• 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!

What is more important to you, life or guns?

jamesrage said:
So you got nothing to back up YOUR claim that the federal government defines assault rifles as assault weapons.


Here is the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.You are free to look through it to see that it does not define assault rifles as assault weapons. Section 110101 is where the assault weapons start
Text - H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
Click to expand...

Dude I will ask you again. Give me a legal definition of an assault rifle. We have the definition of an assault weapon and it includes rifles so they are assault rifles.


I can not make this easier for you
 
vegas giants said:
How many do you think died in bombings in the UK last year?
Click to expand...

The same number of people that died in a mass shooting a year before the UK's 1996 hand gun ban.
 
vegas giants said:
Dude I will ask you again. Give me a legal definition of an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
And I will tell you again you made the claim that assault rifles are defined by the feds as assault weapons. So it is on you to prove it.Not me.

We have the definition of an assault weapon and it includes rifles so they are assault rifles.


I can not make this easier for you
Click to expand...
Assault weapons do not include assault rifles. Heck It doesn't include all rifles. Using your logic since assault weapons also includes pistols and shotguns then that must mean pistols and shotguns that aren't semiautomatic are also assault weapons too.
 
vegas giants said:
Really? The same number? Prove it
Click to expand...
That number is zero. That is how many people died in a mass shooting in 1995 in the UK.IE the year before their handgun ban was made into law.
 
jamesrage said:
So instead of people dying in rare once in a blue moon mass shootings they now only die in rare once in blue moon bombings.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing how the US's rate is 5 murders (I'm being generous) out of every 100,000 people, and the UK's is 1 murder per 100,000 people, that's 4 people, per 100,000 people, who are still alive every year.

That's about 2,600 people PER YEAR still alive because the UK decides to have SENSIBLE gun control.
 
jamesrage said:
That number is zero. That is how many people died in a mass shooting in 1995 in the UK.IE the year before their handgun ban was made into law.
Click to expand...

And none were killed in a bombing?
 
jamesrage said:
And I will tell you again you made the claim that assault rifles are defined by the feds as assault weapons. So it is on you to prove it.Not me.


Assault weapons do not include assault rifles. Heck It doesn't include all rifles. Using your logic since assault weapons also includes pistols and shotguns then that must mean pistols and shotguns that aren't semiautomatic are also assault weapons too.
Click to expand...

You made a positive claim of what the definition of a assault rifle is. Just prove that claim.

I just want you to back up your claim
 
vegas giants said:
You made a positive claim of what the definition of a assault rifle is. Just prove that claim.

I just want you to back up your claim
Click to expand...

You made the claim that assault rifles are defined by the federal government as assault weapons. So it is on you to back up that idiotic claim of yours. I posted the link to the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 that contains the Brady assault weapons ban. It does not contain assault rifles in that.
 
jamesrage said:
You made the claim that assault rifles are defined by the federal government as assault weapons. So it is on you to back up that idiotic claim of yours. I posted the link to the violent crime control and law enforcement act of 1994 that contains the Brady assault weapons ban. It does not contain assault rifles in that.
Click to expand...

It sure does. Defines them quite clearly.



So where is your definition of an assault rifle kept.....outside of your head. Lol
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well, seeing how the US's rate is 5 murders (I'm being generous) out of every 100,000 people, and the UK's is 1 murder per 100,000 people, that's 4 people, per 100,000 people, who are still alive every year.

That's about 2,600 people PER YEAR still alive because the UK decides to have SENSIBLE gun control.
Click to expand...

Again the UK has had low murder rate even before they enacted their draconian gun control laws. So bragging how the UK has a lower amount of murders than the US doesn't prove their gun control works. Heck it didn't even stop mass shootings as you claim the 1996 hand gun ban was intended to stop. Because it didn't stop the 2010 Cumbria shootings,
 
humbolt said:
Potatoes have been known to wipe out entire families. Happened recently in Russia. Leave it to the Russians to weaponize potatoes.
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing
 
jamesrage said:
Again the UK has had low murder rate even before they enacted their draconian gun control laws. So bragging how the UK has a lower amount of murders than the US doesn't prove their gun control works. Heck it didn't even stop mass shootings as you claim the 1996 hand gun ban was intended to stop. Because it didn't stop the 2010 Cumbria shootings,
Click to expand...

Bang my head against a ****ing wall

Your argument stinks. The UK has had gun control for hundreds of years. Literally hundreds of years. And they've had lower murder rates for the whole damn time. The US had easy access to guns for all for the whole of its history and has had much higher murder rates for the whole of its history.

Which part of this doesn't make sense?

You're literally coming here with NO KNOWLEDGE of the UK and then trying to pull an argument out of almost nothing.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Bang my head against a ****ing wall

Your argument stinks. The UK has had gun control for hundreds of years. Literally hundreds of years. And they've had lower murder rates for the whole damn time. The US had easy access to guns for all for the whole of its history and has had much higher murder rates for the whole of its history.

Which part of this doesn't make sense?

You're literally coming here with NO KNOWLEDGE of the UK and then trying to pull an argument out of almost nothing.
Click to expand...

Totally agree - but people will read what they want to read, no matter the facts presented, and skew an argument to their way of thinking.

The evidence is clear, since the late 90s (about the time the gun laws in the UK and Australia were introduced) gun related deaths dropped in those countries significantly, whilst increased significantly in the US. But no doubt, there will be many dismissive of these FACTS for whatever reason to suit their argument.

Strip away all the history and all the trends and look at one figure- that there are approx 14,000 gun related murders in the US every year and then ask yourself, if this is acceptable. If not, how do you reduce it. Unless you can achieve consensus around these points, then nothing will change. What I see is far too many denying there is any sort of problem, but the facts say otherwise.
 
vegas giants said:
Watching children murdered in math class and not seeing a problem is criminal.


Just criminal
Click to expand...

Watching children murdered in math class... after the shooter PASSED a background check. (or killed his mother and stole her firearms) .. and you claiming the answer is to call for "background checks"...

that is just criminal. Especially when you purposely ignore the obvious mental health issues just about every one of these mass shooters have/had.

Face it.. you don't care about children dying. Just a useless agenda against firearms.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Well, seeing how the US's rate is 5 murders (I'm being generous) out of every 100,000 people, and the UK's is 1 murder per 100,000 people, that's 4 people, per 100,000 people, who are still alive every year.

That's about 2,600 people PER YEAR still alive because the UK decides to have SENSIBLE gun control.
Click to expand...

Actually as already stated.. when the UK did their gun control.. their murder rate went up exponentially and only went down when they added a tremendous number of police.

Facts are facts.

Plus.. actually when you compare violent crime from the US to the UK... the US has lower violent crime..including homocides (or at least comparable. Comparing murder rates is difficult because what the UK and the US defines as murder are different).

The fact is.. statistically.. I am probably much safer in the US than in the UK.
 
humbolt said:
Potatoes have been known to wipe out entire families. Happened recently in Russia. Leave it to the Russians to weaponize potatoes.
Click to expand...

true-vodka has killed more people than privately owned US assault rifles
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom