• 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!

Mass shootings toll exceeds 900 in past seven years

Pasch's 2c

There are two primary issues with guns and gun violence in this country. The first, more than ANYTHING ELSE, is poverty. Poverty causes crime. It drives people into gangs, it drives them into black market enterprises, it makes people desperate. The single most effective way to combat crime is to combat poverty. You need to get people educated, employed, and middle class, and crime, especially violent crime, will go down. The only kinds of crime that aren't reduced by getting people out of poverty are crimes of passion, which really can't be prevented anyway.

Except maybe for the second issue. Anti-social attitudes. Extreme individualism and an "us vs them" mentality all contribute to violence. That is why the pro gun crowd is wrong. Even when they are correct, which they sometimes are, the violent and isolationist mentality that they espouse is dangerous to the safety of the country. Paranoia and distrust within a community make people willing to hurt each other.

Also, there is one uncomfortable truth that the pro gun group has to deal with. The real main cause of gun violence in this country is because of the proliferation of guns. That only happens because of the huge market for private ownership. If you guys weren't buying guns the way you do, there would not be guns for criminals to steal from you and use to hurt people. However, it's too late to undo that, unless the market disappears. Stop buying guns, stop being a market for guns to be made and sold, and they will disappear over time.

I was very VERY surprised at Joko's numbers about the number of gun uses to stop crime per year. I read the studies those numbers come from and while it doesn't take into account the problem that any number of the uses of guns may have been unnecessary. But I highly doubt that ALL of them were. So perhaps private gun ownership really is a deterrent to innocent people being victimized by crime. But it was private gun ownership that enabled criminals to get guns to violence the innocent with in the first place. But again, the guns are here, so we need to think about the future.

The way to reduce violent crime is by getting people out of poverty. That's all there is to it.

Poverty definitely is a MAJOR cause of crime and violence. Narcotics also is a cause including needing the money for the drugs - which isnt' really a poverty issue. Rape, of course, knows no economic boundaries or parameters.

Your next to last paragraph assumes that the only time a gun is needed for self defense is if the criminal/attacker has a gun. That is a false presumption - particularly in relation to attacks against women and the elderly.

It is impossible to know just how many violent attacks and crimes are stopped by the mere presense or suspicion of the presence of a firearm. However, a clue we have is in the statistics of the UK's level of violent crimes, which is consistently over 200% higher than in the USA, although murder and gun death rates are lower.
 
Poverty definitely is a MAJOR cause of crime and violence. Narcotics also is a cause including needing the money for the drugs - which isnt' really a poverty issue. Rape, of course, knows no economic boundaries or parameters.

Your next to last paragraph assumes that the only time a gun is needed for self defense is if the criminal/attacker has a gun. That is a false presumption - particularly in relation to attacks against women and the elderly.

It is impossible to know just how many violent attacks and crimes are stopped by the mere presense or suspicion of the presence of a firearm. However, a clue we have is in the statistics of the UK's level of violent crimes, which is consistently over 200% higher than in the USA, although murder and gun death rates are lower.

The poverty excuse only goes so far. Worse than poverty is the decades of 'help' in the form of welfare, excuses, and justification of violent behavior. Meanwhile, legal and illegal immigrants pour into this country by the millions and manage to start from nothing, less than nothing, work their ass off, and find success.
 
Just my opinion," one mass shooting and killing " is way to many! ijs:peace
One mass shooting does not justify ****ting on the 2nd amendment rights of millions of Americans.
 
One mass shooting does not justify ****ting on the 2nd amendment rights of millions of Americans.

It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !:peace
 
Stop and frisk worked because they targetted people they thought were carrying concealed weapons in violation of NYC's tight gun safety regulations.

It makes perfect sense, of course, that those who hold the Second Amendment in such utter contempt have no more regard for the Fourth Amendment either, or of the Constitution as a whole.
 
Conceal and carry has nothing at all to do with ownership.

Ownership of arms would fall under “keeping”.

“Conceal and carry” falls under bearing.

Thus, both fall directly under the Second Amendment's affirmation of our right to keep and bear arms. The two go together. You obviously cannot bear arms if you're not allowed to keep them, and there's no point in keeping arms if you are not allowed to bear them.
 
It should not be a Constitutionally allowed restriction. It simply amounts to allowing each state to charge 2A rights rental fees. The 2A makes no distinction between the right to keep and bear arms, they are one right, not two separate rights. The addition of a $100 (10 hour) "NRA" class and a $140 (in Texas) CHL "application fee" with the same background check which was required to buy the handgun is insane. When a driver's license is $24 (in Texas) which includes both the written and practical tests ($8 more for motorcycle also), the background check and the photo ID. Imagine the outrage if states were permitted to issue "go to church" permits or "have an attorney present during police questioning" permits. Allowing states to rent Consitituional rights back to their citizens "in the name of public safety" is insane. Simply including that 10 hour training in a basic HS education or making it available for a reasonable (same as driver's license) cost would accomplish that goal. The current CHL practice is simply trying to exclude as many poor folks as possible, while generating as much state revenue as possible.

Very much like the use of “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” in past decades, to selectively deny or discourage voting rights.
 
True for the most part, but frisking for weapons does not violate the 4th amend.

Absolutely false.

Stopping and frisking any citizen for any reason, in the absence of a warrant or sufficient probable cause, absolutely violates the Fourth Amendment.

And if the excuse for such an illegal search is that the subject might be carrying a weapon, then that is a violation of the Second Amendment as well.

It is never, under any circumstances, a valid excuse to violate one Constitutional right because of a suspicion that the target of that violation might be legitimately exercising another Constitutional right. Only in a place like New York would such abuse be tolerated.
 
Last edited:
Very much like the use of “poll taxes” and “literacy tests” in past decades, to selectively deny or discourage voting rights.

It is strange indeed, that in past times, the nation respected the Constitution so much that the 15th and 19th amendments were deemed needed to secure, forever, the right to vote as "free" and available to all people, even *gasp* women, despite having the 14th amendment requiring equal protection of the law. Having a Constitutional right reserved to the people is worthless if that allows both the state and federal gov'ts to "reasonably restrict" that right by applying classes, tests and fees to actually enjoy it. Note in these later amendments the word infringed was avoided, instead they use the phrase denied or abridged. I think that it is high time the 2nd was modified (by a later amendment) changing only the words shall not be infringed to shall not be denied or abridged to better settle this "confusing" matter.
 
Pasch's 2c

There are two primary issues with guns and gun violence in this country. The first, more than ANYTHING ELSE, is poverty. Poverty causes crime. It drives people into gangs, it drives them into black market enterprises, it makes people desperate. The single most effective way to combat crime is to combat poverty. You need to get people educated, employed, and middle class, and crime, especially violent crime, will go down. The only kinds of crime that aren't reduced by getting people out of poverty are crimes of passion, which really can't be prevented anyway.

Well said.

Except maybe for the second issue. Anti-social attitudes. Extreme individualism and an "us vs them" mentality all contribute to violence. That is why the pro gun crowd is wrong. Even when they are correct, which they sometimes are, the violent and isolationist mentality that they espouse is dangerous to the safety of the country. Paranoia and distrust within a community make people willing to hurt each other.

This has nothing to do with the firearm, though, and is fixed by the same thing your first paragraph discusses. Education. There is nothing wrong with "extreme" individualism, and the "us vs them" is solved through education and leaders that unite instead of divide.

Also, there is one uncomfortable truth that the pro gun group has to deal with. The real main cause of gun violence in this country is because of the proliferation of guns. That only happens because of the huge market for private ownership. If you guys weren't buying guns the way you do, there would not be guns for criminals to steal from you and use to hurt people. However, it's too late to undo that, unless the market disappears. Stop buying guns, stop being a market for guns to be made and sold, and they will disappear over time.

You're over generalizing. Guns are smuggled all over the world every day. Let me ask you this: Does heroin only get into the hands of criminals because it's stolen from legal owners?

I was very VERY surprised at Joko's numbers about the number of gun uses to stop crime per year. I read the studies those numbers come from and while it doesn't take into account the problem that any number of the uses of guns may have been unnecessary. But I highly doubt that ALL of them were. So perhaps private gun ownership really is a deterrent to innocent people being victimized by crime. But it was private gun ownership that enabled criminals to get guns to violence the innocent with in the first place. But again, the guns are here, so we need to think about the future.

Look at Switzerland. Nearly everyone has a gun there, and it has some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The way to reduce violent crime is by getting people out of poverty. That's all there is to it.

Agreed, number one. Number two is deterrence. Cops don't deter crime when they're not present.
 
It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !:peace

its a silly choice on your part because your desire to bash our rights is not really motivated by crime control nor is there any objective evidence what you want will decrease crime. In fact there is more evidence what you want will increase crime
 
It is strange indeed, that in past times, the nation respected the Constitution so much that the 15th and 19th amendments were deemed needed to secure, forever, the right to vote as "free" and available to all people, even *gasp* women, despite having the 14th amendment requiring equal protection of the law. Having a Constitutional right reserved to the people is worthless if that allows both the state and federal gov'ts to "reasonably restrict" that right by applying classes, tests and fees to actually enjoy it. Note in these later amendments the word infringed was avoided, instead they use the phrase denied or abridged. I think that it is high time the 2nd was modified (by a later amendment) changing only the words shall not be infringed to shall not be denied or abridged to better settle this "confusing" matter.

A great deal of argument made elsewhere notwithstanding, I think the word “infringed” is quite clear enough. The related word, “fringe” refers to the barest edges of something, or more popularly in modern usage, to decorative material attached to these edges. In the context of the Second Amendment, I think it is clear enough that in saying that a right shall not be infringed, that government is forbidden from even intruding upon barest edges of this right.

I don't see any value to changing the wording of the Second Amendment in the manner that you suggest. Those who are determined to disobey it will be no more inclined to obey it no matter how the wording may be changed.
 
Last edited:
It does to me,i'll take "Human Life " over any 2nd amendment rights. Like I said before that's my opinion and i'm entitled to mines,you're entitled to your's !:peace

In that case lets ban knives, cars,pencils, and a whole bunch of other stuff because these things have killed way more people than any mass shooting has.
 
In that case lets ban knives, cars,pencils, and a whole bunch of other stuff because these things have killed way more people than any mass shooting has.
All i've heard is the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights, and i've never seen one fact of it being true.All I hear and see in the Right crying over something that the NRA want them to believe, and keep sending the checks.Again my opinion!:shoot
 
You don't. You attack the root of the problem...

Instead of getting a task force together to register and/or ban assault weapons. Why don't they put together a task force to study the root cause of gang violence and how to address it in minority neighborhoods. Or is that much to complicated?

obviously too complicated for conservatives to understand. You say that like you support it, but then you go and support the legislators whose very goal is to cut that type of funding.
 
Not really, in your case it's called "clueless Texmex comment" So the stupidity of your post ranks right up there with sangha, who has yet to post anything even relevant.

Don't be holding your breath.
 
obviously too complicated for conservatives to understand. You say that like you support it, but then you go and support the legislators whose very goal is to cut that type of funding.

Well that is off topic and nothing but a strawman.

In the end it is nothing but an untrue blanket statement as you don't know what I support, nor do you speak for every conservative.

Your comment is ignorant at best.
 
All i've heard is the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights, and i've never seen one fact of it being true.All I hear and see in the Right crying over something that the NRA want them to believe, and keep sending the checks.Again my opinion!:shoot

this idiotic post is either ignorant of what the anti gun left has schemed or dishonest. Sadly for you, too many of your idols such as Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Andrew Cuomo have proven what nefarious crap the democrats intend for our gun rights.
 
All i've heard is the government wants to take our 2nd amendment rights, and i've never seen one fact of it being true.All I hear and see in the Right crying over something that the NRA want them to believe, and keep sending the checks.Again my opinion!:shoot

Across the country in both state governments and at the federal level anti-gun leftists have proposed bans on semiautomatic weapons, weapons with removable magazines, weapons with anything resembling a "military style" component. That includes he majority of handguns and a large number of rifles and shotguns include something as basic as a Ruger 10/22. Additionally they are advocating for registration, licenses, fees, and forced confiscation of firearms on their list. So while they aren't (for now) banning ALL guns there can be NO DOUBT they are targeting the vast majority of them. If you don't see that as an assault on 2nd amendment rights it's only because you refuse to.
 
Across the country in both state governments and at the federal level anti-gun leftists have proposed bans on semiautomatic weapons, weapons with removable magazines, weapons with anything resembling a "military style" component. That includes he majority of handguns and a large number of rifles and shotguns include something as basic as a Ruger 10/22. Additionally they are advocating for registration, licenses, fees, and forced confiscation of firearms on their list. So while they aren't (for now) banning ALL guns there can be NO DOUBT they are targeting the vast majority of them. If you don't see that as an assault on 2nd amendment rights it's only because you refuse to.


I think it is because those who support a complete ban understand they have to deny that is their goal and call those who argue that incremental steps are designed to affect a complete ban paranoid or unjustified

and the gun haters will be claiming that until the only step remaining is a complete ban
 
I think it is because those who support a complete ban understand they have to deny that is their goal and call those who argue that incremental steps are designed to affect a complete ban paranoid or unjustified

and the gun haters will be claiming that until the only step remaining is a complete ban

Yep...Obama shows us a picture of him with a dbl barrel shotgun. Biden comes out extolling the virtues of a dbl barrel...all the while proclaiming their "reasonable" steps to ban every semiautomatic weapon o even boot action weapons with detachable magazines. It's pretty transparent.
 
Yep...Obama shows us a picture of him with a dbl barrel shotgun. Biden comes out extolling the virtues of a dbl barrel...all the while proclaiming their "reasonable" steps to ban every semiautomatic weapon o even boot action weapons with detachable magazines. It's pretty transparent.

As I noted before-seeking or following Joe Biden's advice on defensive weaponry would be like asking Bill clinton's advice on how to land a complete babe as your wife or asking hillary clinton how to achieve killer legs
 
Across the country in both state governments and at the federal level anti-gun leftists have proposed bans on semiautomatic weapons, weapons with removable magazines, weapons with anything resembling a "military style" component. That includes he majority of handguns and a large number of rifles and shotguns include something as basic as a Ruger 10/22. Additionally they are advocating for registration, licenses, fees, and forced confiscation of firearms on their list. So while they aren't (for now) banning ALL guns there can be NO DOUBT they are targeting the vast majority of them. If you don't see that as an assault on 2nd amendment rights it's only because you refuse to.

The only thing I refuse to do is " think for myself! " I don't need some card carrying NRA man telling me a bunch of lies and trying to put fear in my head.I leave that to the weaker of men minds.:wink2:
 
The only thing I refuse to do is " think for myself! " I don't need some card carrying NRA man telling me a bunch of lies and trying to put fear in my head.I leave that to the weak of man minds.:wink2:

I love it when people drag the NRA into every argument as if they are the issue. So tell us then....do you acknowledge the efforts across the country attacking all semiautomatic weapons, weapons with detachable magazines, etc? And are you intelligent enough to realize that information is found on government websites by those actually PROPOSING them?
 
I love it when people drag the NRA into every argument as if they are the issue. So tell us then....do you acknowledge the efforts across the country attacking all semiautomatic weapons, weapons with detachable magazines, etc? And are you intelligent enough to realize that information is found on government websites by those actually PROPOSING them?

Personally,when I left the Marine Corps and Vietnam,i've had no use for AR-15 M-16 AK-47,semi or automatic Rifle. I do have a 40 Cal.Smith & Wesson Semiautomatic Pistol that have a 13 rounds magazine. But i'm not worry about the government taken it from me. And if they do take my magazines, it won't bother me to have 6 rounds clip mag.:2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom