• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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]

OpportunityCost said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you're avoiding the point. If you saw a group of ten year olds in a field playing with real guns and shooting at each other, what would you do?
 
Cisero said:
Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

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.

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" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.
Click to expand...

Really? A guy bought fertilizer and rented a truck and killed a lot more than four.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Stupid question.
Click to expand...

Perfect question. You're just afraid to answer it, and copying someone else's myopic response to it just, just points that out.
 
Lotta psychos lately, taking out their mental illnesses or other ****ed up reasons out on other people.

These people are messed up and would do so by other means if they didnt use guns. Their reasons dont go away if guns do.

Men need to learn to control themselves better...they cant just lash out at people when they are bitter, 'misunderstood,' angry, lose some argument or job or girlfriend, etc.

And yes, this is almost a totally male issue regarding mass murders, ESPECIALLY regarding guns.
 
domer76 said:
Why is race important to you in those 30,000+ deaths a year? It's more acceptable if groups other than whites die?
Click to expand...

You responded by saying he put a racist spin on the subject.

Fact is.... and sadly, blacks commit a extremely high amount of gun murders. The FBI stats don't lie.
 
domer76 said:
It's about too many people with easy access to too many guns. What is so difficult about that?
Click to expand...

The problem has nothing to do with guns. It is about the sick culture in America where gun violence is glorified through music, movies, and street gangs. Then there is the mental illness thing going on. Do you know how many people in America are on drugs to help cope with every day life?

30 million people are on antidepressants by choice.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Really? A guy bought fertilizer and rented a truck and killed a lot more than four.
Click to expand...
In fact, a law regulating ammonium nitrate sales was signed by President George W. Bush 12 years after the Oklahoma City Bombing. The Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 required the licensing of ammonium nitrate facilities and registration for buyers.

“Transactions involving the sale or transfer of ammonium nitrate will be regulated at the point of sale and procedures for reporting a theft or loss of ammonium nitrate will be established,” according to the Department of Homeland Security.

“Each purchaser and seller will be required to apply for an Ammonium Nitrate (AN) Registered User Number with the Department, and each applicant will be screened against the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB).”
 
MACS-24 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What tyrannical government do you plan to overthrow?
 
BretJ said:
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...
Click to expand...

Stats are great, aren't they? Why is 30,000+ gun deaths a year acceptable to you?
 
OpportunityCost said:
How authoritarian of you.

You do not have to prove "need" to exercise a right.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS has already ruled on the right. There is no unlimited exercise of #2.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Really? A guy bought fertilizer and rented a truck and killed a lot more than four.
Click to expand...


Trucks with fertilizers routinely are used to kill 30,000+ people a year? Every year?
 
domer76 said:
Stats are great, aren't they? Why is 30,000+ gun deaths a year acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

that's a stupid strawman. They aren't "acceptable to us" any more than millions of cancer deaths a year are but there is nothing that will stop those deaths that is constitutional
 
domer76 said:
SCOTUS has already ruled on the right. There is no unlimited exercise of #2.
Click to expand...

of course not because states can regulate place and use restrictions and those who have committed felonies lose their constitutional rights to KBA. but that you are quoting is DICTA and the USSC has not upheld any gun bans in the last 50 years.
 
Cisero said:
Guns don't kill people. I agree. But killing 4 people without one is much more complicated. Thus the need for legislation aiming to keep lethal weapons out of the hands of potentialy dangerous people. Grenades don't kill people either, why can't you buy one ?

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.

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" ? Shouldn't we find ways to reduce access of lethal weapons to unstable people ? The answer is, for me, obvious.
Click to expand...

Post up and tell us how you would do that without violating the constitutional rights of honest people?
 
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...

A question that has no basis on the current discussion.

1) "What if" is not how you decide the law.

2) We have a system for dealing with that. Law enforcement.

3) 10 year olds shooting at each other means that someone who has been a parent for 10 ****ing years...****ed up. And they should have some responsibility for what is happening.

4) Finally...your hypothetical doesn't trump The above.
 
TurtleDude said:
that's a stupid strawman. They aren't "acceptable to us" any more than millions of cancer deaths a year are but there is nothing that will stop those deaths that is constitutional
Click to expand...


Horsepucky. Where do you get that?
 
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...

How do you feel about our drug laws?
 
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...

wrong, the most stupid argument is this

1) People who violate laws against murder and robbery will stop committing those crimes if you only guns illegal or harder to buy by those who CURRENTLY can legally buy guns

2) those who do not commit crimes with the guns they now have, need more restrictions imposed on THEM so they don't violent crime more than the do it now (which is none)


3) people who can traffic narcotics will be unable to traffic firearms if those are banned


that is the assumptions gun banners use
 
domer76 said:
Horsepucky. Where do you get that?
Click to expand...

go ahead and tell us what will stop those deaths-most of which are suicides and those that are murders are at least 80% cases of Felons killing other felons

go head and tell me. I need a really good laugh
 
domer76 said:
Does the total of bombs, fertilizers, box cutters, airplanes, etc exceed 30,000 a year? Every year?
Click to expand...

1) Suicides are not murder. It is a related, but not equal topic.

2) Do you believe we live in the most violent time in America history? All of history?

3) Do you believe that firearms are the cause?
 
TurtleDude said:
of course not because states can regulate place and use restrictions and those who have committed felonies lose their constitutional rights to KBA. but that you are quoting is DICTA and the USSC has not upheld any gun bans in the last 50 years.
Click to expand...


Good ol' Scalia in Heller said the 2nd has its limitations. Argue with that guy.

If regulations are unconstitutional, how do states and localities get away with it?
 
TurtleDude said:
go ahead and tell us what will stop those death
s-most of which are suicides and those that are murders are at least 80% cases of Felons killing other felons

go head and tell me. I need a really good laugh
Click to expand...

Well, pally, until strict and comprehensive laws are enacted, how are we to know? But I'll tell ya', pally, the proliferation and ease of access isn't the answer.
 
blackjack50 said:
1) Suicides are not murder. It is a related, but not equal topic.

2) Do you believe we live in the most violent time in America history? All of history?

3) Do you believe that firearms are the cause?
Click to expand...

Suicides with guns are gun deaths. Part of the 30,000 a year whether you like it or not.

I wouldn't know or care if this is the most violent era. Why does it matter? Is it some sort of competition with previous generations?

Are firearms the cause? Nope. Why would anyone have that absurd notion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom