• 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!

Legitimate Question to Those who want to Restrict guns

Why should there be any difficulty with this question? There are only two parties that can be guaranteed to be present at any crime, the victim/s and perpetrator/s. It is illogical to think ones safety is the responsibility of the perpetrator/s, so that means the victim/s are responsible for their own safety. How on earth can any other party be responsible if they cannot be guaranteed to be present?

Perhaps one of our gun control advocates would like to tell us who is responsible for their safety and what they advise?
 
Your word is worth what? No evidence again. WTF is the matter with you gun control types?

Once again your asinine comments are as false as anyone can see, your opinion is biased, you are a known ideologically blind gun control supporter and your word is worth nothing. So either prove all 21 are as you claim or accept gracefully you are once again wrong.

Unfortunately for you the one study I cited examines all of them 16 + 12 + 3 assesses the problems and corrects for those problems. You would have known that had you actually read it. Lets add, your claim is made without actually reading the study. Heaven and you only know how you did that. Shame on you. You are going to make a fine gun control advocate'

Pick one any of them and make sure it is unbiased tell me which one that is and lets have a look at the result. Now I cannot be more fair than that.

It's not my fault you claimed far more authority than you were prepared to deliver.
 
Funny. You seemed to come up with an answer pretty quick.
That's because I'm smarter than most...

Or maybe it's because I reworded the original question into a more accurate question worthy of discussion. Or both.

If I'm the one most responsible for me safety...then shouldn't it follow that I be allowed to do so to the best of my abilities?

Nope. You are trying to dumb down this topic to simple talking points. Land mines in your front yard might help you protect you even better, but that doesn't mean that our society should let you use them.

If your simply asking "should a competent, mentally stable person be able to protect his person, home and family with a firearm?" then my answer is a definite yes. And non of the gun control that I support like background checks or a gun registry would change your ability to do so.

All I'm pointing out is that you aren't the only one responsible for your safety and that you are also responsible for other's safety as well. That's the point of a civilized society.
 
It's not my fault you claimed far more authority than you were prepared to deliver.

Everything I claimed has been proven, were you not paying attention? Your claims and idiotic utterances have all been trashed, refuted and shredded.

Your puerile rationalisation is becoming boring. Have you tried answering things people write?

What authority did I claim?

Your have been asked on each and every time you respond to produce the validity of your crap and cannot. What is wrong with you that you cannot do this? I seriously think you should have it checked out. It is not normal.

Were you not one of those gun control fools who were falsely crowing about their debating excellence? WTF is it?

You claims have all been trashed and shown to be the figment of a gun control indoctrinated mind there is no point in further discussion with a wooden plank or yourself.
 
Why should there be any difficulty with this question? There are only two parties that can be guaranteed to be present at any crime, the victim/s and perpetrator/s. It is illogical to think ones safety is the responsibility of the perpetrator/s, so that means the victim/s are responsible for their own safety. How on earth can any other party be responsible if they cannot be guaranteed to be present?

Perhaps one of our gun control advocates would like to tell us who is responsible for their safety and what they advise?

You are adding caveats to the original question that were not originally there. That's why it's so simple for you to answer. You are just making unwarranted assumptions.
 
That's because I'm smarter than most...

Or maybe it's because I reworded the original question into a more accurate question worthy of discussion. Or both.

I would not bet any money on that

Nope. You are trying to dumb down this topic to simple talking points. Land mines in your front yard might help you protect you even better, but that doesn't mean that our society should let you use them.

How are land mines self defence? Good grief what has become of the education system.

If your simply asking "should a competent, mentally stable person be able to protect his person, home and family with a firearm?" then my answer is a definite yes. And non of the gun control that I support like background checks or a gun registry would change your ability to do so.

So those who do no fit your elitist categorisation should have no such right to defend themselves? You know like slaves, blacks and others you don't like.....

All I'm pointing out is that you aren't the only one responsible for your safety and that you are also responsible for other's safety as well. That's the point of a civilized society.

How wrong can one be, a civilised society recognises everyone has rights. You sure you have given this any thought?
 
So those who do no fit your elitist categorisation should have no such right to defend themselves? You know like slaves, blacks and others you don't like.....

Wow. That came from nowhere.
 
You are adding caveats to the original question that were not originally there. That's why it's so simple for you to answer. You are just making unwarranted assumptions.

Huh!! What unwarranted assumption? I stated FACTS you are welcome to disprove. Knock yourself out.


You babbled a bunch of mindless tripe that is why it was so simple for you to answer, you never addressed a single fact or bothered to show that it was not a simple situations a I described.

Do show who else can be guaranteed to be at any crime to the person..
 
Huh!! What unwarranted assumption? I stated FACTS you are welcome to disprove. Knock yourself out.


You babbled a bunch of mindless tripe that is why it was so simple for you to answer, you never addressed a single fact or bothered to show that it was not a simple situations a I described.

Do show who else can be guaranteed to be at any crime to the person..

The word "crime" wasn't located anywhere in the original post. Understand? You read the question and then just assumed that he's talking about a situation where it is a crime being committed where only two people are present. These are just assumptions you are making.
 
Everything I claimed has been proven, were you not paying attention? Your claims and idiotic utterances have all been trashed, refuted and shredded.

Your puerile rationalisation is becoming boring. Have you tried answering things people write?

What authority did I claim?

Your have been asked on each and every time you respond to produce the validity of your crap and cannot. What is wrong with you that you cannot do this? I seriously think you should have it checked out. It is not normal.

Were you not one of those gun control fools who were falsely crowing about their debating excellence? WTF is it?

You claims have all been trashed and shown to be the figment of a gun control indoctrinated mind there is no point in further discussion with a wooden plank or yourself.

You claimed that you had 21 studies.

You had one pdf that read like propaganda and not an actual study. I gave you more credit than you deserved by suggesting that you had even one study.
 
Who is responsible for MY SAFETY?
In no particular order:

Law enforcement
Various government agencies
Companies that sell you products (they're responsible for making reasonably safe products)
Your community
Your family and friends
You

That said:

The threat of crime is VASTLY exaggerated. Despite the higher crime rates in the US than most OECD nations, unless you live in a high-crime neighborhood, crime is not in fact a major threat. Even in rural areas, crime is quite low -- you're much more likely to be harmed or killed by some kind of accident, than by a stranger accosting you inside your home.

Crime rates have been falling steadily for decades. You are safer today than you were in 1990 -- and unless you lived in a high-crime neighborhood, you were fairly safe then too.

You don't need a gun to protect yourself. Millions of Americans do not own a gun, and are not victims of crime. Millions of Americans do own a gun, and are victims of crime. There are a variety of ways of enhancing your safety, ranging from avoiding high-crime areas, to putting an alarm system in your home, to running away from an encounter (and yes, that works).

Gun ownership also decreases your safety, in several ways. Suicide is often an act of impulse; having a gun in the house will not cause someone to become suicidal, but if they have access to a gun, a) they are more likely to act on the impulse, and b) more likely to succeed.

Homicide is in many cases an impulse, rather than premeditated. When a conflict escalates, people will grab whatever is available -- knife, bat, blunt object, or... gun. Similar to suicide, if a gun is available, a) it can get used, turning an assault into a homicide and b) guns are quite effective, also likely to turn an assault into a death.

There are lots of other issues, ranging from people exaggerating self-defense with guns by orders of magnitude (the inflated claims are often poorly collected, conflate aggressive brandishing with self-defense, or exaggerate encounters), to ordinary citizens not being trained in self-defense, to higher crime rates associated with regions that have a "culture of honor" (which is not tamped down by putting a gun on everyone's hip).

Even police officers, who are typically trained and experienced in dealing with violent suspects, wind up killing an unacceptably high number of unarmed or otherwise innocent civilians.

Does YOUR carrying a gun around legally make ME safe? I'm not so sure. Last November, a woman reported a man walking around with a few cans of gas and a "big" "scary" rifle. The 911 operator responded: “Well, it is an open carry state so he can have a weapon with him or walking around with it.” The man then opened fire on random people, killing two women and an Iraq war veteran. Did the 911 operator give the right response?
911 recordings: Woman called twice about man with gun in Colorado Springs shooting spree | FOX31 Denver

Last but not least: A vigilante society is not a civilized society. It's a hallmark of lawlessness and fear. Those don't strike me as good things, or things we should encourage.
 
You lost me on that. Be careful of dyslexics they are in good company with Einstein, Edison, A.G. Bell, Leonardo da Vinci, Steve jobs, Nikola Tesla, Michael Faraday. Henry Ford. George Washington, Churchill, Michael Angelo.....

Thinking differently has huge advantages.

or maybe it's the need to read slowly with substantial focus

impressive cohort of the reading impaired
 
duplicate
 
Last edited:
dupicate
 
Last edited:
The government. Unless you don't want police or a military to stop those with more guns than you taking what they want.

So the government is going to station a guard at every building in the country? You need to think this through.
 
In no particular order:

Law enforcement

How is law enforcement responsible for personal safety? Which can be sued for dereliction of duty for what responsibility?

Various government agencies

How are government agencies responsible for personal safety. Which cab be sued for dereliction of duty?

Companies that sell you products (they're responsible for making reasonably safe products)

Not true they are only responsible for a subset consumers who purchase or use the product in its proposed purpose.

Your community

Which can be sued for dereliction of duty

Your family and friends

Which can be sued for dereliction of duty


Hurray you finally got there

That said:

The threat of crime is VASTLY exaggerated.

Deleted a diatribe of irrelevant and biased rubbish. If in all your life you never face a dangerous situation count yourself lucky. Others are not possessed by idiocy and realise danger does not come with appointments or a time table.
 
Last edited:
So the government is going to station a guard at every building in the country? You need to think this through.

It simply shows somebody who has subcontracted their life and safety to government. I cannot think of a more inefficient, expensive, useless organisation with a record to prove that. I would not trust government to do anything that involved my life. Others like true believes and cowards to frightened to defend themselves would.
 
Wow. That came from nowhere.

Your words

If your simply asking "should a competent, mentally stable person be able to protect his person, home and family with a firearm?" then my answer is a definite yes. And non of the gun control that I support like background checks or a gun registry would change your ability to do so.

How do you determine any of those conditions accurately? You are babbling platitudes and conditions for which there is no known test. How many innocents and citizens do you need to deprive of self-defence to appease your fears?

What is the purpose of background checks and what is the accuracy of achieving this purpose?

What is the purpose of a registry?

That is were it came from now try answering the obvious questions.

Do you think your proposals are sacrosanct and need no explanation?
 
The word "crime" wasn't located anywhere in the original post. Understand? You read the question and then just assumed that he's talking about a situation where it is a crime being committed where only two people are present. These are just assumptions you are making.

You are trying to play word games as this is a gun control section. What else that falls under gun control would you like to add?

Comprehension is not great here.

In all dangerous situations there is only two parties that can be guaranteed to be present - the victim/s and perpetrator/s. In the case of property it is not under discussion. YOUR SAFETY is YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY, not the public or any sub division.

Now if you would like to argue the facts go ahead.
 
That's because I'm smarter than most...

Or maybe it's because I reworded the original question into a more accurate question worthy of discussion. Or both

I wouldn't bet on that.



Nope. You are trying to dumb down this topic to simple talking points.

Not talking points. I am cutting out the politics and getting down to a simple fact: do you or do you NOT have a right to defend yourself?

Land mines

Are not for self defense. They are for area defense. Or area denial.

If your simply asking "should a competent, mentally stable person be able to protect his person, home and family with a firearm?" then my answer is a definite yes. And non of the gun control that I support like background checks or a gun registry would change your ability to do so.

And none of those laws will impact those who commit crimes, are not competent, stable people. They only cast a wide net worthless net over those of us who are and serve as an incremental platform to target our rights.

So why create a law that doesn't target those who are responsible? Why not enforce current laws? Hm?


All I'm pointing out is that you aren't the only one responsible for your safety

So someone else is actively defending ME right now? You do know that law enforce has had the legal responsibility for my security removed right? The government certainly won't be held liable for my death if they fail to protect me.

and that you are also responsible for other's safety as well. That's the point of a civilized society.

A civilized society doesn't create unnecessary laws that do not target the intended group, only punish innocents, treats innocents as guilty, and ignores enforcing existing laws to deal with those who actually do violate the law.

And before you try to state that they do target those responsible...can you tell me how the majority of criminals get guns?
 
Who is responsible for MY SAFETY?

Well, bait question.

So I'll just say this: under any gun control I would support, and under all gun control that politicians can talk about without getting laughed out of the room, nobody will stop you from possessing a gun of some sort for self-defense....

...unless you're a felon, psychotic person, or you think you need a grenade launcher for self-defense.
 
Well, bait question.

So I'll just say this: under any gun control I would support, and under all gun control that politicians can talk about without getting laughed out of the room, nobody will stop you from possessing a gun of some sort for self-defense....

...unless you're a felon, psychotic person, or you think you need a grenade launcher for self-defense.

Really? You honestly believe that? You know...I constantly hear that mantra from the left: nobody will seriously try. Do you realize that they have already SERIOUSLY tried. From handguns to shotguns to rifles. They have attempted to ban them and explain why we don't "need them" even though the rich politicians can hire armed security to carry all of them regardless of the legislation.
 
Back
Top Bottom