• 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!

Arizona Suspect's Erratic Behavior Raises Questions About Gun Sales

ReverendHellh0und said:
What? Total submission?





Most crimes are committed with illegal guns, making all guns illegal wont change that fact.
Click to expand...

no, it wouldn't change that, but making all guns illegal would drive down the rate of violent crimes, period. there really is no dipsuting that.
 
justabubba said:
the same thing that stops them now, since i do not carry

but their number would diminish once it became illegal for them to possess small arms; they would become easily identifiable as criminals, which is not the instance today
Click to expand...

Please. This is laughable. How many people do you think carry a weapon undetected every day in the US? Btw, you already made your argument completely ridiculous when you said it was ok to carry this:
dsr1variationsye5.jpg


...but not this:

kahrcw9a.jpg
 
liblady said:
no, it wouldn't change that, but making all guns illegal would drive down the rate of violent crimes, period. there really is no dipsuting that.
Click to expand...



So UK, Australia did not see assaults and home invasions go up?


fact is, if you take out gang crime and criminal on criminal activity, our murder rates are better than these other countries. making all guns "illegal" would simply open up a black market for these gangs... and then what...

example.... weed is illegal.... I'm sure glad there is no weed in the US. :ssst:
 
liblady said:
no, it wouldn't change that, but making all guns illegal would drive down the rate of violent crimes, period. there really is no dipsuting that.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is. Guns prevent somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,500 crimes a day. Again, please check your facts.
 
theangryamerican said:
I encourage you to do some actual research and not believe every little thing you've been told. This has been discussed at length in other threads on these boards. Forgive me for not wanting to rehash all those pages again. Bottom line, court cases have ruled that someone can be raping you in your home and the police don't have to respond to the call or enter the house even if they do decide to drive down your street.
Click to expand...

they have? gonzalez v castle rock? is that the same thing as knowingly ignoring a rape in progess?
 
I love people who think that they are authorities and go on to show us how little they know about the subject.

Obviously the semi-auto fires each time you pull the trigger, whereas the single shot must be cocked before each shot.
Click to expand...

All fire arms must be cocked before each shot. A single shot has to be loaded before each shot and then cocked before it will fire. Auto loaders – like the one used in the AZ shootings – have to be cocked before the first shot and then it automatically cocks itself as the first expended cartridge is ejected, loads another round and is ready to fire again very quickly.

I guarantee you that in the time you fire a single shot pistol
Click to expand...

Why on Earth would anyone carry a single shot pistol for protection??? I can’t imagine why anyone would carry a single action pistol for protection with the variety of autos on the market. My smallest 380 auto holds 6 shots but I prefer my military model Colt 380 auto that holds 7 shots and has a longer barrel.

MTY angry guy, the AZ shooter was within two yards – which is more likely in an assault of this type– and fired all of his rounds in about ten seconds.

Let’s also think about what else happened at the scene. A person with a hand gun in his possession was in position to shoot the shooter but decided to tackle him and stop the killing with less that lethal force. Had it been me the shooter would be leaking from seven to fourteen holes – possibly with a couple of the hits being hard shots to the head. I might have shot him a few times with his own gun as well just to be sure he didn’t run away.
 
Iron River said:
All fire arms must be cocked before each shot. A single shot has to be loaded before each shot and then cocked before it will fire. Auto loaders – like the one used in the AZ shootings – have to be cocked before the first shot and then it automatically cocks itself as the first expended cartridge is ejected, loads another round and is ready to fire again very quickly.



Why on Earth would anyone carry a single shot pistol for protection??? I can’t imagine why anyone would carry a single action pistol for protection with the variety of autos on the market. My smallest 380 auto holds 6 shots but I prefer my military model Colt 380 auto that holds 7 shots and has a longer barrel.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of how a firearm works. My description was an oversimplification of the process for the benefit of liblady, who asked why someone would NEED to carry a semi-auto. Without getting into the technicalities of single-action versus double action, because she said she was not very familiar with firearms, I explained it to her...


You seem to have misunderstood which side I'm on, which is odd considering I've been stating my opinion very clearly.

liblady said:
they have? gonzalez v castle rock? is that the same thing as knowingly ignoring a rape in progess?
Click to expand...

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez was ignoring a kidnapping in progress. Try looking up Warren v. District of Columbia.
 
Last edited:
I explained it to her...


You seem to have misunderstood which side I'm on, which is odd considering I've been stating my opinion very clearly.
Click to expand...

You didn’t explain it very well so you didn’t accomplish much. I understand whose side you are on – but I am on the side of truth. As for the clarity of your position - - as simple as dirt – could be iron or it could be coal. Get over your anger, scratch around in the dirt and you may find a gym to show Liberal Lady. The more dirt clods you show her the less attention she will pay you.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What? Total submission?
Click to expand...
maybe it's the intimidation
you have experienced it
Most crimes are committed with illegal guns, making all guns illegal wont change that fact.
Click to expand...
it will make it much easier to identify weapons which should not be present
and by making their possession illegal, it should keep many perps off the street for having carried
 
Iron River said:
You didn’t explain it very well so you didn’t accomplish much. I understand whose side you are on – but I am on the side of truth. As for the clarity of your position - - as simple as dirt – could be iron or it could be coal. Get over your anger, scratch around in the dirt and you may find a gym to show Liberal Lady. The more dirt clods you show her the less attention she will pay you.
Click to expand...

Refute the premise of my argument then, not the simplistic terms I used to attempt to make a more publicly accessible point.





...also, why would I have to show liblady the "gym" I don't think I ever claimed to have a problem with her physical fitness level. ;)
 
Last edited:
justabubba said:
maybe it's the intimidation
you have experienced it

it will make it much easier to identify weapons which should not be present
and by making their possession illegal, it should keep many perps off the street for having carried
Click to expand...

None of which protects someone who is a victim of those illegal weapons.
 
justabubba said:
maybe it's the intimidation
you have experienced it
Click to expand...

So you would fight off, or attack an armed mugger, with your bare hands because you are such a bad ass? Is this your argument, my friend?


Seriously?



it will make it much easier to identify weapons which should not be present
and by making their possession illegal, it should keep many perps off the street for having carried
Click to expand...


Nonsense, they already have mandatory sentences for committing crimes with an illegal weapon, not a deterrent.
 
VanceMack said:
Nah...its much less civil nowadays...far greater need for people to be able to take care of themselves.
Click to expand...

to the contrary, an outright banning of all guns would stop a lot of our violence. not that i advocate that, but it's true.
 
liblady said:
to the contrary, an outright banning of all guns would stop a lot of our violence. not that i advocate that, but it's true.
Click to expand...

The level of violence in cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago clearly serve as evidence to the contrary.
 
theangryamerican said:
The level of violence in cities like Washington D.C. and Chicago clearly serve as evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

actually, they don't. if our COUNTRY banned guns, the supply would dry up. it's not enough to ban guns within specific cities.
 
liblady said:
to the contrary, an outright banning of all guns would stop a lot of our violence. not that i advocate that, but it's true.
Click to expand...

How do you know it to be true?
 
liblady said:
actually, they don't. if our COUNTRY banned guns, the supply would dry up. it's not enough to ban guns within specific cities.
Click to expand...

Despite the fact that both cities I listed are rampant crime holes, showing what happens when citizens can't legally protect themselves, let's look at the premise of your agrument.This sounds wonderful in theory, I agree. As stated before, if I was 100% guaranteed that the anyone else could protect me and my family, without my guns, as well as I can protect myself with them, I'd give up my firearms in a heartbeat (even my recreational guns that aren't used for self-defense.) The problem is you cannot successfully ban guns, not in a single city OR an entire country. You can stop selling them, but people will still have them. You can demand registration, but people won't comply. Do you realize that it's even entirely possible to make a gun from scratch?

Assuming all guns magically disappeared, we would simply have more crime with other weapons. The difference would be that without the gun there is a disparity of a force. The gun allows the old, the weak, and the few to stand up to the young, the strong, and the many. In a world without guns, those with regard for the law would have no protection from those who do not.
 
Last edited:
theangryamerican said:
Despite the fact that both cities I listed are rampant crime holes, showing what happens when citizens can't legally protect themselves, let's look at the premise of your agrument.This sounds wonderful in theory, I agree. As stated before, if I was 100% guaranteed that the anyone else could protect me and my family, without my guns, as well as I can protect myself with them, I'd give up my firearms in a heartbeat (even my recreational guns that aren't used for self-defense.) The problem is you cannot successfully ban guns, not in a single city OR an entire country. You can stop selling them, but people will still have them. You can demand registration, but people won't comply. Do you realize that it's even entirely possible to make a gun from scratch?

Assuming all guns magically disappeared, we would simply have more crime with other weapons. The difference would be that without the gun there is a disparity of a force. The gun allows the old, the weak, and the few to stand up to the young, the strong, and the many. In a world without guns, those with regard for the law would have no protection from those who do not.
Click to expand...

i don't know how you can say that......countries with guns bans have far less violent crime than we do.
 
liblady said:
i don't know how you can say that......countries with guns bans have far less violent crime than we do.
Click to expand...

The crime rate in Australia went up, after the gun ban in '96.
 
Mr. Invisible said:
I think that people should have to undergo a through background check to get a gun. Guns do not kill people, people kill people yes, but we need to try to make sure that something like this does not happen again.
Click to expand...

That's impossible. Something like this will happen again. It's a probability and with enough time we'll see it played out.
 
liblady said:
to the contrary, an outright banning of all guns would stop a lot of our violence. not that i advocate that, but it's true.
Click to expand...

It hasnt worked in DC, hasnt worked in Cali, hasnt worked ANYWHERE with regard to say...heroin, cocaine, etc.

Fact is the parts of the country with the MOST restrictive laws on private ownership of firearms have the MOST violent crime and murder rates in the country. Bans dont work. Bans just dont work.
 
liblady said:
actually, they don't. if our COUNTRY banned guns, the supply would dry up. it's not enough to ban guns within specific cities.
Click to expand...

Notice with the ban on heroin, cocaine, illegal firearms like machine guns, etc, criminals still manage to get them...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom