• 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!

Man Toting Shotgun Opens Fire in Philadelphia leaving seven people hurt

My point is that there is more than one solution to this problem. Just as arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm is not the solution, so is DIS-arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm not the solution. The answer lies somewhere in-between, but as long as the discussion comes down to "Come and take it!!" vs "Get rid of all guns" and nothing between, there never will be a good solution.

well the biggest problem is the dishonesty of the gun banners who pretend their goals are public safety and disarming criminals and we have seen that is complete BS. for example, the turd Cuomo demanding a 7 round limit to magazines after the Lanza incident and a case where a convicted murderer-using already illegal in NY (and illegal for him since he had a murder conviction) AR 15 with 30 round magazines murdered two firefighters.
 
We should take away peoples guns and lock them up in the same place we lock anyone up that ever attents a protest. You know, because we feel like it's perfectly acceptable to ignore constitutional rights if a few people misuse them in the process of committing violence....
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.
 
My point is that there is more than one solution to this problem. Just as arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm is not the solution, so is DIS-arming everyone who can legally carry a firearm not the solution. The answer lies somewhere in-between, but as long as the discussion comes down to "Come and take it!!" vs "Get rid of all guns" and nothing between, there never will be a good solution.
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.
 
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.

I don't want the wrong people to have guns either, the problem is the definition of the "wrong" people. Also, I thought automatic weapons were illegal.
 
I don't want the wrong people to have guns either, the problem is the definition of the "wrong" people. Also, I thought automatic weapons were illegal.

There not illegal, just expensive.
 
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.

Explain how that stops people from getting guns illegally. All this kind of effort does is create a black market for guns that the criminals already know how to work and would force otherwise law-abiding citizens to become criminals in order to protect themselves. Make getting a gun legally difficult and you will see a BIG increase in the criminal use of guns in the commission of a crime.

The piece you're missing is the balance between protection and responsibility. You want to protect the minority of people, but at the cost of protection for the majority.
 
Or we should make them as difficult to get as an abortion in Texas.

you gun banners haven't figured out (in reality you have but won't admit it) that making guns difficult to get has a far far greater impact on people who actually don't violate laws and has a negligible impact on people who don't care about say 20-to life for murder or 15-to 30 for armed robbery

after a while, the only possible deduction is your real goal is to disarm honest people rather than ignorance in believing gun bans or restrictions will impact criminals more than honest people
 
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.

Actually, a handgun is faster to deploy than an automatic weapon. Fewer steps, lighter and you have a much better chance of getting the first shot off (the most critical point in any armed conflict). A decently trained individual with a handgun can put a round "down range" in about 2 seconds, the same person would take about twice that long with an AR. It's why law enforcement in this country PREFERS handguns over automatic rifles. Also, in most cases, the presence of multiple handguns FAR out weighs any advantage that someone carrying an AR would have. Anyone with any tactical training at all would tell that more weapons in the hands of the good guys is the best way to stop the bad guys. BALANCE!!
 
I agree they're messed up, but the number of mass killings has increased dramatically in the past 10 years. Don't you think it's important that we examine why, as a matter of prevention?

We already know why-mental illness. Its not like its not investigated thoroughly in each episode. I think there is a morbid curiosity here, and I don't like the amount of coverage they get. I dont go to their facebook accounts, read their manifestos, etc. I have no doubt some are attracted to the idea of the attention-thats how these freaks roll.

Also, I reject the notion that mass shootings are on the rise, in fact they are on the decline and still exceedingly rare-they just get the most coverage and so it seems that way. See this AP report...
Associated Press Story: Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline | TheBlaze.com
 
Actually, a handgun is faster to deploy than an automatic weapon. Fewer steps, lighter and you have a much better chance of getting the first shot off (the most critical point in any armed conflict). A decently trained individual with a handgun can put a round "down range" in about 2 seconds, the same person would take about twice that long with an AR. It's why law enforcement in this country PREFERS handguns over automatic rifles. Also, in most cases, the presence of multiple handguns FAR out weighs any advantage that someone carrying an AR would have. Anyone with any tactical training at all would tell that more weapons in the hands of the good guys is the best way to stop the bad guys. BALANCE!!

guns are like golf clubs. a driver sucks for putting and a sand wedge is worthless for a 300 yard drive from the tee
 
I am not for banning guns, I think people have the right to protect themselves. However, I don't believe putting more guns in the hands of the people on the street is a good one. I don't believe those people who say "if only he had a gun he could have stopped the shooter" have a valid argument. Sure, it might help in a few cases, but a hand gun is no match for an automatic weapon a shooter might have.

In almost all cases where a shooter using either a pistol or long gun has been stopped, its been with a pistol. Although a long gun is generally a superior choice, its less practical. And beyond that merely producing a gun is often enough to make the shooter surrender or kill themselves. And I don't know of any cases except maybe one in California in the 80's where an automatic weapon was used, the overwhelming majority use semi-auto's, and besides full auto is only more "beneficial" in very few cases, and in fact is often a hindrance.
 
Actually, a handgun is faster to deploy than an automatic weapon. Fewer steps, lighter and you have a much better chance of getting the first shot off (the most critical point in any armed conflict). A decently trained individual with a handgun can put a round "down range" in about 2 seconds, the same person would take about twice that long with an AR. It's why law enforcement in this country PREFERS handguns over automatic rifles. Also, in most cases, the presence of multiple handguns FAR out weighs any advantage that someone carrying an AR would have. Anyone with any tactical training at all would tell that more weapons in the hands of the good guys is the best way to stop the bad guys. BALANCE!!

True. Additionally these shootings rarely take place over great distances which is where the real benefit of a long arm, and drawbacks of a handgun are seen. Even so, those that stop these shooters with pistols have taken some very long shots and achieved hits with pistols.
 
True. Additionally these shootings rarely take place over great distances which is where the real benefit of a long arm, and drawbacks of a handgun are seen. Even so, those that stop these shooters with pistols have taken some very long shots and achieved hits with pistols.

Concealability is another primary factor, I would expect. Walk into a bank with a rifle and everyone is paying attention to you. Element of surprise ruined.
 
I would always prefer an AR15 when going into a possible shooting. Unfortunately most police are stuck with a 9 mil pistol when all hell breaks out. In most shootings the hit ratio drops to 1 in 3 shots if you are lucky. It is not uncommon for a police officer to empty his pistol without a single hit. Unfortunately it is human nature to try and get off that first shot and then once the firing starts panic and adrenaline take over and 5 seconds later you are shooting an empty gun with no hits. Then the panic loading and shooting really gets under way. The problem is most officers or Joe public get in one fire fight in their life if their luck runs out. Fortunately most people never get in one.

Very few people practice making that quick move to cover then a relaxed methodical shot that ends the fire fight in 2 seconds.
 
Virtually every mass shooter was on a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor for mental health problems.

I know, which I have a big problem with. There's a direct relationship between the amount of cuts in mental health spending in the past 15-20 years, the number of shootings that we've been seeing. We just give people meds and send them on their merry way with no real ancillary support, even though all of the psychology research shows that meds + some kind of consistent counseling therapy is always the best approach. Instead, we just give people chemical strait jackets and expect them to figure it out.

Numerous studies also show that depressed people tend to become more suicidal the longer they are on SSRIs, and it becomes easier to carry out. I would say kamikaze massacres where you feel you have nothing to lose falls under that category.
 
We already know why-mental illness. Its not like its not investigated thoroughly in each episode. I think there is a morbid curiosity here, and I don't like the amount of coverage they get. I dont go to their facebook accounts, read their manifestos, etc. I have no doubt some are attracted to the idea of the attention-thats how these freaks roll.

Also, I reject the notion that mass shootings are on the rise, in fact they are on the decline and still exceedingly rare-they just get the most coverage and so it seems that way. See this AP report...
Associated Press Story: Believe It or Not Mass Killings Are Not on the Rise, They Are on the Decline | TheBlaze.com

There has always been mental illness in our society, but not this many massacres so back-to-back. What do you think the deeper explanation is? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking.)
 
There has always been mental illness in our society, but not this many massacres so back-to-back. What do you think the deeper explanation is? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm genuinely asking.)

You are incorrect, mass shootings are less common today than they have ever been. It FEELS that way to you, because while these shootings are amongst the rarest of murders, they are also the most reported.
 
Back
Top Bottom