• 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!

Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69, 700]

Threegoofs said:
I was with you up to the last sentence.

Do you think SAMs are not available in the US because of lack of demand? I'm pretty sure the laws play a major role...
Click to expand...

SAMs are a tad easier to control as all of them are in the hands of the military.

Guns, on the other hand, are in the hands of practically everyone.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, no, I was rather clear in what I wrote.



Part of what makes this exchange so laughable is that the very sources you are citing allude to and suggest that tighter regulations would help limit the access criminals have to guns. If you want to take the absurdest position that regulation needs to prevent criminals from ever getting guns, that is on you. But it's an argument that makes no sense and feel no need to address it



Who said anything about criminals never being able to get guns? My argument concerned limited access and your own links suggest theft accounts for a small part of criminal acquisition of firearms (10-15%)
Click to expand...

Yes, they just buy them from an individual willing to sell them and ignore the law.

and you would stop that how again?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, they just buy them from an individual willing to sell them and ignore the law.
Click to expand...

Your own links make clear the transactions are legal and that the suppliers are buying the guns legally. If you want to simply ignore the previous points I already offered on such, there isn't really any point in me repeating myself here when they are just 1-2 pages back
 
VanceMack said:
I posted a quote, I gave you the article. Try reading. OR...in lieu of that lets just accept this as a fact.
Click to expand...

I did read the article, and it was the same quote [rovided by Dittohead and I addressed it there


YOU may be clueless how to obtain illegal firearms. OBVIOUSLY...violent criminals...they got it knocked.
Click to expand...

Well, according to your sources, one of the main issue seems to be overlaxed regulation and legal transactions. How this speaks to the black market, I still don't know
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Your own links make clear the transactions are legal and that the suppliers are buying the guns legally. If you want to simply ignore the previous points I already offered on such, there isn't really any point in me repeating myself here when they are just 1-2 pages back
Click to expand...

You're partly correct.

There really is not point in your continuing to repeat yourself.
 
Dittohead not! said:
SAMs are a tad easier to control as all of them are in the hands of the military.

Guns, on the other hand, are in the hands of practically everyone.
Click to expand...

that's a circular argument, and rather silly in addressing the intent to remove guns from "the hands of practically everyone"
 
TurtleDude said:
yet they do kill more meaning they are more dangerous because they kill without any deliberate intent on the part of the owners to do so.

your argument is specious
Click to expand...

No but this counterargument is stupid and aimed at trivialization and distraction. I do not care to speak of swimming pools and/or cars. What they have to do with accidental death is a subject for another thread.

The issue is about guns and your constitutional right to "bare arms." You are fighting to keep this right even though it may increase the odds of being killed by it.

That is astonishing. As Threegoofs put it: Fight to the death for the right to be killed easier.
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69]

Dr. Chuckles said:
that's a circular argument, and rather silly in addressing the intent to remove guns from "the hands of practically everyone"
Click to expand...

Given the vast difference in the numbers between the two, it is logical.

The only silliness is your dismissal of the logic.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I did read the article, and it was the same quote [rovided by Dittohead and I addressed it there
Well, according to your sources, one of the main issue seems to be overlaxed regulation and legal transactions. How this speaks to the black market, I still don't know
Click to expand...
Would you like to continue to pretend there isnt an extensive black market or just accept that you know nothing about it?
 
SMTA said:
Given the vast difference in the numbers between the two, it is logical.
Click to expand...

-The argument addressed by his post was why if regulation has no impact on availability, why do we not have an issue with SAM's.

-To address this he pointed to limited availability and "all of them are in the hands of the military"

-the problems with that is 1) "all of them are in the hands of the military" would be a consequence of regulation and 2) that isn't even true, unl;ess you use a very loose definition of military which amounts to "an organized group of individuals with arms"

So yes, logically it's a circular argument and a poor one at that

The only silliness is your dismissal of the logic.
Click to expand...

You might need to look up the word "dismissal". Being that directly addressing the argument and pointing out it's logical inconsistencies is would be "serious consideration". Not giving it "serious consideration and "dismissing" it. Would be rejecting the argument without pointing to it's logical inconsistencies and not directly addressing it
 
VanceMack said:
Would you like to continue to pretend there isnt an extensive black market or just accept that you know nothing about it?
Click to expand...

As extensive as been suggested here? I have seen no evidence for it. And to prove it's existence, people have cited weak regulations fueling a robust, but legal, second hand market.

In a discussion about an illegal gun market, where illegal acquisition occurs in response to robust gun control measures, it doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it does the exact opposite

Now tell me, Vance, how do you expect to protect and further gun rights when you're making such a stupid ****ing arguments? As a gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I ask you to but out of this discussion (not just here, but nationally). You only hurt our interests
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
As extensive as been suggested here? I have seen no evidence for it. And to prove it's existence, people have cited weak regulations fueling a robust, but legal, second hand market.

In a discussion about an illegal gun market, where illegal acquisition occurs in response to robust gun control measures, it doesn't pass the smell test. In fact, it does the exact opposite

Now tell me, Vance, how do you expect to protect and further gun rights when you're making such a stupid ****ing arguments? As a gun owner and supporter of gun rights, I ask you to but out of this discussion (not just here, but nationally). You only hurt our interests
Click to expand...
:lamo...well...you certainly nail the 'tard' part. Thats a pretty pathetic response even for you. You were given an article from PBS that showed the percentages of illegal guns accounted for by theft (10-15%). You were given citation from experts that show that black markets exist and are in fact robust. You readily admit you arent smart enough to a-understand those facts and b-figure **** out on your own. So you then rely on the time honored though full-retard position of 'un uh!'. You ignore the undeniable fact that there ARE in fact a large number of illegal guns out there in the hands of violent thugs, indicating THEY are at least smarter than YOU when it comes to getting their hands on the weapons.

There ARE gun laws in place to restrict those illegal weapons sales. Passing more gun laws will do...what exactly? Make it double secret probation kinda tough? background checks are already in place for all FFL sales, yet THEY arent doing anything to stop a-mass shootings (see DC, Conn, Co, Az, Va) or b-violent criminal possession of firearms. AR15s werent used...there goes the semi auto weapons and assault rifle ban laws for a while.

Novel thought...stop making the discussion about guns and gun bans. Start focusing on those that commit violent crimes. Try taking off the crown for a while.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo...well...you certainly nail the 'tard' part. Thats a pretty pathetic response even for you. You were given an article from PBS that showed the percentages of illegal guns accounted for by theft (10-15%). You were given citation from experts that show that black markets exist and are in fact robust. You readily admit you arent smart enough to a-understand those facts and b-figure **** out on your own. So you then rely on the time honored though full-retard position of 'un uh!'. You ignore the undeniable fact that there ARE in fact a large number of illegal guns out there in the hands of violent thugs, indicating THEY are at least smarter than YOU when it comes to getting their hands on the weapons.

There ARE gun laws in place to restrict those illegal weapons sales. Passing more gun laws will do...what exactly? Make it double secret probation kinda tough? background checks are already in place for all FFL sales, yet THEY arent doing anything to stop a-mass shootings (see DC, Conn, Co, Az, Va) or b-violent criminal possession of firearms. AR15s werent used...there goes the semi auto weapons and assault rifle ban laws for a while.

Novel thought...stop making the discussion about guns and gun bans. Start focusing on those that commit violent crimes. Try taking off the crown for a while.
Click to expand...

More like a stick, if you get my drift.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo...well...you certainly nail the 'tard' part. Thats a pretty pathetic response even for you. You were given an article from PBS that showed the percentages of illegal guns accounted for by theft (10-15%).
Click to expand...

I asked when this was first posted by dittohead, but how does that figure support your argument?


You were given citation from experts that show that black markets exist and are in fact robust.
Click to expand...

1) No one denied that people can buy guns illegally, what was challenged was how large and accessible those markets are.

2) And no, nothing you posted shows they are as large and accessible as was claimed. In fact, what was shown was a very easily accessible legal market that serves as an outlet for those unable to purchase guns in more traditional ways


"So you then rely on the time honored though full-retard position of 'un uh!'. "

You just quoted a semi-lengthy response that directly addresses your argument ...


There ARE gun laws in place to restrict those illegal weapons sales.
Click to expand...

The material supplied by you and others made clear they were legal markets with legal transactions


Passing more gun laws will do...what exactly?
Click to expand...

restrict access and ownership. But being against that doesn't create a requirement that you ignore simple and obvious facts


background checks are already in place for all FFL sales, yet THEY arent doing anything to stop a-mass shootings
Click to expand...

You've been posting material talking about the issues with *legal* gun sales that require no background check ...


AR15s werent used...there goes the semi auto weapons and assault rifle ban laws for a while.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention assault rifles? Going into an unrelated tirade does nothing to address the points we are discussing, and just further underlines my point about you being a poor advocate.


Novel thought...stop making the discussion about guns and gun bans. Start focusing on those that commit violent crimes. Try taking off the crown for a while.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the crime involved guns. So the discussion is going to be inevitably about guns, to some degree
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I asked when this was first posted by dittohead, but how does that figure support your argument?




1) No one denied that people can buy guns illegally, what was challenged was how large and accessible those markets are.

2) And no, nothing you posted shows they are as large and accessible as was claimed. In fact, what was shown was a very easily accessible legal market that serves as an outlet for those unable to purchase guns in more traditional ways


"So you then rely on the time honored though full-retard position of 'un uh!'. "

You just quoted a semi-lengthy response that directly addresses your argument ...




The material supplied by you and others made clear they were legal markets with legal transactions




restrict access and ownership. But being against that doesn't create a requirement that you ignore simple and obvious facts




You've been posting material talking about the issues with *legal* gun sales that require no background check ...




Where did I mention assault rifles? Going into an unrelated tirade does nothing to address the points we are discussing, and just further underlines my point about you being a poor advocate.




Unfortunately the crime involved guns. So the discussion is going to be inevitably about guns, to some degree
Click to expand...
Its not shocking I suppose that you cant/wont see the relevance of the fact that 85-90% of the firearms are obtained by means NOT involving theft. And THAT those weapons ARE IN FACT being secured and used illgeally, that also testifies to the scope of the trade AND the availability. Again...I get it...you dont get it.

People WANT to make these tragic event s be about the guns because of their agenda. Why not making it be about psychopharmacology...the common theme in DC, Conn, Co, Az, Va? Why not make it be about violent video games...another common theme? Oh...thats right...because its not ABOUT cause...its about agenda. Use tragedy to further a mindless agenda against firearms. Promote laws/bans against firearms that will target private law abiding citizens and CONTINUE to ignore the vast majority of violent crime and perpetrators. So what if it does nothing to prevent victims or tragedies...at least you can propose more laws.
 
VanceMack said:
Its not shocking I suppose that you cant/wont see the relevance of the fact that 85-90% of the firearms are obtained by means NOT involving theft.
Click to expand...

Then just explain it to me.

And THAT those weapons ARE IN FACT being secured and used illgeally, that also testifies to the scope of the trade AND the availability. Again...I get it...you dont get it.
Click to expand...

1) If you mean the stolen guns: No, something accounting for 10-15% of the illegal market does not suggest it can fulfill the demand of that entire market, nor would it suggest that it's comparable in scope to the current legal market. Also, no one suggested an illegal market didn't exist

2) If you mean the guns that are not stolen:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-50.html#post1062331069

- " the links from you and dittohead paint the issue as mainly being dependent on weak regulations fueling legal, though questionable, transactions. So, again, as an argument that easily accessible black market guns are the consequence of heavy regulation (which was the argument I was addressing) it leaves something to be desired"

People WANT to make these tragic event s be about the guns because of their agenda. Why not making it be about psychopharmacology...the common theme in DC, Conn, Co, Az, Va? Why not make it be about violent video games...another common theme? Oh...thats right...because its not ABOUT cause...its about agenda. Use tragedy to further a mindless agenda against firearms. Promote laws/bans against firearms that will target private law abiding citizens and CONTINUE to ignore the vast majority of violent crime and perpetrators. So what if it does nothing to prevent victims or tragedies...at least you can propose more laws.
Click to expand...

1) So to avert away from the people trying to mindlessly blame guns you want to mindlessly blame video games and medications?

2) Unfortunately attacking them, their motives, and trying to generate your own diversion issues isn't going to make their arguments go the way of the dodo. You'll need to actually address those arguments. And unfortunately that isn't accomplished by tossing around slogans and making various stupid arguments like "gun laws don't impact availability" and "knives are more deadly than guns".

All those do is paint the arguer as an idiot and allows him to serve as a useful target for anti-gun right advocates
 
It saddens and amazes me what every shooting devolves into nowdays in this non-thinking world we live in.

This isn't about an inanimate object.

Are drugs to blame for drug users? Are children to blame for child molesters? Are playing cards to blame for gambling addiction?

Mass murderers will always get their hands on guns if they want. The OKC bomber used fertilizer. The Boston Marathon killers used nails and kitchen tools. The 9/11 terrorists used airplanes.

The gun argument is just stupid. 99.99999999999999 percent of guns are not used to kill people. In fact, the vast majority are used to PREVENT people from using guns to kill people.
 
VanceMack said:
Its not shocking I suppose that you cant/wont see the relevance of the fact that 85-90% of the firearms are obtained by means NOT involving theft. And THAT those weapons ARE IN FACT being secured and used illgeally, that also testifies to the scope of the trade AND the availability. Again...I get it...you dont get it.

People WANT to make these tragic event s be about the guns because of their agenda. Why not making it be about psychopharmacology...the common theme in DC, Conn, Co, Az, Va? Why not make it be about violent video games...another common theme? Oh...thats right...because its not ABOUT cause...its about agenda. Use tragedy to further a mindless agenda against firearms. Promote laws/bans against firearms that will target private law abiding citizens and CONTINUE to ignore the vast majority of violent crime and perpetrators. So what if it does nothing to prevent victims or tragedies...at least you can propose more laws.
Click to expand...

Guns used in crimes are mostly not obtained through theft because it is so easy to simply purchase them on the street.

Passing yet another law restricting gun laws is not going to stop sales in the street. People buying, trading, selling firearms don't follow the law anyway, so how is passing more laws going to make a difference?

All more laws would do would be to restrict the numbers of legal gun owners, the ones who are more likely to use their weapons to protect themselves from the illegal gun owners. That seems to me like a negative shift in firepower.
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69]

Dr. Chuckles said:
I asked when this was first posted by dittohead, but how does that figure support your argument?




1) No one denied that people can buy guns illegally, what was challenged was how large and accessible those markets are.

2) And no, nothing you posted shows they are as large and accessible as was claimed. In fact, what was shown was a very easily accessible legal market that serves as an outlet for those unable to purchase guns in more traditional ways


"So you then rely on the time honored though full-retard position of 'un uh!'. "

You just quoted a semi-lengthy response that directly addresses your argument ...




The material supplied by you and others made clear they were legal markets with legal transactions




restrict access and ownership. But being against that doesn't create a requirement that you ignore simple and obvious facts




You've been posting material talking about the issues with *legal* gun sales that require no background check ...




Where did I mention assault rifles? Going into an unrelated tirade does nothing to address the points we are discussing, and just further underlines my point about you being a poor advocate.




Unfortunately the crime involved guns. So the discussion is going to be inevitably about guns, to some degree
Click to expand...

Yup, I would be sure to ignore the common thread of mental illness/mental capacity that exists in these incidents.

The key to problem solving is to isolate and identify the absolute root cause while devoid of bias, political opinion and emotion.

I have not seen that happen on any level.

Not nationally, not on DP, and not by you.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Then just explain it to me.



1) If you mean the stolen guns: No, something accounting for 10-15% of the illegal market does not suggest it can fulfill the demand of that entire market, nor would it suggest that it's comparable in scope to the current legal market. Also, no one suggested an illegal market didn't exist

2) If you mean the guns that are not stolen:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-50.html#post1062331069

- " the links from you and dittohead paint the issue as mainly being dependent on weak regulations fueling legal, though questionable, transactions. So, again, as an argument that easily accessible black market guns are the consequence of heavy regulation (which was the argument I was addressing) it leaves something to be desired"



1) So to avert away from the people trying to mindlessly blame guns you want to mindlessly blame video games and medications?

2) Unfortunately attacking them, their motives, and trying to generate your own diversion issues isn't going to make their arguments go the way of the dodo. You'll need to actually address those arguments. And unfortunately that isn't accomplished by tossing around slogans and making various stupid arguments like "gun laws don't impact availability" and "knives are more deadly than guns".

All those do is paint the arguer as an idiot and allows him to serve as a useful target for anti-gun right advocates
Click to expand...
Actually...no. I blame the individuals. But as those daily influences are FAR more causative than a weapon, it would be far more logical to focus on those than on weapons.

Its not a slogan, its a fact. Gun laws do NOT impact availability. Its ALSO a fact that the vast majority of violent crimes in this country are NOT committed in acts of mass shootings. They are committed in the day to day violent acts in cities across the country. Those crimes are committed by people NOT purchasing their guns through legal means. IOW they are NOT the people you would target. Shocking...right?
 
SMTA said:
Yup, I would be sure to ignore the common thread of mental illness/mental capacity that exists in these incidents.
Click to expand...

1) psychopharmacology =/= mental illness

2) Suggesting that it's a losing argument to try and scapegoat medications as 'the cause" for these incidents isn't the same as saying you should ignore them


The key to problem solving is to isolate and identify the absolute root cause while devoid of bias, political opinion and emotion.
Click to expand...

1) I think *your* root cause would unlikely be "devoid of bias, political opinion and emotion".

2) actually issues tend to be rather complex and not have a"root cause"

Not nationally, not on DP, and not by you.
Click to expand...

Well, that might be explained by the fact that it isn't something I have ever claimed to be attempting here ...

What I have done here is address arguments people have made like "knives are more deadly than guns", "the black market is comparable to size and scope to the legal gun market in the US", and "that gun laws do not impact availability or accessibility"
 
VanceMack said:
Actually...no. I blame the individuals. But as those daily influences are FAR more causative than a weapon, it would be far more logical to focus on those than on weapons.
Click to expand...

The type of weapon used clearly impacts the scope and degree of any such crime. So I am still lost on why you feel guns should be ignored in the discussion. Well, besides the obvious one: that you like guns and lack the ability to make an intelligent argument on why that is ok and why you should continue to have access to them.

Its not a slogan, its a fact. Gun laws do NOT impact availability.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do. In this very incident they impacted the perps ability to have an ar-15, japan is clearly able to restrict it's peoples access to guns through legislation, and in the US, full autos are not readily available in the black market, despite being heavily regulated in the legal one.

Its ALSO a fact that the vast majority of violent crimes in this country are NOT committed in acts of mass shootings.
Click to expand...

I never said they were, so I am lost on how this addresses anything I wrote

They are committed in the day to day violent acts in cities across the country. Those crimes are committed by people NOT purchasing their guns through legal means. IOW they are NOT the people you would target. Shocking...right?
Click to expand...

How are you going to determine if they are bought through legal means, when you have posted numerous times about the lax regulations in legal person to person sales?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Guns used in crimes are mostly not obtained through theft because it is so easy to simply purchase them on the street.
Click to expand...

The sources you have shared here indicate they are easy to purchase on the "street" in legal PtoP transactions due to weak regulation ...

Passing yet another law restricting gun laws is not going to stop sales in the street. People buying, trading, selling firearms don't follow the law anyway, so how is passing more laws going to make a difference?
Click to expand...

Well, being that your own citations outline a legal secondary market dependent on weak regulation, I would say alot

All more laws would do would be to restrict the numbers of legal gun owners, the ones who are more likely to use their weapons to protect themselves from the illegal gun owners. That seems to me like a negative shift in firepower.
Click to expand...

Why would additionally laws target what you're referring to "as legal gun owners"? Especially when one of the issues, according to your sources, being shady purchasers
being able to legally circumnavigate traditional markets.
 
If the MSM were not so indebted to Big Pharma for its advertising revenue, the story of psychoactive pharmaceuticals would be all over the papers and TV.

But it's not. Instead they put out propaganda and misinformation regarding guns.

We are SO screwed. :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom