• 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!

Two simple measures to cut child shootings.

Rucker61 said:
Prove it or shut up.
Click to expand...



Did you not watch that video???

A police firearms instructor...had an ND in a classroom.
Do you not think he might know a few things about guns????????



Go on to YouTube, there are dozens more videos like that.


Prove it ?
Jeez...like proving gravity.
 
Rich2018 said:
Did you not watch that video???

A police firearms instructor...had an ND in a classroom.
Do you not think he might know a few things about guns????????



Go on to YouTube, there are dozens more videos like that.


Prove it ?
Jeez...like proving gravity.
Click to expand...

You said apdst was the type most likely. Prove that claim.
 
Rich2018 said:
And you need guns to do this...in what way do you suggest people "oppose"





No, but you seem ignorant that the majority of people who commit mass shootings end up killing themselves at the end of it.


These people don't expect to survive...so the penalties for their mass murder is rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...

exactly-so passing additional laws trying to stop those mass murderers is either due to stupidity or the real motivations have NOTHING to do with actually preventing such crimes.
 
Rich2018 said:
That prove cocky, self assured people who KNOW their guns are safe....are prone to NDs.


Familiarity breeds contempt. You have heard of this ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Still waiting on your proof of the previous and of this claim, too.
 
TurtleDude said:
exactly-so passing additional laws trying to stop those mass murderers is either due to stupidity or the real motivations have NOTHING to do with actually preventing such crimes.
Click to expand...

No-one proposes passing legislation to stop people from wanting to commit a mass shooting

Merely to pass legislation to prevent them from having the capability to actually do it.
 
Rich2018 said:
No-one proposes passing legislation to stop people from wanting to commit a mass shooting

Merely to pass legislation to prevent them from having the capability to actually do it.
Click to expand...

given how many guns the cops lose each year, and the failure of the war on drugs-people willing to die to kill others will always be able to get guns.

and stop the facade-you want to ban guns for reasons that have nothing to do with stopping mass murders.
 
TurtleDude said:
given how many guns the cops lose each year, and the failure of the war on drugs-people willing to die to kill others will always be able to get guns.

and stop the facade-you want to ban guns for reasons that have nothing to do with stopping mass murders.
Click to expand...

I don't even think he's serious about banning guns.
 
Lursa said:
Mmm, I think he actually made that point.
Click to expand...

How? There was no data presented of the various risk profiles nor did he prove that apdst was a member of any particular profile.
 
Rucker61 said:
How? There was no data presented of the various risk profiles nor did he prove that apdst was a member of any particular profile.
Click to expand...

It was literally right there in the text exchanged.
 
Lursa said:
It was literally right there in the text exchanged.
Click to expand...

Those were words on the internet, and again no relative risk of different profiles was presented.
 
Rucker61 said:
Those were words on the internet, and again no relative risk of different profiles was presented.
Click to expand...

I know. It seemed odd to ask for proof of that.
 
TurtleDude said:
fascist wet dreams. many people took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies-foreign and domestic. I see anyone who tries to do this as an enemy of our constitution .
Click to expand...

You do not stand alone!
 
Rich2018 said:
Because the USA and Australia are very similar countries with very similar people with very similar histories.


You keep missing this, but as I always say, gun control cannot start in the USA until there is no constitutional right to own one.
Click to expand...

The constitution is not the source of the right to own a gun or to defend oneself. It only acknowledges the right that is inherent in the rights of man, and directs the government specifically to not interfere with it. Not the only right, either. They can lock you up, but they can't make you change your religion.
 
Rich2018 said:
A free society where people can carry as many guns as they wants and kill thousands of people a year.


A society where you're free to commit a mass shooting whenever you feel like it...at a rate of almost one per DAY.


Remind us again, what are the benefits of having the right to bear arms ?
Click to expand...

To stop people wanting to kill thousands of people a year. To stop the mass shooter.
 
Rich2018 said:
So if the Constitution contained an amendment banning the ownership of guns...then we'd have "many people" willing and able to defend the Constitution and help seize those (now) illegal guns right ?
Click to expand...

There is nothing to defend at that point. Neither can it be defended.
 
Rich2018 said:
And you need guns to do this...in what way do you suggest people "oppose"





No, but you seem ignorant that the majority of people who commit mass shootings end up killing themselves at the end of it.


These people don't expect to survive...so the penalties for their mass murder is rather irrelevant.
Click to expand...

The penalty is applied...by themselves.

Mass shootings happen in 'gun free zones'. There is little for the mass murderer to fear while he is carrying out his demented plan. You don't see mass murders in shooting ranges. It's the 'gun free zone' that enables the mass murderer with guns. You want to replicate this all over the nation by force???
 
Rich2018 said:
So now you're no longer arguing over the benefits of banning guns but you're saying that it just can't be done without significant loss of life.
Click to expand...
He's quite right.
Rich2018 said:
I would say that is complete nonsense and only spouted by the extreme right in US politics.
Click to expand...
Do you want to find out?
Rich2018 said:
And since the US military and law enforcement have sworn an oath to defend the Constitution against enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC, I think if there was ever a mob of far right gun-loving psychopaths who took to the streets to oppose the US Constitution, they'd be heavily out numbered and out gunned.
Click to expand...
No such mob.
Rich2018 said:
And lots more would stand up and defend our freedom from firearms ownership if ever Congress had the will to pass the necessary laws.
Click to expand...
Congress does not have that authority. See the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 8, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10h amendments.
 
Rich2018 said:
Well all the more reason to ban guns then.
Click to expand...

With that type of reasoning, let's nuke Russia to prevent nuclear fallout. Or better yet, lets remove all environmental regulations to reduce global warming.
Of course you're just spouting right wing, NRA nonsense.
Click to expand...

Lets just assume that I am only parroting NRA nonsense, I'm not the only one who holds to it. So whether it's actually is nonsense or not has little bearing on those who woukd follow through.
The most you'd get is some "patriot" barricading himself inside his "castle" until starved out....then sent to jail and handed a BIG fine.
Click to expand...

Speculation on your part.



YES!!!

Absolutely YES.

Check out the video of cops and the military seizing guns in Louisiana following hurricane Katrina.
Click to expand...

They don't represent the entire military or police force.
It's in cops' interests to disarm America...they're the ones often being shot at !!!
Click to expand...

Actually, most cops are for law abiding citizens being armed. In fact law abiding armed citizens have saved officers' lives.


All the more reason to ensure criminals are not armed.
Click to expand...

A complete ban isn't going to accomplish that.
The police's job would be a LOT easier (not to mention a lot safer) if there were no privately owned guns
Click to expand...

Evidence.




Make the penalties more severe...couple it with a total ban on the sale of ammunition.

Guarantee you that hundreds of millions of guns would be surrendered.

Say being found in possession of a firearm = min 5 years in prison and $250,000 fine.

Give "bounties" to people who turn in gun owners (paid for from the fines)

People just wouldn't carry firearms on their person or in their car.

So you'd just be left pretty quickly with firearms in the home. And with nowhere to shoot them and no way of getting ammunition, having a firearm in the home would be a huge liability to any law abiding person.


Oh yes, America would be disarmed like the UK was if the laws were passed to make it so.
As always start with the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
And where's your evidence?
 
TurtleDude said:
reducing suicides by infringing on a constitutional right is not a valid governmental interest. and the power of the government does not suddenly increase if you don't own a gun vs you do
Click to expand...

Here’s the thing. I don’t even care if it is a ‘valid’ government interest. I have yet to find the valid/compelling interest clause in the Constitution. And for the life of me I can’t fathom how a court concocted it. It defies the very fundamental purpose of a Constitution.
 
Aberration said:
Here’s the thing. I don’t even care if it is a ‘valid’ government interest. I have yet to find the valid/compelling interest clause in the Constitution. And for the life of me I can’t fathom how a court concocted it. It defies the very fundamental purpose of a Constitution.
Click to expand...
You won't find anything in the Constitution about the Airforce, the internet or OSHA, either. Keep looking, if that's what amuses you, but there's a system in place and things change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom