• 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 just want to save lives

faithful_servant said:
How often do we have to explain this stuff to people like you?? Making it harder for people to legally own and use firearms doesn't stop people from illegally owing and using them. Newtown could have been stopped had the school had an armed campus where the teachers/staff were trained and armed. The idiocy of banning firearms only makes more and easier targets.
Click to expand...

If every school office in the US had a locked gun safe with a couple 12 gauge shotguns and a staff who knew how to use them, school shooters would think twice before selecting their targets.

I've advocated that all school personnel receive weapons training and concealed carry be allowed by personnel. Again, the unknown factor would cause shooters to reconsider.
 
Bucky said:
Yes, notice how Renae deflected the question. She supports lax gun laws but strict drug laws. That is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Well not really..

DUI laws deter people from drinking and driving because once caught.. they lose their license, end up in jail... etc.. and for that time.. they are generally prevented from driving.

A law against murder for example.. works the same way... you murder someone with a handgun or not.. you get caught.. go to jail and during that time.. you are unable to commit further murder against society.

What would be a hypocrisy.. would be if Renae called for say a banning of alcohol.. thinking that it would work..

But that does not appear what she did.
 
jimbo said:
If every school office in the US had a locked gun safe with a couple 12 gauge shotguns and a staff who knew how to use them, school shooters would think twice before selecting their targets.

I've advocated that all school personnel receive weapons training and concealed carry be allowed by personnel. Again, the unknown factor would cause shooters to reconsider.
Click to expand...

I think that we should start a program for former Marines to get them teaching degrees. Then get a few in every school in America with a secured weapon (only becomes available if there is an active shooter) and arm the receptionists with assault rifles. Then put up a BIG sign informing people that they are entering an armed campus and any attempt to harm the children or staff will be met with immediate deadly force.
 
faithful_servant said:
I think that we should start a program for former Marines to get them teaching degrees. Then get a few in every school in America with a secured weapon (only becomes available if there is an active shooter) and arm the receptionists with assault rifles. Then put up a BIG sign informing people that they are entering an armed campus and any attempt to harm the children or staff will be met with immediate deadly force.
Click to expand...

It would certainly would helped at Sandy Hook. Lanza shot his way in and not a thing anybody could do about it but throw pencils at him.

Plenty of time to react. Nothing to do it with.
 
Bucky said:
Yes, notice how Renae deflected the question. She supports lax gun laws but strict drug laws. That is hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Not at all, different things entirely, you're the one trying to run off from your own topic. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Now, tell me Bucky, why is it most mass shootings happen in places where guns aren't allowed?

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun range? A Gun swap meet? How about the policemans ball? What? No?

They always happen where people are disarmed by the laws.
 
Renae said:
Not at all, different things entirely, you're the one trying to run off from your own topic. That's called intellectual dishonesty.

Now, tell me Bucky, why is it most mass shootings happen in places where guns aren't allowed?

Have you ever heard of a mass shooting at a gun range? A Gun swap meet? How about the policeman's ball? What? No?

They always happen where people are disarmed by the laws.
Click to expand...

I don't want to send my children to a school that forces its teachers to be armed or is filled with armed police officers/security officers.
 
Bucky said:
I don't want to send my children to a school that forces its teachers to be armed or is filled with armed police officers/security officers.
Click to expand...

But you'll put your money in a bank that's protected? There's never been a suggestion that teachers would be forced to be armed. That's a strawman.

If there is an active shooter in your child's school, who do you hope shows up first? Let me guess - "armed police officers/security officers"
 
Guns are not going anywhere in the U.S. 4 out of 10 households have a firearm. 1 out of 3 people have a gun. As for the whole, "NRA is evil" thing is concerned, 74% of NRA members support better gun control. However, people are scared of giving an inch/taking a mile. Should millions of millions of people lose their right simply because deranged lunatics killed people? If that is the case, we really need to evaluate the whole driving thing.
 
jimbo said:
It would certainly would helped at Sandy Hook. Lanza shot his way in and not a thing anybody could do about it but throw pencils at him.

Plenty of time to react. Nothing to do it with.
Click to expand...
same at VT. a professor and student barricaded themselves in a room that the shooter tried to enter. an armed 21 year old student or the professor could have easily wasted the shooter before he killed a bunch of people. The Luby's massacre-a lady doctor credibly testified she could have easily taken out the shooter before he killed her parents: due to the ban against CCW at the time she was defenseless.

Most cases of active shooters, armed citizens could have lessened the carnage significantly
 
Bucky said:
I don't want to send my children to a school that forces its teachers to be armed or is filled with armed police officers/security officers.
Click to expand...

so you want your kid to be a sitting duck when some active shooter comes in? the average response time by police is such that a TRAINED shooter can kill almost everyone in an average sized school if he doesn't meet armed resistance. In the case of an untrained shooter-dozens.
 
Bucky said:
I don't want to send my children to a school that forces its teachers to be armed or is filled with armed police officers/security officers.
Click to expand...

You want your kids to be vulnerable? Which is more likely to have a school shooting?

A: A gun free school
B: A school where it's known there are armed responders on campus

Okay, now which school is likely to have the highest death count?

A: The gun free school where the shooter has until first responders arrive and are able to neutralize the threat
B: The armed campus where the shooter is likely to meet armed resistance much faster?

Let's see how you answer the above.
 
TurtleDude said:
same at VT. a professor and student barricaded themselves in a room that the shooter tried to enter. an armed 21 year old student or the professor could have easily wasted the shooter before he killed a bunch of people. The Luby's massacre-a lady doctor credibly testified she could have easily taken out the shooter before he killed her parents: due to the ban against CCW at the time she was defenseless.

Most cases of active shooters, armed citizens could have lessened the carnage significantly
Click to expand...


Cho (VT) is an interesting case in that a gun banning governor (Wilder) had succeeded in implementing a 1 gun a month policy. Cho bought his guns 1 at a time from legitimate FFL's and passed background checks every time, in spite of the fact he was receiving mental health treatment at the time.

The point. There is not much one can do if someone is hell bent on causing chaos. 0
 
TurtleDude said:
same at VT. a professor and student barricaded themselves in a room that the shooter tried to enter. an armed 21 year old student or the professor could have easily wasted the shooter before he killed a bunch of people. The Luby's massacre-a lady doctor credibly testified she could have easily taken out the shooter before he killed her parents: due to the ban against CCW at the time she was defenseless.

Most cases of active shooters, armed citizens could have lessened the carnage significantly
Click to expand...

Her gun was in the car...she was a lawful carrier who followed the law and was rendered defenseless. Had she violated the law and saved lives...she would have been prosecuted. Truly sad.

I knew a guy who claimed he carried on campus. It drove me nuts because I followed the law, but his statement was...if I have to defend myself...god forbid...the state would then have to prosecute him for saving lives.

Stupid of course. The odds were low of even pulling a gun...but interesting point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jimbo said:
Cho (VT) is an interesting case in that a gun banning governor (Wilder) had succeeded in implementing a 1 gun a month policy. Cho bought his guns 1 at a time from legitimate FFL's and passed background checks every time, in spite of the fact he was receiving mental health treatment at the time.

The point. There is not much one can do if someone is hell bent on causing chaos. 0
Click to expand...

He also carefully studied the area he perpetrated his massacre in and chained a set of doors closed to prevent escape. The only law that would have lessened the massacre was getting rid of the law that disarmed the people over 21 years of age on that campus. The gun banners are either delusional or dishonest (or often both) if they claim some laws that restrict honest gun owners would have deterred Cho
 
TurtleDude said:
He also carefully studied the area he perpetrated his massacre in and chained a set of doors closed to prevent escape. The only law that would have lessened the massacre was getting rid of the law that disarmed the people over 21 years of age on that campus. The gun banners are either delusional or dishonest (or often both) if they claim some laws that restrict honest gun owners would have deterred Cho
Click to expand...

There is good news. Virginia now allows guns on campus. Still not in classrooms if I recall.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Young Lanza killed his own mother to steal the guns right?

Please explain how gun control applies to Sandy Hook.
Click to expand...
I'd like to know what 'several guns' have to do with SS? First it was CONFIRMED to be handguns after a period of not being sure. Then all the sudden it's an AR-15.
 
countryboy said:
No you don't, you want to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals. Guns save lives more than they take them. If you truly wanted to save lives, you would want to find solutions that didn't harm law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
I think he wants payback for Seattle's new gun and bullet tax.
 
Bucky said:
This post is a deflection on the fact that more guns = more homicide.

People die from other things, let's ignore the fact people are getting gunned down!
Click to expand...
Well Bucky,my county is very pro gun we were one of the first if not the first to tell Obama and Biden hands off. Guess what? People aren't getting gunned down nor are the streets anywhere running red.
 
Bucky said:
Have mass shootings declined?
Click to expand...

you do know that there are millions upon millions of more semi auto "high capacity" handguns and rifles in circulation now than 25 years ago. there are millions more honest Americans packing pistols legally on our streets than 25 years ago-something like 30+ states allowed CCW in that time period

and guess what accidental and intentional gun shot deaths have DECLINED
 
TurtleDude said:
same at VT. a professor and student barricaded themselves in a room that the shooter tried to enter. an armed 21 year old student or the professor could have easily wasted the shooter before he killed a bunch of people. The Luby's massacre-a lady doctor credibly testified she could have easily taken out the shooter before he killed her parents: due to the ban against CCW at the time she was defenseless.

Most cases of active shooters, armed citizens could have lessened the carnage significantly
Click to expand...

The idea that more guns will decrease gun violence is a childish solution and factual, incorrect.

The gun homicide rate in England and Whales is about one for every 1 million people, according to the Geneva Declaration of Armed Violence and Development, a multinational organization based in Switzerland.

In a population of 56 million, that adds up to about 50 to 60 gun killings annually. In the USA, by contrast, there are about 160 times as many gun homicides in a country that is roughly six times larger in population. There were 8,124 gun homicides in 2014, according to the latest FBI figures.
Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...olence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/

What? You mean less guns will decrease gun violence? WOW!!!!

Here is a fact for you. Alaska has high gun ownership and thus, more people will due from guns. Hawaii has less gun owners and less people die from guns.

The NRA and gun zealots biggest weakness: Logic, statistics, and math.
 
Renae said:
You want your kids to be vulnerable? Which is more likely to have a school shooting?

A: A gun free school
B: A school where it's known there are armed responders on campus

Okay, now which school is likely to have the highest death count?

A: The gun free school where the shooter has until first responders arrive and are able to neutralize the threat
B: The armed campus where the shooter is likely to meet armed resistance much faster?

Let's see how you answer the above.
Click to expand...

More guns will increase gun violence.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.
 
Bucky said:
The idea that more guns will decrease gun violence is a childish solution and factual, incorrect.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...olence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/

What? You mean less guns will decrease gun violence? WOW!!!!

Here is a fact for you. Alaska has high gun ownership and thus, more people will due from guns. Hawaii has less gun owners and less people die from guns.

The NRA and gun zealots biggest weakness: Logic, statistics, and math.
Click to expand...

you keep saying that and you have zero proof. indeed your silly claims run counter to observable reality. that the number of guns have gone way up but violent crime has gone down

people like you howled that allowing more and more citizens carrying concealed weapons would lead to "blood in the street" you were wrong. and as more and more states allowed CCWs, you all continued to spew the same discredited nonsense. when we see anti gun nonsense that flies in the face of years of evidence, we have to assume that the real motivation for gun banners is not the emotionally palatable Public safety but rather something far more sinister-to harass their political enemies
 
Bucky said:
More guns will increase gun violence.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.
Click to expand...

yet factually you fail to prove that

its a faith based mantra you chant and if you actually believe it-then you are ignorant of years of facts, if you don't believe it, then your arguments are dishonest.
 
Bucky said:
The idea that more guns will decrease gun violence is a childish solution and factual, incorrect.



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...olence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/

What? You mean less guns will decrease gun violence? WOW!!!!

Here is a fact for you. Alaska has high gun ownership and thus, more people will due from guns. Hawaii has less gun owners and less people die from guns.

The NRA and gun zealots biggest weakness: Logic, statistics, and math.
Click to expand...

you prove I am right-you whine about the NRA constantly, not criminals, You desire gun bans because you hate the NRA and the fact they support candidates you find distasteful

why cannot you stick to AMERICA. its idiotic to pretend countries like England and their laws matter here
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom