• 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!

Police respond to an active shooter in Aurora, Ill., with ‘multiple people, multiple officers down'

Saladin4 said:
I'm going to give Rucker a pass, he seems credible and knowledgeable as opposed to most NRA types spouting paranoia and conspiracy's...Still astounding to me why so many law abiding gun owners are so opposed to any regulations that would at least "attempt" to make it more difficult for the deranged,insane and criminal types to so easily obtain a weapon
Click to expand...

No one - well, very few - people are opposed to all restrictions. Some of us do note that no authority was actually given to the federal government to regulate the arms of the People, and that over time the federal government has simply created that authority and power that remains in place today.

For me, it's about only giving the government power they are authorized Constitutionally, and taking back the power they have assumed unconstitutionally. SCOTUS has ruled multiple times on the Second Amendment. In Cruikshank they said "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"

Currently, based on SCOTUS decisions this century and last, the Second Amendment has been affirmed as an individual right protecting "all bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having "a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulate militia" (US v Miller), and extends those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).

If you want new restrictions, filter them through these criteria first. Then make sure that they would be effective, enforceable, would be enforced and are necessary. Then we can discuss them.
 
The family and friends of those Aurora Factory shooting victims should be tickled pink that their loved ones were only injured and killed by a homegrown citizen FELON and not some illegal border crossing thug.

Not like there is any National Emergency level amount of gun violence in our country not related to illegal aliens!
 
Threegoofs said:
They have a registry. It’s been there since before ww2. They have a very low rate of gun violence.
Click to expand...

They have no registry for long guns. It was tried and failed. Long guns are used in fewer crimes than handguns.

I sprayed water on my front lawn with baking soda as tiger repellent. We have no tigers in my front yard. Tiger repellent works.
 
Rucker61 said:
They have no registry for long guns. It was tried and failed. Long guns are used in fewer crimes than handguns.

I sprayed water on my front lawn with baking soda as tiger repellent. We have no tigers in my front yard. Tiger repellent works.
Click to expand...

Kept me off your lawn, that it did!
 
Rucker61 said:
They have no registry for long guns. It was tried and failed. Long guns are used in fewer crimes than handguns.

I sprayed water on my front lawn with baking soda as tiger repellent. We have no tigers in my front yard. Tiger repellent works.
Click to expand...

Odd. Because your neighbor has not used baking soda and has tons of Tigers.
 
Threegoofs said:
Odd. Because your neighbor has not used baking soda and has tons of Tigers.
Click to expand...

You still haven't shown that the registry did anything.

We do know that when GCA 1968 was implemented that the homicide rate increased from a 7 year average of 5.2 to 8.8 over the next decade.

PS: Tiger spray doesn't really work.
 
Rucker61 said:
You still haven't shown that the registry did anything.

We do know that when GCA 1968 was implemented that the homicide rate increased from a 7 year average of 5.2 to 8.8 over the next decade.

PS: Tiger spray doesn't really work.
Click to expand...

Again- the registry has functionally always been in place.

And yes, I got your analogy. But you didn’t get mine. Telling.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again- the registry has functionally always been in place.

And yes, I got your analogy. But you didn’t get mine. Telling.
Click to expand...

If you introduce a catalyst into a system, and only measure the after, not the before, you cannot state scientifically that the catalyst had any result. If the current handgun violence numbers are the same as the ones prior to registration, then registration can't be said to have had an effect on handgun violence.
 
Rucker61 said:
If you introduce a catalyst into a system, and only measure the after, not the before, you cannot state scientifically that the catalyst had any result. If the current handgun violence numbers are the same as the ones prior to registration, then registration can't be said to have had an effect on handgun violence.
Click to expand...

Yes. The ban on ownership of SAMs in the US certainly has nothing to do with the fact no one has ever fired one at a passenger airliner here.

[emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. The ban on ownership of SAMs in the US certainly has nothing to do with the fact no one has ever fired one at a passenger airliner here.

[emoji849]
Click to expand...

Keep deflecting. Show that the registration of handguns in Canada had a positive effect on crime as compared to pre-registration, or admit that you can't prove a causal effect.

The ban on flying airliners into buildings didn't work.
 
Rucker61 said:
Keep deflecting. Show that the registration of handguns in Canada had a positive effect on crime as compared to pre-registration, or admit that you can't prove a causal effect.

The ban on flying airliners into buildings didn't work.
Click to expand...

I explained myself well.

Guess you just can’t grasp it.
 
Threegoofs said:
I explained myself well.

Guess you just can’t grasp it.
Click to expand...

I understand that you don't understand how a scientific claim of cause and effect works.

Edit: Given that this "effective" registration has been in place since 1934, why didn't it keep the Canadian homicide rate from tripling between 1960 and 1977?
 
Rucker61 said:
I understand that you don't understand how a scientific claim of cause and effect works.

Edit: Given that this "effective" registration has been in place since 1934, why didn't it keep the Canadian homicide rate from tripling between 1960 and 1977?
Click to expand...

Science, eh?

Where’s the control group? How about a nation that has NO registry?

Compare the US rates, which are far higher and increased as much if not more, without a registry.

I guess an idiot would think that that ‘proves’ it works. Cause and effect and all that.

But things are more complex than that. And it doesn’t take a genius to see that a registry would probably have some beneficial effect- given we have a CONCRETE EXAMPLE in the OP of this very ****ing thread!

Take the dishonesty back to your hole.
 
Threegoofs said:
Science, eh?

Where’s the control group? How about a nation that has NO registry?

Compare the US rates, which are far higher and increased as much if not more, without a registry.

I guess an idiot would think that that ‘proves’ it works. Cause and effect and all that.

But things are more complex than that. And it doesn’t take a genius to see that a registry would probably have some beneficial effect- given we have a CONCRETE EXAMPLE in the OP of this very ****ing thread!

Take the dishonesty back to your hole.
Click to expand...

So you still can't provide any quantitative proof that after Canada implemented handgun registration that registration reduced the gun violence rate. And there's nothing in the OP about any beneficial effect.

Yes, things are more complicated, which is why your simplistic univariate registration solution to a multivariate problem is worthless.

Why did Canada's registration allow a three fold increase in the homicide rate from 1960 to 1977?
 
Rucker61 said:
So you still can't provide any quantitative proof that after Canada implemented handgun registration that registration reduced the gun violence rate. And there's nothing in the OP about any beneficial effect.

Yes, things are more complicated, which is why your simplistic univariate registration solution to a multivariate problem is worthless.

Why did Canada's registration allow a three fold increase in the homicide rate from 1960 to 1977?
Click to expand...

LOL.

Is it 1960 to 1977 or 1963 to 1977?

Those dates seem critical to you.

But literally have nothing to do with this.

The Argument as to why a registry is in my comments here. I’m not going to bother to repeat them yet again, especially for a dishonest debater.
 
goldkam said:
Its factual
Click to expand...
Cherry-picked data is often factual. It's not truthful, however, because it leaves out the whole truth. It's the lie of omission.

goldkam said:
You offer no solution. No assistance to the problem. No genuine attempt to do anything.
Click to expand...
You just haven't seen one of my posts where I do. Crime, which is what you CLAIM to care about here, is caused by poor socio-economic opportunity and poor healthcare. Not access to firearms. To discuss gun control is to ignore the real problem.

goldkam said:
Unbelievable.... you show signs of acknowledging the data to be "correct", yet don't seem to care about anyone else's rights just your own.
Click to expand...
Data can be correct and conclusions drawn from it be incorrect. Did you know that the math behind Flat-Earth's claim about how small the sun is and it's only being 35 miles away actually does check out? Correct math, wrong conclusions. This is what gun control does. Correct data, incorrect conclusions.
 
Last edited:
goldkam said:
Laws are in place for a reason and you as a member of society are also under those laws.
Click to expand...
Interracial marriage was once illegal also, and people practiced civil disobedience towards those laws. That's why it's called "civil disobedience": it's illegal.

goldkam said:
I don't understand why you think you are better than the law and need not follow them....
Click to expand...
I am open to having that conversation after you drop the rhetoric. Throughout American history, we've practiced civil disobedience in many forms, from the Tea Pary to underground tunnels to help slaves escape. Unethical laws SHOULD be disobeyed.

goldkam said:
why should I be unwillingly subjected to someone who is breaking the law and understands that notion full well?
Click to expand...
You are not subject to me. You are not a victim.

goldkam said:
I was not referring to your children I was talking about every other child of society.
Click to expand...
To them, the message I send is "Unethical laws SHOULD be disobeyed."

goldkam said:
The problem is your breaking the law and you don't care.
Click to expand...
If I didn't care I wouldn't disobey them on purpose.

goldkam said:
This gun crisis...
Click to expand...
There is no gun crisis. There never was. There is a socio-economic opportunity and healthcare crisis, neither of which are solved by gun control.
 
Last edited:
goldkam said:
ITS NOT CHERRY PICKED DATA THAT THERE WERE 40,000 FIREARM DEATHS LAST YEAR.
Click to expand...

Yes, that IS cherry-picked data.

How many were lawful? Remember that pro-gun WANTS lawfull shootings.
How many were suicides? Gun control does not prevent suicide.
How many were gang-related? Permit holders are the LEAST likely to be in gangs.

Cherry-picked data.

There's a strong argument to be made about gang violence, and gun control solves none of it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom