• 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

Why does the rest of the developed world not have the problems that are endemic in the US?

I suspect you won't like the real answers. Its not because they don't trust their citizens to be armed
 
Carrying a gun may not be about theory or odds, but (to avoid making this personal) I'm quite sure the vast majority of those who carry firearms make more dangerous choices than going unarmed every day and ignore the risks. Just one example, those who drink to excess, smoke, are overweight, and/or get no real exercise are far more likely to die of disease caused by that than a 'bad guy' in most areas of the U.S. and certainly the risks are 100s or 1000s of times higher than getting attacked at church.

Or to put this another way, this all started with some incredible idiot at NRA making comments about carrying guns in churches. But I'm 100% positive that same guy would oppose new OSHA regs addressing remote risks in the work place, or EPA issuing new regs for cleaner air that MIGHT save 500 lives per year, but he wants everyone to go armed at church. It only makes sense because he works for the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers and fear sells lots of guns, i.e. he is for addressing remote risks at church with a GUN because his clients sell guns. But if addressing remote risks costs his clients or other interest groups that support the GOP money, I'd bet any amount he'll oppose them, and no one would take the bet on the other side.



My point remains.

To some it is about theory and odds.

To some of us, it is about **** we've already seen go down at least one time too many.
 
Up to you. To me, Jesus seems like the "turn the other cheek" type. When Christ was being arrested, Peter drew a weapon, and Jesus rebuked him for it.

Live by the gun, die by the gun.





Yeah, I'm ok with that. Made my peace with it long ago before I did my tour in Law Enforcement.



If some of us don't take that risk, all the innocents of the world suffer.
 
What I am saying is this - we as a people have a right to decide that there are places like schools where no person other than armed security should bring guns there. Airports and government buildings like courts would be another such example. In addition, there are private buildings that can decide for themselves that issue.

If a person attempts to kill people in that setting and a customer or visitor stops them with their own gun that they were not suppose to have I would welcome their intervention if it saved lives, hurt no other people and look at it as a practical and realistic event which happened despite the written law.

Did they violate the law? Yup. Did they do what they were not suppose to do? Yup. But given the circumstances of an emergency situation and the positive result that ensued in saving lives - that can be overlooked.

I would consider such an event to be the rare exception to the rule and something which is fairly rare and not something which should guide us in setting policy because of that.

However, as a matter of law and as a matter of what kind of society we live in - I support such designations where appropriate. I am on record as agreeing with the NRA that there should be armed security on duty at every school in America. I support such a proposal and think it is a way to avoid turning American and every place in it into some 21st century version of the mythic Old West where everybody walks around armed until they end up on Boot Hill. I believe that - in the end - such society will only have more deaths and more killings and more suffering and the policy would do more harm than good.

Is that a contradiction? perhaps it is in a way if you are looking for a "gotcha" moment. I think not however. What I advocate as public policy and what I can tolerate and look the other way at in a very rare exception turned out positively - I believe - are two different things that are simply practical and pragmatic.

I can think of other examples - I support speed limits and enforcement of them but if a person is rushing someone in great distress to a hospital and they exceed that speed limit - I can look the other way providing they injure nobody in the process.

I believe in realistic pragmatism and looking at exceptions as rarities and not something to set public policy by or for.

I hope that answers your question.


Yeah I got ya.


Thing is you are, in a sort of backhanded way, asking CCWers to assume the risk of breaking the law in order to be there to stop the bad guy in the place where you're not supposed to be armed.


And we've already established that "gun free zones" don't stop criminals... not unless there is no access but through a metal detector AND the entries are all guarded by ARMED guards, like at the courthouse.


Otherwise "gun free zone" is just a sad joke.
 
I suspect you won't like the real answers. Its not because they don't trust their citizens to be armed

Me I am always open for good discussion. Only problem is at times it does goes better over a cold beer.
 
It's unfortunate that the firearm used to commit a crime gets blamed by the left and the right looks to guns as solutions. What it takes is people who won't tolerate others threatening to take their life, liberty or property. However that needs to happen, realize that we each have a responsibility to protect what we value from those who will undoubtedly try to take out away.
 
I don't blame the gun. It is not the gun's fault. The gun is nothing but a tool. The fact that these things happen more frequently, these days, DOES denote that something larger is going on. And remember... when things go south, don't blame the victims of the incident. They have no responsibility in getting killed.



Yes and I separated them.



Your point is not logical since it is speculative. If someone there had a gun, that does not mean that what happened would not have happened. If that was not a gun-free zone, it does not mean that what happened would not have happened. If that was not a gun free zone, it does not mean that anyone would have decided to carry. Your speculation has far too many ifs and steps for it to have any kind of secure logic.

You have allowed yourself to be manipulated by the media, congrats.

These shootings are NOT more common these days, in fact they are less common.
 
I never said anything about anyone having a gun to prevent what happened. All I said it's that people need to take responsibility for their own safety. If you feel that where you are is safe (like a church should be) then act accordingly. I just want people to be proactive in protecting themselves so as to prevent becoming victims.
 
Yeah, I'm ok with that. Made my peace with it long ago before I did my tour in Law Enforcement.



If some of us don't take that risk, all the innocents of the world suffer.

Alright, I still think it's inappropriate to the point of being laughable to carry a weapon to church. To me, it's disrespecting the sanctity of the place. However, I'm clearly not going to convince you of that, and we do live in America where conducting oneself with class and dignity are purely optional.

You do your thing, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore
 
Alright, I still think it's inappropriate to the point of being laughable to carry a weapon to church. To me, it's disrespecting the sanctity of the place. However, I'm clearly not going to convince you of that, and we do live in America where conducting oneself with class and dignity are purely optional.

You do your thing, I'm not going to try to convince you anymore

good sentiment. we who are a bit more rational realize that if an environment is well known to be gun free, there is a good chance it will be a target for active shooters. and to me, living through a violent attack sure beats dying so your family can pretend you had too much dignity to be armed against assholes
 
Why does the rest of the developed world not have the problems that are endemic in the US?

I dunno, but it isn't because we allow people to defend themselves. Besides, it ain't peaches and cream everywhere else. Can you say "Charlie Hebdo"?
 
I dunno, but it isn't because we allow people to defend themselves. Besides, it ain't peaches and cream everywhere else. Can you say "Charlie Hebdo"?

Mexico has idiotic gun bans and a murder rate much higher than ours.
 
Mexico has idiotic gun bans and a murder rate much higher than ours.

In Mexico, people are NOT allowed to defend themselves unless they're politically connected, which means they're wealthy and can pay bribes. The country has exactly one gun store to service 122 million people. But that didn't stop if from recording 60,000 deaths in the ongoing drug war, give or take a few thousand corpses.
 
A tool for what exactly ? Moving small pieces of lead around at high velocity into people ?

Sorry but thats a weapon. Most infants here when shown a gun know that its a weapon and what its for.

Trying to make it seem somehow more benign by describing it as a tool is being wilfully disingenuous about its true purpose. Its often used in order to try and justify the guns bizarre pseudo religious status within your society.

A tool for firing bullets. Regardless of what you think, a gun has no intent or value associated with it. Only the user of the gun, does.
 
It's logical that if one has a means of defense an attack can be halted in its tracks, because we've seen it happen, most recently in the Texas cartoon attacks in which we ended up with two dead perps and zero dead cartoonists. An outcome does not have to be certain to make sense. It's speculation that the Secret Service can prevent the assassination of the President, so would it be logical to remove his detail? :confused:

And if the queen had balls, she'd be king. That's the extent of the logic of your argument.
 
You have allowed yourself to be manipulated by the media, congrats.

These shootings are NOT more common these days, in fact they are less common.

Incorrect. In the context of what we are discussing, they are more common. But, please feel free to prove the opposite.
 
A tool for firing bullets. Regardless of what you think, a gun has no intent or value associated with it. Only the user of the gun, does.

As does the user of an ICBM so by your definition does that mean that that is not a weapon too ?
 
As does the user of an ICBM so by your definition does that mean that that is not a weapon too ?

Name all the uses of an ICBM.

Name all the uses of a gun.

Let's see if you can spot the difference.
 
Name all the uses of an ICBM.

Name all the uses of a gun.

Let's see if you can spot the difference.

Aircraft carriers have a lot of uses as well but they are still primarily a weapon

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

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
 
Last edited:
Aircraft carriers have a lot of uses as well but they are still primarily a weapon

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

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

Guns can be helpful and useful as well as dangerous. Some would say that your desire to restrict gun ownership is what is indefensible.
 
Guns can be helpful and useful as well as dangerous. Some would say that your desire to restrict gun ownership is what is indefensible.

Wanting to save lives being so needlessly lost is never indefensible
 
You have allowed yourself to be manipulated by the media, congrats.

These shootings are NOT more common these days, in fact they are less common.

Mass murders are increasing.

A quick search online shows.

17 shootings resulting in 116 deaths and 156 injured between 1985 and 1995.
15 shootings resulting in 97 deaths and 108 injured between 1995 and 2005.
35 shootings resulting in 303 deaths and 218 injured between 2005 and 2015 (so far).

US Mass Shootings, 1982-2012: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation | Mother Jones

And from the Washington Post.

A report published by the FBI last year, studying active shooting situations between 2000 and 2013, found that these kinds of incidents were happening more and more recently. The first seven years of the study found an average of 6.4 active shootings per year, while the last seven years of the study found that number jumped up to 16.4 incidents per year.

Another very interesting read including a chart showing far more shootings since 2006 than I found.

USA TODAY | BEHIND THE BLOODSHED: THE UNTOLD STORY OF AMERICA?S MASS KILLINGS
 
And if the queen had balls, she'd be king. That's the extent of the logic of your argument.

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:
 
Back
Top Bottom