• 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!

[W:711] 2/3rds of Americans want an assault weapons ban

Master Debator said:
Is this the bargaining or denile stage of grief? Like I said it won't happen all at once. Laws will change. Many will comply many will not. Those that don't and are discovered will lose property, homes, cars, like we do now with drugs. People will be made example of. More will comply. Routine traffic stops, domestic disputes calls that bring help will also invite scrutiny and even more will be seized. As I said, death by a thousand cuts, slow and individual. There will be no civil war. Just the stubborn persistence of the giant government machine slowly rolling over you like waves on the sand until you no longer recognize the shore.
Click to expand...

Carl Rowan proved that leftists want everyone but themselves disarmed in America.
 
tres borrachos said:
Oh hell no. The right is tarding up the thread, as usual, with posts about sodomy and socialism and abortion any whatever else pops in their heads. It always happens here.

I'm actually surprised I didn't see a "But her emails and Uranium One" post in the midst of all of this.
Click to expand...

Maybe we missed it. I have yet to find a thread in this forum that doesn't bring up Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama within several pages.
 
Master Debator said:
It's not about having issues with race. It's just a fact that there's a social and cultural shift going that's going to influence and change politics, economics and American society as a whole. How could it not?
Click to expand...
Um...maybe because socialism is a loser ideology

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
Master Debator said:
You think they don't have poor people in the U.K., in Canada, in Singapore? Of course they do, they just choose to help their citizens rather than bankrupt them with medical costs and price them out of higher education. This is why we compare situations between 1st world countries and other 1st world countries so we can analyze various approaches. Apparently you want us to scale more towards Mexico and Russia. You should put that on a campaign sticker. :lamo
Click to expand...

You just identified at least two reasons, other than a difference in gun control, that it's not valid to compare the US to the UK, Canada, or Singapore. So I guess you agree with me.
 
Tlrmln said:
You just identified at least two reasons, other than a difference in gun control, that it's not valid to compare the US to the UK, Canada, or Singapore. So I guess you agree with me.
Click to expand...

:lamo

No, I just identified two areas where those countries policies are superior to our own. If differences themselves where disqualifies for comparison then we couldn't compare anything. You see the reasoning in that don't you? :think:
 
Master Debator said:
:lamo
No, I just identified two areas where those countries policies are superior to our own.
Click to expand...

No, what you did is undermine your obvious argument that the difference in murder rate between the US and other "first world" countries is entirely (or at all) due to differences in gun laws


If differences themselves where disqualifies for comparison then we couldn't compare anything. You see the reasoning in that don't you? :think:
Click to expand...

Maybe you should :think: before spitting out obvious straw man arguments. The obviously relevant differences don't mean that we can't compare things, they just means is that no comparison is so simplistic as you would like to make it.
 
Tlrmln said:
No, what you did is undermine your obvious argument that the difference in murder rate between the US and other "first world" countries is entirely (or at all) due to differences in gun laws
Click to expand...

Nowhere did I say differences in gun laws is the sole reason for disparity in murder rates. That's the obvious strawman. It's the most obvious reason. And the largest one but there are other mitigating factors. Economic opportunity being another.

Tlrmln said:
Maybe you should :think: before spitting out obvious straw man arguments. The obviously relevant differences don't mean that we can't compare things, they just means is that no comparison is so simplistic as you would like to make it.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious to everyone else that having over 50% of the entire worlds personal arsenal in the hands of Americans is a large contributing factor to the large disparity of gun violence and gun death between our country and the rest of the civilized world. Your attempts to pigeonhole my argument into 100% blaming gun laws for this disparity is the only strawman here.
 
Master Debator said:
Nowhere did I say differences in gun laws is the sole reason for disparity in murder rates. That's the obvious strawman. It's the most obvious reason. And the largest one but there are other mitigating factors. Economic opportunity being another.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have for that? The numbers worldwide (and within the US) dramatically contradict your claim -- they indicate that differences in culture, politics, and socioeconomic conditions are far more significant than differences in gun laws.

It's pretty obvious to everyone else that having over 50% of the entire worlds personal arsenal in the hands of Americans is a large contributing factor to the large disparity of gun violence and gun death between our country and the rest of the civilized world.
Click to expand...

No, it's pretty obvious that the socioeconomic factors are far more important. How can you say that when countries with a tiny fraction of our gun ownership have 5-10 times our murder rate?

Your attempts to pigeonhole my argument into 100% blaming gun laws for this disparity is the only strawman here.
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious that's what you were doing -- implying that the only relevant comparison for the US was other "first world" countries, and that any comparison to a country with worse socioeconomic conditions than the US was patently absurd. You've only changed your tune now that you you've painted yourself into a corner.
 
Tlrmln said:
What evidence do you have for that? The numbers worldwide (and within the US) dramatically contradict your claim -- they indicate that differences in culture, politics, and socioeconomic conditions are far more significant than differences in gun laws.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that because this provides evidence to the contrary. How Does The U.S. Rate Of Gun Violence Deaths Compare With Other Countries'? : Goats and Soda : NPR

Maybe you'd like to post something, evidence, anything that supports your claim?

Tlrmln said:
No, it's pretty obvious that the socioeconomic factors are far more important. How can you say that when countries with a tiny fraction of our gun ownership have 5-10 times our murder rate?
Click to expand...

Which ones are those?

Tlrmln said:
It's pretty obvious that's what you were doing -- implying that the only relevant comparison for the US was other "first world" countries, and that any comparison to a country with worse socioeconomic conditions than the US was patently absurd. You've only changed your tune now that you you've painted yourself into a corner.
Click to expand...

:lamo

No corner bub. You have asserted that its socio-economic reasons not gun laws and access to guns so now let's see your evidence. :shrug:
 
Master Debator said:
Funny you should say that because this provides evidence to the contrary. How Does The U.S. Rate Of Gun Violence Deaths Compare With Other Countries'? : Goats and Soda : NPR

Maybe you'd like to post something, evidence, anything that supports your claim?
Click to expand...

Not that "gun violence deaths" is a valid metric for this discussion, but how does an interview with a doctor provide evidence of anything?

I already provided evidence for my claim. Go back and read it.



Which ones are those?
Click to expand...

Which of what, other than the ones I already identified? If you want all of them, go here: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Sort the list by murder rate. Start with Mexico and go up.


:lamo

No corner bub. You have asserted that its socio-economic reasons not gun laws and access to guns so now let's see your evidence. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I would say that the person who wants to pass laws restricting our rights has the burden of proof, but why do I think that you'll have a snarky non-response to that?
 
Tlrmln said:
Not that "gun violence deaths" is a valid metric for this discussion, but how does an interview with a doctor provide evidence of anything?

I already provided evidence for my claim. Go back and read it.
Click to expand...

Go back and read what? That's like telling someone to look for answers in the bible. I posted that article because the good doctor specifically spoke about socio-economic conditions and how that often times does not translate into higher gun violence. Here's the specific passage...
Some say that the disaffection that leads to gun violence in the U.S. might be rooted in economic reasons, a lack of socioeconomic opportunity. But we have a higher death rate from firearms than countries rated by the*Fragile States Index, [which ranks] fragile places in the world from the perspective of governance.

Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Iraq, Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen — those are countries that are worse to live in from a conflict standpoint than the United States. You would think they would have outsized numbers of gun-based violence. It's remarkable to me that they don't.
Click to expand...


Tlrmln said:
Which of what, other than the ones I already identified? If you want all of them, go here: List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia

Sort the list by murder rate. Start with Mexico and go up.
Click to expand...

In what way does this prove your point?

Tlrmln said:
I would say that the person who wants to pass laws restricting our rights has the burden of proof, but why do I think that you'll have a snarky non-response to that?
Click to expand...

The rest of the developed world has provided that proof and yet you search for answers up blind ally's because you've started from the presumption that guns are good.
 
Tlrmln said:
What evidence do you have for that? The numbers worldwide (and within the US) dramatically contradict your claim -- they indicate that differences in culture, politics, and socioeconomic conditions are far more significant than differences in gun laws.



No, it's pretty obvious that the socioeconomic factors are far more important. How can you say that when countries with a tiny fraction of our gun ownership have 5-10 times our murder rate?



It's pretty obvious that's what you were doing -- implying that the only relevant comparison for the US was other "first world" countries, and that any comparison to a country with worse socioeconomic conditions than the US was patently absurd. You've only changed your tune now that you you've painted yourself into a corner.
Click to expand...

Comparing the US to Honduras and el salvador is just sad. Try comparing us to europe
 
tres borrachos said:
This thread isn't about sodomy. Please keep your fantasies to yourself.

The OP was about guns and what most Americans want as far as assault weapons bans.
Click to expand...

The thread is about why 2/3 of Americans are supposedly not getting what they want. Democrats in Congress and leftist liberal activist judges are often why Americans do not get what they want. God help us if democrats gain total control of Congress and courts. Ignorance of the full picture is another reason Americans are not getting what they want.
 
RedSunRising said:
Oh, I love this asinine analogy. How many vehicular deaths are intentional?
Click to expand...

How many gun deaths in Chicago alone are intentional? Why haven't democrats in Chicago stopped the violence? They tried, but gun laws just are not getting the job done and not even Chicagoans want their nation stripped bare of guns like North Korea or communist China.
 
marke said:
How many gun deaths in Chicago alone are intentional? Why haven't democrats in Chicago stopped the violence?
Click to expand...

The guns come from Indiana. Blame the gop
 
Master Debator said:
Yep. One mans hipocracy proves the intentions of everyone on the left. Logic
Click to expand...

One man's exposure opened to the world the hypocrisy of so many leftists. While Dianne Feinstein was advocating confiscating guns from all Americans she was the only resident of San Francisco at one period in time to have a government issued concealed carry permit. Like Carl Rowan, she made an exception for herself because she felt she needed to carry a gun for protection. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
Master Debator said:
So what you're saying is ocialism is the poor white trash of political ideologies? :moon:
Click to expand...

It is. It can be white trash, or black trash or yellow trash, whatever, but it is always godless trash.
 
marke said:
People with guns kill about 10,000 Americans each year. People with cars kill about 60,000 Americans each year. What to do?
Click to expand...

How many of those who kill with guns do it intentionally with malice aforethought, and how many of those who kill via cars do it intentionally with malice aforethought ?
 
Logician Man said:
How many of those who kill with guns do it intentionally with malice aforethought, and how many of those who kill via cars do it intentionally with malice aforethought ?
Click to expand...

Guns and cars kill about the same number of people a year by the way
 
BlueTex said:
LOL... Just about every federal statute starts with a section called definitions... Wonder why that is....... Congress defines what is and is not prohibited...
Click to expand...

calling something an assault rifle that is not an assault rifle is dishonest.
so why do you want to be dishonest?

also the ATF is the organization that defines what an assault rifle is.
so please tell us what an assault rifle is.
 
ludin said:
calling something an assault rifle that is not an assault rifle is dishonest.
so why do you want to be dishonest?

also the ATF is the organization that defines what an assault rifle is.
so please tell us what an assault rifle is.
Click to expand...

Whatever the government says it is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom