• 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!

5-year old Idaho girl dies afterIdaho playmate gets gun

Capster78 said:
If you have not been watching the news lately, there is a lot of coverage painting guns in a negative light. As history has shown, with examples like the vietnam war, Iraq war, gay rights, womens rights, racism...ect..ect... Anything the media portrays as negative and in need of change, the American populous generally follow. Guns, among other things, are next on the chopping block. It will only take continuing gun violence and heart breaking stories on how gun violence effects families of those who are victims. It started with school shootings, and now has spread to coverage on almost any shooting. Which instantly sparks a gun rights debate. If it were not such a controversial issue, I would agree, but since it is, its obviously a sign that the tide is changing and that the push for gun regulation is getting stronger.
Click to expand...


You're confusing a 2-3 year "trend" that is really a political push backed by Pelosi, Bloomberg and HCI, with an over 30-year trend that has been pushed by The People themselves.


I'd be very lucky if I live to see what things are like in 50 years... but I'll bet my retirement that the private ownership of firearms will still be a respected American institution. Assuming there is still a USA at all, that is.
 
Goshin said:
You're confusing a 2-3 year "trend" that is really a political push backed by Pelosi, Bloomberg and HCI, with an over 30-year trend that has been pushed by The People themselves.


I'd be very lucky if I live to see what things are like in 50 years... but I'll bet my retirement that the private ownership of firearms will still be a respected American institution. Assuming there is still a USA at all, that is.
Click to expand...

Its the people who are behind the movement. But of course leave it to conspiracy theorists to blame it on the government. Which, for some odd reason, seem to fester in the gun nut community... You actually don't believe that the average American is in favor of tighter gun regulation. The polls all seem to disagree with that statement.
 
Capster78 said:
Its the people who are behind the movement. But of course leave it to conspiracy theorists to blame it on the government. Which, for some odd reason, seem to fester in the gun nut community... You actually don't believe that the average American is in favor of tighter gun regulation. The polls all seem to disagree with that statement.
Click to expand...



Polls can typically produce whatever result the pollsters want, if they phrase their questions carefully and cherry pick the data... as is often the case.

And even if a majority might be in favor of a FEW new regulations, that doesn't mean the population in general has turned anti-gun.


Oh and you can ****can the "gun nut" and "conspiracy theorist" baiting remarks you're not-so-subtly directing at me. That Bloomberg and Pelosi, along with willing accomplices in the media, are involved in this push for more gun control is as plain as the nose on Cyrano's face.
 
Capster78 said:
You obviously missed my point. I was not saying that gun owners wish the south had won, or that slavery should return, or that gays should not be able to marry each other... Although I do believe that if you looked at the statistics, you will find that more gun owners hold those views then people who do not own guns, it was not my point. My point is that our country has always moved in a liberal direction. If you go back 50 years, no one could have imagined two men getting married. Today it is more acceptable and less controversial. Today many would never imagine an America with strict gun laws, but following other examples, 30-40-50 years from now, there will be because that is the direction our country is headed in. Like it or not....
Click to expand...
I agree that this country does move in a Liberal direction. Every kind of democracy in history becoms a dictatorship; the exeptions being those few lucky enough to become an empior instead. The US is uniqu in that we have the longest running democracy ever.

And that's because we have a healthy level of Conservatives. We are what delays the Liberal "Progressive" cancer.

Maybe you're a defeatest, but I encourage cancer patients to fight. And maybe it's true that we can naver fully rid ourselves of the Liberal cancer, but we can sure score a remission.

One day, like all things, America will end. Everyone dies, cancer or no. But America doesn't have to die by letting the Liberal cancer win; America can end in peace with the formation of the next evolutionary step in self-governance.

In the mean time, there is nothing to negotiate regarding gun ownership. No kind of firearm should be banned. Every kind of hazard in and around your home should be secured.

The only thing Liberals and so-called "Progressives" need to consern themselves with is maturing out of the Liberal ideology, or suicide. Liberals by default have nothing of value to say or do on any topic what so ever and, like cancer, is only to be eradicated, not 'negotiated' with.
 
Goshin said:
Polls can typically produce whatever result the pollsters want, if they phrase their questions carefully and cherry pick the data... as is often the case.

And even if a majority might be in favor of a FEW new regulations, that doesn't mean the population in general has turned anti-gun.


Oh and you can ****can the "gun nut" and "conspiracy theorist" baiting remarks you're not-so-subtly directing at me. That Bloomberg and Pelosi, along with willing accomplices in the media, are involved in this push for more gun control is as plain as the nose on Cyrano's face.
Click to expand...

Oh.. so what your saying is that polls that say people want more gun laws are somehow.... slanted in the favor of the pollsters. But polls that claim people use guns in self defense more often then for crime are not. Interesting..
 
Capster78 said:
Oh.. so what your saying is that polls that say people want more gun laws are somehow.... slanted in the favor of the pollsters. But polls that claim people use guns in self defense more often then for crime are not. Interesting..
Click to expand...



Ok. So you don't know the difference between polls conducted by media and politically motivated orgs, vs surveys and studies done by the US Government, private universities and noted scholars. Got it.
 
Jerry said:
I agree that this country does move in a Liberal direction. Every kind of democracy in history becoms a dictatorship; the exeptions being those few lucky enough to become an empior instead. The US is uniqu in that we have the longest running democracy ever.

And that's because we have a healthy level of Conservatives. We are what delays the Liberal "Progressive" cancer.

Maybe you're a defeatest, but I encourage cancer patients to fight. And maybe it's true that we can naver fully rid ourselves of the Liberal cancer, but we can sure score a remission.

One day, like all things, America will end. Everyone dies, cancer or no. But America doesn't have to die by letting the Liberal cancer win; America can end in peace with the formation of the next evolutionary step in self-governance.

In the mean time, there is nothing to negotiate regarding gun ownership. No kind of firearm should be banned. Every kind of hazard in and around your home should be secured.

The only thing Liberals and so-called "Progressives" need to consern themselves with is maturing out of the Liberal ideology, or suicide. Liberals by default have nothing of value to say or do on any topic what so ever and, like cancer, is only to be eradicated, not 'negotiated' with.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that we need conservatives to fight liberal ideas that head in the wrong direction. We also need liberal direction in order to improve our society. They are strange necessary bedfellows. So far, our country has done a good job of ballencing the two and it seems to continue to do so. There are short periods of time where one has come close to tearing itself away from the other in a damaging way, but it has always equalized. As I have said, a gun ban would be dangerous. Would I wish it was possible, sure. I wish none of us had the need to own a weapon. But I also know that because there are not enough people out there that would self impose or support a law banning guns to allow it to be effective, we need them around. So the middle ground is strict regulation.
 
Goshin said:
Ok. So you don't know the difference between polls conducted by media and politically motivated orgs, vs surveys and studies done by the US Government, private universities and noted scholars. Got it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I guess the former are conviniently not politically motivated. You are saying the government is not politically motivated... EDUCATION is not politically motivated???? Can I take anything you say seriously?
 
Capster78 said:
Oh, I guess the former are conviniently not politically motivated. You are saying the government is not politically motivated... EDUCATION is not politically motivated???? Can I take anything you say seriously?
Click to expand...


Nice try. No cigar.


I'll take the government commissioned NCVS and studies conducted by reputable researchers and universities over stuff put out by the media, Bloomberg and HCI.


Isn't there a tree somewhere that needs a hug? :mrgreen:
 
Goshin said:
Nice try. No cigar.


I'll take the government commissioned NCVS and studies conducted by reputable researchers and universities over stuff put out by the media, Bloomberg and HCI.


Isn't there a tree somewhere that needs a hug? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Of course you will because that fits your agenda. The way politics work in the US is akin to religion. Cut out the bits that we dont like, or are potentially damaging to our beliefs and highlight the ones that we like.
 
Capster78 said:
Yes, I agree that we need conservatives to fight liberal ideas that head in the wrong direction. We also need liberal direction in order to improve our society. They are strange necessary bedfellows. So far, our country has done a good job of ballencing the two and it seems to continue to do so. There are short periods of time where one has come close to tearing itself away from the other in a damaging way, but it has always equalized. As I have said, a gun ban would be dangerous. Would I wish it was possible, sure. I wish none of us had the need to own a weapon. But I also know that because there are not enough people out there that would self impose or support a law banning guns to allow it to be effective, we need them around. So the middle ground is strict regulation.
Click to expand...
Liberals nave never bettered sociaty.
Liberals harm sociaty through weak and non-viable fiscal policy, basicaly enabling the public to vote themselves a bigger and bigger piece of the treasury, which just happens to be the reason democracies fail. See The New Deal and Obamacare for examples.

Liberals and Conservatives are oil and water, not bedfellows.

Back on topic: give me the Conservative Democrat who genuinly belives spicific policy can improve public saftey and not just giving lip-service to voting block to legislate an end run around the 2nd Amendment. *That* person is honest and reasonable and can be negotiated with. *That* person won't try to turn a safe-storage law into a Chicago-like default ban.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Liberals nave never bettered sociaty.
Liberals harm sociaty through weak and non-viable fiscal policy, basicaly enabling the public to vote themselves a bigger and bigger piece of the treasury, which just happens to be the reason democracies fail. See The New Deal and Obamacare for examples.
Click to expand...

I partially agree. I do believe there are many liberal / socialist policies that are damaging to the economy. But there are also things that conservatives do that damage our country as well, such as trying to push religion into schools, denying human rights to gays ect ect.. Both sides have done damage to our society, and both sides have contributed as well.

Liberals and Conservatives are oil and water, not bedfellows.
Click to expand...

They are bedfellows, both work to buffer the effect of the other on society.

Back on topic: give me the Conservative Democrat who genuinly belives spicific policy can improve public saftey and not just giving lip-service to voting block to legislate an end run around the 2nd Amendment. *That* person is honest and reasonable and can be negotiated with. *That* person won't try to turn a safe-storage law into a Chicago-like default ban.
Click to expand...

The problem is, anyone who thinks laws should be passed to regulate gun's is labeled as someone who is unreasonable. So in essence, you are creating a person that would never exist.
 
shrubnose said:
A 5-year old girl visiting with friends in eastern Idaho died after being shot by another 5-year old in what police say is an accidental shooting.

Read more here: 5-year-old Idaho girl dies after Idaho playmate gets gun | Fox News

I have little doubt that the child who shot and killed her playmate didn't do it on purpose.

But that doesn't change the result that we're looking at.

Whoever owns that gun and failed to secure it needs to pay a heavy price for the death of this 5-year old which resulted from that carelessness.
Click to expand...
Boy Drives Over, Kills Mother « CBS Miami
8-year-old Phoenix boy crashes mom's car, killing 6-year-old sister - NBC News
Boy Convicted of Murder in Wrestling Death - NYTimes.com
Teen killed in golf cart crash in Toombs County - WTOC-TV: Savannah, Beaufort, SC, News, Weather & Sports
 
Jerry said:
In TD's example the property owner was doing the snorting. So you're point here doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

In the one I quoted, they described a 'sitter.'
 
Lursa said:
In the one I quoted, they described a 'sitter.'
Click to expand...
Presuming the property owners didn't want the sitter to bring or use illegal mind-altering drugs on their property, and the sitter did it anyway dispite the law and dispite the parent's wish...how does legalizing cocain not end in this happening more often?

As a Soldier I know very well how a gun in a good-guy's hand can counter a gun in a bad-guy's hand, that's our job, but how does cocain in a good-guy's hand counter cocain in a bad-guy's hand? I don't see how increasing availability of hard drugs is going to solve any problem.

For people worried about prison population size, my answer to that is to exicute repeat offenders who can't or won't complete rehab and stay off it. We don't need that kind of person on the planet. We have enough problems with jihadfags trying to blow everything up to put so much effort into dealing with coked up loosers.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
places like Mexico have few legal firearms and far higher rates of gun deaths
Click to expand...

why are you differentiating between legal weapons and illegal ones? My point as simply numbers and probabilities. And we all know that countries which are third world economies have social and political conditions that contribute to deaths.
 
shrubnose said:
A 5-year old girl visiting with friends in eastern Idaho died after being shot by another 5-year old in what police say is an accidental shooting.

Read more here: 5-year-old Idaho girl dies after Idaho playmate gets gun | Fox News

I have little doubt that the child who shot and killed her playmate didn't do it on purpose.

But that doesn't change the result that we're looking at.

Whoever owns that gun and failed to secure it needs to pay a heavy price for the death of this 5-year old which resulted from that carelessness.
Click to expand...

Occasionally I come across a case where a child gets a hold of his or her parents car keys and takes the car for a joyride while mom and dad are away.

Sometimes these incidents are tragically fatal. In One which ocurred just up the street from me a child and a police officer were killed.

Should those parents who failed to secure their spare can keys pay a heavy price? What about a parent who does not pay close enough attention when a neighbors kids tries to swim in the back yard pool and drowns?

We could go on but these sort of accidents are more common than gun accidents and no one has the same reaction
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Occasionally I come across a case where a child gets a hold of his or her parents car keys and takes the car for a joyride while mom and dad are away.

Sometimes these incidents are tragically fatal. In One which ocurred just up the street from me a child and a police officer were killed.

Should those parents who failed to secure their spare can keys pay a heavy price? What about a parent who does not pay close enough attention when a neighbors kids tries to swim in the back yard pool and drowns?

We could go on but these sort of accidents are more common than gun accidents and no one has the same reaction
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Any adult whose carelessness causes another human being's injury or death should pay a price for their stupidity.
 
shrubnose said:
Any adult whose carelessness causes another human being's injury or death should pay a price for their stupidity.
Click to expand...

Exactly the excuse behind most frivolous law suits.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
Exactly the excuse behind most frivolous law suits.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Maybe you think that making the person whose stupidity resulted in a 5-year old child's death pay for that stupidity is frivolous, but I don't.




"Libertarians are like anarchists on drugs."
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Presuming the property owners didn't want the sitter to bring or use illegal mind-altering drugs on their property, and the sitter did it anyway dispite the law and dispite the parent's wish...how does legalizing cocain not end in this happening more often?

.
Click to expand...

Do you think that the price of coke would radically come down?

Coke isnt that hard to get...what makes you think...after an intial upswing because 'they can'....that so many more people would do it? It's no different than anything else....just because you try it doesnt mean you'll like it. Like cigarettes....millions of people tried cigs and did not become smokers. I'm one of them.

And also, just because you ocassionally use coke recreationally doesnt mean you'll get addicted. In some cases, it's 'just a party favor.' :)


We're talking coke here, not meth. I dont think the coke problem has worsened in decades.
 
Summerwind said:
I stand by my blanket statement. Anyone open carrying that isn't in LE does it to garner attention, that type of person shouldn't be carrying at all.
Click to expand...

Sorry cant agree with ya there.

We mostly open carry out on the trails, riding, and sometimes while hiking. Depends on the person. Also it is more comfortable and there are some towns where no one cares and it's not that out of the ordinary. So there's no point in 'getting attention.'
 
Summerwind said:
Well the truth is the truth. Not only did he not agree with you, he points out the risk open carriers take with having legitimate LEs take aim at them because they'd have no idea if you were a good guy or a bad guy, the only thing they know is that you're an "arrogant f'. And yes, that was his quote.
Click to expand...

You talked to a pretty ****ty cop if he's taking aim at holstered weapons.

How many 'bad guys' walk around oc'ing? That was just nonsense you wrote and I hope no cop actually said it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom