• 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!

"I Figured I'd Just Shoot at Random, Because I Had all These Guns"

TOG 6 said:
As a libertarian, certainly you agree that the the law abiding should not be restricted in their exercise of constitutionally guaranteed rights based on the exceptionally tiny chance that they might break the law....?
Click to expand...

I am content that the constitutions of my two countries does not permit loonies, however temporarily law abiding, to arm themselves to the teeth. Strange as it may seem to you I do not myself long to own even one gun. Not even a hunting rifle as my brothers-in-law and nephews.

( I am acquainted with an 83 year old lady who a few weeks ago shot a wild boar. But not even she lusts after a hand gun).
 
Sweden said:
I am content that the constitutions of my two countries does not permit loonies, however temporarily law abiding, to arm themselves to the teeth. Strange as it may seem to you I do not myself long to own even one gun. Not even a hunting rifle as my brothers-in-law and nephews.
( I am acquainted with an 83 year old lady who a few weeks ago shot a wild boar. But not even she lusts after a hand gun).
Click to expand...
Since you passed right over the point...
How does a libertarian support the state restricting the rights of the law abiding because of the tiny chance that they might break the law?
 
TOG 6 said:
Since you passed right over the point...
How does a libertarian support the state restricting the rights of the law abiding because of the tiny chance that they might break the law?
Click to expand...


You cannot be a libertarian and support such a law.
 
Well, Oregon is a very liberal state. Lots of self righteous people here.
 
TOG 6 said:
Since you passed right over the point...
How does a libertarian support the state restricting the rights of the law abiding because of the tiny chance that they might break the law?
Click to expand...

Sorry I did not reply to your point. I am a libertarian and a democrat - not an anarchist. I accept that the state has the right to make me wear a seat belt, even though I am a careful driver who has not had an accident in decades. I also accept the state has the right to severely restrict gun ownership for the good of society as a whole - particularly when such restrictions have overwhelming pubic support.
 
Sweden said:
Sorry I did not reply to your point. I am a libertarian and a democrat - not an anarchist. I accept that the state has the right to make me wear a seat belt, even though I am a careful driver who has not had an accident in decades. I also accept the state has the right to severely restrict gun ownership for the good of society as a whole - particularly when such restrictions have overwhelming pubic support.
Click to expand...
And you STILL have not addressed the question.
Care to try again?
 
Orly? said:
Pew research... Look it up.. The FACTS..
Click to expand...

Your own source says that only about six percent of Muslim Americans think that suicide bombings can, on occasion, be justified. There's also an interesting pattern where nations with more terrorism are more opposed to its application.

Says a lot about the people who have to live with the nut cases.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Your own source says that only about six percent of Muslim Americans think that suicide bombings can, on occasion, be justified. There's also an interesting pattern where nations with more terrorism are more opposed to its application.

Says a lot about the people who have to live with the nut cases.
Click to expand...

6% of total but 26% of the next/new generation...

Even 6% is not such a statistically small group..
 
Orly? said:
6% of total but 26% of the next/new generation...

Even 6% is not such a statistically small group..
Click to expand...

...What do you mean by the next generation?

Also, I checked the numbers one last time. The number is actually 8%, with 7% saying that suicide bombings can be justified on rare occasions and 1% saying it can be justified often.

Edit: right, you meant in France.
 
Jesse Booth said:
...What do you mean by the next generation?

Also, I checked the numbers one last time. The number is actually 8%, with 7% saying that suicide bombings can be justified on rare occasions and 1% saying it can be justified often.
Click to expand...

Those 18-29 yoa are at 26%

Absolutely NO, ZERO, NILL, amount of suicide bombings are justifiable and any amount is completely unacceptable..
 
_Sal said:
yes I can see you imagine a lot ;)
Click to expand...

How so? It is the same line of logic and reasoning. Restricting the majorities freedoms based on the criminal actions of a fraction of the population. In the case of firearms, less than .03%.
 
Sweden said:
Sorry I did not reply to your point. I am a libertarian and a democrat - not an anarchist. I accept that the state has the right to make me wear a seat belt, even though I am a careful driver who has not had an accident in decades. I also accept the state has the right to severely restrict gun ownership for the good of society as a whole - particularly when such restrictions have overwhelming pubic support.
Click to expand...

Would you consider further restricting alcohol in your country to reduce alcohol related rape, DUI deaths, domestic and child abuse/homicides and suicides for the good of society? Since you have conquered firearm deaths (and lives saved by firearms) why stop there? Or are those lives not worth giving up a good beer for? After all, everyone is a good drunk until they rape their date. They are especially lucky knowing the intended rape victim cannot fight back with a firearm. As a side note, isn't Sweden the rape Capitol of the EU?
 
Orly? said:
Those 18-29 yoa are at 26%

Absolutely NO, ZERO, NILL, amount of suicide bombings are justifiable and any amount is completely unacceptable..
Click to expand...

As the edited part of my previous post stated, I looked back at the quote and remembered that it was specifically France that had those numbers.

As for a suicide bombing never being justified, I agree - in regards to civilian targets. On a military target or a politician, it's every bit as justified as any other method of killing a large number of hostiles or one particular person: it depends on the situation and motivation. If I didn't have any other way to successfully kill Adolf Hitler or wanted to deal a lot of damage to the local Al Qaeda group that was terrorizing my village, hell yes I would consider a suicide bombing on them justified. In fact, I just might help out with it! If I really didn't like a frontrunner for one of the political parties in my country, I would never condone a suicide bombing to kill them, and it would be my civic duty to everything in my power to prevent such an attack, even though I disagree with the hypothetical target.

I would imagine that many Americans feel the same way, and frankly, I'm impressed by the idealism of the 78% of American Muslims that are willing to say that any act of violence is NEVER justifiable. I'm just too pragmatic to rule out any option's use in 100% of situations.
 
Sweden said:
I am content that the constitutions of my two countries does not permit loonies, however temporarily law abiding, to arm themselves to the teeth. Strange as it may seem to you I do not myself long to own even one gun. Not even a hunting rifle as my brothers-in-law and nephews.

( I am acquainted with an 83 year old lady who a few weeks ago shot a wild boar. But not even she lusts after a hand gun).
Click to expand...

Because your two countries base those restrictions on the assumption the average citizen would became a homicidal criminal if allowed to own dangerous things. You cannot be trusted to own a firearm responsibly. Perfectly reasonable....
 
_Sal said:
and every such case is dismissed as "no big deal" even if he had killed someone the dismissers would say "well it seldom happens" unless of course it was their child that had the side of their head blown off
Click to expand...

No one was hurt. The individual who did wrong is being dealt with by the authorities. Everything is as it should be in my opinion.

Oh wait, we haven't punished any responsible citizens for this persons crime. How many innocent law abiding people need to be punished for this persons actions?
 
Sweden said:
Sorry I did not reply to your point. I am a libertarian and a democrat - not an anarchist. I accept that the state has the right to make me wear a seat belt, even though I am a careful driver who has not had an accident in decades. I also accept the state has the right to severely restrict gun ownership for the good of society as a whole - particularly when such restrictions have overwhelming pubic support.
Click to expand...

How exactly does wearing a seat belt in a vehicle restrict any of my rights? I will help you. It doesn't.

The right to bear arms is a right. In this country the rights of the individual, the minority, and the majority are protected by the constitution and by our government (when not corrupt) from overwhelming majority.

The majority (or mob rule) has been proven to be a very poor form of government over and over in history. The majority thought slavery was OK at one time. The majority thought witch burning was OK at one time. And we can go on and on.

I wish to live in a country where rights should be protected by government not restricted or take away.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
No one was hurt.
Click to expand...
correct

The individual who did wrong is being dealt with by the authorities
Click to expand...
yes
Everything is as it should be in my opinion.
Click to expand...
yes I am aware of that. My opinion differs. *shrug* I'm okay with that as I stated earlier, I just wouldn't want to have to live with it

Oh wait, we haven't punished any responsible citizens for this persons crime. How many innocent law abiding people need to be punished for this persons actions?
Click to expand...
you are perfectly fine with this because no one was injured...you think this justifies your corollary...I do not

it is a cultural mentality that I neither have nor support

I am okay with you possessing such a mentality although I will never understand it, you apparently fear something here, what would that be?
 
BretJ said:
How so? It is the same line of logic and reasoning. Restricting the majorities freedoms based on the criminal actions of a fraction of the population. In the case of firearms, less than .03%.
Click to expand...

how are you imagining...well for instance...link your source on your stats and let's start from there
 
BretJ said:
Because your two countries base those restrictions on the assumption the average citizen would became a homicidal criminal if allowed to own dangerous things. You cannot be trusted to own a firearm responsibly. Perfectly reasonable....
Click to expand...

Not so. The assumption is that a small number of citizens, visitors and, say, illegal migrants would become homicidal criminals if they had easy access to guns. Imo perfectly reasonable.
 
BretJ said:
Would you consider further restricting alcohol in your country to reduce alcohol related rape, DUI deaths, domestic and child abuse/homicides and suicides for the good of society? Since you have conquered firearm deaths (and lives saved by firearms) why stop there? Or are those lives not worth giving up a good beer for? After all, everyone is a good drunk until they rape their date. They are especially lucky knowing the intended rape victim cannot fight back with a firearm. As a side note, isn't Sweden the rape Capitol of the EU?
Click to expand...


Prohibition didn't work in the States and if tried here would be a disaster - as is the prohibition of canabis.

Rape stats are not easily compared, as many acts are defined as rape in Sweden which would not even be crimes elsewhere (as Julian Assange has found out).
 
TOG 6 said:
So much for your libertarianism.
:roll:
Click to expand...

Yep.... needs more characters so I'll say it again ......... Yep. Thank you for your opinion.
 
_Sal said:
how are you imagining...well for instance...link your source on your stats and let's start from there
Click to expand...
No need to source anything.
Let's see, take 35,000 gun deaths (I will even include suicides) and divide that number by 120,000,000 gun owners (assuming incorrectly that people who legally own firearms are committing these crimes you wish to prevent). That comes to .00029 or rounding up, .0003 or .03%. Again, the actual number of people who own those firearms legally is far less. So I can say with certainty that less than .03% of gun owners are responsible for the gun crimes you are holding them accountable for. Is the math incorrect? I even slanted them in your favor.
 
BretJ said:
No need to source anything.
Click to expand...
omg...thanks for playing


Let's see, take 35,000 gun deaths (I will even include suicides) and divide that number by 120,000,000 gun owners (assuming incorrectly that people who legally own firearms are committing these crimes you wish to prevent). That comes to .00029 or rounding up, .0003 or .03%. Again, the actual number of people who own those firearms legally is far less. So I can say with certainty that less than .03% of gun owners are responsible for the gun crimes you are holding them accountable for. Is the math incorrect? I even slanted them in your favor.
Click to expand...

you can say with certainty eh?:lol: LOVE that line

which crimes...wanna quote me on that

seriously...you write crap like that and think you can handle a gun...honest to pete...:(

you just cling to your belief and your arsenal...you'll be okay, or maybe not, but at least it's your choice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom