• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • 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!

Why gun control?

Lursa said:
So if I dont lock my door, but I get robbed, it's my fault?
Click to expand...

Legally and semantically, no...but in the real world, yes. If you drive down a city street with a pickup truck full of hundred-dollar bills and you get robbed, the law says it's not your fault...but everyone knows that yeah, it was pretty stupid to do present such temptation to others.

Everyone on here knows my views on gun control (strongly FOR increased gun control, btw, and I do not own a gun - don't need one since I live in a safe suburban area), but to not take common-sense measures such as locking the doors in order to protect one's home and family...that's really not smart.
 
Lursa said:
No. I will not. It will remain where it BEST serves its purpose...my personal safety. Odd that you are criticizing me for taking responsibility for my own safety.

I am not to blame for a criminal's actions :mrgreen:

LOL You cant have it both ways...but you think I lack smarts? :lamo
Click to expand...

Then your attitude is part of the reason how and why over 10,000 guns are stolen every single year in this country...and you refuse to do anything about it...Got it.

This whole line of argument started when I brought up the 10,000 guns stolen every year and the need for legal gun owners to be more cautious and protective of their weapons....You just don't care...
 
Rucker61 said:
How well do I have to lock it up?





Do I need to lock up my medicines, knives and drinks cabinet, too?
Click to expand...


Lock it up in the customary and commonly expected manner when you are not there to protect it... just like you would do for something highly valuable. Any fool knows to do that. As for the other items, if you don't want them exposed to being stolen then yes you should.
 
Lursa said:
No. I will not. It will remain where it BEST serves its purpose...my personal safety. Odd that you are criticizing me for taking responsibility for my own safety.
Click to expand...

How does the gun sitting somewhere in your home best serve your purpose when you are not there?

The logic of your post falls apart like a house of cards when the premise of the second sentence is not true. Which it isn't because the gun at home can not protect you when you are away...Amazing that I have to point that fact out to you.

I am not to blame for a criminal's actions :mrgreen:

LOL You cant have it both ways...but you think I lack smarts? :lamo
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
Another looooonnnng post stating that a person is to blame for a crime being committed against them. No matter how much responsibility a person does or does not take, they do not deserve any consequences for being the victim of a crime. Do they end up with consequences? Yes, that's implied by being a victim. :doh But by no means do they deserve those consequences....again, that is clearly blaming the victim. (I cant write this any simpler...please get some assistance if you cant understand this. You used the word 'deserve,' how is it that you dont know what it means?)

And apparently you are the judge of just what precautions a person should take with their safety?

And this used to be in my signature, maybe I should add it back in:

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
Click to expand...

Yes a person is free to be an idiot, but when someone's behavior impacts on others those others have a say...You are not free to cause others harm...allowing your gun to be stolen leads to harm on others. You don't care...All you care about is you.
 
Lursa said:
No one believes that the thief 'cares' about stealing from you. Pretty sure they dont.

And as for my leaving any of my possessions unlocked *in case they might be stolen* being immoral? Wow, way to denigrate morality overall. That's a total BS view.
Click to expand...

It is a totally legitimate view. You are responsible for properly securing your arms. A locked door for your TV is one thing. A locked door for hazardous material is another. It may not be your fault...but you should take basic security more seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
Another looooonnnng post stating that a person is to blame for a crime being committed against them.
Click to expand...

Another post where you apply your own meaning rather than what you were TOLD specifically was the meaning. This is becoming boring. The depths of intellectual dishonest it requires to misapply your own over emotional straw man is STAGGERING.

matter how much responsibility a person does or does not take, they do not deserve any consequences for being the victim of a crime. Do they end up with consequences? Yes, that's implied by being a victim. :doh
Click to expand...

No ****. That’s literally what I said.

But by no means do they deserve those consequences....again, that is clearly blaming the victim. I cant write this any simpler...please get some assistance if you cant understand this. You used the word 'deserve,' how is it that you dont know what it means?)
Click to expand...

No ****. I never said you deserve to or should suffer consequences. In fact...in the post YOU quoted...the word deserve DOES NOT appear. Please show me my use of the word deserve.

I can’t write this any simpler...you are fighting strawmen and you clearly do not understand what is being said.

And apparently you are the judge of just what precautions a person should take with their safety?
Click to expand...

No. But it doesn’t take a genius to understand that someone who fails to adequately store their arms is very susceptible to having them stolen.

And this used to be in my signature, maybe I should add it back in:

"Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free."
Click to expand...

It also means free to suffer the consequences of your decisions. Be they good or bad.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Russell797 said:
Back in the early 1970s the speed limit WAS dropped to 55 mph on all highways...We did it because there was a reason to. There are laws which prohibit young drivers from operating after dark. There are laws which close bars after 2 AM. I certain those affected are not happy with those laws either, but they are put in place because enough people feel they are prudent measures to take.
Click to expand...

There are laws that prevent gay marriage.. their are laws that prevent three women who are unrelated from renting the same house or apartment, there are laws against throwing confetti, and so on. People also thought these laws were prudent as well.
 
Can I just make a stupid point?

While we Do the WHAT IF and there seems to be so many? What if Shark Infested waters, What if not lock your door.


1) If you are a prudent even keel person, and take the NORMAL steps a NORMAL human being to secure yourself, and your valuables. Once a person CHOOSES to commit a crime..... The Criminal Should BE held Responsible.

2) If you are an idiot and you do NOT take steps like a normal prudent person, from securing your front door...or your firearms, or even ignore the DO NOT SWIM sharks..... then you take the risk.....


The real problem is there is NO accountability. To those that are "Dumb" not Negligent (again a big difference) There is NO accountability nor consequences for BEING dumb, Just look on YouTube of people accidental discharging etc. We should Enforce and create consequences for THOSE situations.


If you are negligent yet took proper steps as a "Prudent" person, it is what its and the criminal needs to get their hands chopped off.......


So do the "What if" all you want.... while stupid....... if Lursa, doesnt lock her door, While I am sure she does, as she seems prudent. And someone comes into her home that is just stupid... But if she does lock her door and they break down the door...... you would still blame her?


While NOT addressing the COMMON Factor..... the "COMMON" factor, the person entering her home without permission and intending to do a criminal act... ..You refuse to address the actual criminal act?????
 
Exactice said:
Can I just make a stupid point?

While we Do the WHAT IF and there seems to be so many? What if Shark Infested waters, What if not lock your door.


1) If you are a prudent even keel person, and take the NORMAL steps a NORMAL human being to secure yourself, and your valuables. Once a person CHOOSES to commit a crime..... The Criminal Should BE held Responsible.

2) If you are an idiot and you do NOT take steps like a normal prudent person, from securing your front door...or your firearms, or even ignore the DO NOT SWIM sharks..... then you take the risk.....


The real problem is there is NO accountability. To those that are "Dumb" not Negligent (again a big difference) There is NO accountability nor consequences for BEING dumb, Just look on YouTube of people accidental discharging etc. We should Enforce and create consequences for THOSE situations.


If you are negligent yet took proper steps as a "Prudent" person, it is what its and the criminal needs to get their hands chopped off.......


So do the "What if" all you want.... while stupid....... if Lursa, doesnt lock her door, While I am sure she does, as she seems prudent. And someone comes into her home that is just stupid... But if she does lock her door and they break down the door...... you would still blame her?


While NOT addressing the COMMON Factor..... the "COMMON" factor, the person entering her home without permission and intending to do a criminal act... ..You refuse to address the actual criminal act?????
Click to expand...

By definition if a person takes the proper and prudent steps they are not negligent.

If Lursa locks her door and someone kicks it in then Laura is not negligent. She did what anyone would and should do to protect her property.

But if she left her gun on the front steps she would be negligent, right? If we really wish to reduce the theft of guns, then leaving the gun on the kitchen table is also negligent....in the even that someone does break in, they very well may take that gun just as easily as if it were on the front steps. I bet if she had $500,000 in the house it wouldn't be left on the kitchen table or anywhere other than a locked safe...
 
jaeger19 said:
There are laws that prevent gay marriage.. their are laws that prevent three women who are unrelated from renting the same house or apartment, there are laws against throwing confetti, and so on. People also thought these laws were prudent as well.
Click to expand...

At the time they may have been "prudent". The social norms change with time..What made sense given a world 100 years ago may not apply as well today. Rigidity is a dangerous attitude to have in a world of constantly changing challenges. Treating the written word as dogma is thus a dangerous way to think, rendering us inflexible in times of needed change.
 
Russell797 said:
By definition if a person takes the proper and prudent steps they are not negligent.

If Lursa locks her door and someone kicks it in then Laura is not negligent. She did what anyone would and should do to protect her property.

But if she left her gun on the front steps she would be negligent, right? If we really wish to reduce the theft of guns, then leaving the gun on the kitchen table is also negligent....in the even that someone does break in, they very well may take that gun just as easily as if it were on the front steps. I bet if she had $500,000 in the house it wouldn't be left on the kitchen table or anywhere other than a locked safe...
Click to expand...



Yes, Exactly, I dont understand why we are doing "WHAT IFS" Why dont we address

REAL Prudent Normal Humans vs Idiots and then make consequences for Idiots.... or KNOWN idiots.


If you are deemed a prudent person, that was either negligent and or NOT negligent, but was a victim of a crime.... why should you feel threatened


If you are an idiot and DID NOT take proper steps or have failed on multiple occasions to not take proper steps then this PERSON SHOULD NOT be able to possess a Firearm in my opinion as they are not only a hazard to themselves but to others! This is not a matter of rights its common sense and the failure of security to me that is more forefront than just the 2nd Amendment.

So instead of arguing what I or Lursa, or Turtle dude. MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be doing..... if all 3 of us take proper prudent steps...and I am sure we all do.... What is the issue.

If one of us intentionally, or is KNOWN to consistently NOT take steps to properly secure ourselves...I am sure the 3 of us (just using us as examples) would agree that we may NOT be responsible enough to own a firearm.

This of course is my opinion. With owning a firearm comes a greater responsibility.... in my opinion, I know its a right.... but I know LOTS of people who are NOT responsible enough to own one....
 
Russell797 said:
At the time they may have been "prudent". The social norms change with time..What made sense given a world 100 years ago may not apply as well today. Rigidity is a dangerous attitude to have in a world of constantly changing challenges. Treating the written word as dogma is thus a dangerous way to think, rendering us inflexible in times of needed change.
Click to expand...

Exactly... so what you consider "prudent" today.. might be.. (and quite frankly I know it to be).. not so prudent.

What is prudent.. is asking whether such laws.. are 1. Constitutional and preserve freedom... 2. Are effective.

Your argument seems to be.. ."well other laws have been put in place.. so this seems like a good idea too".
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Legally and semantically, no...but in the real world, yes. If you drive down a city street with a pickup truck full of hundred-dollar bills and you get robbed, the law says it's not your fault...but everyone knows that yeah, it was pretty stupid to do present such temptation to others.

Everyone on here knows my views on gun control (strongly FOR increased gun control, btw, and I do not own a gun - don't need one since I live in a safe suburban area), but to not take common-sense measures such as locking the doors in order to protect one's home and family...that's really not smart.
Click to expand...

Just to point out... leaving your door unlocked...

Is the equivalent of "driving down a city street with a pickup full of one hundred dollar bills".????


Sorry.. but this whole "you are responsible if you get robbed".. argument is just a bit absurd...

Leaving a backdoor to your property unlocked.. is now the equivalent of driving a truck stuffed with loose 100 dollar bills down a city street.

Locking your door and having a firearm in a rack in your bedroom.. is now the equivalent of "jumping into a swarm of sharks" or some such. :doh
 
Exactice said:
Yes, Exactly, I dont understand why we are doing "WHAT IFS" Why dont we address

REAL Prudent Normal Humans vs Idiots and then make consequences for Idiots.... or KNOWN idiots.


If you are deemed a prudent person, that was either negligent and or NOT negligent, but was a victim of a crime.... why should you feel threatened


If you are an idiot and DID NOT take proper steps or have failed on multiple occasions to not take proper steps then this PERSON SHOULD NOT be able to possess a Firearm in my opinion as they are not only a hazard to themselves but to others! This is not a matter of rights its common sense and the failure of security to me that is more forefront than just the 2nd Amendment.

So instead of arguing what I or Lursa, or Turtle dude. MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be doing..... if all 3 of us take proper prudent steps...and I am sure we all do.... What is the issue.

If one of us intentionally, or is KNOWN to consistently NOT take steps to properly secure ourselves...I am sure the 3 of us (just using us as examples) would agree that we may NOT be responsible enough to own a firearm.

This of course is my opinion. With owning a firearm comes a greater responsibility.... in my opinion, I know its a right.... but I know LOTS of people who are NOT responsible enough to own one....
Click to expand...

Except that it not a what if or maybe that more than 10,000 guns are stolen every year...I seriously doubt more than just a few of them are stolen from locked down compartments. They are stolen because they are left exposed. The streets are full of these stolen guns. That's how the criminals who can't get them legally obtain them..they pass around stolen guns or steal them themselves.
 
jaeger19 said:
Exactly... so what you consider "prudent" today.. might be.. (and quite frankly I know it to be).. not so prudent.

What is prudent.. is asking whether such laws.. are 1. Constitutional and preserve freedom... 2. Are effective.

Your argument seems to be.. ."well other laws have been put in place.. so this seems like a good idea too".
Click to expand...

I want highly studied, remedial measures to be put into place which address the problem of 30,000 gun deaths every year. We don't do that...We are not even allowed to have the conversation...not me and you...but in a clinical, scientific setting.
 
Russell797 said:
I want highly studied, remedial measures to be put into place which address the problem of 30,000 gun deaths every year. We don't do that...We are not even allowed to have the conversation...not me and you...but in a clinical, scientific setting.
Click to expand...

We're having that conversation now, and there is nothing to prevent anyone from studying gun violence. The DOJ publishes studies. NGOs publish studies. Even the CDC publishes studies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Can you acknowledge that the solutions to reduce suicide won't likely be the same solutions to reducing intra gang violence, and stop conflating the numbers?
 
Rucker61 said:
We're having that conversation now, and there is nothing to prevent anyone from studying gun violence. The DOJ publishes studies. NGOs publish studies. Even the CDC publishes studies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

Can you acknowledge that the solutions to reduce suicide won't likely be the same solutions to reducing intra gang violence, and stop conflating the numbers?
Click to expand...

Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence - ABC News

To your question, of course. There may be 10s of things we could do, but we will never figure them out is we can't study the problems...All part of a concerted effort to shut up science in this country...
 
Russell797 said:
Here's why the federal government can't study gun violence - ABC News

To your question, of course. There may be 10s of things we could do, but we will never figure them out is we can't study the problems...All part of a concerted effort to shut up science in this country...
Click to expand...

You completely ignored the two CDC studies I linked that have taken place after 1996. The federal government can and does study gun violence.

Here are two more:

https://archive.org/stream/NijGunPolicyMemo/nij-gun-policy-memo_djvu.txt

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vdhb.pdf
 
Last edited:
Rucker61 said:
You completely ignored the two CDC studies I linked that have taken place after 1996. The federal government can and does study gun violence.
Click to expand...

I can tell you didn't read the articles you posted...If you had.............
 
Russell797 said:
I can tell you didn't read the articles you posted...If you had.............
Click to expand...

Read them multiple times. Did you see where the Wilmington study listed causes of the violence in that city, or where the 2003 study said:

"The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review" and "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws"

51 studies couldn't find that the laws were effective. There's only one reason to want more studies, and that's to want more gun control.

Please suggest any new laws that would be Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced.
 
Rucker61 said:
Read them multiple times. Did you see where the Wilmington study listed causes of the violence in that city, or where the 2003 study said:

"The systematic review development team identified 51 studies that evaluated the effects of selected firearms laws on violence and met the inclusion criteria for this review" and "Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these laws"

51 studies couldn't find that the laws were effective. There's only one reason to want more studies, and that's to want more gun control.

Please suggest any new laws that would be Constitutional, effective, enforceable and would be enforced.
Click to expand...

Maybe we don't need more gun laws..Maybe we need more effective social programs which help reduce poverty...Of course you would be against that too, or at least the conservatives would.
 
Russell797 said:
Maybe we don't need more gun laws..Maybe we need more effective social programs which help reduce poverty...Of course you would be against that too, or at least the conservatives would.
Click to expand...

You almost had it right, but you had to toss the little personal attack in there.
 
Rucker61 said:
You almost had it right, but you had to toss the little personal attack in there.
Click to expand...

No personal attack...Conservatives are not known for their support of social programs...Quite the opposite in fact...Never the sponsor of any and always trying to chip away at them...and blaming those who need it for their condition in life.

It's we bleeding heart liberals who support those ideas..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom