• 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!

NRA executive suggests slain Charleston pastor to blame for gun deaths

Its funny, the title tells you who reported the story. I merely linked to the summary because I know lefties need bullet statements. The blaze is not the primary source, the AP is.

kreton's not exactly what I would call a lefty. He's one of the few real middle of the road posters here
 
Blaming the victim. Go figure.

NRA guy blames dead victims for political gain... I'd follow this with "NEWS AT ELEVEN!!!" ....buuuuuut this isn't news. It's too commonplace.


a stupid reaction to the idiocy of the clown in the white house
 
Again I posted a link to the actual mass murders showing them by year to show they are increasing. What more do you want than the actual data?

Your own data is limited only to a specific time period, up to the year 2012 which was the highest (according to my links) year since 1999, but overall shootings are in decline, and in fact the highest year was 1929. My links address why people "feel" (despite the data) that mass killings are on the rise.

I am instantly skeptical when a narrow window (in your case just a few years) is used to form a picture of longstanding trends. Tricks like this will make one a quick cynic-its like when proponents of the war on poverty produce graphs to show its lowered poverty-neglecting to show it was falling faster and much longer, in the years preceding the program.

Beyond that, my data is researched by a criminologist-your limited study was researched by ...mother jones. :) And all superimposed on the fact that there are both more guns, and less violent crime more broadly.

Flawed study, flawed source. I hope I was able to teach you something about statistical analysis. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Your own data is limited only to a specific time period, up to the year 2012 which was the highest (according to my links) year since 1999, but overall shootings are in decline, and in fact the highest year was 1929. My links address why people "feel" (despite the data) that mass killings are on the rise.

I am instantly skeptical when a narrow window (in your case just a few years) is used to form a picture of longstanding trends. Tricks like this will make one a quick cynic-its like when proponents of the war on poverty produce graphs to show its lowered poverty-neglecting to show it was falling faster and much longer, in the years preceding the program.

Beyond that, my data is researched by a criminologist-your limited study was researched by ...mother jones. :) And all superimposed on the fact that there are both more guns, and less violent crime more broadly.

Flawed study, flawed source. I hope I was able to teach you something about statistical analysis. :2wave:

Did you open the link? It goes all the way to the Charleston shooter. And we are talking mass murders not violent crime. Go actually read what was posted. Refute the actual data, not whine about the source. Look at the data and show me actual data that refutes it. This is a very simple process. You are refusing because the data is accurate. Find one mass murder on that list that is false. Then you can question the data. You can't. It is accurate. Again, I provided the actual data. The dates and information about mass shootings in the US since 1982. You are crying about the website it is posted in and all you have to fall back on is saying nah uh. Formulate a better argument.
 
Did you open the link? It goes all the way to the Charleston shooter. And we are talking mass murders not violent crime. Go actually read what was posted. Refute the actual data, not whine about the source. Look at the data and show me actual data that refutes it. This is a very simple process. You are refusing because the data is accurate. Find one mass murder on that list that is false. Then you can question the data. You can't. It is accurate. Again, I provided the actual data. The dates and information about mass shootings in the US since 1982. You are crying about the website it is posted in and all you have to fall back on is saying nah uh. Formulate a better argument.

Yes, we are talking about mass murder, I merely added a cherry on top. Your "data" is from mother jones-its not sourced and they claim it as their own research. I cited a published professional, you cited...mother jones. And my data is much more comprehensive.

Your data is questionable without me needing to dispute a thing. Should I cite Rush Limbaugh to prove that? :lol:
 
Aircraft carriers have a lot of uses as well but they are still primarily a weapon

No, they are a transportation vehicle.

A guns primary use is killing people its what it was invented to do. I would not need to elaborate on this simple easily understood point to most pre school infants

Which is entirely irrelevant to what they are. A tool in the use of performing an action. I would not need to explain this point to myst pre-school infants.

Making guns seem harmless and benign when they are so obviously not is being wilfully obtuse in order to try and defend the indefensible frankly

I never tried to make guns seem harmless and/or benign. I am well aware of what they are often used for. That doesn't give guns any semblance of intent. That is YOUR issue.
 
As far as I know the queen doesn't have balls, but she does have her own police force used for personal protection armed with Heckler & Koch MP5s. I suppose you think she should get rid it of, I mean since the British are so more civilized than Americans? :confused:

You missed the point.
 
No, they are a transportation vehicle.

Nonsense. Using that logic and ICBM is therefore just a transportation device for nukes

Which is entirely irrelevant to what they are. A tool in the use of performing an action. I would not need to explain this point to myst pre-school infants.

Thats because they too would know a gun is not a tool. It takes a lot of self delusion to believe that it is

I never tried to make guns seem harmless and/or benign. I am well aware of what they are often used for. That doesn't give guns any semblance of intent. That is YOUR issue.

Yeah yeah and lawnmowers dont mow lawns people do. Just how much more difficult would it be though without one ?
 
You missed the point.

So what is the point? Since we're dealing with a hypothetical Joe Average might as well not take defensive measures when clearly people of wealth or status with the means to do so do?
 
So what do racial problems have to do with people defending themselves? It seems as though the places with the highest homicide rates have the most severe restrictions on guns--Chicago; Baltimore; Washington, D.C. And I recall the fun control Chicken Littles screaming that by issuing so many concealed-carry permits we'd have Wyatt Earps and Doc Holidays battling against the Clantons at the local Häagen-Dazs over who was to get the last of the black cherry amaretto. Didn't happen.

Not much of an answer now is it?
 
Not much of an answer now is it?

How so? You point out that the U.S. has "problems," and yet you give no indication how any of these "problems" are relevant to the thread topic. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.
 
How so? You point out that the U.S. has "problems," and yet you give no indication how any of these "problems" are relevant to the thread topic. I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer.

Review the points made

Note - They are all relevant.
 
Review the points made

Note - They are all relevant.

Yeah, I get that they're relevant. I just can't get how they're relevant to the thread, which is whether people should be permitted to carry firearms into church. What does poverty have to do with it? Or high incarceration rates? Are you arguing that arming people makes the country less safe? So what is the problem in Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, D.C., etc.? Isn't a high homicide rate an argument for giving people a means of defense, or are you arguing that if you only permit criminals and loons to have access to guns while disarming everyone else they'll become more civilized? :confused:
 
Nonsense. Using that logic and ICBM is therefore just a transportation device for nukes

Name another purpose for ICBMs. If you can, then they would also be a tool with several purposes. If you can't, then they are a weapon and ONLY a weapon.

Thats because they too would know a gun is not a tool. It takes a lot of self delusion to believe that it is

The would believe that a gun is what they were told it was. Many would think it was a toy. You don't seem to understand that guns have several purposes.

Yeah yeah and lawnmowers dont mow lawns people do. Just how much more difficult would it be though without one ?

Name another purpose for a lawnmower. If you can, then it is a tool with several purposes. If you cannot, then it's intent is part of the design.
 
So what is the point? Since we're dealing with a hypothetical Joe Average might as well not take defensive measures when clearly people of wealth or status with the means to do so do?

No, that wasn't the point at all. The quote "if the queen had balls she'd be king" is an illustration that changing the parameters of a situation will of course alter the outcome, but some of those alterations may not have enough logic behind them to substantiate them.
 
Name another purpose for ICBMs. If you can, then they would also be a tool with several purposes. If you can't, then they are a weapon and ONLY a weapon.

Both Atlas and Titan ICBMs were used in the early US manned space shots as was the Soviet R7 used to this day. That does not detract from the fact that they were developed as weapons delivery systems not just boosters
The would believe that a gun is what they were told it was. Many would think it was a toy. You don't seem to understand that guns have several purposes.
The guns primary purpose is killing humans and not hunting or target shooting. it would not have been invented in the first place were this not so and niether would the aforementioned ICBM

Name another purpose for a lawnmower. If you can, then it is a tool with several purposes. If you cannot, then it's intent is part of the design.

And I'm sure you can slice watermelons with a sword too but that doesn't make it cutlery . My original statement stands
 
Last edited:
No, that wasn't the point at all. The quote "if the queen had balls she'd be king" is an illustration that changing the parameters of a situation will of course alter the outcome, but some of those alterations may not have enough logic behind them to substantiate them.

It's logical to conclude that a person with a gun has a better chance of successful defense than one who doesn't:

When confronted by armed police, gunmen sometimes surrender though more often they kill themselves. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, what neither terrorists nor lunatics ever do is kill themselves (or surrender) when faced by unarmed victims.

Gun Free Zones: Newsroom: The Independent Institute
 
Yeah, I get that they're relevant. I just can't get how they're relevant to the thread, which is whether people should be permitted to carry firearms into church. What does poverty have to do with it? Or high incarceration rates? Are you arguing that arming people makes the country less safe? So what is the problem in Chicago, Newark, Baltimore, D.C., etc.? Isn't a high homicide rate an argument for giving people a means of defense, or are you arguing that if you only permit criminals and loons to have access to guns while disarming everyone else they'll become more civilized? :confused:

The US has a high rate of violence. That is what I was getting to.
My opinion, guns not in Church. It is a place of worship. If you feel nsafe find another church.
 
The US has a high rate of violence. That is what I was getting to.

Yes, it does, but that's not because people use guns for self-defense:

Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,” therefore, only “controls” those who have done nothing to merit such regulations.

Gun Control Restricts Those Least Likely to Commit Violent Crimes: Newsroom: The Independent Institute

Have you ever noticed that when a "gun free zone" becomes a target people with brains harden them? Europe is seeing increasing anti-Semitism, so synagogues recently began posting armed security during High Holy Days. Apparently, they didn't want to leave their fates to prayer only or believe that terrorists, criminals, and loons will follow the law.

Ex-Israeli SAS men guard synagogues | The Times
 
Both Atlas and Titan ICBMs were used in the early US manned space shots as was the Soviet R7 used to this day. That does not detract from the fact that they were developed as weapons delivery systems not just boosters

So, they were developed as weapons but now have other purposes. So they are tools. Thank you.

The guns primary purpose is killing humans and not hunting or target shooting. it would not have been invented in the first place were this not so and niether would the aforementioned ICBM

There are MANY current uses for guns. Target shooting, collecting, shooting humans, shooting animals... those are just the ones that I can think of now. Something's purpose for invention doesn't mean that it doesn't have other purposes, also. But, the point is that the gun has no intent. The individual using the gun does.

And I'm sure you can slice watermelons with a sword too but that doesn't make it cutlery . My original statement stands

Your original statement still doesn't cut the watermelon.
 
It's logical to conclude that a person with a gun has a better chance of successful defense than one who doesn't:

It is simplistic to conclude that allowing people to carry guns will result in what you are claiming.
 
So, they were developed as weapons but now have other purposes. So they are tools. Thank you.

There are MANY current uses for guns. Target shooting, collecting, shooting humans, shooting animals... those are just the ones that I can think of now. Something's purpose for invention doesn't mean that it doesn't have other purposes, also. But, the point is that the gun has no intent. The individual using the gun does.

Your original statement still doesn't cut the watermelon.

You are wrong of course and you will defend the gun at any cost, no matter what price in blood your society is forced to pay for it. I could now present a load of facts and figures that illustrate that point but we both know there would be little point in me doing so. I have no real wish to indulge such wilful obfuscation any further frankly and am just thankful to live in a society where I'm free from the fear of being shot. If you are unable to even acknowlege the fundamental point that a gun is a weapon then there's nowhere else to go with pursuing such nonsense.

Good day
 
It's logical to conclude that a person with a gun has a better chance of successful defense than one who doesn't:

Given how easily criminals can acquire guns in your society it is also illogical to expect that an armed perp won't have his gun out before you do. The most likely scenario is that you will either be shot or robbed of your gun too.
 
Given how easily criminals can acquire guns in your society...

So why would you create a scenario in which the only people who would have guns would be criminals or terrorists, as it is in, say, Russia or Mexico, which have tight restrictions on private firearms' ownership but high homicide rates? :confused:

... it is also illogical to expect that an armed perp won't have his gun out before you do.

If you don't have a gun it's a 100% certainty that the perp will have his gun out before you do. And mass shooters don't normally surrender, commit suicide, or get shot when confronted by unarmed victims.

The most likely scenario is that you will either be shot or robbed of your gun too.

The most likely scenario is the mass shooter who's focused on random victims will search for a soft target. He doesn't want to face resistance. That's why he'll attack a school, shopping mall, movie theater, church, or similar target instead of a police station. Even the Israelis, who severely limit private firearms' ownership, recognize this:

In the wake of a deadly attack in Jerusalem, synagogues throughout Israel have been instructed to place security guards at their entrances.

Israel’s public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovich, also announced on Tuesday that his office would ease requirements for gun licenses. :shock:

Israeli synagogues instructed to hire security guards | Jewish Telegraphic Agency
 
The guns primary purpose is killing humans and not hunting or target shooting.

I own a quite a few personal firearms. I can imagine using exactly two of them to kill another human being, and that would only be in self-defense.
 
Back
Top Bottom