• 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!

Gun used by illigal immigrant in killing belonged to federal agent

see, its so tough to get a gun restrictionist to tell us what laws he wants to solve the problems he whine about

Like I said, you've seen them all. And you just dismiss them. Stop pretending you'd give honest consideration to any proposal. You just hate liberals that much, you'd never listen. You already said it. You think there's no gun restriction that makes anything better.
 
Like I said, you've seen them all. And you just dismiss them. Stop pretending you'd give honest consideration to any proposal. You just hate liberals that much, you'd never listen. You already said it. You think there's no gun restriction that makes anything better.
There is no gun restriction that makes anything better since they all violate a fundamental human right to bear arms.
 
Like I said, you've seen them all. And you just dismiss them. Stop pretending you'd give honest consideration to any proposal. You just hate liberals that much, you'd never listen. You already said it. You think there's no gun restriction that makes anything better.

we haven't seen any proposal that makes any sense from a crime control perspective.
I have already said that increased sentences on those who use guns in violent crime make sense since they actually target criminals and not honest people. You all mainly want laws that don't even apply to criminals
 
we haven't seen any proposal that makes any sense from a crime control perspective.
I have already said that increased sentences on those who use guns in violent crime make sense since they actually target criminals and not honest people. You all mainly want laws that don't even apply to criminals

If I were dictator, I'd actually focus on investing in persona-lock technology. Make it so a gun can only be fired by the correct owner. At that point, registration efforts make a real difference: now you know who fired a gun. For a while, you've still got the issue of "unlocked" weapons still being everywhere. But when those are no longer being manufactured, that problem has a limited lifespan.
 
If I were dictator, I'd actually focus on investing in persona-lock technology. Make it so a gun can only be fired by the correct owner. At that point, registration efforts make a real difference: now you know who fired a gun. For a while, you've still got the issue of "unlocked" weapons still being everywhere. But when those are no longer being manufactured, that problem has a limited lifespan.

there is no evidence that registration has done any good. Hawaii has gun registration and there is no evidence it has been used to lower crime. registration cannot even be enforced against criminals due to the fifth amendment.

registration doesn't tell you who fired the gun-that is one of the most moronic things I have heard. this is why I lampoon the arguments of gun banners and gun restrictionists. they make idiotic arguments that are so stupid that their entire premise fails.
 
car registration is a revenue device applied to items not constitutionally protected. every time there has been gun bans, registration has been used to accomplish it

you support registration-you support gun bans and you claim that registration is not a tool to accomplish that

btw where have you ever seen a politician arguing for car bans?

Exactly, so it is more likely that the government could take away your car, then take away your gun. So you're really only strengthening my argument that people who think registration will lead to banishment are nothing more then alarmists. And no, What registration will allow authorities to do, is hold people accountable for the weapons in their control. It gives them a tool to set up a process the demands people legally sell their firearms to someone who can legally own one. Firearms just don't appear out of thin air, the vast majority are purchased legally and gun stores and then get sold to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on owners where there is no process to ensure the legality of those sales. We just trust that people are selling their firearms to fellow legal owners. I don't know any other industry that has this type of freedom. There are some places where you have to jump thru hoops just to get extra strength advil, yet anyone can easily purchase a gun on any street corner in this country without ever having to prove they can legally own one. You could sell a child a gun, and they only way they will ever be caught, is if that child shoots himself, or someone else with it. And that is only if the person who was shot, or some witnesses can identify the boy. Because there is no accountability for that weapon. The person who sold it has no responsibility to be accountable for it because the gun is not registered to them, and it cant be traced to the boy because its not registered to him. So you end up with crimes where people get shot, and even if you have the firearm, if there are no witnesses who want to come foreward, you will never be able to investigate the crime at all.
 
registration doesn't tell you who fired the gun-that is one of the most moronic things I have heard. this is why I lampoon the arguments of gun banners and gun restrictionists. they make idiotic arguments that are so stupid that their entire premise fails.

...do you just read each sentence in a vacuum or some ****?

When you did that, the words "at that point" didn't suggest to you that other sentences might be important?
 
Last edited:
Exactly, so it is more likely that the government could take away your car, then take away your gun. So you're really only strengthening my argument that people who think registration will lead to banishment are nothing more then alarmists. And no, What registration will allow authorities to do, is hold people accountable for the weapons in their control. It gives them a tool to set up a process the demands people legally sell their firearms to someone who can legally own one. Firearms just don't appear out of thin air, the vast majority are purchased legally and gun stores and then get sold to 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on owners where there is no process to ensure the legality of those sales. We just trust that people are selling their firearms to fellow legal owners. I don't know any other industry that has this type of freedom. There are some places where you have to jump thru hoops just to get extra strength advil, yet anyone can easily purchase a gun on any street corner in this country without ever having to prove they can legally own one. You could sell a child a gun, and they only way they will ever be caught, is if that child shoots himself, or someone else with it. And that is only if the person who was shot, or some witnesses can identify the boy. Because there is no accountability for that weapon. The person who sold it has no responsibility to be accountable for it because the gun is not registered to them, and it cant be traced to the boy because its not registered to him. So you end up with crimes where people get shot, and even if you have the firearm, if there are no witnesses who want to come foreward, you will never be able to investigate the crime at all.

your silly rant might have some merit if England had not used registration to round up handguns or Australia had not used registration to round up pump and semi automatic long guns or if NYS has not used registration to try to confiscate the weapons of deceased owners or CT has not used registration to try to force compliance with their idiotic "assault weapons" laws or if NYC and NJ and California had not used registration for the same purposes.

how many other industries require that the maker keep records of what products they sell to wholesalers who then have to keep detailed records of who they sell to as retailers and then the retailers have to do background checks on the buyers, who cannot buy many of these products across state lines.

and your moronic argument about LEGAL advil sales compared to street gun sales is so pathetic given the proper comparison is ILLEGAL drug sales on the street

I see lots of ranting and no solutions.
 
there is no evidence that registration has done any good. Hawaii has gun registration and there is no evidence it has been used to lower crime. registration cannot even be enforced against criminals due to the fifth amendment.

registration doesn't tell you who fired the gun-that is one of the most moronic things I have heard. this is why I lampoon the arguments of gun banners and gun restrictionists. they make idiotic arguments that are so stupid that their entire premise fails.
I've always maintained that it doesn't matter if it "works" or not, it's a violation of human rights. It's like the arguments over whether torture works or not; many people maintained during Shrub's term that torture didn't work and that's why it shouldn't be used. No, it shouldn't be used because it is wrong, regardless of its effectiveness. The same holds true for gun control.

It just so happens that GC also doesn't work if one's goal is reduce firearm homicide rate. This can easily be seen by comparing the firearm homicide rate between various states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

For example, DC has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, yet has a firearm homicide rate of 16.5 per 100k. Compare that to Texas, among but certainly not the least restrictive, which has a rate of 3.2. So, the end result of violating with such gusto the right to bear arms is a firearm homicide rate 5x as high which historically has prompted calls for even tighter GC. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
I've always maintained that it doesn't matter if it "works" or not, it's a violation of human rights. It's like the arguments over whether torture works or not; many people maintained during Shrub's term that torture didn't work and that's why it shouldn't be used. No, it shouldn't be used because it is wrong, regardless of its effectiveness. The same holds true for gun control.

It just so happens that GC also doesn't work if one's goal is reduce firearm homicide rate. This can easily be seen by comparing the firearm homicide rate between various states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

For example, DC has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, yet has a firearm homicide rate of 16.5 per 100k. Compare that to Texas, among but certainly not the least restrictive, which has a rate of 3.2. So, the end result of violating with such gusto the right to bear arms is a firearm homicide rate 5x as high which historically has prompted calls for even tighter GC. Lather, rinse, repeat.

such arguments-while meritorious, have little impact on gun restrictionists because crime control is not what really motivates them anyway. Gun control is actually very effective in achieving the goals that truly motivate the gun restrictionists-that being the harassment, if not the disarmament of honest people. Chicago and DC gun bans kept most honest people from owning handguns, California gun bans mean that if you want to own a currently made AR 15, you have to buy one with the idiotic "bullet button" and in NY you have to get one with one of those mutated stocks

so gun control works exactly as its proponents intend
 
I've always maintained that it doesn't matter if it "works" or not, it's a violation of human rights. It's like the arguments over whether torture works or not; many people maintained during Shrub's term that torture didn't work and that's why it shouldn't be used. No, it shouldn't be used because it is wrong, regardless of its effectiveness. The same holds true for gun control.

It just so happens that GC also doesn't work if one's goal is reduce firearm homicide rate. This can easily be seen by comparing the firearm homicide rate between various states: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

For example, DC has some of the most restrictive laws in the country, yet has a firearm homicide rate of 16.5 per 100k. Compare that to Texas, among but certainly not the least restrictive, which has a rate of 3.2. So, the end result of violating with such gusto the right to bear arms is a firearm homicide rate 5x as high which historically has prompted calls for even tighter GC. Lather, rinse, repeat.

FBI stats are unreliable....

FBI figures tweaked to show phony increase in mass shootings, report says | Fox News

"The FBI’s justifiable homicides and the estimates from (arrest-related deaths) both have significant limitations in terms of coverage and reliability that are primarily due to agency participation and measurement issues,” said Michael Planty, one of the Justice Department’s chief statisticians, in an email..."
How many police shootings a year? No one knows - The Washington Post




New data from the CDC shows that five states with lax gun control laws ranked the highest in gun homicide deaths...and higher than DC.

VPC - The Violence Policy Center - State Firearm Death Rates, Ranked by Rate, 2011


States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
(Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 18.91
2 Mississippi 54.3 percent 17.80
3 Alaska 60.6 percent 17.41
4 Wyoming 62.8 percent 16.92
5 Montana 61.4 percent 16.74

States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates
(Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

50 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 3.14
49 Hawaii 9.7 percent 3.56
48 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.84
47 New York 18.1 percent 5.11
46 New Jersey 11.3 percent 5.46
For a list of gun death rates in all 50 states, (see link above)


State gun death rates are calculated by dividing the number of gun deaths by the total state population and multiplying the result by 100,000 to obtain the rate per 100,000, which is the standard and accepted method for comparing fatal levels of gun violence....

New Study Ranks 50 States By Gun Sense And Gun Deaths -- Gun Extremists Arrive in 5-4-3-2-1
 
your silly rant might have some merit if England had not used registration to round up handguns or Australia had not used registration to round up pump and semi automatic long guns or if NYS has not used registration to try to confiscate the weapons of deceased owners or CT has not used registration to try to force compliance with their idiotic "assault weapons" laws or if NYC and NJ and California had not used registration for the same purposes.

Does Australia have a similar 5th amendment?, not they don't. That is why they were able to round up any guns they wished. But in America, there is a 5th Amendment. So your assertation that a registration process would result in a ban, is just ignorant.

how many other industries require that the maker keep records of what products they sell to wholesalers who then have to keep detailed records of who they sell to as retailers and then the retailers have to do background checks on the buyers, who cannot buy many of these products across state lines.

Most products designated as dual use products are in fact highly regulated by the government. Which is why when some extremists buys 10 tons of manure, diesel fuel and hay, the federal government is alterted to the fact. And they should be!

and your moronic argument about LEGAL advil sales compared to street gun sales is so pathetic given the proper comparison is ILLEGAL drug sales on the street

I see lots of ranting and no solutions.

I have a logical solution, while I will submit, is will not completely resolve the problem, it will measurably reduce the problem. Which people like you have failed to provide.
 
Does Australia have a similar 5th amendment?, not they don't. That is why they were able to round up any guns they wished. But in America, there is a 5th Amendment. So your assertation that a registration process would result in a ban, is just ignorant.



Most products designated as dual use products are in fact highly regulated by the government. Which is why when some extremists buys 10 tons of manure, diesel fuel and hay, the federal government is alterted to the fact. And they should be!



I have a logical solution, while I will submit, is will not completely resolve the problem, it will measurably reduce the problem. Which people like you have failed to provide.

I think you mean SECOND Amendment, not Fifth
 
Does Australia have a similar 5th amendment?, not they don't. That is why they were able to round up any guns they wished. But in America, there is a 5th Amendment. So your assertation that a registration process would result in a ban, is just ignorant.



Most products designated as dual use products are in fact highly regulated by the government. Which is why when some extremists buys 10 tons of manure, diesel fuel and hay, the federal government is alterted to the fact. And they should be!



I have a logical solution, while I will submit, is will not completely resolve the problem, it will measurably reduce the problem. Which people like you have failed to provide.

since you want to play constitutional law games with me-did the fifth amendment stop NYC? NO.

your claim about reductions is not supported by evidence. It also doesn't overcome the fact that you have advocated complete gun bans in the past. . ten tons would be equivalent to someone buying hundreds of guns at once. IF YOU BUY MORE THAN ONE HANDGUN from a DEALER IN FIVE BUSINESS days, the dealer is required to notify the ATF
 
FBI stats are unreliable....

FBI figures tweaked to show phony increase in mass shootings, report says | Fox News

"The FBI’s justifiable homicides and the estimates from (arrest-related deaths) both have significant limitations in terms of coverage and reliability that are primarily due to agency participation and measurement issues,” said Michael Planty, one of the Justice Department’s chief statisticians, in an email..."
How many police shootings a year? No one knows - The Washington Post




New data from the CDC shows that five states with lax gun control laws ranked the highest in gun homicide deaths...and higher than DC.

VPC - The Violence Policy Center - State Firearm Death Rates, Ranked by Rate, 2011


States with the Five Highest Gun Death Rates
(Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

1 Louisiana 45.6 percent 18.91
2 Mississippi 54.3 percent 17.80
3 Alaska 60.6 percent 17.41
4 Wyoming 62.8 percent 16.92
5 Montana 61.4 percent 16.74

States with the Five Lowest Gun Death Rates
(Rank State Household Gun Ownership Gun Death Rate Per 100,000)

50 Rhode Island 13.3 percent 3.14
49 Hawaii 9.7 percent 3.56
48 Massachusetts 12.8 percent 3.84
47 New York 18.1 percent 5.11
46 New Jersey 11.3 percent 5.46
For a list of gun death rates in all 50 states, (see link above)


State gun death rates are calculated by dividing the number of gun deaths by the total state population and multiplying the result by 100,000 to obtain the rate per 100,000, which is the standard and accepted method for comparing fatal levels of gun violence....

New Study Ranks 50 States By Gun Sense And Gun Deaths -- Gun Extremists Arrive in 5-4-3-2-1
Notice the switch. From a crime perspective, the only thing that matters is gun homicide rate. The stats above changes this to gun death rates, which would include suicides, accidents, and legal use of firearms resulting in death (LEO enforcement, self protection, etc). While sad in some cases (excluding most LEO and all self-defense), completely irrelevant to the relevant quantity: firearm homicide rate.
 
Democratic immigration policy is as responsible for this cold blooded murder as the murderer himself.

This is true, but the GUN is NOT responsible!

A Gun is steel, wood, lead, plastic, oil and chemical propellants. It has no consciousness or free will.

Would everyone be reacting to the tool used for dealing death, being a stolen item, if it the tool was a car, baseball bat, or crowbar?

People act like "Guns" are some sort of magical thing capable of dealing death, were nothing else in the world can.... It is Stupid!

If this murderer had used a stolen, empty beer bottle to commit his crimes, would we be discussing the source of the beer bottle?

Gun or Beer Bottle, it doesn't leap up and commit murder!

Do YOU know where all your empty beer bottles are?!!!!

-
 
Last edited:
Notice the switch. From a crime perspective, the only thing that matters is gun homicide rate. The stats above changes this to gun death rates, which would include suicides, accidents, and legal use of firearms resulting in death (LEO enforcement, self protection, etc). While sad in some cases (excluding most LEO and all self-defense), completely irrelevant to the relevant quantity: firearm homicide rate.

Someone shot dead by a gun are still dead, no matter the reason. But you're right, the FBI and CDC stats don't include LEO gun homicides...because police departments don't like to report those if they don't have to. And if homicides are too high, they'll fudge those numbers to make their departments look better for election time, too. CompStat.
 
Someone shot dead by a gun are still dead, no matter the reason. But you're right, the FBI and CDC stats don't include LEO gun homicides...because police departments don't like to report those if they don't have to. And if homicides are too high, they'll fudge those numbers to make their departments look better for election time, too. CompStat.
Not quite. There's a major difference between a firearm homicide committed during a robbery by the assailant and a justified shooting ending in the death of the assailant by someone protecting themselves. The first is a crime while the second isn't, even though both have identical body counts by identical methods. The case with LEOs is even more clear cut in the vast majority of cases. So, gun death rates as a whole really are irrelevant since so many are not criminal attacks, such as suicides, accidents, self-protection, and LEO shootings.
 
Not quite. There's a major difference between a firearm homicide committed during a robbery by the assailant and a justified shooting ending in the death of the assailant by someone protecting themselves. The first is a crime while the second isn't, even though both have identical body counts by identical methods. The case with LEOs is even more clear cut in the vast majority of cases. So, gun death rates as a whole really are irrelevant since so many are not criminal attacks, such as suicides, accidents, self-protection, and LEO shootings.

Perhaps most justified killings don't show up in the numbers because there really weren't that many. Because if there were, you can be sure the NRA would make each individual case an ahh ha moment. So it's not that there aren't any, it's just that there really aren't that many justifiable homicides to go ahh ha about that would change the overall stats of gun deaths.
 
Perhaps most justified killings don't show up in the numbers because there really weren't that many. Because if there were, you can be sure the NRA would make each individual case an ahh ha moment. So it's not that there aren't any, it's just that there really aren't that many justifiable homicides to go ahh ha about that would change the overall stats of gun deaths.
Not really; one of the major points made by legal defense groups such as Texas Law Shield as well as general consensus among gun owners is that if you use your gun to defend yourself, keep absolute silence about it: no media, no social media, no posting on message boards, complete blackout. The reasons are varied. First of all, no shooting is legally justified until it's declared as such so any information you put out can and will be used against you. Secondly, even getting past the possibility of criminal charges, there's the matter of civil suits. Again, the general consensus based on myriad cases is that you will be sued, and any info out there provided by you could be used. Fortunately, the media gives little coverage to such righteous shoots, so for the most part the only info available and/or promoted is by the shooter which, unless he's an idiot, will be zero. As such, even if the NRA were inclined to promote a specific occurence, they would either get nothing from the shooter (the wise ones) or they would get less tgan desirable pister boys.

So, you are right, justified shootings are under reported. However, regardless, that has no effect on the relevant metric: firearm homicide rate.
 
This is true, but the GUN is NOT responsible!

A Gun is steel, wood, lead, plastic, oil and chemical propellants. It has no consciousness or free will.

Would everyone be reacting to the tool used for dealing death, being a stolen item, if it the tool was a car, baseball bat, or crowbar?

People act like "Guns" are some sort of magical thing capable of dealing death, were nothing else in the world can.... It is Stupid!

If this murderer had used a stolen, empty beer bottle to commit his crimes, would we be discussing the source of the beer bottle?

Gun or Beer Bottle, it doesn't leap up and commit murder!

Do YOU know where all your empty beer bottles are?!!!!

-

I dont drink.
 
Back
Top Bottom