• 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!

Is It Morally Acceptable to Love Machine Guns?

Rico Suave said:
Statistically your lucky.
Click to expand...

that's really stupid. The vast majority of people who own guns legally will never suffer any injury as a result. More contrarian nonsense from you
 
TurtleDude said:
that's really stupid. The vast majority of people who own guns legally will never suffer any injury as a result. More contrarian nonsense from you
Click to expand...


The best way not to get shot, commit suicide, or have your family members get shot is to not own a gun.

That's the safe and prudent call.
 
eohrnberger said:
You made the claim, and now can't or won't back it up. Pretty vacuous if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
 
Rico Suave said:
The best way not to get shot, commit suicide, or have your family members get shot is to not own a gun.

That's the safe and prudent call.
Click to expand...

except your statistics are crap. far more legal gun owners stop violent crimes by having guns than get hurt with same guns. Look, if you are afraid of your own inability to properly own and use a gun-than don't, but stop telling those of us who are competent that we should not own them. We get the fact you are projecting your own fear of guns and the use of them on others. Its just silly

and I bet deep down what really motivates your position is that you are a Hillary supporter and you don't like the fact that the NRA and gun owners (at least those who take their rights seriously) oppose politicians like her
 
Rico Suave said:
I've done my homework. I'm not doing yours. Typical liberal conceit.
Click to expand...

This isn't "typical liberal conceit". I'm trying to get you to understand how arguments work.

If you make a claim, it is up to YOU and you alone to back up that claim with evidence.

Otherwise, your statement holds no water.
 
Rico Suave said:
The best way not to get shot, commit suicide, or have your family members get shot is to not own a gun.

That's the safe and prudent call.
Click to expand...

the best way to get murdered is to hang around with people who engage in criminal activity. The best way to defend yourself against a violent criminal attack is with a firearm. People who resist attacks are more likely to survive or mitigate physical injury than those who don't and those who use firearms are statistically the least likely to be harmed.

I love people who have no expertise in the use of firearms projecting their ignorance upon those of us who have professional levels of expertise
 
Rico Suave said:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Click to expand...

give a man a firearm and some training he will be able to defend himself for a lifetime. Ban him from owning a gun and he will be dependent on government forever. That's why so many big government nanny staters want to ban guns
 
TheGoverness said:
This isn't "typical liberal conceit". I'm trying to get you to understand how arguments work.

If you make a claim, it is up to YOU and you alone to back up that claim with evidence.

Otherwise, your statement holds no water.
Click to expand...

This is a debate forum not an argument forum it presupposes some knowledge of the facts from each party. I am merely asking you to come to the table similarly armed. It is an easy google search. Now if it were a complicated subject there would be more duty on me to state my case.
 
TurtleDude said:
give a man a firearm and some training he will be able to defend himself for a lifetime. Ban him from owning a gun and he will be dependent on government forever. That's why so many big government nanny staters want to ban guns
Click to expand...


Works more most if not all of the developed world.
 
d0gbreath said:
I looked up. Am i reading this right? The weapon must be manufactured prior to May 19, 1986.

If so I know where I can get a 9mm Uzi.
Click to expand...

Correct a stupid law was passed that changed nothing.
To do so legally will require you pay a big chunk of cash to the Feds, but you can get a "machine gun", another term being used completely wrong by many, rifles and carbines that are semi or select fire are Not machine guns per say, an M2 would be.
 
TurtleDude said:
except your statistics are crap. far more legal gun owners stop violent crimes by having guns than get hurt with same guns. Look, if you are afraid of your own inability to properly own and use a gun-than don't, but stop telling those of us who are competent that we should not own them. We get the fact you are projecting your own fear of guns and the use of them on others. Its just silly

and I bet deep down what really motivates your position is that you are a Hillary supporter and you don't like the fact that the NRA and gun owners (at least those who take their rights seriously) oppose politicians like her
Click to expand...
Whats laughable is that the guy that is proponent of targeting legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would not in any way, shape, or form have the guts to target the actual 'problem' in this country...criminals, thugs, gangs that are actually doing the vast majority of the killing. If you remove the gang culture, the threat from law abiding citizens and firearms is reduced to virtual zero. But...that will never happen.

Mandatory minimum sentencing for violent criminals....time plus 40 years. Implement that and you will see violent crime diminish immediately. Impose RICO stats on gang leadership and send them away for the same amount of time that the guy pulling the trigger gets sent away for...and literally...problem solved.
 
Rico Suave said:
Anal sex with a machine gun is like having unprotected homosexual sex though bad consequences are much more more immediate. God hates people who idolize guns.........
Click to expand...
Wow. You just equated male homosexuals to people that shove guns up their own ass. That should make you popular.

Your points of view throughout this thread have been utterly inane. I hope for you sake you are just blathering on mindlessly as a contrarian...because if you actually BELIEVE anything you have typed in this thread...holy ****.....
 
Rico Suave said:
Works more most if not all of the developed world.
Click to expand...

the purpose of gun control is to control the citizenry. Only fools believe it is to keep criminals disarmed. gun control is an issue about the power of government since criminals, by definition, aren't going to comply with laws. you cannot find a society that became safer after guns were banned.
 
Rico Suave said:
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Deflection, avoidance.

So you cannot back it up. OK! You are doing about as well as the average radicalised obsessed gun control advocate. You never researched it yourself, somebody told you, so you have no history to fall back on. It's called a belief if you wanted to know.

Gust so you know no matter what you pull out the hat has been seen before and refuted right here. This myth started with Dr A Kellerman then of the disreputable CDC. Gun control repeated this piece of garbage reserarh so often despite it having been refute thousands of time Kellerman became know as the teflon doctor.

The 1986 Kellerman study, the source of the famous "43 to 1" ratio, is deceptive in several ways. The basis for comparison in this study is the ratio of "firearm-related deaths" of household members vs. deaths of criminals killed in the home (justifiable homicides). The "firearm-related deaths" in the study include suicides and accidents, neither of which are randomly distributed throughout the population, as the 43 to 1 "risk ratio" would imply.

Since that date there has not been one presentation of this darling of gun control that is worth the paper printed on. They are all without fail junk science and deliberate distortion of claimed results.

Myth #2 - "Guns aren't an effective defense, or, the 43:1 myth" | Buckeye Firearms Association

A gun in the home increases personal safety

Gun control is built on a lie. It stands to reason any claimed success is a lie all on has to do is look for the lie.
 
Casper said:
Correct a stupid law was passed that changed nothing.
To do so legally will require you pay a big chunk of cash to the Feds, but you can get a "machine gun", another term being used completely wrong by many, rifles and carbines that are semi or select fire are Not machine guns per say, an M2 would be.
Click to expand...

under federal law-any firearm that fires more than one shot per trigger pull is a machine gun
 
TurtleDude said:
the purpose of gun control is to control the citizenry. Only fools believe it is to keep criminals disarmed. gun control is an issue about the power of government since criminals, by definition, aren't going to comply with laws. you cannot find a society that became safer after guns were banned.
Click to expand...

But you can find countries that became less safe after guns were introduced. The US and all of Africa for instance.
 
Rico Suave said:
This is a debate forum not an argument forum it presupposes some knowledge of the facts from each party.
I am merely asking you to come to the table similarly armed. It is an easy google search. Now if it were a complicated subject there would be more duty on me to state my case.
Click to expand...

Once again, you clearly don't understand how debates (or arguments; whatever you want to call it) work.

You can't just make a claim, and then not back it up after. I don't care if it's a complicated subject or not, or if it takes a simple Google search, you STILL have to back it up.

Like I said, I'm not doing your homework for you.
 
VanceMack said:
Whats laughable is that the guy that is proponent of targeting legal ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens would not in any way, shape, or form have the guts to target the actual 'problem' in this country...criminals, thugs, gangs that are actually doing the vast majority of the killing. If you remove the gang culture, the threat from law abiding citizens and firearms is reduced to virtual zero. But...that will never happen.

Mandatory minimum sentencing for violent criminals....time plus 40 years. Implement that and you will see violent crime diminish immediately. Impose RICO stats on gang leadership and send them away for the same amount of time that the guy pulling the trigger gets sent away for...and literally...problem solved.
Click to expand...
That almost sounds like Bill's tough on crime law.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
Rico Suave said:
The best way not to get shot, commit suicide, or have your family members get shot is to not own a gun.

That's the safe and prudent call.
Click to expand...

Actually it is not. What you have not shown is that any of your mind movie stuff would not have happened if there was no gun. For those who cannot figure that out a CAUSAL relationship has not been demonstrated and your lie is EXPOSED.
 
eohrnberger said:
That almost sounds like Bill's tough on crime law.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There has never been a mandatory minimum sentencing law and there should be. Prisons for violent offenders are revolving doors. We should get the people out of prison that shouldnt be there (drug users-unless they have committed crimes against others to feed their habit) and fill them with those that belong in there. 1.2 million violent crimes a year still being committed...we obviously arent doing a good enough job.
 
TurtleDude said:
under federal law-any firearm that fires more than one shot per trigger pull is a machine gun
Click to expand...

As with many of the fed definitions they are incorrect.
 
TheGoverness said:
Once again, you clearly don't understand how debates (or arguments; whatever you want to call it) work.

You can't just make a claim, and then not back it up after. I don't care if it's a complicated subject or not, or if it takes a simple Google search, you STILL have to back it up.

Like I said, I'm not doing your homework for you.
Click to expand...

As I said I've done mine. Do yours - don't be a typical liberal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom