• 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!

Gunman shot by police after massacre in Germany

Laila said:
Why would law abiding people want guns?
Click to expand...

Gee I don’t know, to protect themselves from criminals?

Let me ask you a few things; do you believe that police prevent crime? when do the police usually deal with a criminal?

Think about it and get back to me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
In 2006, in the US there were 30,694 gun deaths. Though not huge considering the amount of guns nor the amount of people, this is not isolated or incidental. Gun safety and gun education is key, not gun banning. There will always be the random crazy, or nice guy who goes crazy no matter what.

Solution? Increase mental health care. ;)
Click to expand...

Approximately half of those gun deaths were suicides. Those deaths technically should be excluded from the number as they would have found some other method.

:2wave:
 
TheNextEra said:
Surprisingly enough though the same could be said for our drug laws as well.
Click to expand...
That is true, I advocate a more intelligent drug policy myself, legalize and tax marijuana, allow for semi-legalization of hard drugs(in a clinic type setting with support staff, fair market pricing)

However, many people still feel it is the right of the government to interfere there.
Click to expand...
The difference here is that the second amendment protects gun ownership while there is no strict interpretation of the right to use drugs. However the ninth and tenth amendments should prohibit many of the federal controls and policies we suffer today, drug laws being one of them. Personally, I believe states should have the final say in their own drug policies, as well as adult drinking ages and liquor laws.

So which is it? Is it in the best interest of people for the government to make things illegal that law abiding citizens would not abuse or not?
Click to expand...
Simple, the federal government needs to follow the supreme law of the land, the constitution, the states should retain their constitutionally guaranteed powers and the federal should stick to it's constitutionally proscribed powers and duties.
Click to expand...
 
TheNextEra said:
Surprisingly enough though the same could be said for our drug laws as well.

However, many people still feel it is the right of the government to interfere there.

So which is it? Is it in the best interest of people for the government to make things illegal that law abiding citizens would not abuse or not?
Click to expand...

I don't think it is relevant to divert the thread topic into a legalizing drugs argument is it?

But to answer the question, there is a HUGE difference between the legal ownership of a handgun that is technically not bad for your health and legalizing a product that certainly IS bad for your health and endangers society as a whole.

I find it fascinating that many Liberals think that cigarettes should be banned due to the cost to society and the health risk, but think substances like cocaine and heroine should be legalized because of the cost of enforcement. Which is it?

Read up on the definition of a red herring for further clarification of why your argument is specious.
 
Truth Detector said:
I find it fascinating that many Liberals think that cigarettes should be banned due to the cost to society and the health risk, but think substances like cocaine and heroine should be legalized because of the cost of enforcement. Which is it?

Read up on the definition of a red herring for further clarification of why your argument is specious.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a red herring at all. One of your comments was that law abiding citizens should be allowed firearms, they should also be able to put into THEIR body what they want to.

The key word is law abiding, someone doing harm to someone while on drugs is no longer law abiding, much as someone that commits a crime with a gun is no longer law abiding. Law abiding should be afforded that right.

As for the liberal comment, you would have to show me the liberals that want to ban cigarettes, but allow cocaine and heroine, because I haven't seen it personally.

I am firmly against the forcing an establishment to be non-smoking or the outright banning of cigarettes.
 
Truth Detector said:
More people die from automobiles accidents than any other cause; should we take them away because a few treat them irresponsibly?
Click to expand...
If someone uses their automobile to commit murder. Yes, their drivers license should be taken away.

Truth Detector said:
The FACT is that gun laws do NOTHING to deter crime and just disarm law abiding citizens. There are NO statistics that support strict gun confiscation laws.

The cities with the stiffest gun laws have the highest crime rates; what a shocker. BUT, if I were a criminal, I would be all FOR gun confiscation laws because that way when I commit my crimes, I can be comforted knowing that it is a high probability the people I am robbing can't stop me.

This case, as the one in Scotland a few years back illustrates that if someone is going to use a gun in a crime, they will be able to get the gun regardless of all the high minded attempts to prevent it.

It makes NO sense to disarm the law abiding public because there are a few who might break the law and abuse their rights. They would do it regardless. It's as absurd as suggesting that cars kill people, therefore we should take cars away.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about disarming law abiding citizens? Law abiding citizens should freely and easily be able to purchase and carry weapons. The criminals are who need to be stopped.


Truth Detector said:
Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
Car Accident Statistics, Stats, Auto, Fatal, Drunk Driving

Truth Detector said:
In 2003 alone, 30,136 Americans died by gunfire: 16,907 in firearm suicides, 11,920 in firearm homicides, 730 in unintentional shootings, and 232 in firearm deaths of unknown intent, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly three times that number are treated in emergency rooms each year for nonfatal firearm injuries.
NRA Information - Gun Violence in America

Top Ten "Gun-Control" Myths
Top Ten "Gun-Control" Myths
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Are you seriously comparing gun deaths to car deaths? First, how many car deaths were caused do to intent to harm? Second, there are a registered 250 million passenger cars in the US. According to the NCSA there are a reported 423 accidents for every 100 million miles driven.

What is the gun ammo usage vs deaths total?
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
II find it fascinating that many Liberals think that cigarettes should be banned due to the cost to society and the health risk, but think substances like cocaine and heroine should be legalized because of the cost of enforcement. Which is it?
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that you make crap like this up and think your spouting truth. Liberals do not want to remove an individuals ability to buy cigarettes, they are limiting the usage in public places. No different then not allowing people to be drunk or drink on public property.
 
Gibberish said:
I find it fascinating that you make crap like this up and think your spouting truth. Liberals do not want to remove an individuals ability to buy cigarettes, they are limiting the usage in public places. No different then not allowing people to be drunk or drink on public property.
Click to expand...

Bars and restaurants are private property.
 
Ikari said:
Bars and restaurants are private property.
Click to expand...

Yes they are, which is why I didn't say bars and restaurants and said public property.

The community can ask a privately owned company to not do something but in the end the decision is up to the company. This is why I have no problems with restaurants or bars allowing smoking as long as they meet the health requirements of proper ventilation, the same as I except them to meet the health requirements of handling food.

What you can and cannot do on public beaches, parks, streets, etc., is up to the community to decide.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
Approximately half of those gun deaths were suicides. Those deaths technically should be excluded from the number as they would have found some other method.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

This is actually irrelevant, considering that the using a gun is the most successful method of suicide. Other methods result, more often, in unsuccessful attempts.

A gun death is a gun death.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is actually irrelevant, considering that the using a gun is the most successful method of suicide. Other methods result, more often, in unsuccessful attempts.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, there have been incidents where a gun related suicide attempt was unsuccessful, one case that comes to mind is that kid from the Jena six trial. Jumping, I could argue would be more successful than shooting, or overdosing on meds/drugs, I think we need to find the symptoms of suicide in time and stop them, the methodology of the act takes us away from that discussion in my opinion.

A gun death is a gun death.
Click to expand...
On it's face you are correct, however I would argue that a gun suicide is different than a murder, which is radically different from other homicides. Basically, if the intent is to kill, whether it is a suicide or a homicide, the result will be the same regardless of the tool used.
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
Not exactly, there have been incidents where a gun related suicide attempt was unsuccessful, one case that comes to mind is that kid from the Jena six trial. Jumping, I could argue would be more successful than shooting, or overdosing on meds/drugs, I think we need to find the symptoms of suicide in time and stop them, the methodology of the act takes us away from that discussion in my opinion.
Click to expand...
Though some gun related suicide attempts are unsucessful, of all methods of suicide, gun use is the most common in completed suicides:

Firearms remain the most commonly utilized method of completing suicide by essentially all groups. More than half (52.1%) of the individuals who took their own lives in 2005 used this method.

Suicide in the U.S.
Click to expand...
So, though I agree that suicide prevention is and recognition of suicidal symptoms are important, it doesn't change that what I said was accurate.

On it's face you are correct, however I would argue that a gun suicide is different than a murder, which is radically different from other homicides. Basically, if the intent is to kill, whether it is a suicide or a homicide, the result will be the same regardless of the tool used.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing any differently. What I'm saying is that if your intent is to kill, you will be most successful with a gun.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is actually irrelevant, considering that the using a gun is the most successful method of suicide. Other methods result, more often, in unsuccessful attempts.

A gun death is a gun death.
Click to expand...




By the same token then, a car death is a car death. no?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Though some gun related suicide attempts are unsucessful, of all methods of suicide, gun use is the most common in completed suicides:

So, though I agree that suicide prevention is and recognition of suicidal symptoms are important, it doesn't change that what I said was accurate.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, I thought you were attributing success to method rather than the statistic.

I'm not arguing any differently. What I'm saying is that if your intent is to kill, you will be most successful with a gun.
Click to expand...
I don't think the gun will be any more successful in the hands of an incompetant shooter barring a lucky shot, I've known people who are worthless with a gun, but if you gave them anything else they could really ruin someone's health record.
 
Laila said:
Why would law abiding people want guns?[/qutoe]

Because they do.

Laila said:
There will always be criminals, having guns will not make a difference.
Click to expand...

Sure.

Until that criminal is in your house and you're standing between him and your daughter wishing you had a sawed off shotgun, but don't because you supported a law making gun owernship illegal.

Laila said:
Besides, i would not want my neighbours having guns.
Click to expand...

It's none of your business if they have guns or not.

Laila said:
If required illegally the laws would hardly matter to the shooter now would it?
Click to expand...

More importantly, if people can have guns legally, the victims are more likely to be able to shoot back.
Click to expand...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Minimal. I doubt it could even be measured.
Click to expand...

Would you say guns are used on the same frequency as people driving a car?

According to the earlier stats the death rates of guns vs cars is pretty close. I would argue the usage rates vs death rates are much higher with guns as tens of millions of people every day drive their car. I would also argue that the intent to kill with guns vs cars is higher with guns.
 
Gibberish said:
Would you say guns are used on the same frequency as people driving a car?
Click to expand...

relevancy?

According to the earlier stats the death rates of guns vs cars is pretty close. I would argue the usage rates vs death rates are much higher with guns as tens of millions of people every day drive their car. I would also argue that the intent to kill with guns vs cars is higher with guns.
Click to expand...



there are? what evidence do you have to support this.

there are 192 million guns owned in the united states.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Gotcha, I thought you were attributing success to method rather than the statistic.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I don't think the gun will be any more successful in the hands of an incompetant shooter barring a lucky shot, I've known people who are worthless with a gun, but if you gave them anything else they could really ruin someone's health record.
Click to expand...

Pulling the trigger of a gun pointed directly in ones own mouth doesn't take a lot of knowledge.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Pulling the trigger of a gun pointed directly in ones own mouth doesn't take a lot of knowledge.
Click to expand...
This is true, but what I'm arguing is that if someone wants to take their own life they will do it regardless the method, which is why we need better public awareness of suicide and it's symptoms, gun control will not solve the problem of criminal activity or self-inflicted harm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom