• 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!

Another Carrier Kills an Unarmed Man

In a perfect world, there would be no guns. There would be no violence. There would be no crime. We would all gather at sunset and sing Kumbaya.

This is not a perfect world.

If the next crazy bastard is going to have a handgun, godammit, I'm gonna have two.

You can't get toothpaste back in to the tube.

Therefore, Santa will be bringing me a H&K Vp9. Ho, ho, ho bitches. :mrgreen:


BTW, when I read the thread title, I thought an air conditioner fell on someone.

Nice!;)
 
So this story about Michael Mcknight has been all over the news of late and I just ran across it again. The shooter was let go, due to stand your ground lawsd they say, but the point here is that we now have yet \another example of why the presence of a gun means somebody;s gonna get shot.

The shooter had been in trouble before and was known bad behavior, so, over an argument, a good man is killed by some nut who should not have been around guns: but the law says it's okay and thus it ends like it did...

Here's just one story on it, you can find others everywhere:

Sheriff: McKnight shooting was 'road rage'; defends case - SFGate


The basic question is whether or not a human being has an inherent right to protect themselves. If the answer is yes, then you have a right to own and to bear a firearm. If the answer is no, then you are a peasant and a slave and have no rights whatsoever.
 
So this story about Michael Mcknight has been all over the news of late and I just ran across it again. The shooter was let go, due to stand your ground lawsd they say, but the point here is that we now have yet \another example of why the presence of a gun means somebody;s gonna get shot.

The shooter had been in trouble before and was known bad behavior, so, over an argument, a good man is killed by some nut who should not have been around guns: but the law says it's okay and thus it ends like it did...

Here's just one story on it, you can find others everywhere:

Sheriff: McKnight shooting was 'road rage'; defends case - SFGate

This really is not about gun laws. This is about so much more. It's easier to blame it in one specific thing instead of the multitude of social issues that really need addressing. Anger is building up in people as it always has. We have the need to bring it to the forefront, but it has always been there. Like evolution, it was destined to change in form. Please stop trying to link it to one thing.
 
And how exactly would we ensure that was the case, Jet?


The vast majority of unlawful shootings are done by felons who already are not supposed to be armed. Just because there's an occasional exception to that rule doesn't change the fact that most murderers are ALREADY barred by law from being armed, which they ignore.

We don't since this same nut job had already assaulted someone before at the same exact intersection for trying to report his dangerous driving, he could have just as easily stabbed the player to death, some forget that many people carry knives, far more than those that have a firearm, I always have both.
 
you got a firearm, and i got a pasta maker:mrgreen:
View attachment 67210856


With so many pastas available at stores and offered for delivery just a quick phone call away I see no legitimate reason anyone needs a pasta maker. Because I see no need then no-one has a need so we should ban all pasta makers for our children's safety.

Why would you need a pasta maker unless you are trying to sneak up on some spaghetti sauce.
 
That is not a logical conclusion. If there was no gun McKnight still could have been killed. A bat, a knife, tire iron all could be substituted for the gun and still result in his death at the end of this confrontation over road rage.

Now take away the car and McKnight no longer on the bridge getting caught up in road rage. He dies not die in an confrontation over the road rage. Banning cars is the only way to stop this.

Nope. No gun no death. Mcknight was a former NFL player who could very easily have defended himself against that guy.
 
And how exactly would we ensure that was the case, Jet?


The vast majority of unlawful shootings are done by felons who already are not supposed to be armed. Just because there's an occasional exception to that rule doesn't change the fact that most murderers are ALREADY barred by law from being armed, which they ignore.

There are too many occasional exceptions, that's the point. Guns create trouble. Had that creep not needed his gun all the time, they'd both be okay now.
 
Anyone consider that if the football player had carried a gun he might be alive today? This is why some people carry.
 
The basic question is whether or not a human being has an inherent right to protect themselves. If the answer is yes, then you have a right to own and to bear a firearm. If the answer is no, then you are a peasant and a slave and have no rights whatsoever.

Protecting yourself is one thing, but shooting an unarmed man is entirely something else. How about addressing that.
 
There are too many occasional exceptions, that's the point. Guns create trouble. Had that creep not needed his gun all the time, they'd both be okay now.

So all we need, then, is really accurate fortune telling.
 
So all we need, then, is really accurate fortune telling.

No, all we need is no idiots with guns. All the rest of it will take care of itself.
 
Protecting yourself is one thing, but shooting an unarmed man is entirely something else. How about addressing that.

He's been charged, he'll be tried, likely convicted and sent to prison. Isn't that the way the system works?
 
Anyone consider that if the football player had carried a gun he might be alive today? This is why some people carry.

Gun banners like Jet cannot figure out that its game theory. You cannot prevent nor expect that criminals will go unarmed. So your best bet is to be able to resist with arms,those who seek to harm you. All gun control does is give criminals safer working environments. Gun control is a fraud because it doesn't work in an environment where criminals already are armed and can get arms no matter what the laws are. Gun control might work as crime control if you have a society where no one is armed and the borders are secured. that is NOT the USA
 
No, all we need is no idiots with guns. All the rest of it will take care of itself.

your solution is to ban good people from having guns in the false hope it will keep "idiots" from having them. sadly your solution of disarming 10,000 honest people to perhaps stop a couple idiots from getting arms NOW, is worthless. after awhile, we come to see your real goal is not disarming idiots but rather anyone who wants to own a gun and who follows the laws.
 
No, all we need is no idiots with guns. All the rest of it will take care of itself.

How do you propose to get there? What about the intelligent but homicidal people?
 
Gun banners like Jet cannot figure out that its game theory. You cannot prevent nor expect that criminals will go unarmed. So your best bet is to be able to resist with arms,those who seek to harm you. All gun control does is give criminals safer working environments. Gun control is a fraud because it doesn't work in an environment where criminals already are armed and can get arms no matter what the laws are. Gun control might work as crime control if you have a society where no one is armed and the borders are secured. that is NOT the USA

The very idea that we might hold the state responsible for personal defense is so far gone it's no wonder other aspects of the issue are missing.
 
Nope. No gun no death. Mcknight was a former NFL player who could very easily have defended himself against that guy.



I understand that is your opinion. But you are wrong.
 
No, all we need is no idiots with guns. All the rest of it will take care of itself.

Are you hoping to see some minimum intelligence test to determine who can exercise their rights?


Well if you make sure you don't use/own a gun we are one step closer to it taking care of itself and all we can ask is you do your part.
 
There are too many occasional exceptions, that's the point. Guns create trouble. Had that creep not needed his gun all the time, they'd both be okay now.


There are too many legitimate defensive uses to justify disarming the public.... if that were even possible. You'd create more crime than you'd cure.
 
Back
Top Bottom