• 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!

Multiple deaths reported in Kansas workplace shooting

danarhea said:
No, I made a serious statement. I actually believe this, and I don't appreciate the personal attack. I would rather you tell me I am full of ****.
Click to expand...

Not a personal attack, I wasn't saying that to be a d*ck, its hard to decipher sarcasm online.
If you have any links supporting your beliefs I'd take a look.
 
truthatallcost said:
Not a personal attack, I wasn't saying that to be a d*ck, its hard to decipher sarcasm online.
If you have any links supporting your beliefs I'd take a look.
Click to expand...


Here's one academic link, there are others out there

The Impact of Childhood Lead Exposure on Crime

Abstract
Childhood lead exposure can lead to psychological traits that are strongly associated with
aggressive and criminal behavior. In the late 1970s in the United States, lead was removed from
gasoline under the Clean Air Act. I use the state-specific reductions in lead exposure that resulted
from this removal to identify the effect of childhood lead exposure on crime rates. The elasticity
of violent crime with respect to childhood lead exposure is estimated to be 0.8, and this result
is robust to numerous sensitivity tests. Mixed evidence supports an effect of lead exposure on
murder rates, and little evidence indicates an effect of lead on property crime. Overall, I find that
the reduction in childhood lead exposure in the late 1970s and early 1980s was responsible for
significant declines in violent crime in the 1990s and may cause further declines in the future.
Moreover, the social value of the reductions in violent crime far exceeds the cost of the removal of
lead from gasoline.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
i wonder how many people die everyday from knifes, clubs, and bare hands.
Click to expand...

You feel free to do some research on that topic - and if you reach the conclusion that we should do more to regulate knifes, clubs and bare hands - you do your thing.

I will keep making the argument that we should regulate firearms further because I do not enjoy living in a country that averages a mass shooting per day.
 
MrT said:
You feel free to do some research on that topic - and if you reach the conclusion that we should do more to regulate knifes, clubs and bare hands - you do your thing.

I will keep making the argument that we should regulate firearms further because I do not enjoy living in a country that averages a mass shooting per day.
Click to expand...

well i don't need to do the research because knifes clubs and bare hands exceed firearms deaths

you make your argument thats fine, and i will make mine based on the rights of the people.
 
MrT said:
You feel free to do some research on that topic - and if you reach the conclusion that we should do more to regulate knifes, clubs and bare hands - you do your thing.

I will keep making the argument that we should regulate firearms further because I do not enjoy living in a country that averages a mass shooting per day.
Click to expand...
Just curious...beyond the rhetoric, have you actually bothered to research any of those 'mass shootings' and what they are counting as a 'mass shooting'? Or for that matter...have you bothered to check to see if firearm regulations would have prevented them? Or your 'mental health screening' you are in favor of at the time of purchase?
 
VanceMack said:
Just curious...beyond the rhetoric, have you actually bothered to research any of those 'mass shootings' and what they are counting as a 'mass shooting'? Or for that matter...have you bothered to check to see if firearm regulations would have prevented them? Or your 'mental health screening' you are in favor of at the time of purchase?
Click to expand...

Mass shooting is defined as an event where four or more individuals (the original shooter can count) are injured or killed by a firearm.

And no, I haven't bothered to figure out whether a future regulation would somehow be able to go back in time and prevent an event that already occurred. I'm fairly certain that I don't need to do that research though because it is impossible.
 
MrT said:
Mass shooting is defined as an event where four or more individuals (the original shooter can count) are injured or killed by a firearm.

And no, I haven't bothered to figure out whether a future regulation would somehow be able to go back in time and prevent an event that already occurred. I'm fairly certain that I don't need to do that research though because it is impossible.
Click to expand...
Of course you haven't. Why cloud your head with facts and details that would show how silly your arguments and positions are.
 
VanceMack said:
Of course you haven't. Why cloud your head with facts and details that would show how silly your arguments and positions are.
Click to expand...

No, I just refuse to cloud my head with absurd hypotheticals and irrelevant discussions. I don't care about preventing mass shootings that already happened. I am concerned with preventing future such events.
 
MrT said:
No, I just refuse to cloud my head with absurd hypotheticals and irrelevant discussions. I don't care about preventing mass shootings that already happened. I am concerned with preventing future such events.
Click to expand...

Well if you had spent any time looking at your actual data you might have learned a very large number of those "mas shooting" involved young people and lots of alcohol and/or drugs or they were gang related shooting, hence no laws you would pass will change one thing. You ideas only lead to the Illusion of security and as far as most Americans your illusions are not enough reason to give up their rights.
 
MrT said:
No, I just refuse to cloud my head with absurd hypotheticals and irrelevant discussions. I don't care about preventing mass shootings that already happened. I am concerned with preventing future such events.
Click to expand...
I know you don't care about the facts. You care about rhetoric and talking points. You don't care about the fact that of the 51 'Mass Shootings counted so far in 2016 35 of them are unknown suspect gang related/drive bys and random attacks. You don't care that the vast majority involves gang activity. You don't care that in order to reach those statistical figures they count total numbers of shootings in a city such as 4 shot and wounded in 3 attacks in Atlanta, or 1 killed 9 wounded in multiple shootings in Chicago (and there are several of those listed). You don't care that the 'mass shootings' involve a car chase where the suspect killed himself (1 'victim') and 3 others were wounded when a Highway Patrolman accidentally discharged his weapon striking 3 people.

Most importantly...you don't care that none of these incidents would have been impacted by the silly restrictions and changes you have called for. Because...why let facts get in the way of your ideologically driven rhetoric.
 
Casper said:
Well if you had spent any time looking at your actual data you might have learned a very large number of those "mas shooting" involved young people and lots of alcohol and/or drugs or they were gang related shooting, hence no laws you would pass will change one thing. You ideas only lead to the Illusion of security and as far as most Americans your illusions are not enough reason to give up their rights.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how the fact that many of these situations involved alcohol, drugs, or gang related activity somehow prevents a modification in the regulation of the ONE THING IN COMMON - THE GUN - from potentially impacting, mitigating, or even preventing future such events.

A gang member that can not purchase a gun without paying a great deal more through black markets because he doesn't have a valid license is still affected by the potential regulation.
 
VanceMack said:
I know you don't care about the facts. You care about rhetoric and talking points. You don't care about the fact that of the 51 'Mass Shootings counted so far in 2016 35 of them are unknown suspect gang related/drive bys and random attacks. You don't care that the vast majority involves gang activity. You don't care that in order to reach those statistical figures they count total numbers of shootings in a city such as 4 shot and wounded in 3 attacks in Atlanta, or 1 killed 9 wounded in multiple shootings in Chicago (and there are several of those listed). You don't care that the 'mass shootings' involve a car chase where the suspect killed himself (1 'victim') and 3 others were wounded when a Highway Patrolman accidentally discharged his weapon striking 3 people.

Most importantly...you don't care that none of these incidents would have been impacted by the silly restrictions and changes you have called for. Because...why let facts get in the way of your ideologically driven rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Of course I care about the situations. Stop claiming that I don't care simply because you want to dismiss the problem of mass shootings because a majority of them were drug related or gang related or caused by mental illness or whatever the cause you wish to discuss. You want to stop gang situations or drug situations? You make that your rallying call and you propose something to address those issues.

This is a topic involving yet another mass shooting in America. I choose to talk about and address the common variable - the four or more people shot and/or killed by firearms in these events.
 
MrT said:
Of course I care about the situations. Stop claiming that I don't care simply because you want to dismiss the problem of mass shootings because a majority of them were drug related or gang related or caused by mental illness or whatever the cause you wish to discuss. You want to stop gang situations or drug situations? You make that your rallying call and you propose something to address those issues.

This is a topic involving yet another mass shooting in America. I choose to talk about and address the common variable - the four or more people shot and/or killed by firearms in these events.
Click to expand...
Who do you think is committing the vast majority of those 'mass shootings' you keep citing? And as I have pointed out (and if you had bothered to actually read about what you continue to bleat on about), those 'mass shooting' statistics are fabricated. They are talking point rhetoric fodder that is spoon fed to people like you with the sure knowledge all you will do is regurgitate it and not bother to actually read about what you are bleating on about.
 
MrT said:
I fail to see how the fact that many of these situations involved alcohol, drugs, or gang related activity somehow prevents a modification in the regulation of the ONE THING IN COMMON - THE GUN - from potentially impacting, mitigating, or even preventing future such events.

A gang member that can not purchase a gun without paying a great deal more through black markets because he doesn't have a valid license is still affected by the potential regulation.
Click to expand...
Wrong gang members already get their guns on the open market, many of which are stolen guns. Your laws would change nothing
as has been proven in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom