• 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!

Charlie Hebdo Massacre illustrates...

HonestJoe said:
No, I’d rather people read what I’m actually writing rather than assuming what I’m saying! I’m not a strawman, I’m a real boy.

My statement: To state that vastly different gun laws can't possibly have any impact on gun crime rates is delusional. End of statement.

If you wish to know my position on any other aspect of the wider gun control debate, why not actually ask me (without the sarcasm)? :roll:
Click to expand...

It’s the domestic availability of guns that I think is relevant, meaning that when unexpected incidents occur – domestic violence, road rage, bar fights etc., there’s a good change the people involved have firearms to hand when can be used to escalate the situation. It also means that if someone decides they are going to commit a crime – burglary, robbing a shop, mugging etc. – they’re more likely to be able to and to want to carry a firearm because they know there is a good chance their targets have them too.
Click to expand...

This indicates you would rather see victims unarmed. If not perhaps you should explain.

I would also like an explanation of how disarming citizens helps prevent crime and prevents criminals from armed crime.
 
OpportunityCost said:
This indicates you would rather see victims unarmed. If not perhaps you should explain.
Click to expand...
It isn’t a zero-sum game. You can’t distinguish between criminals and victims before the event so any increase in availability of firearms will generally increase it on both sides, especially for the majority of incidents where the perpetrators never planned or intended the incident to occur. I actually believe gun culture is more directly significant here. Many Europeans have no desire to own firearms for self-defence while many Americans do. Changing the laws in either place won’t massively impact those levels of desire which is why I don’t make any arguments for major changes to gun laws on either side of the pond.

OpportunityCost said:
I would also like an explanation of how disarming citizens helps prevent crime and prevents criminals from armed crime.
Click to expand...
Criminals are citizens too.

I’ve still not claimed European-style gun laws prevent gun crime though and I’ve not said anything about crime in general. There are significant differences between gun laws in the US and Europe and significant differences in respective gun crime too. Why would anyone consider it impossible for there to be any connection what-so-ever between these two facts?

Or maybe; why would they be so determined to push that position in the context of this debate?
 
HonestJoe said:
It isn’t a zero-sum game. You can’t distinguish between criminals and victims before the event so any increase in availability of firearms will generally increase it on both sides, especially for the majority of incidents where the perpetrators never planned or intended the incident to occur. I actually believe gun culture is more directly significant here. Many Europeans have no desire to own firearms for self-defence while many Americans do. Changing the laws in either place won’t massively impact those levels of desire which is why I don’t make any arguments for major changes to gun laws on either side of the pond.

Criminals are citizens too.

I’ve still not claimed European-style gun laws prevent gun crime though and I’ve not said anything about crime in general. There are significant differences between gun laws in the US and Europe and significant differences in respective gun crime too. Why would anyone consider it impossible for there to be any connection what-so-ever between these two facts?

Or maybe; why would they be so determined to push that position in the context of this debate?
Click to expand...

A few things you seem to be ignoring. No one has a right in this country to disarm someone and remove their right to defend themselves. Criminals will continue to have access to guns whether they are illegal or not.
 
OpportunityCost said:
A few things you seem to be ignoring. No one has a right in this country to disarm someone and remove their right to defend themselves. Criminals will continue to have access to guns whether they are illegal or not.
Click to expand...
There’s only one thing you’re ignoring but it’s everything I’ve been writing. Is it an eyesight issue?

I’M NOT SAYING ANYONE IN THE US SHOULD BE DISARMED.

I’M NOT SAYING GUN LAWS PREVENT ALL CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS.

I WAS RESPONDING TO SOMEONE WHO CLAIMED IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR EUROPEAN GUN LAWS TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON GUN CRIME.

Is anything still unclear?
 
HonestJoe said:
There’s only one thing you’re ignoring but it’s everything I’ve been writing. Is it an eyesight issue?

I’M NOT SAYING ANYONE IN THE US SHOULD BE DISARMED.

I’M NOT SAYING GUN LAWS PREVENT ALL CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS.

I WAS RESPONDING TO SOMEONE WHO CLAIMED IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR EUROPEAN GUN LAWS TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON GUN CRIME.

Is anything still unclear?
Click to expand...

Yep.

To state that vastly different gun laws can't possibly have any impact on gun crime rates is delusional. End of statement.
Click to expand...

An argument for gun control.
 
OpportunityCost said:
An argument for gun control.
Click to expand...
No, a flat statement of fact. It could be used to support an argument for gun control (though certainly not on its own) but that’s not an argument I’m making anyway. It would be perfectly possible for someone to acknowledge that fact but still make a perfectly valid argument against gun control, especially against further gun control in the US.
 
HonestJoe said:
No, a flat statement of fact. It could be used to support an argument for gun control (though certainly not on its own) but that’s not an argument I’m making anyway. It would be perfectly possible for someone to acknowledge that fact but still make a perfectly valid argument against gun control, especially against further gun control in the US.
Click to expand...

What I have said refutes that support. So, yes I did understand what you were saying, I just don't accept it as fact as you do. Gun crime is a frequently used point that ignores the overall picture.
 
blaxshep said:
The mass murders were committed with illegal guns so gun control worked, Brilliant!
Click to expand...

Right, not legal ones like the mass murders we have.
 
jet57 said:
Right, not legal ones like the mass murders we have.
Click to expand...

another error on your part. Its a federal felony for someone to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime of violence. its another charge that can be used to punish the criminal. Of course if you are a gun banner, you want to punish people before they do anything wrong with a gun.

Its amazing that we continue to see the psychobabble that those who are willing to die to kill others (either by police gunfire or an executioner) are somehow going to be stopped by even the most desirable of all gun laws craved by the bannerrhoid movement
 
HonestJoe said:
My statement: To state that vastly different gun laws can't possibly have any impact on gun crime rates is delusional. End of statement.
Click to expand...

The problem with your logic is it not just gun crime rates its crime rates over all. In America gun proliferation has skyrocketed since the misguided gun control crowd started threating the peoples rights, crime rates have dropped year after year, yet in Europe and Australia where guns are on the decline crime rates have increased. Helpless victims make easy targets. You wanna say we have 100 less shooting deaths but 1000 more rapes, assaults, and muggings is a win for gun control have at it. The vastly different gun laws may have an effect on the types of crime but they have little effect if any on the number of crimes, in fact the numbers show gun control results in more crime. The only positive on gun control is it does cut down on suicides or crimes of passion where convenience of opportunity facilitates a shooting. Its hardly worth violating the right of self defense of millions for a handful of lives saved.
 
TurtleDude said:
another error on your part. Its a federal felony for someone to possess a firearm with the intent to use it in a crime of violence. its another charge that can be used to punish the criminal. Of course if you are a gun banner, you want to punish people before they do anything wrong with a gun.

Its amazing that we continue to see the psychobabble that those who are willing to die to kill others (either by police gunfire or an executioner) are somehow going to be stopped by even the most desirable of all gun laws craved by the bannerrhoid movement
Click to expand...

Did the 23 toddlers (to the 1st of May this year so far) have malicious intent when they shot their siblings/relatives?
 
blaxshep said:
The problem with your logic is it not just gun crime rates its crime rates over all. In America gun proliferation has skyrocketed since the misguided gun control crowd started threating the peoples rights, crime rates have dropped year after year, yet in Europe and Australia where guns are on the decline crime rates have increased. Helpless victims make easy targets. You wanna say we have 100 less shooting deaths but 1000 more rapes, assaults, and muggings is a win for gun control have at it. The vastly different gun laws may have an effect on the types of crime but they have little effect if any on the number of crimes, in fact the numbers show gun control results in more crime. The only positive on gun control is it does cut down on suicides or crimes of passion where convenience of opportunity facilitates a shooting. Its hardly worth violating the right of self defense of millions for a handful of lives saved.
Click to expand...

As the number of households which have a gun is actually falling, one can only presume that those who are restocking their arsenals are the particularly paranoid. or gullible.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Did the 23 toddlers (to the 1st of May this year so far) have malicious intent when they shot their siblings/relatives?
Click to expand...

what a stupid comment that has absolutely no relevance to what I said. we get the fact you want to inflict the cowardly gun banning schemes of your effete nation on the USA.
 
Manc Skipper said:
As the number of households which have a gun is actually falling, one can only presume that those who are restocking their arsenals are the particularly paranoid. or gullible.
Click to expand...

LOL keep believing that. Its horsecrap and anyone involved in selling firearms or teaching shooters understands that more and more people-especially women, are buying guns
 
Manc Skipper said:
As the number of households which have a gun is actually falling, one can only presume that those who are restocking their arsenals are the particularly paranoid. or gullible.
Click to expand...

Why is enjoying having a gun and being able to defend yourself if necessary a sign of paranoia for you? As for gullible you brits take the cake, you let the state take away your right to defend yourself.
 
Blaxshep - The mass murders were committed with illegal guns so gun control worked, Brilliant!
Jet57 - Right, not legal ones like the mass murders we have.

This just proves that gun control has nothing to do with saving lives, it sole purpose is to control and infringe upon peoples rights.
 
blaxshep said:
:slapme: OMFG
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know right? The US feeds its own mass murderers with everything they want to kill as many people as they can in as short a time frame as possible.

That doesn't happen in France.
 
blaxshep said:
Why is enjoying having a gun and being able to defend yourself if necessary a sign of paranoia for you? As for gullible you brits take the cake, you let the state take away your right to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

Where is the enjoyment in owning a killing machine that puts your entire household at increased risk?
 
Manc Skipper said:
Where is the enjoyment in owning a killing machine that puts your entire household at increased risk?
Click to expand...

Shooting guns is a great sport and with 300 million gun in the US the number of people killed by have a gun in the house is almost non-existent.
 
TheGoverness said:
Owning a weapon puts your household at a increased risk? How?
Click to expand...
Within the logic of those wishing to ban gun ownership, is the implied idea that evil spirits are attached
to guns that personify the gun, and restrict human judgement.:mrgreen:
 
longview said:
Within the logic of those wishing to ban gun ownership, is the implied idea that evil spirits are attached
to guns that personify the gun, and restrict human judgement.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...




:lamo


i-lold001.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom