• 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!

White House to Push Gun Control

As I've said countlessly, not at the moment. But if someone suggests something reasonable, I'd listen.

reasonable

def. 1 If we could ban guns and not lose the senate or the white house in 2012 it would be reasonable

def. 2- Any restrictions that would not have negative political ramifications
 
Actually no, that has not been proven. The number given so far don't supoport it. and we have to have objective documented proof of how many don't end in shooting, personal reporting is too easily skewed.

VPC - A Deadly Myth: Women, Handguns, and Self-Defense

The VPC-OMG you just killed your argument

these are the morons who

1) told the media in 1988 to deliberately confuse the public as to the difference between machine guns and semi autos

2) claimed that centerfire rifles with a scope were "sniper rifles" (in reality any rifle suitable for shooting a deer at 400M is equally useful for shooting a human which is why the military and police use the same rifles that hunters use in many cases)

3) pushed the ban on normal cap magazines and when it passed whined when makers scaled down their pistols to hold only 10 round magazines rather than normal capacity magazines

VPC is a dishonest conspiracy against gun rights
 
reasonable

def. 1 If we could ban guns and not lose the senate or the white house in 2012 it would be reasonable

def. 2- Any restrictions that would not have negative political ramifications

really shouldn't try to speak for others. I don't want or believe that guns will ever be banned.
 
The VPC-OMG you just killed your argument

these are the morons who

1) told the media in 1988 to deliberately confuse the public as to the difference between machine guns and semi autos

2) claimed that centerfire rifles with a scope were "sniper rifles" (in reality any rifle suitable for shooting a deer at 400M is equally useful for shooting a human which is why the military and police use the same rifles that hunters use in many cases)

3) pushed the ban on normal cap magazines and when it passed whined when makers scaled down their pistols to hold only 10 round magazines rather than normal capacity magazines

VPC is a dishonest conspiracy against gun rights

Doesn't matter. There are plenty of sites siting very similar stats. ;)
 
So you're arguing that 68,000 (the lowest lowball figure, from a government study), is a SMALLER number than 30,000?

Must be that new math. :mrgreen:

Nope. I'm arguing that there are no objective statistics that are not based on anything more substantive than stories that are not confirmed.
 
Nope. I'm arguing that there are no objective statistics that are not based on anything more substantive than stories that are not confirmed.

Ah. So I take it that any statistics, even those from a government study, will be ignored if they disagree with your agenda?

Got it.

:roll:
 
Ah. So I take it that any statistics, even those from a government study, will be ignored if they disagree with your agenda?

Got it.

:roll:

Not ignored. But it matters how they come about. There is a difference between subjective numbers and objective numbers. Somoen saying something happened is equal to something we can prove happened.

So no, you don't have it.
 
Not ignored. But it matters how they come about. There is a difference between subjective numbers and objective numbers. Somoen saying something happened is equal to something we can prove happened.

So no, you don't have it.


Then neither do you, old chap. You've given us nothing but opinions, and links to discredited anti-gun organizations.
 
Last edited:
Not ignored. But it matters how they come about. There is a difference between subjective numbers and objective numbers. Somoen saying something happened is equal to something we can prove happened.

So no, you don't have it.
Says the same member who just up the scroll quoted the VPC as a source, then said there are plenty of other cites citing similar facts. That he could not locate. Goshin you hit the nail on the proverbial head!
 
Says the same member who just up the scroll quoted the VPC as a source, then said there are plenty of other cites citing similar facts. That he could not locate. Goshin you hit the nail on the proverbial head!

I know you don't like the source, but the issue here isn't the source, but what it reports. It does not report objective numbers, but subjective and unverifiable numbers. you're not really getting the point.
 
Then neither do you, old chap. You've given us nothing but opinions, and links to discredited anti-gun organizations.

Being anti gun is no different than being pro gun. I have not bulk at pro gun numbers that were objective. I only say that asking someone if they defended themselves is not equal to verifiable objective numbers. Please, note the difference.
 
Don't be stupid. Any idiot can see the point. You do get tirersome.



If you want to call the Good Reverend "stupid" and an "idiot", please come down to the basement and do so... This cowardly method you use to skirt the rules when you lose control and all self composure to try to insult me is rather insipid. :pimpdaddy:
 
If you want to call the Good Reverend "stupid" and an "idiot", please come down to the basement and do so... This cowardly method you use to skirt the rules and try to insult me is rather insipid. :pimpdaddy:

If I called you anything, it would be troll. I would still prefer you responded on point instead of playing games.
 
If I called you anything, it would be troll. I would still prefer you responded on point instead of playing games.


The point is, you got nothing, and you ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion.

If I'd known you weren't going to debate honestly, I wouldn't have bothered.
 
The point is, you got nothing, and you ignore anything that doesn't support your opinion.

If I'd known you weren't going to debate honestly, I wouldn't have bothered.

No. So you have any objective numbers, something not depended on say so, or speculation? Something countable, verifiable, not heresay? Seriously, there is a difference.
 
I know you don't like the source, but the issue here isn't the source, but what it reports. It does not report objective numbers, but subjective and unverifiable numbers. you're not really getting the point.
I did not know the first thing about the source and neither like or dislike them. It was the hilarity in the basic hypocrisy of your so called argument that drew my attention. And no I don't expect you to acknowledge or admit it. I bet money nobody here regardless of their political leaning does either! If there really were other sources citing similar statistics you would have supplied them. You did not do that. And then just a few posts after making an excuse for using a source with credibility issues you try to take issues with other members sources. It's clumsy dishonest and above all else it is funny.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Cease with the personal attacks or else.
 
I did not know the first thing about the source and neither like or dislike them. It was the hilarity in the basic hypocrisy of your so called argument that drew my attention. And no I don't expect you to acknowledge or admit it. I bet money nobody here regardless of their political leaning does either! If there really were other sources citing similar statistics you would have supplied them. You did not do that. And then just a few posts after making an excuse for using a source with credibility issues you try to take issues with other members sources. It's clumsy dishonest and above all else it is funny.

I did earlier and have no problem doing so again.

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.

(snip)

Some research shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates,[7][9] while other research indicates no such association between firearm ownership and gun suicide rates.[10] During the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a strong upward trend in adolescent suicides with a gun,[11] as well as a sharp overall increase in a suicides among those age 75 and over.[12] In the United States, firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 50.7% of all suicides committed during 2006.[13]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

37-39. Overestimates of self-defense gun use
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.
Major findings: The claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens appears to be invalid.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

About Page



Any search will bring them up, however, you liek others miss the point:

Law enforcement agencies do not collect information on the number of times civilians use firearms to defend themselves or their property against attack. Such data have been collected in household surveys. The contradictory nature of the available statistics may be partially explained by methodological factors. That is, these and other criminal justice statistics reflect what is reported to have occurred, not necessarily the actual number of times certain events occur.

http://freegovreports.com/index.php/law/271-how-often-are-firearms-used-in-self-defense
 
The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides

so?

EVEN YOU don't want to ban em

i mean, according to YOU

LOL!

are you sure you have a point anymore?

i mean, now that we've established that guns aren't MAGIC

LOL!
 
I did earlier and have no problem doing so again.

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with firearms used in 16,907 suicides in the United States during 2004.

(snip)

Some research shows an association between household firearm ownership and gun suicide rates,[7][9] while other research indicates no such association between firearm ownership and gun suicide rates.[10] During the 1980s and early 1990s, there was a strong upward trend in adolescent suicides with a gun,[11] as well as a sharp overall increase in a suicides among those age 75 and over.[12] In the United States, firearms remain the most common method of suicide, accounting for 50.7% of all suicides committed during 2006.[13]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

37-39. Overestimates of self-defense gun use
We use epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.
Major findings: The claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens appears to be invalid.

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use - Firearms Research - Harvard Injury Control Research Center - Harvard School of Public Health

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

About Page



Any search will bring them up, however, you liek others miss the point:

Law enforcement agencies do not collect information on the number of times civilians use firearms to defend themselves or their property against attack. Such data have been collected in household surveys. The contradictory nature of the available statistics may be partially explained by methodological factors. That is, these and other criminal justice statistics reflect what is reported to have occurred, not necessarily the actual number of times certain events occur.

How Often Are Firearms Used in Self-Defense?
If those stats were the stats you brought up with the VPC link, you might have been able to interest me in your argument. Keeping it clumsy and dishonest is not so funny anymore though......
 
really shouldn't try to speak for others. I don't want or believe that guns will ever be banned.

yeah but you want major restrictions that hassle harass and infringe on our rights
 
Doesn't matter. There are plenty of sites siting very similar stats. ;)

probably staffed by the same sort of liars.Josh Sugarmann is well known as both dishonest and wanting complete gun bans
 
Back
Top Bottom