• 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!

Toddler wounds both parents with 1 shot from handgun

Exactly my point. Vehicles are not inherently unsafe. They can be unsafe if misused. This is why we have strict regulations on their operations. Regulations generally lacking for guns which are designed to be dangerous.

Yes, they are, the minute a human gets behind the wheel. For all their regulation and licensing and testing required for a license, the death toll and injuries from them far exceed those from guns. The regulations are apparently not stopping MORE deaths/injuries that occur from guns. So then why are those numbers 'acceptable?' Yet the fewer number from guns seem to require, in your opinion, severe restriction to banning? If that's the case, why not further restrict personal vehicles or require even more driver training?

Do you really not realize you are making my point and not yours? :doh

I am glad you concede the point that a gun killing or maiming someone is an example of it working properly. Therefore is something that is inherently dangerous should have just as much regulation as something not inherently unsafe. Ergo we need stricter gun control regulations.

Guns are used for many purposes. Many people have them for self-defense. I already explained that even if you dont like that, it's not up to you to decide how others choose to defend themselves and their families. Or hunt game. Or enjoy recreation. Are there other options? In some cases. Is it up to you to dictate to others? Not a chance.

Guns are not less safe than cars. And they are at least as regulated. So again...what's your point? Enormous regulation and required training has not made cars safe. Why do you continue to buy into a failed process? Would there be more accidents if there was less regulation and driver training? Most likely. And yet....even with existing laws....drivers kill everyday AND repeatedly. Yes.....people kill over and over with cars. They often dont go to jail the first time.

The bold is classic, btw. It may sound like a cliche, but criminals dont obey gun laws. :doh However they do harm gun owners and carriers.

This is a falsehood. The vehicle regulations save thousands of lives each year. Without the regulations we have in place now vehicle deaths would skyrocket.

Sounds good. Have any proof? And if the vehicle regulations we have NOW save thousands of lives each year, yet 10's of thousands are still killed and injured, why dont we just create more regulations and tighter driver training requirements to prevent them?

Btw, I'm not just talking about car accidents. Here, we hear of pedestrians killed or injured every week, sometimes more than one. It's shocking, beyond belief. The high rates of harm are practically ignored...yet the far fewer gun accidents are irrationally focused on.
 
Resorting to ad-hom attacks does not serve your purpose well. That being said, registration is the first step to holding gun owners accountable. It is not to track ownership in order to confiscate guns. That is conspiracy theory nonsense that has no basis in reality. If you are forced to license your self in order to purchase guns we can then begin to realistically limit the ownership of guns to people without mental health issues, propensity for violence by criminal record etc. etc.

I said you dont have a good grasp of the issues or reality (implying re: this issue). That is fact, as demonstrated by your posts. So it's not ad hom at all. Even demonstrated by your misunderstanding of my response: I never said they were used for tracking for gun confiscation. I said that the records had the potential for that. See? Real words vs. what you thought you read.

I also never said I objected to background checks....but they arent going to keep people who want to use guns in crimes from getting them. Convicted felons know better than to try and the standards for mental illness vary from state to state and can never ever, in a free country, actually keep track of mentally ill people. But if they are prevented from buying, that's fine.

We can also begin meaningful gun safety training. With that licensure comes responsibility and we can begin holding people properly responsible for their gun ownership.

Please feel free to tell us what the bold means? How much, what to cover, how many hours, how accurate, etc? Every state has different requirements, there is no data to support what is enough or too little. Some states have NONE and there is no difference in their rates of gun accidents.

And training has no bearing on gun crime. (It's obvious but I thought I should add it anyway.)

Btw, the laws around using a firearm or any lethal force for self-defense already hold a person accountable for that use and will be closely examined in that jurisdiction to see if charges should be brought. Are you aware of these standards? Please demonstrate if so. (Just something brief, hint: JOA).

As has been pointed out numerous times by numerous people in almost limitless times...background checks are not effective as long as you have ways around them. The psychosis comes in when these obvious loopholes are pointed out and still guns rights advocates do not want to close them. If you were serious about allowing background checks for purchasing guns you would not have any problem closing all the loopholes in the system. Most notoriously in gun shows. If you are in favor of across the board background checks 100% of the time you are purchasing a gun then your psychosis is cured. If you believe there should be loopholes you still have psychosis.

The irrationality revolves around the fact that you cannot diagnose and identify every mentally ill or potentially mentally ill person. (Has that not occured to you?) Nor the fact that guns are stolen. Such a crime is solely the responsibility of the criminal, not the owner. I am not responsible if someone steals my car and kills someone with it, am I? Nor the fact that family members have guns and other family members become mentally ill or criminals.

btw, the largest org. in my state that puts on gun shows, WAC, has computers at the gun shows and runs backgrounds checks on the premises before allowing a sale...been in place for years. Doesnt matter tho...if a criminal wants a gun, they'll get it. The rest of us dont deserve to be punished for someone else's crimes.
 
Says training is useful.

Then says training is not useful.

Holding two opposing thoughts in ones mind is a cause of cognitive dissonance, you know.

Never ever said training was not useful. I see now the pain Capt Courtesy felt.

Do you not understand the difference between mandated and voluntary?

Which part of the bold was not crystal clear?

I love that you miss the entire point I was making...AGAIN. No one...and this is where you screwed up with Capt. Courtesy...EVER said that training wasnt a good idea. My point is that there is no evidence that mandating training would make any difference. So why impose more govt and more $$ and more restrictions on people? Man, I ****ing HATE 'feel good' legislation that actually means nothing.
 
Yes, they are, the minute a human gets behind the wheel. For all their regulation and licensing and testing required for a license, the death toll and injuries from them far exceed those from guns. The regulations are apparently not stopping MORE deaths/injuries that occur from guns. So then why are those numbers 'acceptable?' Yet the fewer number from guns seem to require, in your opinion, severe restriction to banning? If that's the case, why not further restrict personal vehicles or require even more driver training?

Do you really not realize you are making my point and not yours? :doh



Guns are used for many purposes. Many people have them for self-defense. I already explained that even if you dont like that, it's not up to you to decide how others choose to defend themselves and their families. Or hunt game. Or enjoy recreation. Are there other options? In some cases. Is it up to you to dictate to others? Not a chance.

Guns are not less safe than cars. And they are at least as regulated. So again...what's your point? Enormous regulation and required training has not made cars safe. Why do you continue to buy into a failed process? Would there be more accidents if there was less regulation and driver training? Most likely. And yet....even with existing laws....drivers kill everyday AND repeatedly. Yes.....people kill over and over with cars. They often dont go to jail the first time.

The bold is classic, btw. It may sound like a cliche, but criminals dont obey gun laws. :doh However they do harm gun owners and carriers.



Sounds good. Have any proof? And if the vehicle regulations we have NOW save thousands of lives each year, yet 10's of thousands are still killed and injured, why dont we just create more regulations and tighter driver training requirements to prevent them?

Btw, I'm not just talking about car accidents. Here, we hear of pedestrians killed or injured every week, sometimes more than one. It's shocking, beyond belief. The high rates of harm are practically ignored...yet the far fewer gun accidents are irrationally focused on.

It still doesn't matter. Comparing vehicle safety to gun safety is a losing argument for you. If you cannot see that you are blind. As to the rest of your rant I guess it is best for you to believe I don't know what I am talking about. Or that I am gun hater or whatever. The fact is I have a clear grasp of the issues. It is the gun rights activists views which are clearly twisted. You and other gun rights activists continue to grasp after any straw you can to help you defend the defenseless. Guns are designed to be lethal. As tool that is designed to be lethal it is well within the Congress' Constitutional authority to ensure there are proper regulations to support the general welfare. All your rationalizations and bluster...and that is all you have posted here do not refute that basic fact. Guns are designed to kill and maim. The statistics are clear...more guns equals more gun violence. Less guns equals less gun violence. These facts cannot seriously be debated.
 
It still doesn't matter. Comparing vehicle safety to gun safety is a losing argument for you. If you cannot see that you are blind. As to the rest of your rant I guess it is best for you to believe I don't know what I am talking about. Or that I am gun hater or whatever. The fact is I have a clear grasp of the issues. It is the gun rights activists views which are clearly twisted. You and other gun rights activists continue to grasp after any straw you can to help you defend the defenseless. Guns are designed to be lethal. As tool that is designed to be lethal it is well within the Congress' Constitutional authority to ensure there are proper regulations to support the general welfare. All your rationalizations and bluster...and that is all you have posted here do not refute that basic fact. Guns are designed to kill and maim. The statistics are clear...more guns equals more gun violence. Less guns equals less gun violence. These facts cannot seriously be debated.

So denying things doesnt actually support anything you have claimed. I've provided reasons....your denials about vehicles are particularly helpful since they support what I wrote.

Gun 'violence' is very localized in this country. To mostly criminals and gang members (not mutually exclusive groups by any means.) The vast number of homicides fall into these 2 groups. Those are your 'numbers.'

And then there are victims of crimes...which we all wish to prevent and aim for. However reducing their ability to have guns to protect themselves? Or those tasked with protecting them? Pure folly.

You could offer no proof that your suggestions would work. I used your vehicle examples to proved evidence they would not. :)

So again, I'm not the one that 'blindness' should be attributed to. You do not have a clear grasp of the issues. You provided no specifics whatsoever.
 
Your counter is soooooooo underwhelming.

shrug...

It wasn't meant to overwhelm you...it was meant to get you to stop bothering me.
 
Again, this is psychosis example number 1. A car is DESIGNED to transport people from one place to another. A gun, particularly a handgun, is DESIGNED to kill and maim people. A vehicle is not. Besides we have literally hundreds of laws on the books restricting who can own vehicle, who can drive a vehicle, under which conditions they drive a vehicle. We have strict licensing protocols for operating a vehicle. If you violate any one of these laws and injure or kill someone you almost certainly will go to jail.
1) no a handgun is designed to use kinitic force to trigger a chemical reaction causing the expulsion of a projectile.

2) really? Who's not permitted to own a car? Cite the statute.

3) I don't know where you're living that getting a drivers license is "strict" certainly not in America
4) no you often will not go to jail for violating motor vehicle laws
On fact unless alcohol was involved on the fatality you probably won't spend any real time in jail

And I'm licensed to drive a 40 ton vehicle on public roads, using a gun is far simpler then a pistol, anyone qualified tvdrve is qualified to operate a gun
 
Last edited:
Never ever said training was not useful. I see now the pain Capt Courtesy felt.

Do you not understand the difference between mandated and voluntary?

Which part of the bold was not crystal clear?

You said training doesn't change anything.

Sorry if I interpreted that as 'not useful'.

I guess people will get dhot by toddlers anyway and then reflect upon their lapsed training?
 
You said training doesn't change anything.

Sorry if I interpreted that as 'not useful'.


I guess people will get dhot by toddlers anyway and then reflect upon their lapsed training?

Nope. You cannot read properly. Please show, in a quoted post, where I EVER wrote that.

I said that 'mandatory/mandated training has not been shown to make any difference over voluntary training. Again, you cannot process words properly as your exchange with Capt Courtesy also showed.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between mandatory and voluntary. Do you need a dictionary?

But anyway, you now lie or are seriously mistaken. Please post where I said training was not useful?
 
Nope. You cannot read properly. Please show, in a quoted post, where I EVER wrote that.

I said that 'mandatory/mandated training has not been shown to make any difference over voluntary training. Again, you cannot process words properly as your exchange with Capt Courtesy also showed.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between mandatory and voluntary. Do you need a dictionary?

But anyway, you now lie or are seriously mistaken. Please post where I said training was not useful?

Right. So therefore training isn't helpful unless you volunteer for it.

Meaning training is not useful if you don't.

Not. Useful.

Of course, this is based on fairly dubious data, since it's pretty tough to control for all the variables. But the common sense argument is that when one gets a gun, basic safety training should be at least SOMEWHAT useful. It's common sense.

Hey- why don't you bring up 'crime' again, since you seem to love that red herring a lot?
 
Right. So therefore training isn't helpful unless you volunteer for it.

Meaning training is not useful if you don't.

Not. Useful.

Of course, this is based on fairly dubious data, since it's pretty tough to control for all the variables. But the common sense argument is that when one gets a gun, basic safety training should be at least SOMEWHAT useful. It's common sense.

Hey- why don't you bring up 'crime' again, since you seem to love that red herring a lot?

Check out what I really wrote, below, in red. Care to play again?

And I didnt really provide any data, since none is available to prove differently :doh (which I also told you. Double :doh)

Nope. You cannot read properly. Please show, in a quoted post, where I EVER wrote that.

I said that 'mandatory/mandated training has not been shown to make any difference over voluntary training. Again, you cannot process words properly as your exchange with Capt Courtesy also showed.

You seem to be unable to differentiate between mandatory and voluntary. Do you need a dictionary?

But anyway, you now lie or are seriously mistaken. Please post where I said training was not useful?

You cant really save your ass at this point. You should have admitted your mistake and retired gracefully. Twice in one thread, *smh*

And you never posted the quote where I asked you to support your accusation that I said that training wasnt important. Let me know when you find that one.
 
True.

I meant "best joke line", or "funniest line".

Because a 3-y/o would obviously have been suspected of attempted murder until proven otherwise.

Just imagine about 11 years from now, and dad and son are showering together before going into a public pool, "hey dad, what's that hole on your rump"?
well son, don't you remember? you shot me there, and your mom in her shoulder when you were only 3 years old.

Did Dinosaurs Really Have Brains in Their Tails?
I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that human brains were placed in our heads or not now.
 
Everyday in America, this happens. Everyday. And nothing less should be expected in a nation that loves their guns. As long as these weapons are revelled, innocent people are going get at the very least hurt.

Well, I have a gun, but I keep it stored and unloaded and ammunition separate, um, someone call me a lefty now.
 
How do we manage that, I don't have a clue.
It's simple: prosecute the gun's owner for reckless endangerment. Same as if a knife was left out and the kid hurt someone; same as if they left a cleaning chemical out and the kid drank it; same as if a backyard pool was left uncovered and the kid nearly drowned; same as if they were into falconry and left the cage open giving the kid access to a wild raptor....
 
So it's about the user, correct? Neither acts on it's own. And both are dangerous if accessible to others (in purse, on street with keys in).

You didnt make your point. I think you made mine.

Doh. WAT? you had a point?
 
You're right. They also can't place a car into their holster under their coat.
In Texas it's illegal to drive your car in public where other people can see it. You have to keep your car concealed at all times or people think you're going to run them over.
 
Ha ha, so you didnt take a hint from the ridicule the other person got with their silly hyperbolic example, eh? Well please feel free to recycle it.

And the point you chose to miss is that all weapons are inanimate objects. Its the potential lethality of the weapon once in human hands that matters
 
In Texas it's illegal to drive your car in public where other people can see it. You have to keep your car concealed at all times or people think you're going to run them over.

A car is not a weapon its a mode of transportation where accidents are often a consequence

A gun is a weapon used to kill where accidents are often a consequence

Try and figure out the difference between accident and intent and explain why 30,000+ additional and mostly intentional killings per annum are a good thing.

Since 9/11 the US has spent around $1.8 trillion on the war on terror allegedly in order to keep its citizens safe yet only around 20 of its citizens have died in terror attacks. Over the same period something approaching half a million US citizens have been needlessly killed by domestic firearms yet this gets ignored. Go figure. The US has by far the highest rate of gun killings in the developed world even approaching the rates in basket case countries like South Africa. Needless to say were any political party in any other nation to suggest emulating the US model their respective electorates would cast them into the political wilderness, and rightly so.
 
A car is not a weapon...
Irrelevant. Both are hazards in the hands of a small child.

A gun is a weapon....
Irrelevant. Both are hazards in the hands of a small child.

Try and figure out the difference between accident and intent and explain why 30,000+ additional and mostly intentional killings per annum are a good thing.
I give up, how are injury accidents a good thing.

Since 9/11 the US has spent around $1.8 trillion on the war on terror...
Irrelevant. This didn't happen in a war zone, the parents werent soldiers and the gun wasn't a service piece.
 
Back
Top Bottom