• 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!

Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother[W:52]

Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
I'm sure it has been ....and just about as regularly as there have been lottery winners :lol:
Click to expand...

Even if that is so. There are sooo many other inanimate objects that could be used as examples. Bats. Hammers. Knives. Etc etc etc. All of them add up to more murders than guns.

flogger said:
Of course its is. Its an attempt to excuse firearms killing and protect guns
Click to expand...

Except that this isn't actually about guns. Its actually about some people suing someone that never once used a gun or anything else to hurt anyone. Which is the very reason that I've been asking you a very pointed question. Which you refuse to actually answer because it would show the hypocrisy of your stance. Your very denial to answer the question shows the hypocrisy. You know very well that you would not and should not be held responsible for your grown child's actions of murdering someone with something that is yours. And note how that is phrased. Not once is the word "gun" used in it. Why? Because what is used to kill is irrelevant to what is actually being done by these families that in their grief and anger are being goaded into by money grubbing lawyers. And I would bet a years subscription to DP that many people agree with my stance more than yours. Including people there in Wokingham England.

flogger said:
Unlike you my reasoning and logic allow me to distinguish between what is and is not a weapon
Click to expand...

Ask any cop or lawyer. A car can be and has been considered as a weapon before. So have bats, knives, hammers etc etc etc. Of course you don't have to take my word for it. Here is a legal definition of weapon.

Weapon Law & Legal Definition

"Section 13.68.010 Dangerous weapon--Defined.

As used in this chapter, "dangerous weapon" means and includes, but is not limited to:
Any knife having a blade three inches or more in length, or any snap-blade or spring-blade knife regardless of the length of the blade;
Any ice pick or similar sharp stabbing tool;
Any straight edge razor or any razor blade fitted to a handle;
Any cutting, stabbing or bludgeoning weapon or device capable of inflicting grievous bodily harm;
Any dirk or dagger or bludgeon;
Any "taser public defender" or other similar electronic immobilizer which causes, by means of an electrical current, a person to experience muscle spasms and extreme pain, followed by unconsciousness. (Ord. 4814-NS § 1, 1975: Ord. 2881-NS § 1, 1947)"
Click to expand...

Cars would fall under the bolded part there btw. I know you want to pretend that the world is full of rainbows and roses, but reality shows that pretty much anything can be a weapon.
 
Ockham said:
And to kill others with guns to back their own ideology. Isn't that what Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and the rest did? I guess we're finally seeing the true nature come out right here on DP.
Click to expand...

The people who see fit to wallow in the delusion that they need guns to one day rebel and make war against America, its government and its people are simply hollow barrels engaged in machismo chest thumping designed and crafted to largely impress each other. They are no more going to do that than they are going to reasonably discuss the entire issue of firearms ownership. Its all show and no go.
 
haymarket said:
The people who see fit to wallow in the delusion that they need guns to one day rebel and make war against America, its government and its people are simply hollow barrels engaged in machismo chest thumping designed and crafted to largely impress each other. They are no more going to do that than they are going to reasonably discuss the entire issue of firearms ownership. Its all show and no go.
Click to expand...

Nor is your wish to murder current gun owners, which is pure Lunatic Fringe material.

It mirrors the anti-abortion folks who justifying murdering abortion doctors - killing is OK as long as you are the one deciding who gets killed.
 
SMTA said:
Nor is your wish to murder current gun owners, which is pure Lunatic Fringe material.

It mirrors the anti-abortion folks who justifying murdering abortion doctors - killing is OK as long as you are the one deciding who gets killed.
Click to expand...

So how would you want the authorities to handle armed violent rebellion?
 
haymarket said:
So how would you want the authorities to handle armed violent rebellion?
Click to expand...

Ah, so now you salivate about the fact that gun owners won't accept the murder of their numbers, will rightfully rebel, and you get to slaughter even more?

That thought just fills your heart with glee, doesn't it?

Nice.
 
TurtleDude said:
what is hilarious is gun banners' dreams for a "gun free America" requires men with guns to carry out that dream
Click to expand...

Delicious irony indeed, eh? :roll:
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
No lets not indulge that blatant dodge again. In my country even our kiddies know there is no moral equivalency between a weapon and a mode of transportation
Click to expand...

Is that what the government has taught them?
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

Kal'Stang said:
Even if that is so. There are sooo many other inanimate objects that could be used as examples. Bats. Hammers. Knives. Etc etc etc. All of them add up to more murders than guns.
Click to expand...

No they do not. Three quarters of your murders involve a firearm

Except that this isn't actually about guns. Its actually about some people suing someone that never once used a gun or anything else to hurt anyone. Which is the very reason that I've been asking you a very pointed question. Which you refuse to actually answer because it would show the hypocrisy of your stance
Click to expand...

I did answer you affirming that their estate should be sued

Your very denial to answer the question shows the hypocrisy. You know very well that you would not and should not be held responsible for your grown child's actions of murdering someone with something that is yours. And note how that is phrased. Not once is the word "gun" used in it. Why? Because what is used to kill is irrelevant to what is actually being done by these families that in their grief and anger are being goaded into by money grubbing lawyers. And I would bet a years subscription to DP that many people agree with my stance more than yours. Including people there in Wokingham England.
Click to expand...

The only people agreeing with your stance here would be those locked up in Broadmoor just down the road
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
No just the use of their common sense :roll:
Click to expand...

Maybe true in England, but debatable elsewhere. :peace
 
SMTA said:
Ah, so now you salivate about the fact that gun owners won't accept the murder of their numbers, will rightfully rebel, and you get to slaughter even more?

That thought just fills your heart with glee, doesn't it?

Nice.
Click to expand...

What was clearly NOT nice was you reproduced by post as a mere excuse to attack me again and present a skewed and biased viewpoint that I never wrote in any post without even answering the very direct question posed to you.

So try again. So how would you want the authorities to handle armed violent rebellion?
 
haymarket said:
What was clearly NOT nice was you reproduced by post as a mere excuse to attack me again and present a skewed and biased viewpoint that I never wrote in any post without even answering the very direct question posed to you.

So try again. So how would you want the authorities to handle armed violent rebellion?
Click to expand...

If you look at the recent responses to my posts they really have no answers to the most pertinate questions. They really don't want to address the realities their lethal fetish poses for your wider society and given the scale of denial evidenced here that is indeed disturbing. :(
 
flogger said:
If you look at the recent responses to my posts they really have no answers to the most pertinate questions. They really don't want to address the realities their lethal fetish poses for your wider society and given the scale of denial evidenced here that is indeed disturbing. :(
Click to expand...

If you are going to stay here posting in gun threads you perhaps should get used to that. Its pretty much the same standard stuff over and over and over again no matter what the actual subject is.
 
haymarket said:
If you are going to stay here posting in gun threads you perhaps should get used to that. Its pretty much the same standard stuff over and over and over again no matter what the actual subject is.
Click to expand...

Don't start dancing for joy - there will be no appreciable change in US gun laws, as it should be.
 
SMTA said:
Don't start dancing for joy - there will be no appreciable change in US gun laws, as it should be.
Click to expand...

Oh I completely agree that there will be no appreciable change in US gun laws.
 
flogger said:
Because some are far more easily preventable than others with firearms deaths being perhaps the easiest of all given the UK example . Its this unwillingness by US firearm disciples to acknowledge that fact that makes them collectively culpable for your horrendous firearms stats



The guns most criminals now have were doubtless legally owned once upon a time so you are blaming the symptom and not the cause



By shooting people ?



I suspect your fear of crime is vastly greater than the actuality of it.
Click to expand...

Your premise is wrong in that you think that correlation equal causation. Yes.. Great Britain and Australia have lower "gun deaths"... you erroneously assume that its because of gun laws.. when its not.

If gun laws were as effective as you claim.. then Mexico.. with a strict gun control law.. should be a mecca of peace.. but its not.
 
jaeger19 said:
Your premise is wrong in that you think that correlation equal causation. Yes.. Great Britain and Australia have lower "gun deaths"... you erroneously assume that its because of gun laws.. when its not.

If gun laws were as effective as you claim.. then Mexico.. with a strict gun control law.. should be a mecca of peace.. but its not.
Click to expand...

Mexico's major problem is its corruption combined with its proximity to the 300 million freely available guns in the US

Guns from U.S. flood into Mexico - Democratic Underground
 
flogger said:
Mexico's major problem is its corruption combined with its proximity to the 300 million freely available guns in the US

Guns from U.S. flood into Mexico - Democratic Underground
Click to expand...

SO... then its proof positive that gun control does not work...

By the way.
How about Brazil?
if
The fact is that there a tons of countries with very strict gun laws.. and high violent crime rates. Gun control has very little correlation with lower crime rates. Heck.. if you look at Great Britain and overall violent crime.. they are statistically worse than we are. Despite draconian gun laws.
 
jaeger19 said:
SO... then its proof positive that gun control does not work...
Click to expand...

My country is proof positive that it does and that is reflected to varying degrees by every other developed country in the world. I don't regard either Mexico or Brazil as fitting into the 'developed' category

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heck.. if you look at Great Britain and overall violent crime.. they are statistically worse than we are. Despite draconian gun laws.
Click to expand...

Given theres no way to compare that given different national methodologies for collation and interpretation of such statistics your point cannot be validated. However ....

Crime at lowest level for 30 years | UK news | The Guardian

And our gun laws have obviously helped in achieving this
 
My country is proof positive that it does and that is reflected to varying degrees by every other developed country in the world. I don't regard either Mexico or Brazil as fitting into the 'developed' category
Click to expand...

Actually your country IS NOT proof positive that it works... Actually Mexico and Brazil would be proof positive it works. Because if gun control was effective.. it would work regardless of whether a country was developed or not "developed"..

That's based on scientific objectivity.

Given theres no way to compare that given different national methodologies for collation and interpretation of such statistics your point cannot be validated. However ....
Click to expand...

Actually sure there is... Its just that gun control advocates don't like the results.. thus they love "gun crime" but not violent crime.

The reality is that your gun laws have had nothing to do with lowering crime.

Here is the states it obvious...

According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.

And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
Click to expand...

The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.

Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.
Click to expand...


So our crime rates.. and gun crime rates dropped... as the number of guns has increased.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.
Click to expand...

Crime down.. reported gun ownership up.

Kind of blows your theory out of the water...

the reality is that your country has curtailed your personal rights for absolutely no good reason.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually your country IS NOT proof positive that it works... Actually Mexico and Brazil would be proof positive it works. Because if gun control was effective.. it would work regardless of whether a country was developed or not "developed"..

That's based on scientific objectivity.

Actually sure there is... Its just that gun control advocates don't like the results.. thus they love "gun crime" but not violent crime.

The reality is that your gun laws have had nothing to do with lowering crime.

Here is the states it obvious...

So our crime rates.. and gun crime rates dropped... as the number of guns has increased.

Crime down.. reported gun ownership up.

Kind of blows your theory out of the water...

the reality is that your country has curtailed your personal rights for absolutely no good reason.
Click to expand...

You've been given the facts and figures so theres not a lot more I can add.

You are today some 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than in Europe due to lack of proper gun control

I can't make you see something you clearly don't want to see :(
 
flogger said:
You've been given the facts and figures so theres not a lot more I can add.

You are today some 40 times more likely to be shot in the US than in Europe due to lack of proper gun control

I can't make you see something you clearly don't want to see :(
Click to expand...

You are more likely to be robbed, raped, or beaten in Europe..
 
Re: Sandy Hook families sue estate of shooter's mother

flogger said:
Ever think certain parts of your 18th century constitution might be out of date and require revision in order to be relevant to the 21st ? The guys that drafted it were slave owners after all
Click to expand...

Ever think principals and values are timeless, like self defense?

Really? The greatest slave owner that has ever lived is and will always be King George..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom