• 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!

37 Years of Mass Shootings in the U.S. in One Chart

Media_Truth said:
Absolutely! If it isn't constitutional to attempt to track madmen who want to perpetrate hate crimes, with weapons intended to kill large numbers of human beings, what would that say about our Constitution? And there is precedence. This is exactly what was done in the 1930s with the gangster element.
Click to expand...

Of course. We have a new gangster. We have a new bonnie and clyde. The mass shooter. And we need to take measures to stop them
 
Old 'N Chill said:
To put that in perspective, it's apples and oranges. Deaths from speeding in a car on the highways is accidental, mass killings by a murderer who is driven by hate, politics, racism, religion, etc. is the deliberate taking of innocent people's lives.
Click to expand...

Yeah but in one case they blame the inanimate object as the culprit (for political points), in the other they blame the people. The truth is that in both cases people are at fault.
 
TurtleDude said:
You still are running away from telling me what the second amendment does. And you are lying about those firearms.
Click to expand...

You continue to act like the 2nd Amendment gives you some unfettered right to own whatever firearms you want. This is simply not the case. Even your Libertarian 2008 SCOTUS stated this.

Where Does The Supreme Court Stand On Guns, from 'Fraud' To Individual Right : NPR

Similarly, the court said in 2008 that the right to bear arms doesn't bar the government from regulating firearms.

The justices specifically said the government can ban firearms for felons or the mentally ill; it can ban guns in sensitive places, like schools and government buildings; and it can impose conditions and qualifications for the commercial sale of guns.

In addition, the court also seemed to say that "particularly dangerous and unusual weapons," such as military-style assault weapons, could be prohibited.
 
Media_Truth said:
You continue to act like the 2nd Amendment gives you some unfettered right to own whatever firearms you want. This is simply not the case. Even your Libertarian 2008 SCOTUS stated this.

Where Does The Supreme Court Stand On Guns, from 'Fraud' To Individual Right : NPR

Similarly, the court said in 2008 that the right to bear arms doesn't bar the government from regulating firearms.

The justices specifically said the government can ban firearms for felons or the mentally ill; it can ban guns in sensitive places, like schools and government buildings; and it can impose conditions and qualifications for the commercial sale of guns.

In addition, the court also seemed to say that "particularly dangerous and unusual weapons," such as military-style assault weapons, could be prohibited.
Click to expand...

I cannot help it if dishonest partisan judges violate the second amendment The second amendment gives us nothing-it prevents bannerrhoid politicians from interfering in rights we always had.

And you are wrong-tell us what makes an "assault weapon" unusually dangerous compared to semi auto weapons which are clearly not
 
Media_Truth said:
You continue to act like the 2nd Amendment gives you some unfettered right to own whatever firearms you want. This is simply not the case. Even your Libertarian 2008 SCOTUS stated this.

Where Does The Supreme Court Stand On Guns, from 'Fraud' To Individual Right : NPR

Similarly, the court said in 2008 that the right to bear arms doesn't bar the government from regulating firearms.

The justices specifically said the government can ban firearms for felons or the mentally ill; it can ban guns in sensitive places, like schools and government buildings; and it can impose conditions and qualifications for the commercial sale of guns.

In addition, the court also seemed to say that "particularly dangerous and unusual weapons," such as military-style assault weapons, could be prohibited.
Click to expand...

that part you highlighted is not from any supreme court decision--so it is dishonest
 
TurtleDude said:
that's funny but stupid-or stupid but funny
Click to expand...

It was meant as humourous sarcasm /exasperated tomfoolery or something along those lines
 
TurtleDude said:
you do know that if someone is not deterred by the consequences of committing mass murder-they won't care about the consequences of having banned magazines
Click to expand...

Detterence is not the intention , prevention by restriction is the intention IE if ya struggle to get hold of them it limits the chances
 
Media_Truth said:
These people aren't interested in stopping mass shootings. They are only interested in the status quo. Have you heard one proposal from any of them?
Click to expand...

TBH I find them to be completely selfish , inconsiderate and expect little else but the walls they put up. You are right too , they don't disappoint in that respect
 
oneworld2 said:
Detterence is not the intention , prevention by restriction is the intention IE if ya struggle to get hold of them it limits the chances
Click to expand...

except that is a complete fail for two reasons

1) the people least likely to be deterred are the ones most likely to engage in illegal actions

2) those most likely to be deterred are the ones who use firearms to stop crimes

gun banners never admit that there is a good side of gun ownership-since they hate gun owners for their voting records, they refuse to concede that point. IN fact, most gun banners see HONEST and LAWFUL gun ownership as the real enemy
 
oneworld2 said:
TBH I find them to be completely selfish , inconsiderate and expect little else but the walls they put up. You are right too , they don't disappoint in that respect
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. How are gun owners benefited by the continuation of mass shootings? The only people who benefit from those massacres are the gun banners
 
TurtleDude said:
except that is a complete fail for two reasons

1) the people least likely to be deterred are the ones most likely to engage in illegal actions

2) those most likely to be deterred are the ones who use firearms to stop crimes

gun banners never admit that there is a good side of gun ownership-since they hate gun owners for their voting records, they refuse to concede that point. IN fact, most gun banners see HONEST and LAWFUL gun ownership as the real enemy
Click to expand...

Both points refer to deterence , a point have have already conceded as being futile. Why don't you comment on the chances of severe restrictions or outright bans of large magazines making the actual deed itself more unlikely instead of addressing points already conceded ?
 
oneworld2 said:
Both points refer to deterence , a point have have already conceded as being futile. Why don't you comment on the chances of severe restrictions or outright bans of large magazines making the actual deed itself more unlikely instead of addressing points already conceded ?
Click to expand...
re

there are billions of normal capacity magazines in circulation. The gun banners know they cannot prevent criminals from getting them. They just want to turn honest gun owners into criminals
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. How are gun owners benefited by the continuation of mass shootings? The only people who benefit from those massacres are the gun banners
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed that. They commented that your complete resistance to ANY limitations on peoples access to guns/ammunition struck them as selfish and inconsiderate considering the amount of people being gunned down by people intent on mass murder
 
oneworld2 said:
Nobody claimed that. They commented that your complete resistance to ANY limitations on peoples access to guns/ammunition struck them as selfish and inconsiderate considering the amount of people being gunned down by people intent on mass murder
Click to expand...

Its easy for gun banners to claim those of us who don't want to cede our rights as selfish. IN reality, the truly selfish people are those who want OTHERS to make sacrifices for stupid ideas that won't do any good

and its a LIE to claim that we oppose any limitations. People like us are the ones that want CRIMINALS punished and prosecuted for violating substantive laws.
 
oneworld2 said:
Nobody claimed that. They commented that your complete resistance to ANY limitations on peoples access to guns/ammunition struck them as selfish and inconsiderate considering the amount of people being gunned down by people intent on mass murder
Click to expand...

The pro gun movement does not care about reducing gun deaths.


Not their problem
 
TurtleDude said:
Its easy for gun banners to claim those of us who don't want to cede our rights as selfish. IN reality, the truly selfish people are those who want OTHERS to make sacrifices for stupid ideas that won't do any good

and its a LIE to claim that we oppose any limitations. People like us are the ones that want CRIMINALS punished and prosecuted for violating substantive laws.
Click to expand...

You don't have the monopoly of wanting to see criminals being brought to justice for their crimes even if you are preparerd to twist things so it appears like that to yourself

The question is about prevention IE preventing the crimes by restricting peoples ability to commit them . I have yet to see you propose anything like a limitation so it's not a " lie "

If it were up to me I would disarm ( guns ) everyone in the US and make the penalty for possession of them hit hard. But then again I live in a country where that is the case and mass shootings are like rocking horse sh*t. If you want to carry on fooling yourself that your guns give you a chance against tyrannical governments or they're just fun to have regardless of the death toll their abundance is the result of, fine by me but don't think thst view makes you superior because it doesn't
 
Last edited:
vegas giants said:
The pro gun movement does not care about reducing gun deaths.


Not their problem
Click to expand...

Evidently so but it is a societal problem within the society they live in and therefore they are a part of it even if they or you think they're not
 
oneworld2 said:
You don't have the monopoly of wanting to see criminals being brought to justice for their crimes even if you are preparerd to twist things so it appears like that to yourself

The question is about prevention IE preventing the crimes by restricting peoples ability to commit them . I have yet to see you propose anything like a limitation so it's not a " lie "

If it were up to me I would disarm ( guns ) everyone in the US and make the penalty for possession of them hit hard. But then again I live in a country where that is the case and mass shootings are like rocking horse sh*t. If you want to carry on fooling yourself that your guns give you a chance against tyrannical governments or they're just fun to have regardless of the death toll their abundance is the result of, fine by me but don't think thst view makes you superior because it doesn't
Click to expand...

an interesting perspective from someone who claims to be a libertarian. I am learning that "left wing libertarian" often means socialist authoritarian. What would happen if you tried to throw a lot of formerly peaceful people in jail for years for merely owning guns? I think it would lead to lots and lots of deaths
 
oneworld2 said:
You don't have the monopoly of wanting to see criminals being brought to justice for their crimes even if you are preparerd to twist things so it appears like that to yourself

The question is about prevention IE preventing the crimes by restricting peoples ability to commit them . I have yet to see you propose anything like a limitation so it's not a " lie "

If it were up to me I would disarm ( guns ) everyone in the US and make the penalty for possession of them hit hard. But then again I live in a country where that is the case and mass shootings are like rocking horse sh*t. If you want to carry on fooling yourself that your guns give you a chance against tyrannical governments or they're just fun to have regardless of the death toll their abundance is the result of, fine by me but don't think thst view makes you superior because it doesn't
Click to expand...

And which country is that?
 
TurtleDude said:
an interesting perspective from someone who claims to be a libertarian. I am learning that "left wing libertarian" often means socialist authoritarian. What would happen if you tried to throw a lot of formerly peaceful people in jail for years for merely owning guns? I think it would lead to lots and lots of deaths
Click to expand...

It's a perspective that has come from a person who lives in a country where there are hardly ever any mass shooting BECAUSE there are really strict rules about gun ownership . It has nothing to do with me being a socialist or libertarian and everything to do with the recognition that if you have the restrictions in place about just what people should be allowed to have in any given society you can prevent a lot of death and destruction.

I don't really rate your capacity to understand peoples positions and find your persistant wish to needle people that disagree with your views to be tedious. Most people , even most libertarians , would recognize that to allow everyone anything they wanted to possess on the grounds that they are, or should be , free to have it as a right would lead to some very dangerous situations within that society.

You would not throw them in jail , you would have an amnesty in which they could give up their weapons and compensate them for the loss/costs as has happened in other countries
 
oneworld2 said:
It's a perspective that has come from a person who lives in a country where there are hardly ever any mass shooting BECAUSE there are really strict rules about gun ownership . It has nothing to do with me being a socialist or libertarian and everything to do with the recognition that if you have the restrictions in place about just what people should be allowed to have in any given society you can prevent a lot of death and destruction.

I don't really rate your capacity to understand peoples positions and find your persistant wish to needle people that disagree with your views to be tedious. Most people , even most libertarians , would recognize that to allow everyone anything they wanted to possess on the grounds that they are, or should be , free to have it as a right would lead to some very dangerous situations within that society.

You would not throw them in jail , you would have an amnesty in which they could give up their weapons and compensate them for the loss/costs as has happened in other countries
Click to expand...

well based on how few "bumpstocks" were turned in, I think your optimism is not well taken
 
apdst said:
And which country is that?
Click to expand...

The UK where I can only recall two mass shootings akin to those seen almost weekly in the US. Europeans have far less gun ownership and far less instances of mass shootings as a result , the US lots of privately owned guns and lots of mass shootings. It's not the only important difference but it is ridiculous imo to ignore the relevance
 
oneworld2 said:
The UK where I can only recall two mass shootings akin to those seen almost weekly in the US. Europeans have far less gun ownership and far less instances of mass shootings as a result , the US lots of privately owned guns and lots of mass shootings. It's not the only important difference but it is ridiculous imo to ignore the relevance
Click to expand...

But, you have as many mass murders, per capita, as The United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom