• 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!

It finally happened in my hometown

Frigidweirdo said:
Kind of doesn't help your argument when a "safe place in the USA" ends up not being a safe place. Where is safe in the US? Which places in the US are free from people going around shooting people up because they got angry?
Click to expand...

That has never happened at Front Sight, and if anybody tried it they wouldn't last long.
 
TurtleDude said:
Gun control has been motivated by racist animus for centuries.
Click to expand...

It's mostly white people who think owning guns will prevent their oppression. It's really just nonesense.
 
SheWolf said:
WACO was stock piling weapons, and the people were brainwashed and ready to die. The US government feared another Jonestown, and initially wanted to protect to people from their false god, but the government was stupid with dealing with such people. Little kids were pointing AKs as agents. For as much of the government screwed up, it's often lost how messed up the WACO cult and it's leader actually was. In the end, their stock pile of weapons did not save them from the US Government. Their stock pile was in fact, the catalyst to the entire tragedy.
Click to expand...

The ATFs budget was on the chopping block at Congress, and the ATF wanted a photo op to show how valuable they were. When they raided the compound, Vernon Howell (AKA David KOresh) called the local law enforcement. 2 of the four agents that were killed were killed with highly controlled armor piercing ammo that only the agents had (ie friendly fire). Every time the local sheriff had an issue with Koresh, he'd call Koresh and Koresh would appear in the office. There had NEVER been any incidents of the Davidians violently resisting LE before this raid.
 
SheWolf said:
It's mostly white people who think owning guns will prevent their oppression. It's really just nonesense.
Click to expand...

How is it nonsense-you seem to dislike gun ownership and gun owners, so you pretend that gun ownership won't do what you claim some say it will-what is your proof? Sounds like you are just making stuff up
 
Frigidweirdo said:
But somehow teaching four year olds how to deal with a shooter coming into their school and trying to blast them all away, now this is something that should be normal.
Click to expand...

Most four year olds won't be in school. Usually you don't start Kindergarten until you're five.

But when I was five and in Kindergarten we had fire drills, we were taught what to do in case of a fire, its not much different.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Most four year olds won't be in school. Usually you don't start Kindergarten until you're five.

But when I was five and in Kindergarten we had fire drills, we were taught what to do in case of a fire, its not much different.
Click to expand...

It is funny, the anti gun side often claims we are paranoid for wanting to own defensive firearms or teach kids how to react in the case of an active shooter, yet they then claim things are so dangerous that honest people should lose their rights to own guns or be further restricted, in the hope that such stupid solutions will decrease violence.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Its better than a "its hot here, so there must be global warming" type of answer.
Click to expand...

Right, if you have two cr*ppy answers, the one that's the most convenient is the better one, right?
 
TurtleDude said:
You might do some research and see which party was the main supporter of the GCA of 68 and every other federal gun control law. I will give you a hint-it was NOT the GOP
Click to expand...

The argument that minorities, immigrants, and other groups should arm themselves to destroy institutionalized racism and prevent inequalities in the legal and justice system is bull****. We know it wouldn't work and wouldn't happen.

Thinking you need a stock pile of weapons to prevent your oppression is mostly a white American thing.
 
SheWolf said:
The argument that minorities, immigrants, and other groups should arm themselves to destroy institutionalized racism and prevent inequalities in the legal and justice system is bull****. We know it wouldn't work and wouldn't happen.

Thinking you need a stock pile of weapons to prevent your oppression is mostly a white American thing.
Click to expand...

You are engaging in tilting as straw windmills. I haven't made the arguments you are complaining about. Do you attack gun ownership because you think it is mainly an activity of white folks?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yes I am well aware of the North Hollywood Shootout, they had multiple layers of body armor glued together and they were only stopped when a SWAT team arrived and when other officers appropriated rifles from a nearby firearms dealer. However, the North Hollywood Shootout was a rare and extreme case. Shootouts themselves are rare and extreme but even by shootout standards the North Hollywood Shootout was rare and extreme.


Most criminals are very bad shots so the average joe will not be any worse. There are exceptions to that but by and large bad guys are bad shots. But I do agree with you that somebody who carries a defensive firearm should not be an average joe, they should be well trained and have good competence with the firearm they're carrying.
Click to expand...

There has been a lot of massive shoot outs involving the LAPD. My point is that, if a person wants to inflict severe damage in America, they can. The Colorado movie shooter was like that. You can't just fall back to the argument that an average armed citizen would stop such individuals. You can say it's rare all you want, but you're the one arguing that more and more people need to be armed to stop these people.

I don't even believe your argument that more armed people are going to prevent violence. Nonetheless, if we arm ourselves more and more, mass shooters can then act like the guys in the North Hollywood shoot... higher powered weapons and more body armor.

Were and when does it end?

I am not interested in being part of an America where I have to run around like a SWAT force, because mass shooters can get high powered weapons and body armor. I don't really like the idea of teachers having to take training for shootings. I don't want to take my kids to the park, and feel I need to take a gun. I don't want to live in fear. This isn't normal.
 
VanceMack said:
Ive cited my solution numerous times. And you bet...it has far more to do with economic recovery and investment in impoverished communities than you can imagine. I would say that when it comes to spending for social programs Im probably a hell of a lot more 'liberal' than most socialists on this board. But its not about pissing money down the drain and that investment requires private and corporate investment as well as government.

But at least we now have you actually thinking about the real problems and not just regurgitating idiotic anti-gun diatribes.
Click to expand...

Really?

How is it that the US got richer after WW2 and yet crime went up massively?

Did you know that the London Olympics is credited with reducing crime in London because so much more sport was taking place in the run up to the Games?

"But at least we now have you actually thinking about"

Sounds like you don't know me very well.

Did you know I've been calling for Proportional Representation to change the way people vote, to allow for positive voting so that people actually have a real say in what their own government does?
A lot of things that happen in the US are bad, and might remain bad, but unless you change the very fundamentals, then what's the point?

The US is an absolute mess.

Compare the US with the UK

Murder rate 5 times higher
Deaths on roads 4 times higher
Infant mortality 50% higher
Income inequality higher
 
TurtleDude said:
I won't go into this any further but if it comes to that, lots of the military will side with the citizenry and tell me-is the military going to nuke a city that contains many of their own family members? A military fighting in its own homeland is severely limited in what it can do-especially if the opposition is interwoven with "friendlies"
Click to expand...

We have had a civil war in this country before, and that's what the ring wing is talking about more and more. That seems to be a more logical line of reasoning, than you suggesting the US military is just going to nuke a city. Of course the US military is not going to nuke a city, and that's why you don't need guns to keep the military and government in line. That line of reasoning makes zero sense. You seem to understand that much.
 
Irredentist said:
You act like we've never had our own internal revolts. Americans certainly didn't hesitate to shoot each other during the Civil war.
Click to expand...

There have been many localized and regional revolts.

Sorry your Confederacy lost. (No, I'm not). Who was unarmed as you want were slaves.

We know what happens to unarmed people in this Country. The Native American population now is 3% of what it was back then - while all other population groups populations are MASSIVE larger. Beyond disease, entire peaceful villages that had even surrendered and be located (including by death marches in the winter) were 100% slaughtered or just all the men slaughtered and the village turned into a rape center for soldiers and settlers.

^ THAT is what happens to an unarmed population in this country.

The cities with the highest murder rates now have the strictest anti-gun laws. Do a statistical comparison of the percentage of unarmed citizens murdered, rapes and violently assaulted to those who are armed sometime to see another effect upon unarmed people.
 
SheWolf said:
We have had a civil war in this country before, and that's what the ring wing is talking about more and more. That seems to be a more logical line of reasoning, than you suggesting the US military is just going to nuke a city. Of course the US military is not going to nuke a city, and that's why you don't need guns to keep the military and government in line. That line of reasoning makes zero sense. You seem to understand that much.
Click to expand...

No, it is you Democrats constantly talking about a civil war. You just did it again.
 
TurtleDude said:
How is it nonsense-you seem to dislike gun ownership and gun owners, so you pretend that gun ownership won't do what you claim some say it will-what is your proof? Sounds like you are just making stuff up
Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson said, a well informed citizenry is a prerequisite for democracy. Being educated about the government and knowing how to protect it at the ballot box, and using freedom is speech is more effective than stock piling weapons. An ignorant person can stock pile weapons, and ignorant person would think that having a stock pile is good enough to protect American democracy.

Owing a bunch of guns, but not being informed enough to see or recognize when your democracy is being riddled away, just makes you a well armed person who doesn't really understand the concept of freedom.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Most four year olds won't be in school. Usually you don't start Kindergarten until you're five.

But when I was five and in Kindergarten we had fire drills, we were taught what to do in case of a fire, its not much different.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really know how to pick up on stuff that is completely pointless.

Yeah, sure. It's not that much different. Fires are prevented by putting in place things to stop it. Gun killings on the other hand.... no one gives a fork.
 
SheWolf said:
I looked over the link and didn't see where the police department ran away or avoided the shooting. Can you be more specific?
Click to expand...

Whatever.

The shooting took place during the afternoon of February 14, 2018, at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, an affluent suburb about 30 miles (48 km) northwest of Fort Lauderdale. The shooter, former student Nikolas Cruz, was dropped off at the school by an Uber driver at 2:19 p.m., shortly before dismissal time. According to a police report, Cruz was carrying a rifle case and a backpack when he was spotted and recognized by a staff member who radioed a colleague that he was walking "purposefully" toward Building 12. The first staff member claimed that his training called for only reporting threats; his colleague hid in a closet.

Cruz entered Building 12, a three-story structure containing 30 classrooms typically occupied by about 900 students and 30 teachers. Armed with a legally purchased AR-15 style semi-automatic rifle and multiple magazines, he activated a fire alarm and began firing indiscriminately at students and teachers. The fire alarm caused confusion because there had been a fire drill earlier in the day.

At about 2:21 p.m. the same staff member heard gunfire and activated a code red lockdown. An armed school resource officer of the Broward County Sheriff's Office was on campus when the shooting broke out. Instead of entering Building 12 to confront the gunman and return fire, he took a defensive position between Building 12 and adjacent Building 7.

The shooting lasted six minutes, after which Cruz dropped his rifle on the 3rd floor of the building and left the scene by blending in with fleeing students. He walked to a mall where he purchased a soda. He then walked to a fast-food restaurant and lingered before leaving on foot at 3:01 p.m.
Click to expand...

Officer response

School resource officer (SRO) Scot Peterson, who was on-site and in uniform as a Broward Sheriff's Office deputy, remained outside Building 12 during the shooting. Eight days after the attack, he was suspended without pay by Sheriff Israel, and he immediately retired. Sheriff Israel said "Scot Peterson was absolutely on campus for this entire event," and that he should have "[gone] in, addressed the killer, [and] killed the killer". A statement released by Peterson's lawyer said he believed the shooting was happening outside the building, which he said he told the first Coral Springs police officer who arrived on scene. It also pointed to radio transmissions that indicated a gunshot victim near the football field. However, the Miami Herald transcribed radio dispatches that the SRO at 2:23 said, "possible shots fired — 1200 building". At 2:25, he radioed that "We also heard it's by, inside the 1200". At 2:27, at Building 12, he radioed, "Stay at least 500 feet away at this point." On March 15, the sheriff's office released video footage in compliance with a court order. The video was captured by school surveillance cameras and showed some of Peterson's movements during the shooting.

Unnamed sources told CNN that Coral Springs police arrived at the scene and saw three Broward deputies behind their vehicles with pistols drawn. BSO captain Jan Jordan ordered deputies to form a perimeter instead of immediately confronting the shooter; this tactic was contrary to BSO training regarding active shooters. Based on time stamps of the police logs, the order was given some time after the shooting had stopped. Jordan was widely criticized for her actions, and she resigned for "personal reasons" nine months after the shooting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Frigidweirdo said:
Really?

How is it that the US got richer after WW2 and yet crime went up massively?

Did you know that the London Olympics is credited with reducing crime in London because so much more sport was taking place in the run up to the Games?

"But at least we now have you actually thinking about"

Sounds like you don't know me very well.

Did you know I've been calling for Proportional Representation to change the way people vote, to allow for positive voting so that people actually have a real say in what their own government does?
A lot of things that happen in the US are bad, and might remain bad, but unless you change the very fundamentals, then what's the point?

The US is an absolute mess.

Compare the US with the UK

Murder rate 5 times higher
Deaths on roads 4 times higher
Infant mortality 50% higher
Income inequality higher
Click to expand...
"The US" is not a mess. Inner cities are a mess. Democrat controlled inner cities are ****holes.

As for your 4 categories...
Murder rates in the US are higher...because England has been a largely homogenous country that hasnt had to deal with the gang violence and associated bull****. But their time is coming.
Highway mortality? What do you attribute that to?
Infant mortality rates are bull****. We dont measure infant mortality the same way the UK does. Differential reporting accounts for 40% of the disparity in numbers. And as discussed previously...where is the infant mortality rate the highest? Back to the black American communities in the democrat run ****holes.
Income inequality is a goofy argument. Income/wealth is not a zero sum game. The fact that there are extremely wealthy people does not hinder low to middle income individuals from succeeding.
 
VanceMack said:
"The US" is not a mess. Inner cities are a mess. Democrat controlled inner cities are ****holes.

As for your 4 categories...
Murder rates in the US are higher...because England has been a largely homogenous country that hasnt had to deal with the gang violence and associated bull****. But their time is coming.
Highway mortality? What do you attribute that to?
Infant mortality rates are bull****. We dont measure infant mortality the same way the UK does. Differential reporting accounts for 40% of the disparity in numbers. And as discussed previously...where is the infant mortality rate the highest? Back to the black American communities in the democrat run ****holes.
Income inequality is a goofy argument. Income/wealth is not a zero sum game. The fact that there are extremely wealthy people does not hinder low to middle income individuals from succeeding.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, try and make the debate about someone else, always someone else, never your fault. Yes, I got it.


1) Are you suggesting a homogenous country makes for lower violence?

El Salvador has the worst murder rate in the world. 86.3% mestizo, 12.7% white,
Honduras is second, 90% mestizo, 7% American Indian.
Venezuela is third, 51% Mestizo and 43.6% white
Jamaica is 4th 92.1% is black
Lesotho is 5th 99.7% of people are Basotho.

Doesn't seem to be that these countries have a particularly high level of different races. Venezuela is the only one that doesn't have 85%+ of one race or identity.

As for the UK, well.... apart from 5 million being Welsh, 5 million being Scottish it's 87.1% white, which is lower than three of the top five homicide countries in the world.

So, I disagree about homogenous countries having lower murder rates.

2) Gang violence. Yes, gang violence tends to lead to more violence. Surprising huh? Why does the US have more gang violence? Could it be that the US simply doesn't deal with gang violence.

In the early 2000s the UK had a major spurt of murders. Part of this was down to the Yardies and other Jamaican gangs who could get into the UK visa free (did you know that all executions in Jamaica have to be signed off in the UK?). However the UK dealt with this gang violence and the murder rates dropped after this.

3) Highway mortality. I attribute this to the US not really doing much, if anything to deal with the problem. Same as many of the other problems that arise.

The US government is partisan as hell. People don't really get a say in how their government is run. In the House there's so much gerrymandering going on, that it's a joke. The presidency is run on a system that leads to massive negative voting (ie, voting AGAINST the person you don't like, rather than for the person you do like. I mean Hillary v. Trump is like choosing to be kicked in the balls from behind or from in front, either way it hurts like hell)

4) Infant mortality rates are b*llsh*t huh? Why's that? Because it's not convenient? Can you show how the rates are different? I mean, when people die, it's a little difficult to cover up.



And yes, we come back to black communities. Why do black communities suffer from higher infant mortality rates, higher murder rates, higher poverty rates?

Could it be down to the fact that black people have been fighting against racism for a long time. They end up being herded into communities where education is poorer, where job opportunities are worse, hope gets lost and then what do you have? You have politicians using black people as a convenient excuse for why they're not doing their jobs properly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom