• 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!

Texas to allow guns in schools and churches.. LONG overdue!

VanceMack said:
And look what the two most commonly used examples have 'gained' from it.
In the UK in the 50 years prior to the Dunblane school shooting there was ONE mass shooting. SINCE the gun ban brought about by the Dunblane shooting there has been...ONE mass shooting. But there has also been skyrocketing violent crime rates, an increase in shootings, an increase in stabbings an increase in acid attacks. Suicide rates remain as high or higher than ever. There hasnt been a single tangible gain from their gun bans and by all statistical categories, things have gotten worse.

In Australia there were 19 massacres in the 25 years PRIOR to the Port Arthur massacre. After the gun ban passed due to the Port Arthur massacre, there have been 27 massacres in 23 years. Additionally...they have found that criminals are still getting and using firearms.

So if anyone that takes the position that the answer to mass shootings or the murders committed by criminals is to ban guns or pass stupid laws that only infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen, they are a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...

So strict gun control works.
 
VanceMack said:
And look what the two most commonly used examples have 'gained' from it.
In the UK in the 50 years prior to the Dunblane school shooting there was ONE mass shooting. SINCE the gun ban brought about by the Dunblane shooting there has been...ONE mass shooting. But there has also been skyrocketing violent crime rates, an increase in shootings, an increase in stabbings an increase in acid attacks. Suicide rates remain as high or higher than ever. There hasnt been a single tangible gain from their gun bans and by all statistical categories, things have gotten worse.

In Australia there were 19 massacres in the 25 years PRIOR to the Port Arthur massacre. After the gun ban passed due to the Port Arthur massacre, there have been 27 massacres in 23 years. Additionally...they have found that criminals are still getting and using firearms.

So if anyone that takes the position that the answer to mass shootings or the murders committed by criminals is to ban guns or pass stupid laws that only infringe on the rights of the law abiding citizen, they are a ****ing moron.
Click to expand...

In the UK
Click to expand...

Sorry, we're far from the UK
 
VanceMack said:
You are basing your arguments on the concept of 'natural rights' vs actual rights. Natural rights dont exist. Actual rights only exist insofar as a governing body is willing to honor them.

Beyond that...the comparison is the same. Dont like the comparison? No...I wouldnt think so because the comparison highlights just how stupid anti gun people tend to look when they make their arguments.
Click to expand...

Unless you do not have a dick, the right that you FIRST tried to evoke as being comparable to the right to have an assault rifle is very "actual" and is accepted as such right in every modern society. If you want to say that natural rights, are also a creation of our civilization, I will accept it as a counterpoint. But then I will point that we also accept a hierarchy of rights and at the top of the list are natural rights. So, no! Mutilating and confiscating a dick is not the same as confiscating an assault rifle.
 
bongsaway said:
Oddly enough that's the one thing missing from all of these mass shootings. Citizens shooting back at the shooter. Where are all these he men who spout stuff like you are doing now? My guess, if citizens started pulling out guns at the scene of a mass shooting, more citizens will be killed by the cops. Does one really think in that scene a cop saw you with a gun he or she wouldn't think you are the shooter?
Click to expand...

More likely that somebody with a CC license takes out the shooter before he can get off more than a few shots. And then the cops are called to advise the shooter is down or dead. Legal guns will be out of sight by the time the police can get there.
 
Rich2018 said:
So strict gun control works.
Click to expand...

you and most gun banners definition of "work" is to harass and hassle honest gun owners. So in that sense you are right
 
AlbqOwl said:
More likely that somebody with a CC license takes out the shooter before he can get off more than a few shots. And then the cops are called to advise the shooter is down or dead. Legal guns will be out of sight by the time the police can get there.
Click to expand...

Very very rare
 
vegas giants said:
Very very rare
Click to expand...

How do you know when these shooters deliberately choose soft target venues to commit their carnage? I could shoot somebody like that if I had to--it would be devastatingly difficult but I could do it. And I have men and women with CC licenses in my life who wouldn't even hesitate. I feel much safer with those people than I do with folks who wouldn't be able to defend themselves in a shooting situation.
 
AlbqOwl said:
How do you know when these shooters deliberately choose soft target venues to commit their carnage? I could shoot somebody like that if I had to--it would be devastatingly difficult but I could do it. And I have men and women with CC licenses in my life who wouldn't even hesitate. I feel much safer with those people than I do with folks who wouldn't be able to defend themselves in a shooting situation.
Click to expand...

You have never shot anyone. There are 10 thousand possible variables at play. In Vegas they had a shooter go into Walmart and start shooting. A CCW person took a shot at him. The killer had his girlfriend 100 yards behind him and took out the CCW.
 
Rich2018 said:
Ten how do you know that post #255 is true?
Click to expand...

Because I've been in too many situations or investigated too many situations in which the crime had already been committed before the cops got there. According to DHS the average police response time across the country is 10 minutes. For active shooter situations it is 12.5 minutes. But let's say it is 3 minutes. Sit silently--do not read or listen to anything, do not talk to anybody, do nothing but sit with your hands folded in your lap for 3 minutes. Then think how many shots an active shooter could get off in that length of time.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Because I've been in too many situations or investigated too many situations in which the crime had already been committed before the cops got there. According to DHS the average police response time across the country is 10 minutes. For active shooter situations it is 12.5 minutes. But let's say it is 3 minutes. Sit silently--do not read or listen to anything, do not talk to anybody, do nothing but sit with your hands folded in your lap for 3 minutes. Then think how many shots an active shooter could get off in that length of time.
Click to expand...

What kind of criminal or active shooter opens fire in front of police?
 
pamak said:
Unless you do not have a dick, the right that you FIRST tried to evoke as being comparable to the right to have an assault rifle is very "actual" and is accepted as such right in every modern society. If you want to say that natural rights, are also a creation of our civilization, I will accept it as a counterpoint. But then I will point that we also accept a hierarchy of rights and at the top of the list are natural rights. So, no! Mutilating and confiscating a dick is not the same as confiscating an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
If you are going to base your arguments on natural 9god given) rights you are going to get dragged all over the place in a discussion on gun rights. Self defense is a natural right.
 
Rich2018 said:
Check out comparative firearms deaths.

Tell you a good one, check out comparative killings by US police vs UK police.
Click to expand...
:lamo

Check out comparative populations.

SO...you blathered on about other countries after bans, got bitch slapped with the facts, and now want to take some other tack.

Interesting response...see how well THAT one worked out for you.
 
Rich2018 said:
What kind of criminal or active shooter opens fire in front of police?
Click to expand...

the one just killed in Dayton did. that area on a saturday night has an obvious police presence.
 
Rich2018 said:
What kind of criminal or active shooter opens fire in front of police?
Click to expand...

None. Which is the point I'm making. The shooters seek out soft targets where guns are known to be absent so they won't have anybody to interfere with their killing.
 
VanceMack said:
:lamo

Check out comparative populations.
Click to expand...


You don't know what "comparative" means do you ?

The UK has a pop. of about 60 million, the USA about 350 million.

Now after you've found out what "comparative" mean, check out the comparative number of firearms killings of US vs UK police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom