• 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!

Common sense question about gun control leaders [W:753]

stonewall50 said:
:eyeroll:

Can you list examples? Remember we are talking about people who follow the NRA line of thinking. Not the NRA.
Click to expand...

I do not want to be accused of calling out anyone and violating any rules but I would say that in general all one needs to do is look here at the gun threads and see which posters see fit to post over and over and over and over and over again the same message in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread no matter what the specific topic may be mirroring the pro gun lobby position. There is your list of usual suspects.
 
stonewall50 said:
No. You EXPLICITLY stated that gun control cannot be proven. If you would like me to quote you I can. :)

But now let me ask you a serious question:

HOW DO YOU KNOW IT WORKS?

You stated it can't be isolated. So how do you know? Seems like a faith based argument...and we aren't in the religion sub forum.
Click to expand...

Please do post my quotes.
 
haymarket said:
I do not want to be accused of calling out anyone and violating any rules but I would say that in general all one needs to do is look here at the gun threads and see which posters see fit to post over and over and over and over and over again the same message in thread after thread after thread after thread after thread no matter what the specific topic may be mirroring the pro gun lobby position. There is your list of usual suspects.
Click to expand...

They don't have to be forum users.
 
haymarket said:
I am well aware. How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN (a crime occurring) because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for? It appears an impossible task and a foolish request at that. And I suspect that is why it is posed in the way it is since the asked knows darn well it is impossible to comply with to any degree of verifiable satisfaction.

As such - it is fundamentally a cheap trick.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear. You can't provide sufficient evidence to prove your claim.

So how do you KNOW it works? Hm? Faith in the gun control politicians? Maybe taking their party line without thinking about it? Just curious.
 
stonewall50 said:
Seems pretty clear. You can't provide sufficient evidence to prove your claim.

So how do you KNOW it works? Hm? Faith in the gun control politicians? Maybe taking their party line without thinking about it? Just curious.
Click to expand...

What was my claim again?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
And in your world "every advantage" somehow someway magically just happens to constitute the number of bullets beyond which the law would allow?
Click to expand...

If it is then it is, do you have some kind of unnatural fear of bullets and guns that you see fit to mention this? Shall we call it projection which it obviously is. What does magic have to do with it? Please explain. I am having difficulty with your point which is not clear.

What does my world have to do with it? Is it different to your world? Do things mean something entirely different in your world?

Is it your contention/claim firearms are not an advantage in self-defence and if so what evidence do you have?
 
Crimefree said:
If it is then it is, do you have some kind of unnatural fear of bullets and guns that you see fit to mention this? Shall we call it projection which it obviously is. What does magic have to do with it? Please explain. I am having difficulty with your point which is not clear.

What does my world have to do with it? Is it different to your world? Do things mean something entirely different in your world?

Is it your contention/claim firearms are not an advantage in self-defence and if so what evidence do you have?
Click to expand...

My only point was that nobody - and that includes you and I - have any magic number that is the correct number of bullets in terms of magazine capacity.
 
haymarket said:
I am well aware. How do we provide evidence that something DID NOT HAPPEN (a crime occurring) because of any one factor be it gun control, increased policing, reduction in poverty, increased jobs, or any other factor? Are you not asking for something which is impossible to provide definitive verifiable evidence for? It appears an impossible task and a foolish request at that. And I suspect that is why it is posed in the way it is since the asked knows darn well it is impossible to comply with to any degree of verifiable satisfaction.

As such - it is fundamentally a cheap trick.
Click to expand...

Cheap shot and gun control does not claim to stop anything like waving a magic wand. All you have to do is provide evidence that the more that 100,000 gun control laws through out the world (25,000 in the US) have reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Should you manage to find 50% or more I guess one could claim gun control worked.

I'll take a holiday while you try to find the evidence nobody else has found. I would not be so silly as to expect you to see that as proof gun control is a lie because you BELIEVE it to be workable. Do list any laws you can find. It will be interesting to see if you do better than others.
 
haymarket said:
My only point was that nobody - and that includes you and I - have any magic number that is the correct number of bullets in terms of magazine capacity.
Click to expand...

Of what interest is this magic number to anyone? Who proposed such a ridiculous idea?
 
Crimefree said:
Cheap shot and gun control does not claim to stop anything like waving a magic wand. All you have to do is provide evidence that the more that 100,000 gun control laws through out the world (25,000 in the US) have reduced crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increased public safety. Should you manage to find 50% or more I guess one could claim gun control worked.

I'll take a holiday while you try to find the evidence nobody else has found. I would not be so silly as to expect you to see that as proof gun control is a lie because you BELIEVE it to be workable. Do list any laws you can find. It will be interesting to see if you do better than others.
Click to expand...

As I have repeatedly said, because of the multitude of factors that can impact or effect crime rates, there is no way that anybody can isolate one single factor such as gun laws and then prove to people who hate gun laws that it was that sole factor and that factor alone which led to the crime decrease as they will be able to point to the other multitude of factors - be it increase in policing, community policing, neighborhood watch programs, greater incarceration rates, increased employment, aging population, decreasing population in high crime areas or many other factors that can also be cited as contributors to decreased crime.

Do you disagree with that statement?
 
Crimefree said:
Of what interest is this magic number to anyone? Who proposed such a ridiculous idea?
Click to expand...

I see it all the time in these discussions where people want to oppose a law to only have ten bullet magazines and instead favor a higher number.
 
haymarket said:
I see it all the time in these discussions where people want to oppose a law to only have ten bullet magazines and instead favor a higher number.
Click to expand...

It's not the specific number that people oppose. It's the limit that they oppose.
 
Green Man said:
Yes, I'm sure people objecting to the government running their lives is completely horrifying to you. :)
Click to expand...

Your reply has nothing at all to do with the post of mine you reproduced as the lead in. It is simply a cheap shot for you to get in one of your standard insults.
 
Green Man said:
It's not the specific number that people oppose. It's the limit that they oppose.
Click to expand...

especially a limit that some Democrat Party scumbag pulled out of his ass. Do Cuomo used the killing (by a convicted murderer using 30 round AR 15 magazines) of two firefighters as "justification" for limiting 10 round NY residents to SEVEN. In other words, he just did it because he could, not for any rational reason.
 
haymarket said:
So its even worse that I had imagined.
Click to expand...

what is really worse is that there is no empirical argument in favor of any such limit, the only people it impacts are law abiding citizens since it is federally legal to buy 100 round magazines through the mail or across state lines

since criminals cannot own any firearm, when they do, why would they obey a stupid magazine limit?
 
haymarket said:
Your reply has nothing at all to do with the post of mine you reproduced as the lead in. It is simply a cheap shot for you to get in one of your standard insults.
Click to expand...

It has everything to do with your post. You want the government to run people's lives. In this case, you want the government to dictate a maximum magazine capacity. Poking their nose in people's business is the progressive nanny staters' stock in trade.
 
Green Man said:
It has everything to do with your post. You want the government to run people's lives. In this case, you want the government to dictate a maximum magazine capacity. Poking their nose in people's business is the progressive nanny staters' stock in trade.
Click to expand...

even using the FDR mutation of the commerce clause, there is no possible legitimate argument for the Federal government to tell private citizens what capacity their magazines should be. that has nothing to do with interstate commerce
 
TurtleDude said:
what is really worse is that there is no empirical argument in favor of any such limit, the only people it impacts are law abiding citizens since it is federally legal to buy 100 round magazines through the mail or across state lines

since criminals cannot own any firearm, when they do, why would they obey a stupid magazine limit?
Click to expand...

Again, like previous times Turtle, you seem to approach this from the belief that only convicted criminals already identified will commit future crime.
 
Green Man said:
It has everything to do with your post. You want the government to run people's lives. In this case, you want the government to dictate a maximum magazine capacity. Poking their nose in people's business is the progressive nanny staters' stock in trade.
Click to expand...

Nope - do not want the government to run peoples lives.

Why must you pervert and distort what is not your belief? Why must you demonize what is not you or your belief system? Why must you call names in a lame effort to make yourself feel better by dissing those who you have identified as the enemy?
 
haymarket said:
Again, like previous times Turtle, you seem to approach this from the belief that only convicted criminals already identified will commit future crime.
Click to expand...

those who have been convicted can own nothing. that seems to be the rational point of delineation

using your argument what makes a nine round gun not dangerous but 11 rounds banned? there was no data presented to support the clinton ban and indeed most crimes are not committed by weapons using 20-30 round magazines.

given that every major municipal government as well as the federal government has decreed that 17-30 round weapons are the MOST SUITABLE for defense

against criminals, all citizens able to own a firearm ought to have the same capacity weapons

there is no rational reason to limit people legally able to own weapons to less capacity than what the criminals will have
 
TurtleDude said:
using that argument what makes a nine round gun not dangerous but 11 rounds banned?
Click to expand...

Like I have said repeatedly - there is no magic number that is correct. And that applies to the arguments on both sides.
 
haymarket said:
Like I have said repeatedly - there is no magic number that is correct. And that applies to the arguments on both sides.
Click to expand...

and thus there should be no limit given that any limit is incorrect and stupid. and again, the federal government doesn't have such power.

since you cannot come up with a rational limit, any such limit fails to meet even a rational basis test

the "because the legislature says so" isn't sufficient in a free society
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom