• 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!

Gun sales are up in El Paso and concealed carry classes are packed

Lursa said:
That's right...it's not a problem for me. If it's a problem for you, assess your own risks and decide on your own preparations and protection. No one says that guns are the only means...but at the right time and in the right circumstances, they are indeed the best means.
Click to expand...
Again, I know this is YOUR conclusion, it is not a problem if more guns=more homicides. You don't have to keep on telling me that it id not a problem to you. It is why you were able to ask the question in the first pace.

And your insults are indicative of a weakening argument.
Click to expand...
I didn't lose the argument, I got you to admit that more guns=more homicides is not a problem for you. You are not concerned with increased levels of homicides as a result of great gun prevalence.

The failure of Prohibition and the War on Drugs are directly relevant.
Click to expand...
I did not say they were irrelevant, I said that police homicides increased. Apparently, that is not a problem to you.

You value the lives of 'other people' more than gun owners.
Click to expand...
You have nothing to base that on, especially when the studies I presented CONCLUDE that those who own guns increase their own levels of death.

Your personal fear enables you to just lump regular gun-owning citizens with criminals.
Click to expand...
The studies I present "lumped" together all in a society, all increased gun ownership and all gun related deaths. I have no fear about staying on the point of the argument
Oh well...that's nothing to be proud of but I hope at least you'll own it.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that others bring up facts that you deny, that you cannot stay on the point.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
It isn’t about what I do or don’t believe, it’s about you being able to support your assertion.


Whaaat? You want to try that again, in a coherent manner?


Silly Lursa, I’m not avoiding anything. I’ve been clear in my position from the beginning. Your inability to comprehend isn’t my fault.
Click to expand...

You just repeated yourself. I dont need to prove my statement to make my point: I asked you how requiring training for cc permits prevents gun crime/violence.

That you seem to pretend that the distinction that 'cc' applies to incidents in public and not at home doenst exist indicates you really dont want to address my question.

The 'position' I questioned was you stating you believed that cc permits should require training. I asked why, if training isnt needed to commit gun crimes/violence.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, I know this is YOUR conclusion, it is not a problem if more guns=more homicides. You don't have to keep on telling me that it id not a problem to you. It is why you were able to ask the question in the first pace.

I didn't lose the argument, I got you to admit that more guns=more homicides is not a problem for you. You are not concerned with increased levels of homicides as a result of great gun prevalence.

I did not say they were irrelevant, I said that police homicides increased. Apparently, that is not a problem to you.

You have nothing to base that on, especially when the studies I presented CONCLUDE that those who own guns increase their own levels of death.

The studies I present "lumped" together all in a society, all increased gun ownership and all gun related deaths. I have no fear about staying on the point of the argumentI'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that others bring up facts that you deny, that you cannot stay on the point.
Click to expand...

You cant convince someone to support gun control when they say gun homicides are not their problem. It is like trying to convince someone to expand social services when they say the poor are not the problem.


They just dont care
 
Lursa said:
Basically what they say is, 'if there are guns, there are homicides committed with guns.' :doh
Click to expand...
Well geez, you were JUST DENYING that as a fact, now you sluff it off with a "so what?"

What specifically about those studies applies to this discussion on people choosing to use firearms to protect themselves from other people with guns?
Click to expand...
Good grief, it applies DIRECTLY to your argument that there are NO PROBLEMS associated with increased gun prevalence!

Why in the hell can't you remember what point YOU and I are debating?

Are you saying that adult Americans dont have the right or capability to make that decision?
Click to expand...
I am showing that there IS A PROBLEM with increased levels of gun ownership, ie, higher levels of gun homicides. The trade-off is more deaths. That, according to you, after you deny it, is NOT A PROBLEM.

And accept the risks and consequences?
Click to expand...
Um, you are not accepting either, you deny the studies.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, I know this is YOUR conclusion, it is not a problem if more guns=more homicides. You don't have to keep on telling me that it id not a problem to you. It is why you were able to ask the question in the first pace.

I didn't lose the argument, I got you to admit that more guns=more homicides is not a problem for you. You are not concerned with increased levels of homicides as a result of great gun prevalence.

I did not say they were irrelevant, I said that police homicides increased. Apparently, that is not a problem to you.

You have nothing to base that on, especially when the studies I presented CONCLUDE that those who own guns increase their own levels of death.

The studies I present "lumped" together all in a society, all increased gun ownership and all gun related deaths. I have no fear about staying on the point of the argumentI'm sorry that you can't handle the fact that others bring up facts that you deny, that you cannot stay on the point.
Click to expand...

WHat facts did I deny?

I never claimed that more guns=more homicides wasnt or was a problem for me *initially*. It wasnt the basis for discussion, you asked me that later. It seems ludicrous to believe that if there are guns, there wont be deaths. At minimum, people use them for self-defense. :roll: LOL, so you did fail there.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
No. If you give everyone a nuclear bomb and one or two crazies among them end up blowing up a couple of cities, that's all you for being stupid.

All dangerous tools and equipment, from nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, to chainsaws and semi trucks, have some commonsense laws and regulations. When they don't, it quickly becomes clear through the consequences. I am not sure why guns are different. The consequences of this free-for-all gun culture are really starting to sting, and starting to speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

There are far more restrictions on guns than chainsaws
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Well geez, you were JUST DENYING that as a fact, now you sluff it off with a "so what?"

Good grief, it applies DIRECTLY to your argument that there are NO PROBLEMS associated with increased gun prevalence!

Why in the hell can't you remember what point YOU and I are debating?

I am showing that there IS A PROBLEM with increased levels of gun ownership, ie, higher levels of gun homicides. The trade-off is more deaths. That, according to you, after you deny it, is NOT A PROBLEM.

Um, you are not accepting either, you deny the studies.
Click to expand...

You arent showing a 'problem.' You are showing that you think you and/or the govt know better the risks that persons and families live with. And dont respect them/us enough to make our own decisions and to accept the responsibilities and consequences of those decisions.

Where did anyone ever write there were 'no problems' associated with gun ownership? There are many responsibilities and safety concerns. But you have not remotely convinced me that your concerns or those studies affect most people. Certainly not to any extent where the govt should have the right to interfere with the risk assessments and decisions of individuals who know their own situations and capabilities.

You seem to want some nanny state where the govt is 'protecting people from themselves' when in reality, the govt isnt capable of doing so...because, again: the criminals will always have guns and even if they dont, they can have other means and weapons to threaten individuals, women, families where guns could protect us. (see: Prohibition, The War on Drugs. Dismiss history all you want...it's reality)

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
 
Lursa said:
WHat facts did I deny?
Click to expand...
You denied the CONCLUSIONS, you even went so far as to say there were no conclusions presented, that the summaries presented contained NO CONCLUSIONS.

It is absurdity, reality denial, Trump-style.

I never claimed that more guns=more homicides wasnt or was a problem for me.
Click to expand...
That is a complete lie, you stated the increases were not a problem.

It seems ludicrous to believe that if there are guns, there wont be deaths.
Click to expand...
OMGawd....! You demanded proof, and then denied there were conclusions in the proof, and then said the conclusions are not a problem.


At minimum, people use them for self-defense. :roll: LOL, so you did fail there.
Click to expand...
Yes, that IS the minimum, whereas homicides includes murders, accidental deaths, suicides, etc.....which outnumber "self-defense" homicides.
 
Lursa said:
You arent showing a 'problem.'
Click to expand...
We have already gone over this, this increased levels of homicides....is not a problem to you, you deny that this increased level of death...is a problem.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You denied the CONCLUSIONS, you even went so far as to say there were no conclusions presented, that the summaries presented contained NO CONCLUSIONS.

It is absurdity, reality denial, Trump-style.

That is a complete lie, you stated the increases were not a problem.

OMGawd....! You demanded proof, and then denied there were conclusions in the proof, and then said the conclusions are not a problem.


Yes, that IS the minimum, whereas homicides includes murders, accidental deaths, suicides, etc.....which outnumber "self-defense" homicides.
Click to expand...

My answers have not changed, now you are whining that you didnt like what you read.

And as further evidence that you are choosing your own conclusions of convenience...I'm a Democrat, and not remotely a supporter of The Donald.

Ask some direct questions or stop complaining you didnt like my answers.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We have already gone over this, this increased levels of homicides....is not a problem to you, you deny that this increased level of death...is a problem.
Click to expand...

What 'increases?' If there are guns, they are going to be used, for crimes or self-defense, etc. That's reality. It's not a surprise.

Hey: if there are cars, there are going to be increased deaths due to cars :doh

That 'fact' is not a problem for me. It's a reality. I'm not the one in denial.

A 'problem' would be if there was further legislation restricting my ability to protect myself and family from those realities.
 
ataraxia said:
No. If you give everyone a nuclear bomb and one or two crazies among them end up blowing up a couple of cities, that's all you for being stupid.

All dangerous tools and equipment, from nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, to chainsaws and semi trucks, have some commonsense laws and regulations. When they don't, it quickly becomes clear through the consequences. I am not sure why guns are different. The consequences of this free-for-all gun culture are really starting to sting, and starting to speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

But, we aren't discussing nuclear weapons. We're talking about firearms. Bringing up nuclear weapons is the "you're a nazi" argument of the gun control debate.
 
ataraxia said:
Yeah, only because Trump banned them. If Obama had done it, you would have been having seizures right now.

He now says he is going to be able to get most Republicans behind him too for further measures on things like better background checks. And you will love them all, because it's Trump doing it!

Yay! Thank you president Trump!:lamo
Click to expand...

It won't happen.
 
Lursa said:
My answers have not changed, now you are whining that you didnt like what you read.
Click to expand...
No, I do not like to read peoples denials that more guns=more homicides....and then admit it is not a problem.

And as further evidence that you are choosing your own conclusions of convenience...I'm a Democrat, and not remotely a supporter of The Donald.
Click to expand...
I did not say you support the asshole, I said you are denying reality...like the asshole.

Ask some direct questions or stop complaining you didnt like my answers.
Click to expand...
I have no further questions to ask, I have my answer, increased levels of homicides as a result of greater gun prevalence is NOT A PROBLEM for you. You are OK with the increased levels of deaths.
 
Lursa said:
You just repeated yourself. I dont need to prove my statement to make my point: I asked you how requiring [/B]training for cc permits prevents gun crime/violence[/B].
Click to expand...
What was being discussed was training vs no training at all. My position is that a person with even just “some” training is going to be safer than someone with no training at all. If you disagree with that, I’d seriously question your logic skills.

Lursa said:
That you seem to pretend that the distinction that 'cc' applies to incidents in public and not at home doenst exist indicates you really dont want to address my question.
Click to expand...
Plainly stated, I’m far less personally concerned with someone blowing their foot off in their own home than I (or anyone else) am being accidentally shot by that same untrained person out in town.

Lursa said:
The 'position' I questioned was you stating you believed that cc permits should require training. I asked why, if training isnt needed to commit gun crimes/violence.
Click to expand...
Because bad guys don’t necessarily have training, why should good guy’s be required to have training?? Are you serious?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, I do not like to read peoples denials that more guns=more homicides....and then admit it is not a problem.

I did not say you support the asshole, I said you are denying reality...like the asshole.

I have no further questions to ask, I have my answer, increased levels of homicides as a result of greater gun prevalence is NOT A PROBLEM for you. You are OK with the increased levels of deaths.
Click to expand...

Dont incorrectly paraphrase what I wrote just to try and look "right" on the Internetz. This was my answer:

What 'increases?' If there are guns, they are going to be used, for crimes or self-defense, etc. That's reality. It's not a surprise.

Hey: if there are cars, there are going to be increased deaths due to cars

That 'fact' is not a problem for me. It's a reality. I'm not the one in denial.

A 'problem' would be if there was further legislation restricting my ability to protect myself and family from those realities.​

I dont care that you dont like it, that should be obvious by now but that you dont accept reality doesn't give you the moral High Ground.
 
Lursa said:
What 'increases?' If there are guns, they are going to be used, for crimes or self-defense, etc. That's reality. It's not a surprise.
Click to expand...
and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

Hey: if there are cars, there are going to be increased deaths due to cars :doh
Click to expand...
and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

That 'fact' is not a problem for me. It's a reality. I'm not the one in denial.
Click to expand...
and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

A 'problem' would be if there was further legislation restricting my ability to protect myself and family from those realities.
Click to expand...
And yet, the reality is, your family faces a greater risk of death from your own firearm.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
What was being discussed was training vs no training at all. My position is that a person with even just “some” training is going to be safer than someone with no training at all. If you disagree with that, I’d seriously question your logic skills.
Click to expand...
It was in the context of cc'ing. And as I've mentioned, that has not particularly arisen as an issue (accidents in public). Not that I've seen.

But when I entered the conversation, I asked about how training for cc'ers affected gun violence/crime...meaning THAT aspect of safety. And I was pretty specific about that.


Plainly stated, I’m far less personally concerned with someone blowing their foot off in their own home than I (or anyone else) am being accidentally shot by that same untrained person out in town.
Click to expand...
Again: perhaps I didnt address that aspect because I have not seen it rise to any level of public safety concern. Of course it might happen, but of the millions that have permits...it must be rare.

Because bad guys don’t necessarily have training, why should good guy’s be required to have training?? Are you serious?
Click to expand...

That was not the context of the conversation. It was directly related to justifying the need for training for cc'ers to prevent gun violence/crime.

I'm not aware of anyone that doesnt believe that training is a positive thing.
 
Lursa said:
Dont incorrectly paraphrase what I wrote just to try and look "right" on the Internetz. This was my answer:

What 'increases?' If there are guns, they are going to be used, for crimes or self-defense, etc. That's reality. It's not a surprise.

Hey: if there are cars, there are going to be increased deaths due to cars

That 'fact' is not a problem for me. It's a reality. I'm not the one in denial.

A 'problem' would be if there was further legislation restricting my ability to protect myself and family from those realities.​

I dont care that you dont like it, that should be obvious by now but that you dont accept reality doesn't give you the moral High Ground.
Click to expand...
First it asks "is there a problem?", it gets proof of the problem after it demands the proof, it denies the proof has a conclusion, it then says the increased deaths are not a problem for it after it understands those are the conclusions. It then ironically makes noises about others not accepting "risks and responsibilities". This contrived turning yourself inside out is absurd.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

and yet, again, you demanded PROOF that more guns=more homicides. If it wasn't a "surprise" when I said it RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, you....YOU....would not have demanded proof. And the kicker remains, you denied those same conclusions.

And yet, the reality is, your family faces a greater risk of death from your own firearm.
Click to expand...
You repeating yourself. My replies remain unchanged, as you have not challenged them any further:

Lursa said:
Dont incorrectly paraphrase what I wrote just to try and look "right" on the Internetz. This was my answer:

What 'increases?' If there are guns, they are going to be used, for crimes or self-defense, etc. That's reality. It's not a surprise.

Hey: if there are cars, there are going to be increased deaths due to cars

That 'fact' is not a problem for me. It's a reality. I'm not the one in denial.

A 'problem' would be if there was further legislation restricting my ability to protect myself and family from those realities.​

I dont care that you dont like it, that should be obvious by now but that you dont accept reality doesn't give you the moral High Ground.
Click to expand...

Lursa said:
You arent showing a 'problem.' You are showing that you think you and/or the govt know better the risks that persons and families live with. And dont respect them/us enough to make our own decisions and to accept the responsibilities and consequences of those decisions.

Where did anyone ever write there were 'no problems' associated with gun ownership? There are many responsibilities and safety concerns. But you have not remotely convinced me that your concerns or those studies affect most people. Certainly not to any extent where the govt should have the right to interfere with the risk assessments and decisions of individuals who know their own situations and capabilities.

You seem to want some nanny state where the govt is 'protecting people from themselves' when in reality, the govt isnt capable of doing so...because, again: the criminals will always have guns and even if they dont, they can have other means and weapons to threaten individuals, women, families where guns could protect us. (see: Prohibition, The War on Drugs. Dismiss history all you want...it's reality)

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
You repeating yourself. My replies remain unchanged, as you have not challenged them any further:
Click to expand...
No, they have not, you first denied that a problem existed, you then said the problem is not a problem for you. Your replies have been inconsistent absurdities.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
First it asks "is there a problem?", it gets proof of the problem after it demands the proof, it denies the proof has a conclusion, it then says the increased deaths are not a problem for it after it understands those are the conclusions. It then ironically makes noises about others not accepting "risks and responsibilities". This contrived turning yourself inside out is absurd.
Click to expand...

Thank you Buffalo Bill :lamo :lamo

Oh the irony, you've been reduced to communicating like a serial killer in a thread about killing. Well, at least he didnt use guns so I cant call you a hypocrite! :lamo
 
Gimmesometruth said:
No, they have not, you first denied that a problem existed, you then said the problem is not a problem for you. Your replies have been inconsistent absurdities.
Click to expand...

My replies are there for all to read. I even just consolidated them for their viewing convenience.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much! But you're probably right, IMO you didnt make your argument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean you refuted mine.
 
Lursa said:
My replies are there for all to read. I even just consolidated them for their viewing convenience.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much! But you're probably right, IMO you didnt make your argument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean you refuted mine.
Click to expand...
Good grief, when it asks if a problem exists, denies the problem, demands proof, denies the proof to the point of claiming the proof contains no conclusions.....and then states over and over again that the problem is not really a problem for itself.....then yeah, I made my argument....and won the argument.

Next up: "Taking precautions is no proof that risks exist"
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Good grief, when it asks if a problem exists, denies the problem, demands proof, denies the proof to the point of claiming the proof contains no conclusions.....and then states over and over again that the problem is not really a problem for itself.....then yeah, I made my argument....and won the argument.

Next up: "Taking precautions is no proof that risks exist"
Click to expand...

..
Lursa said:
My replies are there for all to read. I even just consolidated them for their viewing convenience.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much! But you're probably right, IMO you didnt make your argument. The fact that you disagree with me does not mean you refuted mine.
Click to expand...
...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom