View Poll Results: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 13.64%
  • No

    38 86.36%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 72

Thread: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

    Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

    The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

    Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

    The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

    Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

    Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
    Absolutely not, it's one of our rights. Just because some abuse their rights doesn't mean we all should suffer. How about showing some concern about WHY people want to kill one another instead of the tools they use to accomplish it.

  2. #52
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Yep, "wields."



    You can't debate something when your position is it's not debatable. You're just shutting down the discussion.



    More guns, less gun owners (by %).
    that is not a claim that can be proven. Many people aren't admitting to gun ownership. ask any firearms trainer or a big dealer-tons of new people buying guns



  3. #53
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post

    You can't debate something when your position is it's not debatable. You're just shutting down the discussion.
    I am debating my position but I am not "compromising" on the issue. I say no to losing our rights on the installment plan.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  4. #54
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,658

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    anonymous polls suck, I want to see who the three fans of more government are



  5. #55
    User Ari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Last Seen
    10-09-13 @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    109

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    I would vote for you for King, but Homeland Security does work with local law enforcement now anyway.
    The DHS has a pointless existence. It was created out fear.

  6. #56
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,558
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

    Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

    The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

    Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

    The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

    Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

    Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
    Sorry but we don't need a new version of the Gestapo in the United States. Your argument is disingenuous. It has already been shown that violent crime is reduced in locales where citizens are known to carry personal firearms. The dangers in "many cities" you speak of seem to occur in those cities where criminals know they are the only ones aside from law enforcment who are carrying guns.

    Besides, a person bent on violence will use any means necessary to complete that act, from homemade bombs to bows and arrows. There are literally dozens of common household items I can use to kill or main someone if I chose to. Of course your argument will be the same old refrain used by gun control advocates; "Why make it easier when eliminating guns from the equation will make us safer?"

    Make us safer? Not from criminals and terrorists who don't obey the laws we already have anyway! Not from government agencies who already trample all over individual rights in their zeal to justify their salaries and mission objectives. Simply labeling a person a "terrorist" currently strips a citizen of all civil rights as if they were already convicted in a court of law; and you want to increase the power and authority of Homeland Security? LOL

    I think not.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 09-09-13 at 06:41 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  7. #57
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

    Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

    The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

    Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

    The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

    Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

    Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
    Not only no, but hell no.
    The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.
    If the majority of gun deaths are suicide, how is suicide a "Homeland Security" issue? Besides, people kill people; guns are but one of the many tools people use to kill people. Put a gun on a table, with a magazine next to it and bullets next to that and guess what happens? Nothing. They just sit there...
    Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.
    Four people were killed in the Boston bombing and massacres like the ones perpetuated at Aurora (15 dead) and Newtown (28 dead) are, while horrifically tragic, still quite rare. Indeed classifying ALL "massacres" in the U.S. where over 4 people were killed and the rate is about 1 every 2 years (62/30). But restrict it to comparisons with Aurora or worse, and we're talking 7 in 30 years, or 1 every 4 years.
    The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.
    City issue, not federal government issue.
    Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.
    What in the world does THAT have to do with terrorism, or mass shootings, or even homeland security??? Moreover, this is probably the WORST argument for gun violence possible, going to the very bottom of statistical probabilities to "make" a case.
    The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."
    No, "escalation" in war involves the increase, expansion, or intensification of hostilities. Allowing law abiding people to own guns is not a hostile act, let alone an act that would increase hostilities. Indeed, studies show just the opposite is the truth. Crime rises when the fewer law abiding citizens are allowed guns.
    Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.
    Wait a minute, "domestic gun violence.... inevitably results in 'more' loss of life" --- than terrorism? Ergo, that's a Homeland Security issue???

    How about this - Liberalism is an ideological threat to the US, and a demonstrably far deadlier and destructive one than either terrorism or domestic gun violence ever could be, and having wreaked far greater damage than all the shootings and terrorist acts combined. But homeland security issue? No. That's be a basic common sense issue.
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

  8. #58
    Advisor aberrant85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Last Seen
    10-04-15 @ 04:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    594

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by EdwinWillers View Post
    How about this - Liberalism is an ideological threat to the US, and a demonstrably far deadlier and destructive one than either terrorism or domestic gun violence ever could be, and having wreaked far greater damage than all the shootings and terrorist acts combined. But homeland security issue? No. That's be a basic common sense issue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Make us safer? Not from criminals and terrorists who don't obey the laws we already have anyway! Not from government agencies who already trample all over individual rights in their zeal to justify their salaries and mission objectives. Simply labeling a person a "terrorist" currently strips a citizen of all civil rights as if they were already convicted in a court of law; and you want to increase the power and authority of Homeland Security? LOL

    I think not.
    Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

    Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

    What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

    If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

    Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

    -No ban on a class of weapons, but
    -Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
    -Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
    -The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
    -Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
    -Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
    -Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

    I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

    Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.

  9. #59
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

    Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

    What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

    If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

    Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

    -No ban on a class of weapons, but
    -Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
    -Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
    -The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
    -Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
    -Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
    -Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

    I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

    Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.
    For one thing, we shouldn't have to "protect" the 2nd Amendment. It's a right whether you like it or not.

    It seems to me like a lot of liberals are not really pro tougher penalties for criminals or making time in prison more unpleasant for those prisoners.

    Another point is that you cannot always tell beforehand who is mentally ill. Treating someone AFTER they have already done something terrible is not preventing the massacres from happening.

    All of the things you list are not failures of law-abiding citizens who happen to own guns. It is the fault of our justice system and those who think that prison for adults should be like a stay at a spa. I think most adult habitual criminals are not capable of rehabilitation, and if you think about it, it's actually gang warfare in the inner cities that kills the MOST people.

    Another thing is I don't know of ONE person who makes excuses for people who commit actual crimes with guns.

  10. #60
    Be different, be honest
    EdwinWillers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Divided States of Kardashia
    Last Seen
    12-25-15 @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,361

    Re: Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

    Quote Originally Posted by aberrant85 View Post
    Do yourselves a favor and listen to an argument from pragmatist Dan Carlin, who's more libertarian than liberal.

    Dan Carlin - Podcasts, Merchandise, Blog, and Community Website

    What gun nuts have to understand is that every time a horrible event like Newtown comes along, however disproportionately that happens, the people that refuse to budge ground about their gun rights turn public favor against them. It's not liberals like me you need to worry about, it's Wayne LaPierre and the heads of the NRA that you should be worried about. After 1 or 2 more tragic incidents, if LaPierre continues to argue for more guns, you are going to see a new wave of gun control laws after the public outrage.

    If you really want to protect your rights, you and the NRA have to lead the way, first by making an effort to decrease violence by concentrating on the people that commit the crimes, and by stigmatizing those that use guns illegally the way drunk drivers are stigmatized for abusing their right to drink.

    Some of Dan Carlins ideas:

    -No ban on a class of weapons, but
    -Impose draconian penalties on those who use guns in a crime (automatic 30 years)
    -Enact serious mental health reform to identify troubled people for medication and treatment
    -The NRA should recommend a tax on new guns and ammo
    -Taxes would go towards imprisonment for gun offenders and towards mental health services
    -Free up space in prisons by releasing non-violent drug offenders
    -Make a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the budget of Homeland Security for every tax dollar raised by gun and ammo sales (his reasoning is that violence in the US is more pressing than terrorist threats)

    I think these are all sensible ways to maintain rights for responsible gun owners, deter gun violence, and care for the mentally ill, like the guy who was stopped just before shooting up another school last month.

    Gun owners, you need to step up and take accountability for the misuse of guns if you REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment.
    What gun control advocates need to understand is the utter irrationality of their own arguments for gun control - some of which we've already pointed out. Not only are they irrational, they are wholly disproportionate in magnitude to many, MANY other causes of death we routinely face - tragedies gun control advocates simply ignore in favor of more sensational topics like "guns."

    While it gets old having to constantly remind gun control advocates that their arguments simply don't hold water or worse, that their actions when implemented actually have the OPPOSITE effect of that which [they say] is intended, this is a topic rational people who value their freedom and liberty will not allow to go unanswered or unopposed. Moreover, I'm tired of the lame, irresponsible accusations that attempt to put the blame and onus on responsible gun owners for the tragic incidents that have happened in the past - or the veiled threats that would have us be the ones who assume responsibility for the "misuse of guns" - or the asinine innuendos "if we REALLY want to protect the 2nd Amendment."

    If you want to start a dialog and establish even some semblance of credibility on this issue, you need to start addressing OUR data, OUR statistics, OUR concerns. It's ridiculously easy to refute arguments made by gun control advocates - so I understand why you don't take our offer up and respond to the refutations we make - like the ones we made in the posts above. I think you realize you can't. But not to be dissuaded from your purpose, you push on regardless, despite the overwhelmingly logical and reasonable arguments against your ideology.

    The only side that needs to "step up and take accountability for the misuse" of anything... is the gun control side, which misuses statistics, which confuses emotions with reason, which takes absurdly disproportionate stances on topics they largely have no knowledge of whatsoever.

    For instance, you mentioned "suicide" earlier. Do you know where suicide ranks in the list of all deaths in the US? 27. And that's ALL suicides. Did you know there are more people killed in car accidents than who kill themselves? Rank: 22.

    Or how about homicide? It ranks 35th. And that's for all homicides, not just those committed with a gun.

    Your argument for gun control included the snippet about threats of violence making parts of large cities off-limits to outsiders. Ever thought about why that is? Ever imagine that it might not be in part because those are cities who have banned guns? Two of the largest cities in this nation (Chicago and Wash, D.C.) have banned handguns and yet lead the pack in gun violence.

    Speaking of massively disproportionate "concern:"
    Wanna know where abortion - the "darling" plank of the liberal platform ranks? It ranks a firm, solid #1
    Wanna know why? Because we abort more babies annually than the next top 4 causes of death combined, more than coronary heart disease, stroke, lung cancers, and lung diseases combined.
    Yep - abortion, right there at the top of the liberal agenda. Er, the "woman's right to choose."

    Well you're so enamored with giving women the right to choose, how about law abiding citizens? How about letting us decide whether we want to own a gun or not? Or is a little hypocrisy ok?
    Who chimes "No Absolutes!" chimes absolutely.

    zoom zoom

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •