• 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

I would like to say that this thread has an interesting OP but it doesn't...
 
flogger said:
Either these people were shot dead or they were not. Thanks to the worship of firearms US has by far the highest gun homicide rate in the developed world. Choose to evade that essential fact as much as you want :(
Click to expand...

And since most of them were criminals and gang members, that's probably a good thing. The rest are actually very rare, something you have not been able to comprehend. Except for the suicides which I already addressed...also dont feel the rest of American should be punished because of the mentally ill.
 
Threegoofs said:
I have lived in a home with a pipe bomb in it for 25 years. I have had 0 accidents. Not a scratch. My family is not at risk to pipe bombs. They aren't stupid. Maybe you are incapable of handling pipe bombs safely, but I'm not. Nor is my father. Funny. He never had an accident either. Weird. Maybe you are more likely because YOU can't handle safety?

Again. Fear of pipe bombs is OK, but you shouldn't let it cloud your mind.
Click to expand...

Argumentum Ad Absurdum.

Additionally...you really compared a pipe bomb to a gun? You really equate them? Hoplophobia.
 
This weekend, 3 days, 75 people on horses carrying not one, but two firearms, in an enclosed area all together, constant movement and activity....not a single accidental discharge. Yes, the ammo is black powder blanks but that has nothing to do with incidence. Age 13 and above.

Yeah, they're 'death machines.' :doh
 
Lursa said:
This weekend, 3 days, 75 people on horses carrying not one, but two firearms, in an enclosed area, constant movement and activity....not a single accidental discharge. Yes, the ammo is black powder blanks but that has nothing to do with incidence. Age 13 and above.

Yeah, they're 'death machines.' :doh
Click to expand...

Oh my god the horror!!!! Whoever orchestrated that should be killed or jailed for life for putting all those people in danger!!!! ;)
 
stonewall50 said:
Oh my god the horror!!!! Whoever orchestrated that should be killed or jailed for life for putting all those people in danger!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

I know! You'd think it was a gathering of the Reverend Jim Jones!
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Stop being dramatic. You responded to ME, and what I said, so your comments were directed at me... unless you were just soapboxing. And yes, you did comment on my position. My comment was this:



Here is your response:



This addresses my position. Now, here's the problem. In my comment, I SUPPORTED safety training for adults. Therefore, your comment makes no sense in context unless you are either agreeing with me, which you did not indicate either via comment or "like" or you were soapboxing, using my comment as a springboard, but presenting it as disagreeing with what you said. Hence the confusion over whether you were disagreeing with me... and doing so by misrepresenting my position, or you were just talking and using one of my comments as a springboard. Let me know what you had intended to communicate so this kind of confusion does not occur.
Click to expand...

Springboard.

Not misrepresenting. But not exactly agreeing, if I inferred from your response that basic safety training is not very useful.
 
Lursa said:
Er, who IS to blame in 2?

But more broadly, except for 1...and the many purposes of guns besides killing are all valid (including killing), the yearly, even daily, slaughter by personal vehicles is much higher and all the same things apply: 2-5.

Are we insane to be driving our vehicles and walking on sidewalks near vehicles?

And it doesnt matter how those people are killed or injured....dead is dead (or injured).

We seem to happily accept one. And now some people in the US are starting to object to the other. But only some :)
Click to expand...

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 jail.

Now take gun laws. The only legislation restricting gun ownership from the gun rights advocates point of view is minimal or nonexistent. Licensing is considered a way to track gun owners in order to confiscate their guns...psychosis. Laws restricting the ability purchase guns is seen as attempt to prevent anyone from ever purchasing a gun...psychosis. Laws preventing people from carrying guns are seen as actively preventing people from defending themselves...psychosis.

To more directly answer your first question...The near unfettered availability of guns in this country is directly responsible for large amount of gun violence in this country. That is a no-brainer. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something...probably guns.
 
Threegoofs said:
Springboard.
Click to expand...

OK. Good to know.

Not misrepresenting. But not exactly agreeing, if I inferred from your response that basic safety training is not very useful.
Click to expand...

Then you inferred wrong. I think I was EXTREMELY clear that I support basic safety training. However, like driving, even with basic safety training, stupid people will do stupid things... though basic safety training can reduce that.
 
smb said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**

smb said:
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 jail.
Click to expand...

And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)

smb said:
Now take gun laws. The only legislation restricting gun ownership from the gun rights advocates point of view is minimal or nonexistent. Licensing is considered a way to track gun owners in order to confiscate their guns...psychosis.
Click to expand...

Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.

smb said:
Laws restricting the ability purchase guns is seen as attempt to prevent anyone from ever purchasing a gun...psychosis.
Click to expand...

Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...

smb said:
Laws preventing people from carrying guns are seen as actively preventing people from defending themselves...psychosis.
Click to expand...

It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?

I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)

smb said:
To more directly answer your first question...The near unfettered availability of guns in this country is directly responsible for large amount of gun violence in this country. That is a no-brainer. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something...probably guns.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? Criminals and gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country, not law-abiding citizens.

More unsupported fear?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
... though basic safety training can reduce that.
Click to expand...

That's the key missing phrase.
And the more intense the safety training, the greater reduction.

A mandatory intensive safety class seems to me to be a positive thing to require for gun ownership, especially handgun ownership.
 
Threegoofs said:
That's the key missing phrase.
And the more intense the safety training, the greater reduction.

A mandatory intensive safety class seems to me to be a positive thing to require for gun ownership, especially handgun ownership.
Click to expand...

Why mandatory? Every state has different laws pertaining to the amount of training, some only on written, and some have none.

There is no correlation at all, in studies, that shows states with mandatory training have fewer gun incidents than those with less training or no training. (there is one study between WA and OR, where WA with a higher population, a shall issue state, and no training requirements at all, has fewer gun incidents/accidents than OR which has fewer people, is a may issue state, and has training requirements. I dont have link to it anymore tho.)

And it's not something that has any bearing on crime at all.

Is the assumption that people just wont get training if they are not forced to? In some states, it costs people $200 or more to fulfill such requirements. A way to actively keep some people from cc permits.

If that is your assumption, why? And if no data supports it, why mandate it? (Again, with no data to support otherwise, the assumption IS that people get necessary training on their own, not that they dont get training.)
 
Lursa said:
So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**



And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)



Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.



Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...



It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?

I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)



Do you have a source for this? Criminals and gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country, not law-abiding citizens.

More unsupported fear?
Click to expand...

"The correlation between firearm availability and rates of homicide is consistent across highincome
industrialized nations: in general, where there are more firearms, there are higher
rates of homicide overall.16 The U.S. has among the highest rates of both firearm homicide
and private firearm ownership. In 2001 an estimated 35% of U.S. households had a firearm."

From http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/pdf/monograph.pdf
 
Lursa said:
And what your statistics did not reflect at all was that most of those were criminals and gang members.
Click to expand...

You speak like you are the only country that has criminal gang members !
 
Lursa said:
So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**



And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)



Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.



Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...



It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?

I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)



Do you have a source for this? Criminals and gangs are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in this country, not law-abiding citizens.

More unsupported fear?
Click to expand...
What is the connection between vehicles and guns. None.
 
Lursa said:
As long as you are responsible and keep your pipe bomb away from kids....what's the problem? You are right...inanimate objects are not generally a danger to others.
Click to expand...

An nuclear warhead is an inanimate object too so shouild we just let everyone have one of those ?
 
flogger said:
An nuclear warhead is an inanimate object too so shouild we just let everyone have one of those ?
Click to expand...

Oh, boy...the hyperbole is running rampant in this thread right now.

:roll:
 
smb said:
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 jail.

Now take gun laws. The only legislation restricting gun ownership from the gun rights advocates point of view is minimal or nonexistent. Licensing is considered a way to track gun owners in order to confiscate their guns...psychosis. Laws restricting the ability purchase guns is seen as attempt to prevent anyone from ever purchasing a gun...psychosis. Laws preventing people from carrying guns are seen as actively preventing people from defending themselves...psychosis.

To more directly answer your first question...The near unfettered availability of guns in this country is directly responsible for large amount of gun violence in this country. That is a no-brainer. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling you something...probably guns.
Click to expand...

There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
There isn't actually one for guns, either.
Click to expand...

Ummm...

Perhaps you haven't ever heard of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America?

If not, you really have no business commenting in a thread like this.


(btw, I won't tell you to go read it. If you want, I'll post a quote and a link for you.)
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
So what? You are just as dead or injured in either case. How does that matter? If anything, it demonstrates that guns fulfill their purpose properly and cars are misused in the extreme and their design **is not safe.**
Click to expand...

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.

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.

Lursa said:
And yet the death and injury toll is so much higher, with all those laws and restrictions. They dont seem to be working well enough. They do not *keep people safe from cars.* Why would you expect different results when applied to guns? (Shall I quote Einstein and remind what he said about doing the same thing and expecting a different result?)
Click to expand...

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.

Lursa said:
Why do you think registration is required? It is definitely to track who owns a particular gun(s) and one potential reason would be confiscation. I'll ignore your insults as you dont seem to have a very good grasp of this issue or reality.
Click to expand...

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. 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.

Lursa said:
Of course it can do that. Background checks are different in each state but they cover varying levels of mental illness diagnoses and criminal behavior. So it's FACT that using background checks to restrict gun purchases can prevent someone from ever purchasing a gun commercially. So, again, you might want to reexamine the 'psychosis' label...
Click to expand...

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.

Lursa said:
It doesnt prevent them from defending themselves, it removes a valid option for doing so. What gives you the right to gamble with other people's lives by telling them what they can use to save their own lives or their families? Do you know their jobs, their neighborhoods, their circumstances?

I have never seen a single record of an innocent bystander being shot when a concealed carrier used their firearm in public. So, apparently you have a very active imagination which has enabled an irrational fear. (Hmmm....there are those labels again!)
Click to expand...

That is only because you do not read about it. There multiple examples of this.

Concealed carry holder misses attacker in Cleveland road rage incident; shoots another man | cleveland.com

Mikeb302000: South Carolina Gun Owner Shoots and Kills an Innocent Bystander and Blames the "Bad Guys" He Was Aiming At

Argument leads to shots fired, innocent bystander wounded in Milwaukee | FOX6Now.com

There are plenty of others if you want to dig.
 
Mycroft said:
There is only one problem with your anti-gun rant...in your comparison of guns to cars: There is no Constitutional right to own or operate a car.
Click to expand...

I take it then from post that you are strict constructionist on the Constitution?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom