• 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

Now is as good a time as any to implement my New Years resolution. I'm avoiding these kinds of douchey threads in the future altogether.
 
Well, yes, I read that as well, thanks. But the point remains: no gun, Mcknight would still be alive. Many - would still be alive.

McKnight possibly would be alive, however banning guns would likely end in more deaths and much higher violent crime. Stories like this are sad, but at the end of the day blaming the actions of an individual on an inanimate object is pure ridiculousness. I have been lucky enough to have never shot someone but have been in a situation where having a gun prevented someone from breaking into my house. If you were to ever find yourself in a situation that you needed a gun I think your opinion would change drastically.
 
So you've constructed your sentence backwards: If someone got shot, there was a gun, which is a fatuous statement.

But surely had there been no gun then nobody would have got shot.
 
It wasn't me man it was the gun. You know guns are what kill people. Its said all the time. If you're a gun owner then your gun has killed something. You just were not around to see it. As we all know guns are blood thirsty murder machines that have no usefull purpose other than killing. Don't believe me just ask a gun banning liberal to tell you how a friend of a friend of theirs once bought a gun and that gun killed the whole family in their sleep two weeks later.

The wilful stupidity encompassed in that one short post is an indicator of just how deep the denial goes with some. This is borderline straightjacket stuff ! :shock:
 
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.

I have the inherent right to defend myself but just not with guns. How does that make me a peasant and a slave with no rights whatsoever ? :doh
 
I have the inherent right to defend myself but just not with guns. How does that make me a peasant and a slave with no rights whatsoever ? :doh

I wouldn't try it with a sword, either, even against men with guns.
 
People who live under laws where the beneficent rulers can arbitrarily deny you the ability to carry a handgun, want that idiocy spread to the rest of the country. Jet argues that one case is typical for 10 million people who legally carry everyday..

If the football player had for one second considered the man he was hulking over might be armed, maybe he rethinks his aggressive behavior and just lets the road incident go.

Armed society is a polite society. I believe that. Totally.
 
Protection. It's a "just in case something happens" kind of thing.

If you're traveling and are going to be out on lonely roads at night etc, then I can see carrying: truck drivers very often carry something with them in case of hijackings. But this notion of just carrying one around is silly, and as we have seen yet again, unnecessarily deadly. That's the point I'm making in this thread: funny how nobody ants to admit that Mcknight was shot and killed for nothing.
 
McKnight possibly would be alive, however banning guns would likely end in more deaths and much higher violent crime. Stories like this are sad, but at the end of the day blaming the actions of an individual on an inanimate object is pure ridiculousness. I have been lucky enough to have never shot someone but have been in a situation where having a gun prevented someone from breaking into my house. If you were to ever find yourself in a situation that you needed a gun I think your opinion would change drastically.

I've never even intimated banning guns, so the gun guys propaganda is not serving you in this discussion. I am for having to show cause to carry, as we have in California: it's a great way to keep idiots like this shooter from creating yet another statistic.
 
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.

You're making it up again Gosh; when did I ever say disarm the public?
 
You're making it up again Gosh; when did I ever say disarm the public?

How do you plan to keep guns out of the hands of idiots otherwise?
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/us/joe-mcknight-shooting-ronald-gasser.html?_r=0

So basically what we currently have is, its seems a person broke the law and is currently being charged.
How does that possible equate to the OP makign a case to ban guns? oh thats right it doesn't lol

The victim was unarmed. The shooter as originally let go, and would have remained free had public pressure and national media not been involved, and when did I ever say ban guns?
 
Last edited:
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.

I hoping that showing cause for carrying will sweep the intelligence of lawmakers and the public to keep crap like this from happening.
 
How do you plan to keep guns out of the hands of idiots otherwise?

By making them show cause for carrying. We do that in California.
 
Well, yes, I read that as well, thanks. But the point remains: no gun, Mcknight would still be alive. Many - would still be alive.

We have courts to deal with such matters. When the guy is found guilty come back.

There is absolutely no way on earth you can make such a false statement. You have no idea of what may have transpired had there been no gun or what the reason was for the shooting. You are deliberately hyping this up to suit your agenda.

Millions of people carry every day with very very few incidents. People get killed daily in large numbers with other implements and this does not concern you in the least because you cannot hype those.
 
If you're traveling and are going to be out on lonely roads at night etc, then I can see carrying

Is anyone ever attacked anywhere else, like in cities, or in daylight hours. Very few muggings or mass shootings happen on lonely roads at night.

: truck drivers very often carry something with them in case of hijackings. But this notion of just carrying one around is silly, and as we have seen yet again, unnecessarily deadly. That's the point I'm making in this thread: funny how nobody ants to admit that Mcknight was shot and killed for nothing.

We don't know enough details yet. At first glance, given that the shooter is under arrest, it appears that the shooter broke the law.
 
By making them show cause for carrying. We do that in California.

Californians fall under a category that is headed by the statement. You get what you deserve.
 
By making them show cause for carrying. We do that in California.

And you still have CCW holders in California committing murder. Other states don't want to be like California and will continue to be shall issue rather than may issue. It may surprise you, but the term "Californian" is a pejorative in most red states, not something to emulate.
 
I hoping that showing cause for carrying will sweep the intelligence of lawmakers and the public to keep crap like this from happening.

Do people carry concealed firearms without a license?
 
We have courts to deal with such matters. When the guy is found guilty come back.

There is absolutely no way on earth you can make such a false statement. You have no idea of what may have transpired had there been no gun or what the reason was for the shooting. You are deliberately hyping this up to suit your agenda.

Millions of people carry every day with very very few incidents. People get killed daily in large numbers with other implements and this does not concern you in the least because you cannot hype those.

Please: no gun, nobody gets shot. what are the odds that one of them would have choked the other to death?

It's amazing how you guys will stick up for guns against the most surmounting odds. It's exactly why (your) politics are despised by the majority of people.
 
Do people carry concealed firearms without a license?

A license doesn't show cause, and yes - people carry without a license all the time: they're called crooks.
 
And you still have CCW holders in California committing murder. Other states don't want to be like California and will continue to be shall issue rather than may issue. It may surprise you, but the term "Californian" is a pejorative in most red states, not something to emulate.

Show me.
 
Please: no gun, nobody gets shot. what are the odds that one of them would have choked the other to death?

Why choked? Why not knifed or hit with a car? What makes you think that someone with rage problems like the shooter wouldn't have carried a gun anyway, without a license?

It's amazing how you guys will stick up for guns against the most surmounting odds. It's exactly why (your) politics are despised by the majority of people.

Majority Say More Concealed Weapons Would Make U.S. Safer | Gallup
 
Back
Top Bottom