• 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]

Dr. Chuckles said:
lol, I guess you could define it as such. But to me, it looked like someone trying to gloss over the fact they were adopting the role of an expert on a topic they knew absolutely nothing about.
Click to expand...

sadly for you the other people who understand this issue including Captain Adverse, LMR and Goshin all realize that I actually an am expert. I have lectured ABA accredited law school's classes and alumni (ie licensed attorneys, judges, law professors, and prosecutors) on 2A subjects I have been consulted on Law review articles on the issue and QUOTED on the floor of congress by an ANTI gun congressman who conceded an argument I raised in an article was well taken.

so rather than pretend who is expert why don't you just answer my question since I already set forth my position on proposed and current gun control schemes
 
VanceMack said:
GUn laws do NOT deter criminals. Thats not what deterred criminals in Japan. The laws were already on the books. What CHANGED was increased PENALTIES.

So..how about it...all for life sentences for violent criminals that use a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, right? Notice...that requires NO new gun laws...just harsher sentences for EXISTING gun laws. You know...like what caused the criminals to rethink their strategy in Japan.
Click to expand...

If people really want to be serious about such crimes a life sentence for someone using a firearm in a violent crime would be a major step. Take it one more step to anyone committing a crime with a gun on them receiving a life sentence and people are really going to think twice about it. Of course then we have criminals using knives and other weapons but that can be sorted out too.
 
TurtleDude said:
gun haters don't acknowledge that there are good gun owners who use guns for good purposes and bad gun owners who misuse or intentionally harm others with guns

gun restrictions tend to have little if any impact on the latter but impacts the latter a great deal. We can only conclude that those who push for gun laws are either ignorant of that fact or intend to obstruct legal gun ownership for reasons that have nothing to do with crime control
Click to expand...

I made clear I am very much pro gun. I just happen to be anti stupid arguments, as well
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69]

Dr. Chuckles said:
Penalties are the functional aspect of "gun laws"




You realize a change in penalties would require a functional and textual change to "gun laws"?
Click to expand...

Ah! So...finally. Common ground! No new laws...but life sentences for violent criminals using firearms. Right? That's the 'change' you want.
 
VanceMack said:
All he wants to do is pass them laws. More laws..ANY laws...but...hes a gun owner...honest!!!
At least he has some new buddies that share his vision.
Click to expand...

MANY PEOPLE are uneasy when there is a question that they cannot answer. Like why do little kids get cancer or why did nice people get killed by some nut case for no reason. IN order to banish that feeling of unease, they feel a need to DO SOMETHING even if its worse than leaving things as they are. Its like putting a tourniquet around the neck of someone who is suffering a head wound.
 
Active gunmen in US navy Yard [W:69]

Crosscheck said:
If people really want to be serious about such crimes a life sentence for someone using a firearm in a violent crime would be a major step. Take it one more step to anyone committing a crime with a gun on them receiving a life sentence and people are really going to think twice about it. Of course then we have criminals using knives and other weapons but that can be sorted out too.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. By then as soon as you go that route the anti gun people go very limp. After all...it's not the poor dears fault.
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I made clear I am very much pro gun. I just happen to be anti stupid arguments, as well
Click to expand...

sorry I don't believe you. we have had another poster who makes the same specious claims. He whines about "bad" pro gun arguments but never ever attacks the far far more idiotic emoto babbling hoplophobic nonsense we see from people who aren't even honest about why they want to impose more gun laws
 
TurtleDude said:
sadly for you the other people who understand this issue including Captain Adverse, LMR and Goshin all realize that I actually an am expert.
Click to expand...

1) making an appeal to popularity hardly helps your already tenuous position. And the fact that you're citing other gun advocates hardly disproves my claim that you're simply singing to the choir here

2) No, you clearly did not know what you were talking about after a claim of expertise. See here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-63.html#post1062332960


I have lectured ABA accredited law school's classes and alumni (ie licensed attorneys, judges, law professors, and prosecutors) on 2A subjects I have been consulted on Law review articles on the issue and QUOTED on the floor of congress by an ANTI gun congressman who conceded an argument I raised in an article was well taken.
Click to expand...

Then you have done yourself a disservice here. Because you have done little to address any opposing argument here, besides attempt to insult, divert, and sloganeering.


so rather than pretend who is expert why don't you just answer my question since I already set forth my position on proposed and current gun control schemes
Click to expand...

because it is/was an obvious attempt to divert from the point we were discussing.
 
VanceMack said:
I completely agree. By then as soon as you go that route the anti gun people go very limp. After all...it's not the poor dears fault.
Click to expand...

It might deter some-mainly because once in prison they cannot prey on those who are on the outside

but I remember seeing an interview of a mope who got 15 years for being caught with a pistol in a drug bust

he said "If you (referring to the cops) catch me with this beretta I get 15 years. If Tommy's boys (the rival coke gang's leader) catch me without a piece I get eternity. "
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
1) making an appeal to popularity hardly helps your already tenuous position. And the fact that you're citing other gun advocates hardly disproves my claim that you're simply singing to the choir here

2) No, you clearly did not know what you were talking about after a claim of expertise. See here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...en-us-navy-yard-w-69-a-63.html#post1062332960




Then you have done yourself a disservice here. Because you have done little to address any opposing argument here, besides attempt to insult, divert, and sloganeering.




because it is/was an obvious attempt to divert from the point we were discussing.
Click to expand...

we are used to people like you not answering easy questions

that you won't tell us what gun laws you oppose and support, we are left with the rational conclusion that your claims of being pro gun are BS.

the only gun law that matters in this shooting is the fact that the people who were slain were not allowed to carry guns for the most part. It was a Clinton law that made domestic military bases GFZs, especially for civilian contractors
 
VanceMack said:
Ah! So...finally. Common ground! No new laws...but life sentences for violent criminals using firearms. Right? That's the 'change' you want.
Click to expand...

Me, I am not sure I would support life sentences for "violent" gun crime in general. For me, it would need to be limited to things like "deadly" actual and attempted assaults (example: pistol whipping someone wouldn't necessarily be on par with shooting someone, in my book). But over all, I do agree penalties are way too lenient here across the board. I also feel the p2p gun sales need to be tightened and that we need better mental health monitoring, especially in direct relation to gun ownership

PS one area that would also need working on if such penalties were enacted would be those governing self-defense. As it now stands, I would not feel safe with such changes taking place
 
TurtleDude said:
sorry I don't believe you. we have had another poster who makes the same specious claims. He whines about "bad" pro gun arguments but never ever attacks the far far more idiotic emoto babbling hoplophobic nonsense we see from people who aren't even honest about why they want to impose more gun laws
Click to expand...

you can find plenty of instances where I defend gun rights on this board
 
TurtleDude said:
we are used to people like you not answering easy questions

that you won't tell us what gun laws you oppose and support, we are left with the rational conclusion that your claims of being pro gun are BS.

the only gun law that matters in this shooting is the fact that the people who were slain were not allowed to carry guns for the most part. It was a Clinton law that made domestic military bases GFZs, especially for civilian contractors
Click to expand...

I've got to say...as a not too objective observer, it sure looks like Chuckles is rhetorically disemboweling you. Pretty impressively, I might add.

Seems like someone with a 1570 SAT could recognize that!
 
TurtleDude said:
we are used to people like you not answering easy questions

that you won't tell us what gun laws you oppose and support, we are left with the rational conclusion that your claims of being pro gun are BS.

the only gun law that matters in this shooting is the fact that the people who were slain were not allowed to carry guns for the most part. It was a Clinton law that made domestic military bases GFZs, especially for civilian contractors
Click to expand...

from above;

TurtleDude said:
so rather than pretend who is expert why don't you just answer my question since I already set forth my position on proposed and current gun control schemes
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
because it is/was an obvious attempt to divert from the point we were discussing.
Click to expand...
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
I just outlined how they were different. Simply ignoring those differences doesn't make your argument effective. You need to actually address those points



So stricter gun control laws restricted access to guns in your argument that stricter laws ***do not*** limit access to guns?

Again, think before you write
Click to expand...

If your dumb gun control measures worked, the incident that we are discussing would never have happened. It doesn't work. Criminals don't follow laws genius.
 
Threegoofs said:
I've got to say...as a not too objective observer, it sure looks like Chuckles is rhetorically disemboweling you. Pretty impressively, I might add.

Seems like someone with a 1570 SAT could recognize that!
Click to expand...

yeah he is refusing to tell us his position and you consider that winning

sort of like watching a boxing match and one contestant runs to the ladies room and you claim he won because he never got knocked down by the guy who remained in the ring
 
ChrisL said:
If your dumb gun control measures worked, the incident that we are discussing would never have happened. It doesn't work. Criminals don't follow laws genius.
Click to expand...

that Navy Yard is a gun haters wet dream. almost no one could carry a gun legally
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
you can find plenty of instances where I defend gun rights on this board
Click to expand...

I have seen that defense before--another guy who claims not to hate guns tells us to search his posts to find his evidence rather than just listing his position again.

I don't buy it.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have seen that defense before--another guy who claims not to hate guns tells us to search his posts to find his evidence rather than just listing his position again.

I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:
so rather than pretend who is expert why don't you just answer my question since I already set forth my position on proposed and current gun control schemes
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
because it is/was an obvious attempt to divert from the point we were discussing.
Click to expand...

12345
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
12345
Click to expand...

How is it a diversion? What's the big deal. You are either support the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, or you want to demote it to a privilege or perhaps even do away with it altogether. If you don't carry on like usual, you can probably express your position in just one simple sentence. :)
 
TurtleDude said:
why don't you just say you refuse to tell us
Click to expand...

clearly not, being that I just discussed some points with Vance Mack. What I am doing is refusing to let you simply divert from an issue. This is made plainly clear in the quotes I have provided for you on three different occasions already.

This will be the forth occasion:

TurtleDude said:
so rather than pretend who is expert why don't you just answer my question since I already set forth my position on proposed and current gun control schemes
Click to expand...

Dr. Chuckles said:
because it is/was an obvious attempt to divert from the point we were discussing.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom