• 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!

Report: At least 3 killed, shooter dead, after attack at California school

disneydude said:
There are many things that have been proposed that don't involve banning gun ownership....the NRA opposes all of them and pays off Congress to oppose them. You can start with gun registration (like Auto registration), bans on high capacity magazine, mental health screening (things like Trump wants to do away with). Waiting periods to purchase weapons, national registry to stop people from going state to state to amass ammunition in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

You want to trample my rights.

/conversation about guns
 
disneydude said:
The death penalty wouldn't prevent a single murder. Do you honestly believe that someone thinks rationally about killing and decides that the risk of getting the death penalty is too great a risk? That's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

If they're dead, they'll never kill anyone again. So yes, the death penalty would prevent lots of murders.
 
disneydude said:
No rant. Just not going to be silenced by the usual line that its "too soon" to talk about gun violence in America.
Click to expand...

Pretending right wingers and the NRA are not behind measures - at all - to prevent mass shootings is a strawman. That's obvious. Anyone can see it. Conservatives and NRA members right here, in this thread, are offering ways to address the problem. Everyone can plainly see your denial of the strawman, like the post, is dishonest.

You can't just lie and then pretend that lie supports your rant. It's pathetic.
 
gdgyva said:
so a domestic dispute that went into the nth degree

the anger of people is the highest i can ever remember

why? we live easier lives today than our parents did

we have more, and for most of us, we have more choices than ever before

is life easy? hell no...never has been, and never will be i assume

so why are we so "trigger" happy today....ready to blow up in a moments notice

hell...you see it in videos on the internet all the time....a clerk gets an order wrong and the customer goes ballistic

no one has patience, no one seems to have any degree of self control.....

we have become our worst enemies....in every sense of the word

something has to change, and "gun control" to me isnt the answer we need

could that help in a few cases? maybe? but angry bitter people are the problem

solving that is a lot more complicated
Click to expand...

Too much social media - no real people to people interactions.
 
Lursa said:
No the shooter you used in your example, TX church shooter.

(But I dont believe CA has the DP)
Click to expand...

Kelley tried to kill his stepson. He should have gotten 20 years for. He wouldn't have been free to shoot up that church house.
 
disneydude said:
The death penalty wouldn't prevent a single murder. Do you honestly believe that someone thinks rationally about killing and decides that the risk of getting the death penalty is too great a risk? That's just ridiculous.
Click to expand...

But you think a bunch of criminals will stop using guns and suddenly obey laws if we limit magazine size, do a background check, and require registration of guns. And that's not ridiculous?
 
apdst said:
Kelley tried to kill his stepson. He should have gotten 20 years for. He wouldn't have been free to shoot up that church house.
Click to expand...

Your post was about the DP. Dont change the goal posts.
 
apdst said:
If they're dead, they'll never kill anyone again. So yes, the death penalty would prevent lots of murders.
Click to expand...

Lots? You'd have to show that lots of murderers are released from prison and kill again to back that up.
Back when there wasn't a prison option they'd publically execute criminals in the town square once a month or whatever and while the townsfolk watched thieves being executed pickpockets would be working the crowd.
Also, if the death penalty deters murder than capital punishment states must have lower violent crime rates. I wonder if that's true.
 
Chillfolks said:
But you think a bunch of criminals will stop using guns and suddenly obey laws if we limit magazine size, do a background check, and require registration of guns. And that's not ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Who's going to take the high cap magazines from the criminals? Who's going to make the criminals register their guns? Who's going to make them submit to a background check when they can just steal a gun? That stuff only penalizes the law-abiding.
 
Chillfolks said:
But you think a bunch of criminals will stop using guns and suddenly obey laws if we limit magazine size, do a background check, and require registration of guns. And that's not ridiculous?
Click to expand...

What should be done then?
 
apdst said:
You want to trample my rights.

/conversation about guns
Click to expand...

:bs

Why do all Constitutionally-confused conservative say stupid things like this?

[the above is a rhetoric question]
 
Grand Mal said:
Lots? You'd have to show that lots of murderers are released from prison and kill again to back that up.
Back when there wasn't a prison option they'd publically execute criminals in the town square once a month or whatever and while the townsfolk watched thieves being executed pickpockets would be working the crowd.
Also, if the death penalty deters murder than capital punishment states must have lower violent crime rates. I wonder if that's true.
Click to expand...

Oh, that must mean that you are ok with with convicted murderers possessing firearms. Yes?
 
ultmd said:
:bs

Why do all Constitutionally-confused conservative say stupid things like this?

[the above is a rhetoric question]
Click to expand...

Because it's true. The first thing anti-gunners want to do is ban something. They offer zero alternatives.
 
Grand Mal said:
Lots? You'd have to show that lots of murderers are released from prison and kill again to back that up.
Back when there wasn't a prison option they'd publically execute criminals in the town square once a month or whatever and while the townsfolk watched thieves being executed pickpockets would be working the crowd.
Also, if the death penalty deters murder than capital punishment states must have lower violent crime rates. I wonder if that's true.
Click to expand...

Those questions have been answered....long ago. I'm sure you probably already know this.

The death penalty does NOT serve as a deterrent, and states with the DP do NOT have lower crime rates.

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates
 
apdst said:
Because it's true. The first thing anti-gunners want to do is ban something. They offer zero alternatives.
Click to expand...

More nonsense. You're not talking about your Constitutional Rights. You're talking about your feelings, which are of no concern to most Americans. Even large majorities of gun owners support enhanced gun control.

Fact is, no one is really talking about banning all guns. But some types DO need to be banned. That constitutionality of gun bans was resolved by the USSC 70 years ago.

Many other proposals have NOTHING to do with 2nd Amendment rights. Mandatory standardized federal background checks......Limitations (or bans) on large capacity magazines..........Mandatory registration of weapons.......closing the so-called "gun show loophole"...........mandatory reporting of all gun crimes into a national database...........etc. etc, etc....

NONE of those proposals violate the 2nd Amendment.

And LITERALLY almost everyone agrees with that.

The problem isn't with "your rights" here. The problem is with the feelings of irrational NRA nuts who stand in opposition to the will of about 70-80% of the public....including most gun owners.
 
gdgyva said:
Not a gun problem....a mental health problem, and we need to solve it fast
Click to expand...

Then solve it since you already know the problem. If it was a problem of not wearing seat belts then you pass laws mandating everyone wear seat belts.

So, pass laws every American (every single one) over x age (say 5 years of age) must go through extensive psychological examination every 6 months. Not damn rocket science. Assuming your tall tale is true.

My heart goes out to the parents and families
Click to expand...

I don't believe you.

Use if, then statements. Like if it is a gun problem lets ban all guns and have all homes and properties searched for them, all firearms found confiscated, and all firearms destroyed.

If your heart truly went out to parents and victims and wanted to end all of this as best possible for the future, then you would be will to have the US Government go through whatever lengths to solve the problem. You would also be willing to sacrifice your right to own firearms to resolve this problem of mass shootings.

What I think is you are in thespian role, like Hollywood actors, and you want what you want more than you *truly* care for families and victims and desire to end mass shootings. Which is fine, but stop pretending and be honest.

People are shot everyday in the USA. Everyday. All across the country. Are they all mentally ill? If so make it law all Americans have to undergo intense psych exams every 2 or 3 or 6 or 9 months. Make the tax payer pay. Stop BSing if you know the problem and you know solution.

(This is all aside from you probably having no problem arming thugs across the earth in countries like Syria and having kids and people over their shot to death but act hypocritical when it happens over here.)

Guns are part of the problem in terms of they are often the tools used. But of themselves guns are not the problem. And "mental health" is not the problem either and you all know it. There are what... 365 days in a year? In just Milwaukee alone roughly 400 to 600 people every year are shot (not necessarily killed). That's every year since about what? The late 1980s maybe? Is every single day in Milwaukee a result of mass mental health problems? No, according to whites and blacks its: Because no fathers are in the home.

No fathers in the home = BS line so nothing is done to change a damn thing.

Mental health problem = BS line so nothing is done to change a damn thing.




So, every mass shooting you all sing the same pathetic song, "We need to solve the mental health problem." Well do it then. You will be singing the same song 30 years from now. Just like the same song sung about the lack of black fathers (its never mental illness--that is white privilege) in black homes is why black people shoot each other. How long has that last Flamenco song been sung now? Since at least the damn 1980s? It's the year 2017 now.

But you all that claim to know the damn answer, that claim to be able to ace the test with the right answers, refuse to solve the problem even though you claim to have the magic answer. Then worst you all as grown adults year after year want to act like little grade school children that play act "house," and act like you all are sooooooooo sad you are willing fully to do whatever it takes to end these shooting. You all are totally full of it. And I'm not playing along in your childish play acting.

More mass shootings will happen period.

And the next 10,000 times over the next 30 years you all come out and exclaim, "It's mental health issues! We need to solve it!" will be just a Flamenco song and dance you all have done thousands of times before then.


 
ultmd said:
More nonsense. You're not talking about your Constitutional Rights. You're talking about your feelings, which are of no concern to most Americans. Even large majorities of gun owners support enhanced gun control.

Fact is, no one is really talking about banning all guns. But some types DO need to be banned. That constitutionality of gun bans was resolved by the USSC 70 years ago.

Many other proposals have NOTHING to do with 2nd Amendment rights. Mandatory standardized federal background checks......Limitations (or bans) on large capacity magazines..........Mandatory registration of weapons.......closing the so-called "gun show loophole"...........mandatory reporting of all gun crimes into a national database...........etc. etc, etc....

NONE of those proposals violate the 2nd Amendment.

And LITERALLY almost everyone agrees with that.

The problem isn't with "your rights" here. The problem is with the feelings of irrational NRA nuts who stand in opposition to the will of about 70-80% of the public....including most gun owners.
Click to expand...

And when that doesn't do any good you all will want to ban some more types and then more types and more and so on.

The only thing you fokks ever offer are gun bans and lies. Until you have something better...

/conversation on guns.
 
MrPeanut said:
How do you propose we solve it?
Click to expand...

It's not stated--and never is--with an intent for it to be solved. It's stated as a way to deflect from the fact guns are the tools used (usually anyways) and if you want to have gun rights in a country it is also prudent to imbue all (not 1/3) the citizens of that country with a strong sense of morals. To imbue the citizens with a deep sense that no, we can't just do whatever we want (like mass shoot children) and we will not face any consequences in death.

Other than that you will need government in your life to protect you in increasing ways.... such as confiscating as many firearms as they can.

Of course... Americans can live with mass shootings too. Perfectly doable. Inner-city Detroit and Baltimore lives with high daily rates of violence right? Hell, Baltimore population is so small but murder rate so high that multiple people per day must be getting shot (because only a fraction of those shot will die). So, you can live with these things. Adapt to them.




But the *pretending* to be so sad one is so willing to go to whatever lengths to solve the mass shooting problems is just "playing house" like a little kid when play acting together about "mental health." It's a play game that is meant and intended to never have an end or a solution.


 
FastPace said:
Use if, then statements. Like if it is a gun problem lets ban all guns and have all homes and properties searched for them, all firearms found confiscated, and all firearms destroyed.
Click to expand...

I wonder if this approach would work? Hmmmm, let's see, when have we tried doing this in the past? Let's substitute alcohol for guns in your sentence. Or or or! Heroin!

Like if it is a heroin problem lets ban all heroin and have all homes and properties searched for them, all heroin found confiscated, and all heroin destroyed.

We have no more heroin in the US now, right? (And that even ignores the rampant Constitutional infringements implied in your sentence).

FastPace said:
People are shot everyday in the USA. Everyday. All across the country.
Click to expand...

In even higher numbers, people are injured and killed by personal vehicles everyday in the USA. Everyday. All across the country.

So why arent we implementing your solution for that? (er, and we dont 'need' cars, not to the extent that we use them constantly here in the US. Many western nations use them much much less. It's about lifestyle choices. There are people here in the US that do make that choice, some that dont have them altogether...so if we all *really really cared* we could lower those numbers by a huge margin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom