• 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!

NRA Newtown response [W:818]

Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
Violence in the US is higher than other industrialized nations - and that rate does not change if you control for guns.
Click to expand...

Name the other wealthy nations that have more homicides than the US?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
The US has never implemented a countrywide restrictive gun control law of any significance.
Click to expand...

I would consider the automatic weapons ban to be fairly significant. It is a real departure from the original intent of the Second Amendment, which was drawn up in an era where private militia's owned cannon.

State and local restrictions are not a safe comparison since any one can simply drive a few miles and buy. There is also the problem of isolating for changes in gun laws. In other words, the claim you make is debatable.
Click to expand...

No, actually, the claim I make (that the higher rates of US violence remain if you remove gun violence from the picture) isn't. Americans are simply more violent across the spectrum than Britons or French or Japanese. Some excellent reading, if you are interested in the subject.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Catawba said:
Name the other wealthy nations that have more homicides than the US?
Click to expand...

You are apparently missing the point - the US has a higher gun homicide rate than everyone else. The US also has (as random examples) a higher baseball bat homicide rate than everyone else, a higher knife homicide rate than everyone else, a higher choking homicide rate than everyone else, a higher automobile homicide rate than everyone else.... Higher rates of violence rates in the United States are reflected in our gun numbers, but not driven by them.

This notion some seem to have that "guns = violence" is a misnomer.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
Like this a thousand times.



We have 10% unemployment among our veterans.... and a whole bunch of schools who need trained responders who have a proven willingness to put themselves in danger for the sake of others. Sounds to me like we should let one problem solve another.
Click to expand...

Yea great idea putting armed military trained men/women with PTS syndrome in schools..... brilliant idea.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

poweRob said:
NRA Newtown response: National program to place armed security in schools

LaPierre in part blamed mass shootings on "vicious, violent video games" such as "Bulletstorm," "Grand Theft Auto," Mortal Kombat" and "Splatterhouse." He also reached back in time to place blame on movies like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" for portraying "life as a joke and murder as a way of life."​

He went on to say that congress should put armed officers in every school in America. Who'd a thunk that a lobby for gun manufacturing comes up with the solution that we need to sell more guns? What a shocker.

Anywhoo... I find it interesting that he chose to put a stupidity rift on this issue between his lobbying for the gun manufacturing industry and the video game, movie and music industries. He made it appear as "Guns? it's not gu.... LOOK OVER THERE!"
Click to expand...

Anyone who doesn't see a problem w/more armed individuals in positions of power over young, cute children needs a psychiatrist immediately.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

PeteEU said:
Yea great idea putting armed military trained men/women with PTS syndrome in schools..... brilliant idea.
Click to expand...

I find it difficult to fully express the disdain that this post deserves without incurring violations.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

poweRob said:
It's abundantly clear that no one actually want's to talk about gun violence.
Click to expand...

people talk about gun violence all day long.....very little of it is productive.

I won't take any gun banners seriously.. I won't take people seriously who blame the gun and not the person behind the trigger for his actions.
stupid people are not high on my list of people to take seriously.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
You are apparently missing the point - the US has a higher gun homicide rate than everyone else. The US also has (as random examples) a higher baseball bat homicide rate than everyone else, a higher knife homicide rate than everyone else, a higher choking homicide rate than everyone else, a higher automobile homicide rate than everyone else.... Higher rates of violence rates in the United States are reflected in our gun numbers, but not driven by them.
Click to expand...

All the more reason not to give the violent bastards high capacity magazines made only for killing large numbers of people without reloading. Good point CP!!!

Let the lazy ******s actually have to put some effort in their massacres. :cool:
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Caine said:
That'll shut-er up....
Click to expand...

Not hardly. You have yet to show that the two are similar to make a comparison. Nice try though.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

solletica said:
Anyone who doesn't see a problem w/more armed individuals in positions of power over young, cute children needs a psychiatrist immediately.
Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake. They would be there to protect them, not have "power over them". I can't believe I just read that.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
That is not a point. It is a fact.



That is a "point". Japan has a "no gun" policy, which is not analogous to the US consideration of "gun control". Our version of "gun control" cannot work based on any results from Japan. A point I already made. Which you chose to ignore. Further, Japan has enormously lower crime rates in every catagory compared to us, where they have as much opportunity as us to commit such. That also deflates your "gun control" argument, as their homicide by knife rate is far lower then ours, yet they have access to such (not swords).



I can refute you well in my sleep. I do it with prejudice when I am awake :)
Click to expand...

And you are still trying to read more into what I said that what I said. Hint: read my words, not what you want me to have written.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
:) Not at all.

ex14.png


We're rather fat on administrators right now; and they make pretty good pay. Simply turn some of those positions into First Responders, or hire veterans to fill those positions who have the ancillary duty of being a First Responder. You don't need active patrol in all schools (some you might); you simply need someone with the training and ability to put down a shooter before they kill too many.
Click to expand...

So you would sacrafice education for an imagined problem. Well done!
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
And you are still trying to read more into what I said that what I said. Hint: read my words, not what you want me to have written.
Click to expand...

No. A point you have not been able to back up.

Further, Japan is not "gun control". It is essentially "no guns".

A better analogy would be Switzerland, with about half the guns-per-capita as the US. Considering we have many folks with dozens of guns, I would suspect that their armed households per capita is even closer to ours.

And their gun-crime rate is miniscule. It ain't the guns that need control.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

cpwill said:
I would consider the automatic weapons ban to be fairly significant. It is a real departure from the original intent of the Second Amendment, which was drawn up in an era where private militia's owned cannon.
Click to expand...

So still being able to own 99% or so of guns is "fairly restrictive? Interesting.

No, actually, the claim I make (that the higher rates of US violence remain if you remove gun violence from the picture) isn't. Americans are simply more violent across the spectrum than Britons or French or Japanese. Some excellent reading, if you are interested in the subject.
Click to expand...

Here is some fact based(ie not opinion like you like so much) reading: FactCheck.org : Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts

Crime is down dramatically right now — even in states that have not passed such laws. To prove causation, which Gohmert’s statement implies, would require that those doing the study discern what would have happened if not for the law, and that is almost impossible to model.
Click to expand...
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Top Cat said:
I laughed my ass off when I heard this. You simply can't polish a turd better than that!
Click to expand...

I'm assuming we'll also need them in day care centers, malls (every entrance), movie theaters, restaurants - hell, everywhere people gather. It's sort of the third world banana republic approach to life.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Eighty Deuce said:
No. A point you have not been able to back up.

Further, Japan is not "gun control". It is essentially "no guns".

A better analogy would be Switzerland, with about half the guns-per-capita as the US. Considering we have many folks with dozens of guns, I would suspect that their armed households per capita is even closer to ours.

And their gun-crime rate is miniscule. It ain't the guns that need control.
Click to expand...

Why, oh why are you still reading more into what I said that I actually said? Is this that hard?
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Redress said:
Not hardly. You have yet to show that the two are similar to make a comparison. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

The claim that limiting/restricting/banning access to certain types of rifles because..

A. It is not necessary to kill a deer with (re: Middleground's post)
B. People use them for bad.
C. I don't like them so its okay.

Is justified is about equal to limiting/restricting/banning homo butt sex because.

A. It is not necessary for procreation (the purpose of sex)
B. Homo Butt Sex is used when committing violent acts of rape.
C. I don't do it so its okay.


In both cases, people enjoy both homo butt sex, and shooting semi-auto scary looking rifles.

But in one case it is wrong to limit the freedoms of the people to do what they enjoy, even if it is only for recreation and not for a specific purpose. (Gay Sex..... Recreation only, no procreation)

The other case it is okay to limit the freedoms of the people to do what they enjoy, even if it is only for recreation and not for a specific purpose (Scary Looking Gun Shooting..... Recreational Target shooting, no deer).

In both cases people can do bad things....... and in both cases they serve no necessary purpose in life outside of enjoyment.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Wiggen said:
I'm assuming we'll also need them in day care centers, malls (every entrance), movie theaters, restaurants - hell, everywhere people gather. It's sort of the third world banana republic approach to life.
Click to expand...

I disagree.


I say we do nothing.


Knee Jerk reactions to every tragic event that occurs is how the government slowly chips away at our freedoms bit by bit.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Caine said:
The claim that limiting/restricting/banning access to certain types of rifles because..

A. It is not necessary to kill a deer with (re: Middleground's post)
B. People use them for bad.
C. I don't like them so its okay.

Is justified is about equal to limiting/restricting/banning homo butt sex because.

A. It is not necessary for procreation (the purpose of sex)
B. Homo Butt Sex is used when committing violent acts of rape.
C. I don't do it so its okay.


In both cases, people enjoy both homo butt sex, and shooting semi-auto scary looking rifles.

But in one case it is wrong to limit the freedoms of the people to do what they enjoy, even if it is only for recreation and not for a specific purpose. (Gay Sex..... Recreation only, no procreation)

The other case it is okay to limit the freedoms of the people to do what they enjoy, even if it is only for recreation and not for a specific purpose (Scary Looking Gun Shooting..... Recreational Target shooting, no deer).

In both cases people can do bad things....... and in both cases they serve no necessary purpose in life outside of enjoyment.
Click to expand...

A late entry, but surely a strong one, for this year's 'Incredibly dumb analogy' contest.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Wiggen said:
A late entry, but surely a strong one, for this year's 'Incredibly dumb analogy' contest.
Click to expand...

AIDS kills people.

Homo Butt Sex Spreads Aids.

Ban it.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Erod said:
Typical liberals.

It's not the glorified graphic violence in Hollywood, the celebrated violence in rap music, the kill-somebody-every-second video games, the overly sympathetic judicial system, or the unlimited coverage and repetition provided by the media.

It's just the guns.

FYI, mass murders happened more frequently 1,000 years ago, when there was no such thing as a gun.
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that? You know, ordinarly citizens walking into villages a thousand years ago and murdering the inhabitants? What a dumb statement. Let me guess - you learned that on the NRA website.
 
Re: NRA Newtown response

Caine said:
AIDS kills people.

Homo Butt Sex Spreads Aids.

Ban it.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, an amendment to the Dumbest Analogy of the Year contest. And using the colorful 'Home Butt Sex' as an example of just how enlightened you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom