• 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!

The Inescapable Reality of Murder and guns [W:176]

jet57 said:
If you saw a group of ten year olds out in a nearby field running around shooting at each other with real guns what would you do?
Click to expand...

Your rhetorical bait question begs another......if 10 year olds are out in a field with "real" guns shooting at one another, who failed from a societal point of view such that this could even occur?

I say it is exactly the mindset of those who feel that personal responsibility takes a backseat to liberal-ness and bigger government is the cure for personal failure that would bring about a scenario such as your present.

The solution does not lie in an answer to your question, but rather the underlying reason it could occur in the first place.
 
domer76 said:
Stats are great, aren't they? We have the highest rate of gun violence of any western culture. How's that for a stat?
Click to expand...

That's like saying France has the highest rate of French speaking people of any Western nation.
Of course we do, because we have a Constitution that gives us the right to bear arms....we have the most guns in private hands. But that's a dishonest shilling of the whole truth.

That means that sometimes, bad people will get them. But it also means the statistics are less than clear. A vast majority of those gun violence statistics are suicides which may be tragic, but are not violent crimes against others and inter-gang related violence. Remove those two and the rate of "gun violence" drops dramatically.

Stats are bent for the sake of convenience too often.
 
Cisero said:
"Criminals don't obey the law" is pretty much the stupidest argument in existence. What is the purpose of a law if "criminals don't obey the law" ? Think about it for a little, tiny moment.
Click to expand...

It makes sense to many. What is senseless are all the gun laws that are written, just so some flunkie (name your district) representative can appear on another gun law, pretending that they care.

Where were all the caring liberals/democrats/anti-gunners when the Hesston Shooter was posting images of himself with firearms. He was a known violent convicted felon. Why was his girlfriend buying him weapons? Why didn't his family turn him in to the police? Why didn't his friends turn him into the police? Gun laws didn't do a damn thing to stop this creep.
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
Your rhetorical bait question begs another......if 10 year olds are out in a field with "real" guns shooting at one another, who failed from a societal point of view such that this could even occur?

I say it is exactly the mindset of those who feel that personal responsibility takes a backseat to liberal-ness and bigger government is the cure for personal failure that would bring about a scenario such as your present.

The solution does not lie in an answer to your question, but rather the underlying reason it could occur in the first place.
Click to expand...

Nonsense: the question is simple; what would you do?

Can you answer that question?
 
TurtleDude said:
actually its the Bannites who have indefensible positions. None of the proposed anti gun schemes the Democrats propose has any hope of doing anything to reduce violent crime

and the second amendment is a constitutional right. Sorry, that is a pretty ironclad Defensible position.

and we aren't fooled by the lies that Bannites spew. Its all about pretending to do something about crime without actually upsetting the groups that produce most of our criminals. and its also about harassing people liberals don' t like-Conservative white males who are perceived to be the backbone of the NRA
Click to expand...

All rights have their restrictions and limitations. The 2nd is no different. In fact, it needs to have the MOST restrictions.
 
RetiredUSN said:
That is the big elephant in the room for the liberal gun debate? All of a sudden, it's not about race.
Click to expand...

It's about too many people with easy access to too many guns. What is so difficult about that?
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
That's like saying France has the highest rate of French speaking people of any Western nation.
Of course we do, because we have a Constitution that gives us the right to bear arms....we have the most guns in private hands. But that's a dishonest shilling of the whole truth.

That means that sometimes, bad people will get them. But it also means the statistics are less than clear. A vast majority of those gun violence statistics are suicides which may be tragic, but are not violent crimes against others and inter-gang related violence. Remove those two and the rate of "gun violence" drops dramatically.

Stats are bent for the sake of convenience too often.
Click to expand...

I love the way gun violence apologists try to remove portions of guns deaths out of the equation. Failure.
 
NoLeftNoRight said:
Your rhetorical bait question begs another......if 10 year olds are out in a field with "real" guns shooting at one another, who failed from a societal point of view such that this could even occur?

I say it is exactly the mindset of those who feel that personal responsibility takes a backseat to liberal-ness and bigger government is the cure for personal failure that would bring about a scenario such as your present.

The solution does not lie in an answer to your question, but rather the underlying reason it could occur in the first place.
Click to expand...

I'm not aware that has ever occurred. It's just another hypothetical what if that has no bearing on anything. These ridiculous statements and questions most often are the result of someone running out of pertinent ideas.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Perhaps if you took the time to research before you commented?
Click to expand...


Why is race important to you in those 30,000+ deaths a year? It's more acceptable if groups other than whites die?
 
Cisero said:
Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Some "tools" (a lot of guns are not used as tools, but as toys) are too dangerous to be available to the public.
The answer is, for me, obvious.
Click to expand...

Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people.
Click to expand...
There IS legislation to do just that. It is prohibited for felons and the mentally ill to possess firearms.
Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?
Click to expand...
Grenades aren't "arms" protected by the Constitution just as nuclear weapons aren't protected by the Constitution.
Owning a gun does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a gun can satisfy his desire to kill by simply squeezing a trigger. When a teenager shoots up a school, are we supposed to just sigh and go : "Well, **** happens" ?
Click to expand...
Owning a (insert any inanimate object here) does not make you a murderer, but a murderer with a (insert any inanimate object here) can satisfy his desire to kill by simply (insert illegal action here).
Murder is illegal. It is illegal for a minor under 21 to possess a hand gun. Adding more laws to the list would not deter the actions of a criminal.
 
jimbo said:
Responding to Ciseros statement.

Which was:

But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated.
Click to expand...

Responding to your statement:

Other far more deadly weaspons include box cutters, fire, fertilizer, bombs, airplanes.
 
jet57 said:
If you saw a group of ten year olds out in a nearby field running around shooting at each other with real guns what would you do?
Click to expand...

Now that is one silly nonsense question. How many times in the whole history of the whole world has that happened? You could insert centaurs in place of "ten year olds" and the question would be as valid as the one that you asked.
 
domer76 said:
Stats are great, aren't they? We have the highest rate of gun violence of any western culture. How's that for a stat?
Click to expand...

Because the French government does not trust the average citizen to own dangerous things responsibly. Look what happened a couple hundred years ago when they did...

120,000,000 American gun owners are not represented by a fraction of 1% nor should they be treated that way.
 
BretJ said:
Because the French government does not trust the average citizen to own dangerous things responsibly. Look what happened a couple hundred years ago when they did...

120,000,000 American gun owners are not represented by a fraction of 1% nor should they be treated that way.
Click to expand...

The French? Yeah, a lot of you still have your minds set in the 18th century, including the need for an armed citizenry. Try to fast forward 230 years. It isn't 1780 anymore.
 
domer76 said:
The French? Yeah, a lot of you still have your minds set in the 18th century, including the need for an armed citizenry. Try to fast forward 230 years. It isn't 1780 anymore.
Click to expand...
Soho so soon?


Care to elaborate on how fast forwarding 230 years has removed the "need" for an armed citizenry; more importantly, what need has to do with this.
 
domer76 said:
The French? Yeah, a lot of you still have your minds set in the 18th century, including the need for an armed citizenry. Try to fast forward 230 years. It isn't 1780 anymore.
Click to expand...

The historical reference was added for humor. Regardless, you failed to address the fact that the basis of gun restrictions in those other western countries is the belief that the common citizen cannot be trusted to own dangerous objects without harming themselves or others. 120,000,000 U.S. citizens own firearms with no issue. Yet you base your opinion of them on a fraction of 1%. Embrace your inner bigot...
 
NonoBadDog said:
Now that is one silly nonsense question. How many times in the whole history of the whole world has that happened? You could insert centaurs in place of "ten year olds" and the question would be as valid as the one that you asked.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you can't answer the question because it's too obvious. So rather than try and think about a response that doesn't ruin your own argument, you trash the question.

Good diversion.
 
domer76 said:
The French? Yeah, a lot of you still have your minds set in the 18th century, including the need for an armed citizenry. Try to fast forward 230 years. It isn't 1780 anymore.
Click to expand...

How authoritarian of you.

You do not have to prove "need" to exercise a right.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, you can't answer the question because it's too obvious. So rather than try and think about a response that doesn't ruin your own argument, you trash the question.

Good diversion.
Click to expand...

Put the parents in the field because they are the worst parents in history and then the problem will never come up again because currently no other parents are that bad at their job of raising kids.

Hypothetically stupid solution to a hypothetically stupid question.
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, you can't answer the question because it's too obvious. So rather than try and think about a response that doesn't ruin your own argument, you trash the question.

Good diversion.
Click to expand...

I am not going to answer the question because it is a stupid question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom