• 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!

I don't understand this on guns?

Absentglare said:
LOL Oh the stupidity of your argument appears completely lost on you. Do you realize the M16 is not sold to the public?
Click to expand...

Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

Actually there are about 200,000 M-16's in existence that the Public, anyone who can own a firearm and chooses too... could buy and own.

Once again, you show your ignorance on the matter. How about stop talking about guns, you don't know **** about gun's or gun control and your petty political posturing is making you look RIGHT foolish.
 
Absentglare said:
I'm very thoughtful and dead serious.

When i see a mass shooting, i want to know how the shooter got the guns. Pro-gun advocates tend to want to bury their heads in the sand and write off the deaths that result.
Click to expand...

You misspelled thoughtful and serious. It should have looked like this:
Absentglare said:
I'm very dishonest and petty .
Click to expand...
/
 
Absentglare said:
I'm very thoughtful and dead serious.

When i see a mass shooting, i want to know how the shooter got the guns. Pro-gun advocates tend to want to bury their heads in the sand and write off the deaths that result.
Click to expand...

And people like you and the OP who pretend look the other way pretending that every state doesn't already have laws on the books regarding mental issues and firearms.
 
Absentglare said:
The pro-gun side views the deaths in such tragedies to be acceptable losses. They're just too cowardly to be honest about it.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with saying it. While any unlawful death is sad and unfortunate, no single death is worth more from a societal stand points than the rights of the citizenry and the legitimacy of the institution of the Constitution. As such, while unfortunate, things like deaths due to someone misusing a firearm, criminals getting away with murder because of the 4th and 5th amendment, or terrorists propaganda being able to be spread because of the 1st are the unfortunate costs of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.

Absentglare said:
I am simply being honest: pro-gun advocates do not view mass shootings as a valid reason to consider gun control.
Click to expand...

I absolutely view mass shootings a potentially valid reason for a form of gun control, within the context of the incident in question and the form of gun control being called for. You seem to be under this assumption that if one does not agree with all forms of gun laws, or does not agree with the specific types being offered, in the wake of a SPECIFIC one of these events then it somehow means they are against ANY form in response to ANY such events.

No, most pro-gun advocates are not in favor of utilizing a mass shooting to pass a gun control regulation that would not have had any direct impact on the particular mass shooting in question, because in such an instance it's clear that the mass shooting is just being used as a cudgel to beat an already present political point. And no, most pro-gun advocates won't be in favor of certain wide ranging and substantial forms of gun regulation that they believe violate the constitution in response to mass shootings. But that's not the same as the broad claim you just made.
 
Absentglare said:
Let's look at this sentence here: "A mass killer is going to find a way."

What way is that? Does it have a 100% chance of success? If we hand out AK47s like candy on halloween, more potential mass killers will have more access to more harmful weaponry. That will have the obvious impact of increasing the frequency and severity of mass shooting events.

You are implicitly assuming that mass shooters are infinitely resourceful- an idealized assumption that is trivially false.
Click to expand...

A good many of them are. Cho obtained his weapons legally while Wilder's one gun a month law was in effect. The Aurora shooter planned for months. The Roseville murderers planned. Some were impulsive. Sandy Hook probably falls into that category.

The same applies to non firearm related mass murders. The Boston bombers. the 9/11 killers, many others planned. Others just drove their automobiles into a crowd.
 
Absentglare said:
I don't know where your numbers are coming from.

It is honest for you to acknowledge the reality of the pro-gun argument w.r.t. mass shootings is that the victims of mass shootings are acceptable casualties, losses of life and limb that society should simply accept.
Click to expand...

My numbers are just mathematical examples. Most studies are in reality estimates. I recognize that. There is no way for anyone to accurately assess the cause and effect of legal gun possession on either side.

What I know is that gun shows and Cracker Barrels never get held up at gunpoint. Schools and gun free zones do.
 
Zyphlin said:
I have no problem with saying it. While any unlawful death is sad and unfortunate, no single death is worth more from a societal stand points than the rights of the citizenry and the legitimacy of the institution of the Constitution. As such, while unfortunate, things like deaths due to someone misusing a firearm, criminals getting away with murder because of the 4th and 5th amendment, or terrorists propaganda being able to be spread because of the 1st are the unfortunate costs of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.



I absolutely view mass shootings a potentially valid reason for a form of gun control, within the context of the incident in question and the form of gun control being called for. You seem to be under this assumption that if one does not agree with all forms of gun laws, or does not agree with the specific types being offered, in the wake of a SPECIFIC one of these events then it somehow means they are against ANY form in response to ANY such events.

No, most pro-gun advocates are not in favor of utilizing a mass shooting to pass a gun control regulation that would not have had any direct impact on the particular mass shooting in question, because in such an instance it's clear that the mass shooting is just being used as a cudgel to beat an already present political point. And no, most pro-gun advocates won't be in favor of certain wide ranging and substantial forms of gun regulation that they believe violate the constitution in response to mass shootings. But that's not the same as the broad claim you just made.
Click to expand...

That's annoying. The most blatant offenders often take someone's name to "personalize" a piece of legislation : The Brady Bill, Teri's Law, Kate's Law, etc.
 
independentusa said:
When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.
Click to expand...

Welcome to gun nut logic.
 
Renae said:
Machine Guns Are Legal: A Practical Guide to Full Auto - The Firearm BlogThe Firearm Blog

Actually there are about 200,000 M-16's in existence that the Public, anyone who can own a firearm and chooses too... could buy and own.

Once again, you show your ignorance on the matter. How about stop talking about guns, you don't know **** about gun's or gun control and your petty political posturing is making you look RIGHT foolish.
Click to expand...

Umm.. your source is some blog, and the number they cite is 20,000, not 200,000. Even if we take that number at face value, that means there's one M16 per 15,000 firearms, or about 0.007%.

The availability of a resource impacts the frequency of that resources use. This is trivially basic cause-and-effect. What you are proving is the overwhelming success of gun control without realizing it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
And people like you and the OP who pretend look the other way pretending that every state doesn't already have laws on the books regarding mental issues and firearms.
Click to expand...

What? No i don't.
 
Absentglare said:
Umm.. your source is some blog, and the number they cite is 20,000, not 200,000. Even if we take that number at face value, that means there's one M16 per 15,000 firearms, or about 0.007%.

The availability of a resource impacts the frequency of that resources use. This is trivially basic cause-and-effect. What you are proving is the overwhelming success of gun control without realizing it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, 20k. I happen to know one of the owners of a fully automatic, no **** M-16. It's kinda fun to shoot actually.
 
Absentglare said:
LOL Oh the stupidity of your argument appears completely lost on you. Do you realize the M16 is not sold to the public?
Click to expand...

If you have a class 3 license,go through some extreme background checks and have the cash then you can get one.
 
Zyphlin said:
I have no problem with saying it. While any unlawful death is sad and unfortunate, no single death is worth more from a societal stand points than the rights of the citizenry and the legitimacy of the institution of the Constitution. As such, while unfortunate, things like deaths due to someone misusing a firearm, criminals getting away with murder because of the 4th and 5th amendment, or terrorists propaganda being able to be spread because of the 1st are the unfortunate costs of the freedoms we enjoy in this country.
Click to expand...

You're right, i am being careless and overgeneralizing. There are many who have a thoughtful view that seeks to balance the freedoms with the consequences.

I just wish it was more common on the pro-gun side. Communication is important and meaningful communication requires some degree of honesty, not just to each other but also to ourselves.

Zyphlin said:
I absolutely view mass shootings a potentially valid reason for a form of gun control, within the context of the incident in question and the form of gun control being called for. You seem to be under this assumption that if one does not agree with all forms of gun laws, or does not agree with the specific types being offered, in the wake of a SPECIFIC one of these events then it somehow means they are against ANY form in response to ANY such events.

No, most pro-gun advocates are not in favor of utilizing a mass shooting to pass a gun control regulation that would not have had any direct impact on the particular mass shooting in question, because in such an instance it's clear that the mass shooting is just being used as a cudgel to beat an already present political point. And no, most pro-gun advocates won't be in favor of certain wide ranging and substantial forms of gun regulation that they believe violate the constitution in response to mass shootings. But that's not the same as the broad claim you just made.
Click to expand...

Well this thinking tends to make the response contingent upon a belief: the belief of whether or not a specific gun control policy could have prevented a major tragedy.

The belief that a "mass shooting is just being used as a cudgel to beat an already present political point" is not necessarily well-founded. I think most people who consider gun control in the wake of a mass shooting are genuinely concerned about preventing the loss of life. Surely there are extremists who adhere to your accusation, but here i will disagree that the generalization is meaningful.
 
katzgar said:
Is missing the point all you got
Click to expand...

Aren't you the one who brought up a weapon that as far as anyone knows has never been involved in a mass shooting in this country?
 
Absentglare said:
We aren't talking about the full set of gun deaths nor gang/drug shootings nor criminals acquiring firearms.

Please notice my language, emphasis mine:



And this is in direct response to the context which established:
Click to expand...

you still have offered no evidence to support your opinion.
you are simply attempting to state your opinion as a fact which fails.

I am still waiting on proof of your accusation.
 
Absentglare said:
Your argument is that access to firearms has no relationship to use of firearms. The stupidity of that assertion is a clear indication of a fallacious argument.
Click to expand...

seeing how mass killings involving guns amounts to 1% of all shootings then yes there is a correlation that having access to firearms doesn't mean people use them for that purpose.
yes you do have a fallacious argument which is why you have yet to offer proof of your initial argument.

I am still waiting for you to either support what you state or retract it.
so far you are simply pushing your opinion as fact.

55 million americans own 265 million guns or so.

26k people were injured by guns (excluding suicide) and 13k were killed.

which shows that the majority of gun owners are not using them.
 
jamesrage said:
If you have a class 3 license,go through some extreme background checks and have the cash then you can get one.
Click to expand...

Right, but the problem with that is if you combine the additional controls with the relative absence of M16s in mass shootings, it actually becomes a rather strong argument for the efficacy of gun control.
 
phattonez said:
Because mass homicides never happen in countries where firearms have been banned. :roll:
Click to expand...
I thought they happened far, far less commonly in peer nations with nearly no guns. Are you setting an absurd bar to try and hide that?
 
Mach said:
I thought they happened far, far less commonly in peer nations with nearly no guns. Are you setting an absurd bar to try and hide that?
Click to expand...

That's actually a fair point, but as I often mention, we can't compare countries as if the only difference is gun laws. In fact, what seems to explain discrepancies in homicides (though not necessarily mass homicides, but probably) is demographics.

Guns_race.png
 
Absentglare said:
Right, but the problem with that is if you combine the additional controls with the relative absence of M16s in mass shootings, it actually becomes a rather strong argument for the efficacy of gun control.
Click to expand...

1.Mass shootings are already rare.
2.So you want only the wealthy to own guns with a de-facto ban average Americans from owning guns?
 
katzgar said:
classic attempt at shell game
Click to expand...

How is it a shell game when you are the one who brought up a weapon that as far as anyone knows was never involved in any mass shooting in the US?
 
independentusa said:
When a non-terrorist uses guns to kill multiple people for no real reason, I often hear the NRA and people who want no regulations concerning gun ownership say that the person was crazy. They add that you should do something about the crazy persons getting guns. Okay, I believe that is true. To kill someone outside war seems to be an act of a crazy person. At the same time the NRA and gun owners who want no regulations say they don't want guns the government from keeping thses same crazy persons from buying as many guns as they want and keeping such guns. I guess for the guns makers this is about having your cake and eating it too. You can blame the crazies and still be able to sell guns to them. But the rest of us have to put up with these kind of attacks? I just don't understand the thinking.
Click to expand...

It's already illegal to sell guns to mentally ill people. It's not the fault of responsible gun owners that the law isn't enforced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom