, I just want you to tell us that if you believed that a particular regulation or restriction would, in all reasonable probability, significantly reduce public shootings (schools, shopping malls, movie theatres, etc), you would be in favor of such. Call it Panacea Gun Control Act.

I simply am putting you to the test: Would you sacrifice unfettered gun rights to save 25-50 kids per year; or, is it, as I believe it is to you, an acceptable level of collateral casualty in maintaining absolute gun rights?

I believe my charge is absolutely correct....many to most gun rights advocates find losing 25-50 kids per year to be an acceptable level of collateral casualties... we are sorry for their loss, but its the "price we pay"..... its ugly, but I believe it true.... because some of those people will accept ZERO compromise in how we handle guns in our society.

Now, I respect the notion that people are not in favor of gun control because they believe it would not solve the problem. I want to strip away that facade of shelter from those that simply would not tolerate any restrictions on guns in any circumstances, even if it would solve the problem. So, the Panacea Gun Control Act of 2016 will not take away individual ownership of guns, but will include some restrictions or regulations we do not have today, but, it is guaranteed to significantly reduce public shootings.....

Are you in favor of the Panacea Gun Control Act 0f 2106?
Click to expand...

That's a stupid argument. and what is even more stupid is that saving kids is not what motivates 99% of the people who lead the gun control movement.
 
TurtleDude said:
fires are unlikely as well. unlikely is not a reason to be unprepared
Click to expand...

No, fires happen pretty regularly and we can prove that. Sorry ChrisL but you liked something that was just wrong. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
No, fires happen pretty regularly and we can prove that. Sorry ChrisL but you liked something that was just wrong. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You are advocating for people to be unprepared because you fear law-abiding citizens who have weapons.
 
Boo Radley said:
It the context of it being enough to defend yourself, I do think it's adequate. But the context matters. I never said that need matter at all in terms of limiting or not limiting.

Like I said, just read what I actually write.
Click to expand...
What stats are you using to come to the conclusion that 7 rounds will always be enough to defend home and life?
 
ChrisL said:
You are advocating for people to be unprepared because you fear law-abiding citizens who have weapons.
Click to expand...

Nothing of the kind. I'm saying there is reasonable preparation and unreasonable preparation. My brother (you don't know him, but he's an idiot), if preparing for the alien invasion and the government putting a chip in is butt. Such is unreasonable. If what TD claims is true, like with fires, he should be able to show it happens in statistically significant numbers. If it does, than the preparation is reasonable. If not, unreasonable.
 
CRUE CAB said:
What stats are you using to come to the conclusion that 7 rounds will always be enough to defend home and life?
Click to expand...

You're going in the wrong direction. The positive claim is that you need them. I know of no statistics showing that you need them. If you have some, share them.
 
TurtleDude said:
people like him demonstrate what I have been saying since I first came to this forum. The anti gun left does not hate armed criminals. The anti gun left hates pro gun organizations that funnel money and votes to anti socialist politicians. Therefore it is obvious that gun control is designed to harass pro gun groups and their members-not criminals
Click to expand...

I don't hate armed criminals and why should I? I try to understand criminals and what motivates them, then am more interested in rehabilitating a criminal rather than punishing them. And that's not to say that a prison term isn't sometimes warranted. Capital punishment is never warranted, not even in the most egregious cases of murder.

And I think that 'hate' is too strong an emotion to describe the slaughter of innocents by guns in all instances and not only by criminals. It's mostly needless slaughter which Americans choose to allow people to inflict upon others when it could be largely prevented with a few sensible gun laws.

The Mark
It proves that foreign gun haters are mad that we can own guns and they cannot
Click to expand...

That's ridiculous. Canadians can own guns for lawful purposes but we don't allow Canadians to carry handguns around on the street. We restrict handgun use to taking it to a shooting range to use it and then directly back home with it. A law I consider very sensible as handguns are made purposely for killing people. It would be foolish to allow people to carry them around on the street because then we would be somewhat equalling the US statistics of gun violence and even accidental shootings.

Only allowing that for handgun ownership and use also discourages those who think they need a gun in their home for protection. That's not desirable because we know the statistics say that encourages home burglars to carry guns too and that results in shootings of innocent people as well as the burglars. The punishment doesn't fit the crime for the burglars who are only intent on a robbery.

And so, it's pretty obvious that most Americans won't be able to understand all that. It's not important that they do but what is important is that our gun violence and loss of innocent lives of our loved ones is much lower than it is in the US/per capita.

Maybe some Americans who have lost a loved one to gun violence will understand, after the fact?
 
Boo Radley said:
No, fires happen pretty regularly and we can prove that. Sorry ChrisL but you liked something that was just wrong. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

as does violent crime. what do you think happens more

robbery, theft, rape or murder or harmful fires?
 
Michael66 said:
Only allowing that for handgun ownership and use also discourages those who think they need a gun in their home for protection. That's not desirable because we know the statistics say that encourages home burglars to carry guns too and that results in shootings of innocent people as well as the burglars. The punishment doesn't fit the crime for the burglars who are only intent on a robbery.
Click to expand...

Those criminals intent on robbery don't break into homes where people are at home. If your home is broken into at 2 AM in the morning? You are in a fight for your life. Whether they have guns or not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Nothing of the kind. I'm saying there is reasonable preparation and unreasonable preparation. My brother (you don't know him, but he's an idiot), if preparing for the alien invasion and the government putting a chip in is butt. Such is unreasonable. If what TD claims is true, like with fires, he should be able to show it happens in statistically significant numbers. If it does, than the preparation is reasonable. If not, unreasonable.
Click to expand...

there is no down side to someone licensed to carry a weapon from having 17 rounds in his gun but there is a down side to him being limited to 7 rounds even if one attack out of 100 would require more to solve the problem. You have changed your argument from there is NO NEED to there is not a statistically "significant" need

which is stupid. Remember if it SAVES JUST ONE INNOCENT LIFE

and since every police department has found that more than 7 is NEEDED, who are you to say otherwise? and don't give me the crap that police are more likely than other citizens to confront violent criminals-most cops do not.

YOUR failure is that you cannot show any reason why a person should be prohibited from having a 10-15-20 shot pistol if they have already been legally cleared to carry such a weapon in public
 
MaggieD said:
Those criminals intent on robbery don't break into homes where people are at home. If your home is broken into at 2 AM in the morning? You are in a fight for your life. Whether they have guns or not.
Click to expand...

MIchael has admitted he is against a criminal being killed as punishment no matter what the criminal did. From that we can understand that he opposes a victim of violent crime being able to kill the criminal in self defense even if the criminal intends mass murder. Logic or facts are not going to overcome that sort of mindset. better say 2 girls be raped and burned to death (as was that case in Connecticut) than the two rapists be shot by the father.
 
Boo Radley said:
You're going in the wrong direction. The positive claim is that you need them. I know of no statistics showing that you need them. If you have some, share them.
Click to expand...
There is no stat that covers what is the optimum round count to have on hand. Even most police officers carry a loaded weapon with at least 2 mags in pouches.
Say in a Glock, that could be up to 51 rounds on tap if running a 9mm with 17 round mags. Plus one in the chamber gives 52.
Now why should an officer, be able to have 52 on hand and me or anyone else be limited?
 
Michael66 said:
I don't hate armed criminals and why should I? I try to understand criminals and what motivates them, then am more interested in rehabilitating a criminal rather than punishing them. And that's not to say that a prison term isn't sometimes warranted. Capital punishment is never warranted, not even in the most egregious cases of murder.

And I think that 'hate' is too strong an emotion to describe the slaughter of innocents by guns in all instances and not only by criminals. It's mostly needless slaughter which Americans choose to allow people to inflict upon others when it could be largely prevented with a few sensible gun laws.

The Mark

That's ridiculous. Canadians can own guns for lawful purposes but we don't allow Canadians to carry handguns around on the street. We restrict handgun use to taking it to a shooting range to use it and then directly back home with it. A law I consider very sensible as handguns are made purposely for killing people. It would be foolish to allow people to carry them around on the street because then we would be somewhat equalling the US statistics of gun violence and even accidental shootings.

Only allowing that for handgun ownership and use also discourages those who think they need a gun in their home for protection. That's not desirable because we know the statistics say that encourages home burglars to carry guns too and that results in shootings of innocent people as well as the burglars. The punishment doesn't fit the crime for the burglars who are only intent on a robbery.

And so, it's pretty obvious that most Americans won't be able to understand all that. It's not important that they do but what is important is that our gun violence and loss of innocent lives of our loved ones is much lower than it is in the US/per capita.

Maybe some Americans who have lost a loved one to gun violence will understand, after the fact?
Click to expand...
What about Americans that have lost a loved one to criminal violence? I guess they dont count.
 
CRUE CAB said:
There is no stat that covers what is the optimum round count to have on hand. Even most police officers carry a loaded weapon with at least 2 mags in pouches.
Say in a Glock, that could be up to 51 rounds on tap if running a 9mm with 17 round mags. Plus one in the chamber gives 52.
Now why should an officer, be able to have 52 on hand and me or anyone else be limited?
Click to expand...

He won't come out and explain why there is a downside with people who are allowed to carry firearms being so limited. For him to do so he'd have to prove that licensed CCW holders or homeowners allowed to have weapons are more likely to engage in illegal behavior and that illegal behavior is more deleterious to society when those previously law abiding citizens are using higher capacity magazines. Since he cannot do that, he merely insinuates they don't NEED them and are illogical, emotional and irrational in thinking they do. It is consistent with his entire SOP when it comes to gun issues--he starts off saying he DOES NOT FEEL A NEED to be armed and insinuates those who feel otherwise are irrational or paranoid
 
MaggieD said:
Those criminals intent on robbery don't break into homes where people are at home. If your home is broken into at 2 AM in the morning? You are in a fight for your life. Whether they have guns or not.
Click to expand...

You appear to be contradicting yourself in your first two sentences. And so let's consider that your second sentence is valid at least in some circumstances. If the burglar is carrying a gun then you are obviously likely to be shot and if he isn't carrying a gun then your aren't remotely likely to be shot. At least that we can agree upon so far.

If the burglar is carrying a gun then it's likely that somebody could be shot dead. I would suggest that's just as likely to be the home owner or one of his family as it is that the burglar is shot.

In an instance where guns or 'a' gun is involved then the fight for your life that you suggest is more likely to end in someone's death than it would be without guns involved. Statistically that is a proven fact. But it's certainly not proven fact that a home owner would be in a fight for his/her life if he run up against a burglar in his home, regardless of the time of day or night.

And then, everything I say is again proven by the statistics of a comparison between Canada's gun violence and that in your country.

Perhaps one thing we can agree upon is that it's not a desirable end result to have a home burglar shot dead by a home owner. I completely understand the emotion behind it all but I think that one of the first tasks is to try to rise above the emotion. A burglar, who could be a juvenile in many cases can be successfully reformed by a caring system and go on to live a very productive life.

Let's try to work on that for a beginning. Not confused ideas of citizens becoming victims judged on whether they have a gun handy to protect themselves.
 
Michael66 said:
You appear to be contradicting yourself in your first two sentences. And so let's consider that your second sentence is valid at least in some circumstances. If the burglar is carrying a gun then you are obviously likely to be shot and if he isn't carrying a gun then your aren't remotely likely to be shot. At least that we can agree upon so far.

If the burglar is carrying a gun then it's likely that somebody could be shot dead. I would suggest that's just as likely to be the home owner or one of his family as it is that the burglar is shot.

In an instance where guns or 'a' gun is involved then the fight for your life that you suggest is more likely to end in someone's death than it would be without guns involved. Statistically that is a proven fact. But it's certainly not proven fact that a home owner would be in a fight for his/her life if he run up against a burglar in his home, regardless of the time of day or night.

And then, everything I say is again proven by the statistics of a comparison between Canada's gun violence and that in your country.

Perhaps one thing we can agree upon is that it's not a desirable end result to have a home burglar shot dead by a home owner. I completely understand the emotion behind it all but I think that one of the first tasks is to try to rise above the emotion. A burglar, who could be a juvenile in many cases can be successfully reformed by a caring system and go on to live a very productive life.

Let's try to work on that for a beginning. Not confused ideas of citizens becoming victims judged on whether they have a gun handy to protect themselves.
Click to expand...

These aren't "confused ideas." These are statistics. From the Bureau of Justice:

3.7 million burglaries occur each year in the United States.
At least one household member was present during 1 million of them and became victims of violent crime in 266,000 of them. 9% of this violence is classified as "serious." That's just under 26,000 victims of serious violence each year during home invasions.

Are these stats insignificant? I guess it depends upon whether one is included in them. Protecting one's home falls on the people who live there. Not the neighbors. Not the coppers. "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
 
MaggieD said:
These aren't "confused ideas." These are statistics. From the Bureau of Justice:

3.7 million burglaries occur each year in the United States.
At least one household member was present during 1 million of them and became victims of violent crime in 266,000 of them. 9% of this violence is classified as "serious." That's just under 26,000 victims of serious violence each year during home invasions.

Are these stats insignificant? I guess it depends upon whether one is included in them. Protecting one's home falls on the people who live there. Not the neighbors. Not the coppers. "When seconds count, the cops are minutes away."

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
Click to expand...

The stats aren't insignificant but I'm not even sure what you think I'm disagreeing with. I do note that of the million where the homeowner was present there were 266,000 victims of violent crime. But of those victims, it's my guess that most of them were shot with a gun. You don't bother to state that for some reason. And so again, what is true is that if guns weren't involved then most of those wouldn't be victims. Probably a lot more bloody noses and maybe even broken limbs but not fatalities.

Just what do you think you're arguing now? Could it be that you consider that getting the best of a burglar is more important than getting shot dead or having a loved one shot dead? Or even that preserving your owning precious articles of jewelry is more important than the lives of your loved ones?
 
Michael66 said:
The stats aren't insignificant but I'm not even sure what you think I'm disagreeing with. I do note that of the million where the homeowner was present there were 266,000 victims of violent crime. But of those victims, it's my guess that most of them were shot with a gun. You don't bother to state that for some reason. And so again, what is true is that if guns weren't involved then most of those wouldn't be victims. Probably a lot more bloody noses and maybe even broken limbs but not fatalities.
Click to expand...

61% of the serious violence occurred with no gun present. (So much for your guess.) There's no nefarious reason I didn't mention it. The statistics at the link speak for themselves.

Just what do you think you're arguing now? Could it be that you consider that getting the best of a burglar is more important than getting shot dead or having a loved one shot dead? Or even that preserving your owning precious articles of jewelry is more important than the lives of your loved ones?
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that, because I had no idea what point you were trying to make in the post I responded to. Now, however, you've made your point very clear. You've somehow arrived at the conclusion that, because I have a gun in my home, I am interested in protecting personal property. I have absolutely no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

I couldn't care less about my personal property. Besides their being "mere things," I have plenty of insurance for that eventuality. What I most certainly do value is my life and the lives of my loved ones.

But, as someone famous once said, "Let me make this perfectly clear." If an intruder breaks into my home in the middle of the night and I can access my gun before he "accesses me or mine," I won't be asking if he's armed. I won't be asking if his intention is just to rob my house. And I won't be asking him to freeze. I'll be blowing his ass away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom