• 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!

Hate crime driving up minority gun ownership?

Infinite Chaos said:
High standard - I am at a disadvantage when quoting American statistics as I often find when discussing with Americans that statistics are accurate or not because of political lean. We have statistics agencies here in Europe mandated to be neutral that we can cite from both sides of a disagreement.

Anyhow, what I see is that the last open data collected was around 2008 however I read reports that firearms trainers have never seen more than 50% accuracy in any shooting statistics from firearms training in any major police department sine 2008.

So to me, any police officer who cannot get over 50% accuracy (and I know pistols are far less accurate than rifles) should not be allowed to carry a weapon on duty. I see no issue with having fast response, highly trained units which is what we have here who would be quickly called to any incidents.

And I am also aware that gun ownership is already widespread in the US so the chances of an incident escalating to weapon discharge is very high.



Fer crissakes... you originally quoted me! Ever since then, I've been trying to work out what the point of your pointless interjection was
Click to expand...
if it's pointless why are you trying to find out the point?


and all you've done is play to your crowd for cheap liked posts.
Click to expand...
play to my crowd? What are you talkin about?

We have come to the conclusion you offer nothing of any worth so this is my final response to you. Thank you for wasting bandwidth.
Click to expand...
Sorry pal you chose to respond to me.
 
Simple: if I quoted you first then I am the liar. If not, you are not just lying but a time waster "pal."
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Simple: if I quoted you first then I am the liar. If not, you are not just lying but a time waster "pal."
Click to expand...
So you were being dishonest when you said that your previous response was your final one?

Then you suggest I'm lying?

The irony is palpable.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So you were being dishonest when you said that your previous response was your final one?

Then you suggest I'm lying?

The irony is palpable.
Click to expand...

Did I quote you before?
 
Infinite Chaos said:
High standard - I am at a disadvantage when quoting American statistics as I often find when discussing with Americans that statistics are accurate or not because of political lean. We have statistics agencies here in Europe mandated to be neutral that we can cite from both sides of a disagreement.

Anyhow, what I see is that the last open data collected was around 2008 however I read reports that firearms trainers have never seen more than 50% accuracy in any shooting statistics from firearms training in any major police department sine 2008.

So to me, any police officer who cannot get over 50% accuracy (and I know pistols are far less accurate than rifles) should not be allowed to carry a weapon on duty. I see no issue with having fast response, highly trained units which is what we have here who would be quickly called to any incidents.

And I am also aware that gun ownership is already widespread in the US so the chances of an incident escalating to weapon discharge is very high.
Click to expand...
Most civilian gun owners, who actualy have to use their firearm, are not in conditions police find themselves in. Civilians don't persue, certianly not high-speed persuits, serve warrents to dangerous homes, or conduct drug raids. I'm not sure 'a high standard' is neccessary for civilians. In the event of home invasion, for example, simply hitting a target 15ft away and standing still would suffice.

Infinite Chaos said:
Fer chrissakes... you originally quoted me!
Click to expand...
That's why he'll never see me reply to him ever again. Some people just aren't worth the time.
 
CLAX1911 said:
It doesn't matter you responded to me. It was a little pathetic that you didn't quote me.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. You spent more time arguing over your pathetic non-answer than if you had simply had the guts to back up your empty statement when you quoted my OP.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Most civilian gun owners, who actualy have to use their firearm, are not in conditions police find themselves in. Civilians don't persue, certianly not high-speed persuits, serve warrents to dangerous homes, or conduct drug raids. I'm not sure 'a high standard' is neccessary for civilians. In the event of home invasion, for example, simply hitting a target 15ft away and standing still would suffice
Click to expand...

Oh I agree your "simply hitting the target" comment - sometimes the simple act of pulling the trigger may be enough to end a situation. The other side of this though that worries me in the civilian population is people who don't even know how to use their gun properly and could thus be more danger to themselves than their target.

Mandatory training is for me, really important for civilian weapon holders. True gun enthusiasts would probably jump at the chance of training, of being on the range and demonstrating their marksmanship. You and I both know basic maintenance itself has a huge impact on accuracy so Joe Public with a dirty gun that sits in a draw with a range of other objects is not the ideal marksmanship tool.

Police have to go into dangerous situations and can also face return gunfire however specialist officers with the highest standard of training should be more effective than rank and file officers who rarely have to face such situations.

Wayne Jr said:
That's why he'll never see me reply to him ever again. Some people just aren't worth the time.
Click to expand...

I've learnt my lesson. What a waste of bandwidth I've had with him.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Mandatory training is for me, really important for civilian weapon holders. True gun enthusiasts would probably jump at the chance of training, of being on the range and demonstrating their marksmanship. You and I both know basic maintenance itself has a huge impact on accuracy so Joe Public with a dirty gun that sits in a draw with a range of other objects is not the ideal marksmanship tool.
Click to expand...

The primary issue for me is the mandatory part. If we allow government to create prerequisites that they themselves define to allow the exercise of a right, then we've established a precedent I don't think would stop with "common sense" training requirements to purchase a gun. We know that such a law would only be passed by Democrats, and for them gun safety includes fewer people owning guns. They'd be more than happy to create obstacles to lawful gun ownership in the form of arduous, expense firearm owner training requirements. Regardless of the efficacy of the gun training, fewer people with guns means more safety to GCAs. If they have the power to pass a law for sensible training, they'd have the power to write the requirements in such a way as to reduce the number of people even attempting to try to own a gun. Win/win.

Me, I'd love to go spend a day at the range, especially if someone else is paying for ammo.
 
Rucker61 said:
The primary issue for me is the mandatory part. If we allow government to create prerequisites that they themselves define to allow the exercise of a right, then we've established a precedent I don't think would stop with "common sense" training requirements to purchase a gun. We know that such a law would only be passed by Democrats, and for them gun safety includes fewer people owning guns. They'd be more than happy to create obstacles to lawful gun ownership in the form of arduous, expense firearm owner training requirements. Regardless of the efficacy of the gun training, fewer people with guns means more safety to GCAs. If they have the power to pass a law for sensible training, they'd have the power to write the requirements in such a way as to reduce the number of people even attempting to try to own a gun. Win/win.

Me, I'd love to go spend a day at the range, especially if someone else is paying for ammo.
Click to expand...

Me too, but you have to remember we had nearly all rights taken away here so even paying for myself is preferable to not being allowed to.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Blah blah blah. You spent more time arguing over your pathetic non-answer than if you had simply had the guts to back up your empty statement when you quoted my OP.
Click to expand...
I already backed it up you just made a straw man of it I knew you were going to do that because that's what people do when they're confronted with things they don't agree with.

Like I said the first time you're going to believe whatever you want. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. Don't feel bad that isn't just you that's most humans.
 
Rucker61 said:
The primary issue for me is the mandatory part.
Click to expand...
The Founders intended for you to drill every month. You were fined if you didn't show up. Mandatory training is perfectly in keeping with the 2A and taking a one-time class is letting you off easy imo.
 
Wayne Jr said:
The Founders intended for you to drill every month. You were fined if you didn't show up. Mandatory training is perfectly in keeping with the 2A and taking a one-time class is letting you off easy imo.
Click to expand...

Every didn't train, just those in the militia. I'd love to see Congress muster the militia for training. I'd even volunteer to act as Cadre for the 60 million (just the men) or 120 million (if we include the women) members of the unorganized militia.

However those outside the militia weren't made to train and did not need to train to own a gun.
 
Rucker61 said:
Every didn't train, just those in the militia. I'd love to see Congress muster the militia for training. I'd even volunteer to act as Cadre for the 60 million (just the men) or 120 million (if we include the women) members of the unorganized militia.

However those outside the militia weren't made to train and did not need to train to own a gun.
Click to expand...

Every man was in the militia. And no one said you had to be in the militia to own a gun, for that comment to be relevant. This is about mandatory training, which is perfectly in line with the 2A.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Every man was in the militia. And no one said you had to be in the militia to own a gun, for that comment to be relevant. This is about mandatory training, which is perfectly in line with the 2A.
Click to expand...

Every man was not in the militia, you didn't have to be in the militia to own a gun and those not in the militia did not have any mandatory training.
 
Rucker61 said:
Every man was not in the militia, you didn't have to be in the militia to own a gun and those not in the militia did not have any mandatory training.
Click to expand...
Every man was in the militia, you didn't have to be in the militia to own a gun (women, for example) and the militia had mandatory training every month. Anyway, this is about training, not who was or wasn't in the militia.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Every man was in the militia, you didn't have to be in the militia to own a gun (women, for example) and the militia had mandatory training every month. Anyway, this is about training, not who was or wasn't in the militia.
Click to expand...

Men over the age of 45 were exempted, as were Congressmen, ferrymen and stagecoach drivers. You want mandatory training for all gun owners, and cited the militia as support. I'm pointing out that it's a poor example of mandatory training for all gun owners.
 
Rucker61 said:
Men over the age of 45 were exempted, as were Congressmen, ferrymen and stagecoach drivers. You want mandatory training for all gun owners and cited the militia as support. I'm pointing out that it's a poor example of mandatory training for all gun owners.
Click to expand...
Militia service was mandatory, pointing out exceptions to the rule don't change the rule. It's just a fact, there's nothing to argue about.
 
Wayne Jr said:
Militia service was mandatory, pointing out exceptions to the rule don't change the rule. It's just a fact, there's nothing to argue about.
Click to expand...

Militia service was only mandatory for men 17-45; older men didn't have to participate, could own guns and did not have to participate in mandatory firearms training to own a gun. Your suggestions would require all gun owners to have mandatory training for all gun owners. We've never had that in the US. You can't change that.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Point out the post then.
Click to expand...
I don't remember which post is, you responded to it already.

Your to said post was dismissive and hardly related to the content like you probably didn't even read what it said. Which do to your short term memory loss is probably the case.

I'm not going to repeat something that you're going to dismiss again. That's an exercise in futility.

You became butthurt when I told you that you're going to believe whatever you want. Probably because that statement is true and I think your behavior since then has pretty much underscored that sentiment.

Thanks but no thanks. I think my second Post in response to you was correct and that's pretty much the end of the discussion. Posturing does not entertain me so if you want to continue doing it then be my guest.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
I don't remember which post is ~
Click to expand...

Yeah? To openly admit on a forum where posts cannot be edited, deleted or changed once they've been up 30 minutes... and you accuse me of posturing.
I haven't dismissed anything - I simply asked you to validate the empty hot air post that you made in a drive by response. We're done here, your pretending you can't remember when the evidence of your posts remains up is sadly despicable and demonstrates falsehood and you've proven yourself a complete waste of bandwidth.

And that's being polite.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Yeah? To openly admit on a forum where posts cannot be edited, deleted or changed once they've been up 30 minutes... and you accuse me of posturing.
Click to expand...
I don't feel like doing it you dismissed it the first time. If you can't take that for honesty that's a you problem.
I haven't dismissed anything -
Click to expand...
False.
I simply asked you to validate the empty hot air post that you made in a drive by response.
Click to expand...
I don't present hot air.
We're done here
Click to expand...
if you're done be done you keep responding to me like you did just now.

your pretending you can't remember when the evidence of your posts remains up is sadly despicable and demonstrates falsehood and you've proven yourself a complete waste of bandwidth.
Click to expand...
you can quit responding to me anytime you want you choose to continue.

And that's being polite.
Click to expand...
Oh how you got me I am so wounded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom