• 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!

Man ambushes Firefighters responding to a fire.

Jerry said:
I asked about the fire, not the gun. Please answer the question.
Click to expand...

What harm would have been done in setting a fire? He couldn't have created more than burning his house down. Guns are what killed the firemen. Guns used by this former felon who got them from the lack of gun control. Trying to make the fire an issue is inane and asinine
 
Muddy Creek said:
What harm would have been done in setting a fire?
Click to expand...
In this case, it destroyed 7 homes and we still don't know if anyone died on those homes.

Muddy Creek said:
He couldn't have created more than burning his house down.
Click to expand...
The fire burned down 7 homes. We still don't know if anyone else died on those fires.

Muddy Creek said:
Guns are what killed the firemen.
Click to expand...
The national homicide by firearm rate is 2.98 per 100,000 Link, lower once you remove lawful self defense by LEOs and civilians alike. Firemen have a mortality rate of 2.33 per 100,000 Link

Being shot at is only slightly more dangerous then fighting the fire, which is why we hold firefighters in a light of honor.

Where are your demands to place restrictions on arson or performing a complex ambush?

Muddy Creek said:
Guns used by this former felon who got them from the lack of gun control.
Click to expand...
Gun control does not stop illegal gun ownership. In fact, gun control has been shown to make all category of crimes worse.

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive
Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?
A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence.
Din B. Kates* and Gary Mauser**

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).
Click to expand...



EDITORIAL: Guns decrease murder rates
In Washington, the best defense is self-defense
By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

More guns in law-abiding hands mean less crime. The District of Columbia proves the point.

<snip>

Few who lived in Washington during the 1970s can forget the upswing in crime that started right after the ban was originally passed. In the five years before the 1977 ban, the murder rate fell from 37 to 27 murders per 100,000. In the five years after the gun ban went into effect, the murder rate rose back up to 35. One fact is particularly hard to ignore: D.C.'s murder rate fluctuated after 1976 but only once fell below what it was in 1976 before the ban. That aberration happened years later, in 1985.

This correlation between the D.C. gun ban and diminished safety was not a coincidence. Look at the Windy City. Immediately after Chicago banned handguns in 1982, the murder rate, which had been falling almost continually for a decade, started to rise. Chicago's murder rate rose relative to other large cities as well. The phenomenon of higher murder rates after gun bans are passed is not just limited to the United States. Every single time a country has passed a gun ban, its murder rate soared.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Two Little Square Black Dogs: I do not have a gun... I am not a murderer

....The LA Times had an article about the The European disdain for America violence but shouldn't spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000 the rate at which people where assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden than in The United States. In the decade since England banned all private possessions of gun the number of gun crimes has gone up.Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence has occurred in Europe from students and teachers killed in Germany, 14 legislators shot in Switzerland to 8 city council members being shot outside of Paris.

Just recently a taxi driver in Cumbria, England killed 12 people and wounded 11.
Click to expand...

UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph

Analysis of figures from the European Commission showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual offenses in the UK since Labour came to power.

The total number of violent offenses recorded compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.
Click to expand...

[The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
By James Slack
Last updated at 12:14 AM on 3rd July 2009

article-1196941-015B644E00001005-992_468x309.jpg


In the decade following the party's election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million - or more than two every minute.

The figures, compiled from reports released by the European Commission and United Nations, also show:

  • The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.
  • It has a higher homicide rate than most of our western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
  • The UK has the fifth highest robbery rate in the EU.
  • It has the fourth highest burglary rate and the highest absolute number of burglaries in the EU, with double the number of offences than recorded in Germany and France.

But it is the naming of Britain as the most violent country in the EU that is most shocking. The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents.

In the UK, there are 2,034 offenses per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677.
Click to expand...

The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

England's Homicide Rate

The homicide rate (per capita) in England and Wales was 9.1 in the year 1900, a time when gun control laws were relatively lax.
In 2009, when gun laws are of draconian strictness, the homicide rate is 14.1
This is from an official parliament report.
Click to expand...

GunCite-Gun Accidents

Fatal gun accidents declined by almost sixty percent from 1975 to 1995, even though the number of guns per capita increased by almost forty percent.

Fatal gun accidents involving children (aged 0-14) also fell significantly, from 495 in 1975, to under 250 in 1995. More children die from accidental drowning’s or burns than from gun accidents.

(Gun supply statistics are from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms, gun accident rates from the National Safety Council).
Click to expand...

England has worse crime rate than the US, says Civitas study

England and Wales has one of the worst crime rates among developed nations for rapes, burglaries and robberies, a major report has found.

The study found that England and Wales ranked highly in a survey of crime rates among more than 30 developed counries, based on the frequency of crimes recorded by police for every 100,000 people.
  • For burglaries and robberies England and Wales had more crimes per 100,000 people than the USA. England and Wales was ranked sixth for burglaries – worse than Sweden, Slovenia, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy and Chile - and for robberies, England and Wales was seventh.
  • For rapes, England and Wales was ranked ninth, worse than the likes of Norway, Poland, Sweden, Australia and Germany, while for car thefts, England and Wales was eighth – worse than Slovenia, Chile, Mexico, Greece and the Czech Republic.

Nearly half of all offenders sent to prison are reconvicted within a year of release, creating a revolving door of crime.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Capster78 said:
If he wants to burn down his own house, thats fine as long as we don't have to pay for it.
Click to expand...
You have to pay for it.

Your local taxes pay for your local fire department. The more money your local fire department needs to combat arson, the less money your local schools have for keeping an armed Resource Officer in the school in case another nutball wants to murder another classroom full of children..
 
Capster78 said:
There are some people who are would only make it to water if lead like cattle.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who favors unlimited government and whose views are based on fear.
 
Jerry said:
You have to pay for it.

Your local taxes pay for your local fire department. The more money your local fire department needs to combat arson, the less money your local schools have for books.
Click to expand...

Touche... So what we need to do is set more fires to combat fires.
 
Jerry said:
In this case, it destroyed 7 homes and we still don't know if anyone died on those homes.


The fire burned down 7 homes. We still don't know if anyone else died on those fires.


The national homicide by firearm rate is 2.98 per 100,000 Link, lower once you remove lawful self defense by LEOs and civilians alike. Firemen have a mortality rate of 2.33 per 100,000 Link

Being shot at is only slightly more dangerous then fighting the fire, which is why we hold firefighters in a light of honor.

Where are your demands to place restrictions on arson or performing a complex ambush?


Gun control does not stop illegal gun ownership. In fact, gun control has been shown to make all category of crimes worse.












The intentional homicide rate shows North America is lower than Eastern Europe, and also lower than the world average, and FAR lower than MANY other regions in the world: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Your sources are from Australia. Not much on US stats, really.

GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, the University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury.

With its partners and contributors, GunPolicy.org promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the United Nations Programme of Action on illicit small arms.
Click to expand...

Gun control, requiring private owners and gun shows to do background checks and requiring buyers to wait, would have saved the lives of the firefighters who could have put out the fire at HIS house..and not been shot to death so there was NO one to put out the fires.

Gun violence is a national security issue - CNN.com

The proliferation of semiautomatic weapons in the hands of Americans of the types that were used in the Newtown massacre is sometimes framed as a public health issue in the United States.

There is considerable merit to the notion of treating gun violence as a public health matter. After all, homicides -- around 70% of which are accomplished with firearms in the United States according to an authoritative study by the United Nations -- are the 15th leading cause of death for Americans.
Peter Bergen
Peter Bergen

But framing gun control as a public health issue doesn't quite do justice to the problem. It's probably more or less inevitable that most Americans will die of cancer or a heart attack, but why is it even plausible that so many Americans in elementary schools, colleges, movie theaters and places of worship should die at the hands of young men armed with semiautomatic weapons?

Americans generally regard themselves as belonging to an exceptional nation. And in terms of living in a religiously tolerant and enormously diverse country, Americans can certainly take some justified pride.

Will Newtown change America's attitude toward guns?
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



That tolerant pluralism was on display Sunday night at the interfaith memorial service for the 27 victims in Newtown, which featured priests from several Christian denominations, clerics of the Muslim and Baha'i faiths as well as a rabbi, a memorial that was led by the country's first African American president. But there is another side to American exceptionalism that many Americans seem strangely unable to recognize: Americans kill each other with guns at rates that are unheard of in other advanced industrialized countries. Britain, with around a fifth of the population of the United States, had 41 gun murders in 2010 while the States had around 10,000.

The scale of this death toll really resembles a national security problem as much it does a public health issue.

. . .
Click to expand...

Seems here in the states, gun crimes are not only LARGE and GROWING, but a public health and national security issue as well.
 
Harshaw said:
Says the guy who favors unlimited government and whose views are based on fear.
Click to expand...



Got proof? Or is this just a right wing tactic of spreading misinformation?
 
Harshaw said:
Says the guy who favors unlimited government and whose views are based on fear.
Click to expand...

Fear, I fear the idiotic general populace much more than I fear the government.
 
whysoserious said:
In other news, the NRA suggests armed escorts for all firefighters.

When's it going to end?
Click to expand...
A handgun is not how you combat a sniper, even if you know where he is.

You need an evil 'assault weapon' for the requisite range and power. You need the 30rnd mag because it may take several shots to hit the sniper, and more to kill him, and the more often you have to stop to reload, the more firefighters are going to die.

And now you know why civilians need 'assault weapons': because just occasionally some loon decides to burn down a bunch of homes and fire on firefighters.

We just call such a person a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a school, you are a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a mall, you are a 'zombie'. If you set up a bunch of explosives around your apartment and then shoot up a theater, you're a 'zombie'.

Why do civilians need 'assault weapons'? Zombies bro, zombies.
 
Jerry said:
You have to pay for it.

Your local taxes pay for your local fire department. The more money your local fire department needs to combat arson, the less money your local schools have for keeping an armed Resource Officer in the school in case another nutball wants to murder another classroom full of children..
Click to expand...


The tighter the background checks are for obtaining a gun, the better the situation remains for fires. This man SET the fire to KILL the firemen with his ILLEGAL gun due to NOT background check when he bought it DESPITE his being a felon.
 
Jerry said:
A handgun is not how you combat a sniper, even if you know where he is.

You need an evil 'assault weapon' for the requisite range and power.

And now you know what civilians need 'assault weapons': because just occasionally some loon decides to burn down a bunch of homes and fire on firefighters.

We just call such a person a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a school, you are a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a mall, you are a 'zombie'. If you set up a bunch of explosives around your apartment and then shoot up a theater, you're a 'zombie'.

Why do civilians need 'assault weapons'? Zombies bro, zombies.
Click to expand...

That's what the police do. Get the sniper.
 
Capster78 said:
Fear, I fear the idiotic general populace much more than I fear the government.
Click to expand...

Obviously. It's the basis of your views -- you're afraid of your fellow citizens. It's historically stupid, as government systematically and intentionally slaughtered more than 100 million of its own people in the previous century alone, but that doesn't matter when your only objective is your personal safety at the cost of everyone else's rights. Perhaps if you're subservient enough, they'll let you live. Then again, perhaps not.

The point is, you've got no cause to call anyone else "cattle."
 
Muddy Creek said:
Your sources are from Australia. Not much on US stats, really.
Click to expand...
Harvard is not in Australia.

Europe and the UK is not in Australia

The video was the only one of those sources which had to do with Australia.
 
Harshaw said:
Obviously. It's the basis of your views -- you're afraid of your fellow citizens. It's historically stupid, as government systematically and intentionally slaughtered more than 100 million of its own people in the previous century alone, but that doesn't matter when your only objective is your personal safety at the cost of everyone else's rights. Perhaps if you're subservient enough, they'll let you live. Then again, perhaps not.

The point is, you've got no cause to call anyone else "cattle."
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this???? You probably believe the attack on the pentagon was from a missile too, am I right.
 
Muddy Creek said:
The tighter the background checks are for obtaining a gun, the better the situation remains for fires. This man SET the fire to KILL the firemen with his ILLEGAL gun due to NOT background check when he bought it DESPITE his being a felon.
Click to expand...
How many criminals run background checks before illegally selling a firearm? I look forward to your link.
 
Capster78 said:
Do you have a source for this???? You probably believe the attack on the pentagon was from a missile too, am I right.
Click to expand...

Between Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and a slew of other second-string baddies, yeah, the number's well over 100 million.

The Truffer insinuation is pretty lame.

Look, you're a poster child for welcoming tyranny over freedom as long as you feel "safe." This simply isn't how a free citizen ought to think. Because if they do, then tyranny always follows.

I cannot make you cherish liberty, of course.
 
Jerry said:
A handgun is not how you combat a sniper, even if you know where he is.

You need an evil 'assault weapon' for the requisite range and power. You need the 30rnd mag because it may take several shots to hit the sniper, and more to kill him, and the more often you have to stop to reload, the more firefighters are going to die.

And now you know why civilians need 'assault weapons': because just occasionally some loon decides to burn down a bunch of homes and fire on firefighters.

We just call such a person a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a school, you are a 'zombie'. If you shoot up a mall, you are a 'zombie'. If you set up a bunch of explosives around your apartment and then shoot up a theater, you're a 'zombie'.

Why do civilians need 'assault weapons'? Zombies bro, zombies.
Click to expand...

What are SWAT teams for then?
 
Harshaw said:
Between Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and a slew of other second-string baddies, yeah, the number's well over 100 million.

The Truffer insinuation is pretty lame.

Look, you're a poster child for welcoming tyranny over freedom as long as you feel "safe." This simply isn't how a free citizen ought to think. Because if they do, then tyranny always follows.

I cannot make you cherish liberty, of course.
Click to expand...

Well, This is not 1940 and we do not live in germany.. So I don't think we have anything to worry about. However, I do think you need to seek some professional help for your fear there. I don't think its healthy to live thinking that Hitler is going to rise from the grave and bake you in an oven.
 
Harshaw said:
Between Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and a slew of other second-string baddies, yeah, the number's well over 100 million.

The Truffer insinuation is pretty lame.

Look, you're a poster child for welcoming tyranny over freedom as long as you feel "safe." This simply isn't how a free citizen ought to think. Because if they do, then tyranny always follows.

I cannot make you cherish liberty, of course.
Click to expand...

Liberty is not being chained to a gun out of fear of criminals or your Govt. You really need to move somewhere safe..
 
Muddy Creek said:
That's what the police do. Get the sniper.
Click to expand...
And that's takes calling the sniper up, letting him go to the station and get geared, a situation brief, then he has to arrive on the scene...all the while fireman are being shot.

Meanwhile, some of use Army vets already own such a rifle and are already trained, experienced, and there, to react.
 
Jerry said:
Harvard is not in Australia.

Europe and the UK is not in Australia

The video was the only one of those sources which had to do with Australia.
Click to expand...

It was your first link. And I think the stats and problems of gun violence in the US was best explained by CNN declaring it a national security problem. ANYTIME you allow felons, gangs and mentally ill to buy guns, the security of this nation is in jeopardy. Nothing more, nothing less. The current gun laws allow that to happen. The current gun laws create the national security risk.
 
Jerry said:
And that's takes calling the sniper up, letting him go to the station and get geared, a situation brief, then he has to arrive on the scene...all the while fireman are being shot.

Meanwhile, some of use Army vets already own such a rifle and are already trained, experienced, and there, to react.
Click to expand...

And acting NOT within the authority of those who are paid to protect and serve makes you a murderer...and a risk to our national security.
 
Muddy Creek said:
It was your first link.
Click to expand...
Harvard was my first link. I trust you read the entire study as is expected in online debate, yes?
Then you watched the whole video on Australia.
Then you read the entire report from the Washington times....and so on...reading each source I provided in it's entirety before making a response to me. Right?

Wrong.

You didn't even read the OP of this thread to know how many buildings were burned down, yet you think you can offer any kind of real solution to anything :lol:

#lowinformationvoters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom