• 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!

Reducing the speed limit to 25 mph versus banning CCW - which saves more lives?

Reducing the speed limit to 25 mph versus banning CCW

  • Do not reduce speed limit and do not ban conceal carrying firearms

    Votes: 9 75.0%

  • Ban conceal carry of firearms but do not reduce speed limit

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Reduce the speed limit but do not ban conceal carry firearms

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Significantly reduce the speed limit and ban conceal carry firearms

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    12
Sampson Simpson said:
It's just a non stop flood of really piss poor, trolling, right wing idiocy. The same dumb, unintelligent, dishonest arguments over and over. They have to be bots to be so uniform, so predictable in their stupidity
Click to expand...

since you don't tie your rant to anything it is worthless
 
What is the prime purpose of a motor vehicle? To transport people or cargo about. The deaths caused by motor vehicles are almost always accidental and often both unintended and unforeseeable.

What is the prime purpose of a firearm. To damage whatever it is fired at. If that target is a living thing and is successfully targeted, then that damage will result in the death or injury of the targeted living thing. Deaths/injuries by firearms to living things other than the firer are almost always not accidental and are thus intentional. They are either intentional or reasonably foreseeable.

CCW permits are designed to allow people to carry weapons secretly onto property not owned and controlled by the permit holder thus their prime purpose is to conceal the possession of a lethal weapon from others. I do not want anyone other than a duly authorised member of a state controlled public police force or the government's military to be able to carry concealed weapons or openly displayed weapons onto my property. I do not want anyone but police, military or licensed security guards hired by a useable person caring open or concealed weapons onto public property frequented by the general population or private property open to the general public where my children or the rest of my family can visit.

Because CCW permits allow the covert carrying of lethal weapons by private citizens, I think they should be banned. If you must carry a weapon in public, then carry it openly and suffer the consequences of that carrying when private citizens and firms ban you from carrying on their property and when police and security officials repeatedly check you out for carrying weapons openly in public spaces.

The Second Amendment only limits what the federal government (and by extension through the 14th Amendment what state governments) can do. Not municipalities, not counties and not private property owners and not private citizens. So keep sensible speed limits on public roads and ban CCW permits immediately.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
The bottom line is that there are many MANY more guns in America than there are cars, but there are up to 40,000 deaths per year due to automobiles to 3300 gun deaths. I own guns and do touch them, I am pretty sure most if not all of my neighbors own guns, and several carry. But I fear injury or death from automobiles myself. I have zero concern for my safety from those guns.
Click to expand...

33K gun deaths

about 22K are suicides

of the remaining 11K-8500 or so are caused by those who cannot legally own guns
 
Evilroddy said:
What is the prime purpose of a motor vehicle? To transport people or cargo about. The deaths caused by motor vehicles are almost always accidental and often both unintended and unforeseeable.

What is the purpose of a fire arm. To damage whatever it is fired at. If that target is a living thing and is successfully targeted, then that damage will result in the death or injury of the targeted living thing. Deaths/injuries by firearms to living things other than the firer are almost always not accidental and are thus intentional. They are both intentional and foreseeable.

CCW permits are designed to allow people to carry weapons secretly onto property not owned and controlled by the permit holder. I do not want anyone other than a duly authorised member of a state controlled public police force or the government's military to be able to carry concealed weapons or openly displayed weapons onto my property. I do not want anyone but police, military or licensed security guards caring open or concealed weapons onto public property frequented by the general population or private property open to the general public where my children or the rest of my family can visit.

Because CCW permits allow the covert carrying of weapons by private citizen, I think they should be banned. If you must carry a weapon in public, then carry it openly and suffer the consequences of that carrying when private citizens and firms ban you from carrying on their property and when police and security check you out repeatedly for carrying openly in public spaces.

The Second Amendment only limits what the federal government (and by extension through the 14th Amendment what state governments) can do. Not municipalities, not counties and not private property owners. So keep sensible speed limits on public roads and ban CCW permits immediately.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

well given there is no factual support for any fears over CCW, I reject your views as silly-though I do believe that you, as an owner of private property-do have the absolute right to demand that those entering your property not be armed. Your claims about municipalities is idiotic-there are thousands of cases holding that a city government is the same as a state government when it comes to the bill of rights. Same with Counties. That is why when a PUBLIC school engages in activities that are contrary to the bill of rights, the school may be sued. Same with municipal police officers.
 
TurtleDude said:
33K gun deaths

about 22K are suicides

of the remaining 11K-8500 or so are caused by those who cannot legally own guns
Click to expand...

You don't mean 33K or 22K. You mean 3.3K and 2.2K. Yes?
 
joko104 said:
In fact, they propose and pass legislation, laws and regulations at the local state and federal level that costs lives.

Most notable are the "gun free zone" signs - literally advertising for mass murdering shooters - assuring them the government is doing everything possible to protect them - while criminalizing anyone even possibly being about to stop them.

FACT QUESTION: Were there more school shooting BEFORE or AFTER the promotional "Free Child Killing Zone" signs went up everywhere?
Click to expand...

I don't think those are related.

The gun free zone's in schools started as a means to deal with common and narcotics criminals coming armed to schools, it is far easier to prosecute someone if the law says you shall not bring a firearm onto school grounds. It was never an intention to prevent mass casualty shootings, and in reality gun free zones have no effect on this issue. These laws were made so that if a student or visiting adult was searched by police for criminal activity near a school and was armed he could be arrested and booked, it was a very logical law for what it was intended to do.
 
Evilroddy said:
What is the prime purpose of a motor vehicle? To transport people or cargo about. The deaths caused by motor vehicles are almost always accidental and often both unintended and unforeseeable.

What is the prime purpose of a firearm. To damage whatever it is fired at. If that target is a living thing and is successfully targeted, then that damage will result in the death or injury of the targeted living thing. Deaths/injuries by firearms to living things other than the firer are almost always not accidental and are thus intentional. They are either intentional or reasonably foreseeable.

CCW permits are designed to allow people to carry weapons secretly onto property not owned and controlled by the permit holder thus their prime purpose is to conceal the possession of a lethal weapon from others. I do not want anyone other than a duly authorised member of a state controlled public police force or the government's military to be able to carry concealed weapons or openly displayed weapons onto my property. I do not want anyone but police, military or licensed security guards hired by a useable person caring open or concealed weapons onto public property frequented by the general population or private property open to the general public where my children or the rest of my family can visit.

Because CCW permits allow the covert carrying of lethal weapons by private citizens, I think they should be banned. If you must carry a weapon in public, then carry it openly and suffer the consequences of that carrying when private citizens and firms ban you from carrying on their property and when police and security officials repeatedly check you out for carrying weapons openly in public spaces.

The Second Amendment only limits what the federal government (and by extension through the 14th Amendment what state governments) can do. Not municipalities, not counties and not private property owners and not private citizens. So keep sensible speed limits on public roads and ban CCW permits immediately.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

There is no specific reason to want concealed carry banned over open carry.

if someone is licensed to carry concealed then they are statistically not going to commit a crime.

If someone is not licensed and/or has criminal history they can be arrested and their firearm seized. I don't understand what logical action you intend to perform with a total ban on CCW.
 
vegas giants said:
Those signs are up in every first world country in the world.



Duh
Click to expand...

No they're really not. You never really see "gun free zone" signs in Canada. Never saw one in Chile either.

So that's two 1st world countries where you don't see them.
of course both countries have stricter gun laws, but they also have a generally healthier culture involving families.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given there is no factual support for any fears over CCW, I reject your views as silly-though I do believe that you, as an owner of private property-do have the absolute right to demand that those entering your property not be armed. Your claims about municipalities is idiotic-there are thousands of cases holding that a city government is the same as a state government when it comes to the bill of rights. Same with Counties. That is why when a PUBLIC school engages in activities that are contrary to the bill of rights, the school may be sued. Same with municipal police officers.
Click to expand...

Turtledude:

How can a property owner be aware of which persons are carrying concealed weapons if they can carry them covertly. Thus CCW permits have to go.

I exist. I have have grounded fears/concerns of people with CCW permits carrying concealed weapons onto my property or private or public property frequented by the public. Both of these are facts. I had to disarm a parent who entered a private school with a legally concealed firearm in Montreal. It was not a pleasant experience although it went smoothly. So my "fear" or concern is grounded in both fact and personal experience. It was one of the three times I have had to disarm people with firearms in school, the other two times being students with illegally concealed and illegally possessed fire arms (a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun).

So you can reject things all you want, I have lived these experiences and more with other weapons including other firearms incidents and I know them to be very stressfully and dangerous situations.

As well regulated state militias don't tend to train in schools when students are present in the building (unless the students are adults or older minors are part of the training with parental consent). I don't think your analysis is sound. Public schools in America should convert their properties to private holding company ownership using emphateutic leases from the state so that they can bar guns and illegal contraband from their properties.

Municipal police can always check a person suspected of carrying a firearm openly or under concealment given probable cause and if that possession is found to be legal they can go about their business. If not another firearm and another possible felon is arrested and off the streets. The requirement to have all carrying overt makes that easier, not perfect, but easier. If it annoys gun carriers in public, well so what. Public safety should trump your convenience. With right come responsibilities.

So my position stands and that's that. But I am not an American, so you can take comfort in that. Incidently, do you know how many of your fellow countrymen are stopped at our border and disarmed each year as they angrily demand their Second Amendment rights be respected in Canada? It is a souce of some amusement up here and some stress for Canada Customs and Border personnel. So not all American legal gun owners are as careful and well informed as you no doubt are, and they're carrying concealed all around you. The only thing more worrying than idiots in public are armed idiots in public.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Turtledude:

How can a property owner be aware of which persons are carrying concealed weapons if they can carry them covertly. Thus CCW permits have to go.

I exist. I have have grounded fears/concerns of people with CCW permits carrying concealed weapons onto my property or private or public property frequented by the public. Both of these are facts. I had to disarm a parent who entered a private school with a legally concealed firearm in Montreal. It was not a pleasant experience although it went smoothly. So my "fear" or concern is grounded in both fact and personal experience. It was one of the three times I have had to disarm people with firearms in school, the other two times being students with illegally concealed and illegally possessed fire arms (a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun).

So you can reject things all you want, I have lived these experiences and more with other weapons including other firearms incidents and I know them to be very stressfully and dangerous situations.

As well regulated state militias don't tend to train in schools when students are present in the building (unless the students are adults or older minors are part of the training with parental consent). I don't think your analysis is sound. Public schools in America should convert their properties to private holding company ownership using emphateutic leases from the state so that they can bar guns and illegal contraband from their properties.

Municipal police can always check a person suspected of carrying a firearm openly or under concealment given probable cause and if that possession is found to be legal they can go about their business. If not another firearm and another possible felon is arrested and off the streets. The requirement to have all carrying overt makes that easier, not perfect, but easier. If it annoys gun carriers in public, well so what. Public safety should trump your convenience. With right come responsibilities.

So my position stands and that's that. But I am not an American, so you can take comfort in that. Incidently, do you know how many of your fellow countrymen are stopped at our border and disarmed each year as they angrily demand their Second Amendment rights be respected in Canada? It is a souce of some amusement up here and some stress for Canada Customs and Border personnel. So not all American legal gun owners are as careful and well informed as you no doubt are, and they're carrying concealed all around you. The only thing more worrying than idiots in public are armed idiots in public.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

that first line is beyond silly. People who don't obey laws against using weapons against others are not going to obey a no CCW. There is no evidence that ccw holders are a problem. You are demanding to ban something based on a speculative and specious bit of nonsense. My right to defend myself always trumps your inordinate and unfounded fears.
 
Evilroddy said:
Turtledude:

How can a property owner be aware of which persons are carrying concealed weapons if they can carry them covertly. Thus CCW permits have to go.

I exist. I have have grounded fears/concerns of people with CCW permits carrying concealed weapons onto my property or private or public property frequented by the public. Both of these are facts. I had to disarm a parent who entered a private school with a legally concealed firearm in Montreal. It was not a pleasant experience although it went smoothly. So my "fear" or concern is grounded in both fact and personal experience. It was one of the three times I have had to disarm people with firearms in school, the other two times being students with illegally concealed and illegally possessed fire arms (a pistol and a sawed-off shotgun).

So you can reject things all you want, I have lived these experiences and more with other weapons including other firearms incidents and I know them to be very stressfully and dangerous situations.

As well regulated state militias don't tend to train in schools when students are present in the building (unless the students are adults or older minors are part of the training with parental consent). I don't think your analysis is sound. Public schools in America should convert their properties to private holding company ownership using emphateutic leases from the state so that they can bar guns and illegal contraband from their properties.

Municipal police can always check a person suspected of carrying a firearm openly or under concealment given probable cause and if that possession is found to be legal they can go about their business. If not another firearm and another possible felon is arrested and off the streets. The requirement to have all carrying overt makes that easier, not perfect, but easier. If it annoys gun carriers in public, well so what. Public safety should trump your convenience. With right come responsibilities.

So my position stands and that's that. But I am not an American, so you can take comfort in that. Incidently, do you know how many of your fellow countrymen are stopped at our border and disarmed each year as they angrily demand their Second Amendment rights be respected in Canada? It is a souce of some amusement up here and some stress for Canada Customs and Border personnel. So not all American legal gun owners are as careful and well informed as you no doubt are, and they're carrying concealed all around you. The only thing more worrying than idiots in public are armed idiots in public.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Considering how difficult it is to be issued unrestricted Authorization To Carry under the Firearms Act I don't understand what your concern was if a legal CCWer in Canada was at a school. This is probably somebody who's either been totally vetted by the police and has documented dangers against their life or someone who's very connected. Either way they pose no realistic threat to students.

I don't think anybody here has any issue with the Canadian government enforcing their laws at border checkpoints.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
There is no specific reason to want concealed carry banned over open carry.

if someone is licensed to carry concealed then they are statistically not going to commit a crime.

If someone is not licensed and/or has criminal history they can be arrested and their firearm seized. I don't understand what logical action you intend to perform with a total ban on CCW.
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle:

Making it easier to spot and search persons carrying firearms in public and frequently travelled private places and assuring that armed people do not enter private property while armed unless they have the explicit consent of the property owner.

I thought I made that clear.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
EMNofSeattle:

Making it easier to spot and search persons carrying firearms in public and frequently travelled private places and assuring that armed people do not enter private property while armed unless they have the explicit consent of the property owner.
Click to expand...

property owners can already eject people for trespassing if they do not want them there.

If you have property open to the public as a business you've already extended license to enter, explicit permission is therefore not required.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Considering how difficult it is to be issued unrestricted Authorization To Carry under the Firearms Act I don't understand what your concern was if a legal CCWer in Canada was at a school. This is probably somebody who's either been totally vetted by the police and has documented dangers against their life or someone who's very connected. Either way they pose no realistic threat to students.

I don't think anybody here has any issue with the Canadian government enforcing their laws at border checkpoints.
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle:

The gentleman concerned in the disarming was a security guard hired by a parent of a student at the school who was supposed to drive the student back and forth to school. He entered the school to ask a question and the receptionist spotted the weapon. She informed the office and I was ordered by the principal to escort the guard out or to disarm him immediately. I did as I was ordered and disarmed him peacefully until he reached the door and then returned his weapon to him. The police were called but by the time they responded the driver and child were departed. They apparently followed up with their investigation at the family's home, but I am ignorant of what happened. That security person never returned to our private school. The student did. There were international complications and perhaps diplomatic I,,unity for the family but I am not sure about the security guard.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
What is the prime purpose of a motor vehicle? To transport people or cargo about. The deaths caused by motor vehicles are almost always accidental and often both unintended and unforeseeable.

What is the prime purpose of a firearm. To damage whatever it is fired at. If that target is a living thing and is successfully targeted, then that damage will result in the death or injury of the targeted living thing. Deaths/injuries by firearms to living things other than the firer are almost always not accidental and are thus intentional. They are either intentional or reasonably foreseeable.

CCW permits are designed to allow people to carry weapons secretly onto property not owned and controlled by the permit holder thus their prime purpose is to conceal the possession of a lethal weapon from others. I do not want anyone other than a duly authorised member of a state controlled public police force or the government's military to be able to carry concealed weapons or openly displayed weapons onto my property. I do not want anyone but police, military or licensed security guards hired by a useable person caring open or concealed weapons onto public property frequented by the general population or private property open to the general public where my children or the rest of my family can visit.

Because CCW permits allow the covert carrying of lethal weapons by private citizens, I think they should be banned. If you must carry a weapon in public, then carry it openly and suffer the consequences of that carrying when private citizens and firms ban you from carrying on their property and when police and security officials repeatedly check you out for carrying weapons openly in public spaces.

The Second Amendment only limits what the federal government (and by extension through the 14th Amendment what state governments) can do. Not municipalities, not counties and not private property owners and not private citizens. So keep sensible speed limits on public roads and ban CCW permits immediately.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...


So you do NOT care about lethality or deaths, only the PURPOSE of the what it is?

That, of course is false UNLESS you believe anyone should be able to buy dynamite and TNT. Those were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for saving lives - as it was invented to make blowing open mines, in rock quarries, stump removal and all the other ways explosives were used. Dynamite taking a spark or fire to start is vastly safer than the nitro glycerine they were using.

So - go ahead and most that everyone should be able to buy TNT because its purpose was never to kill people - but even beyond cars - the purpose was to save lives.

At least you confirm that you are another the many - and I think majority - of Democrat who wants guns banned for reasons having NOTHING to do with death and murder. Rather, you hate guns - and with control freak messages demand no one has what you don't like.

Be certain you never, ever post any messages ever criticizing the police or the government, since you want the government only to have guns so therefore totally trust government - but again give NO reason - other than you are afraid of guns so want everyone disarmed.

Why do you want to allow police to have guns? Statistically, an innocent person is 600% more likely to be shot to death than by a non-police with a gun - and far more non-citizens are out there.

Again, at least acknowledge you think people should be able to buy dynamite as it was invented specifically to save lives.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
property owners can already eject people for trespassing if they do not want them there.

If you have property open to the public as a business you've already extended license to enter, explicit permission is therefore not required.
Click to expand...

EMNofSeattle:

Not true. If a business puts up a sign not permitting weapons on the premises they can bar armed patrons from entering. But with CCW permits they cannot reasonably enforce this so CCW should go. They will modify their behaviour if they know people around them are armed.

Why should a citizen who wants to carry a firearm be allowed to do so covertly. Don't other citizens interacting with an armed person have a very strong interest in knowing that the person they are interacting with is armed? That is why open carry should be the only carry allowed in frequently travelled public places and on private property.

Cheers.
Evilroddy..
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I don't think those are related.

The gun free zone's in schools started as a means to deal with common and narcotics criminals coming armed to schools, it is far easier to prosecute someone if the law says you shall not bring a firearm onto school grounds. It was never an intention to prevent mass casualty shootings, and in reality gun free zones have no effect on this issue. These laws were made so that if a student or visiting adult was searched by police for criminal activity near a school and was armed he could be arrested and booked, it was a very logical law for what it was intended to do.
Click to expand...

"Intentions" are irrelevant. Only CONSEQUENCES matter. Has gun violence in schools gone down with those signs? No, it went up and for obvious reasons.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." For Gun Free Zone signs, those intentions also lead to gravestones of the murdered as a result. That should be on the gravestone: "Murdered by good intentions."
 
TurtleDude said:
no, THIRTY THREE THOUSAND GUN SHOT DEATHS A YEAR in the USA
Click to expand...

You're right. Roughly the same number as auto deaths. My previous posts were way off because I was going with the statistics related to those similar to Parkland. My source didn't make that clear. My bad.

The difference being, however, using the accurate numbers, that the majority of U.S. gun deaths are suicide where only a tiny fraction of auto deaths are suicide. So I still fear injury or death by auto 100 fold more than I worry about death from gunfire. The only time I've really been nervous about guns is worrying about getting between a bird and a hunter during pheasant season in Kansas.
 
TurtleDude said:
that first line is beyond silly. People who don't obey laws against using weapons against others are not going to obey a no CCW. There is no evidence that ccw holders are a problem. You are demanding to ban something based on a speculative and specious bit of nonsense. My right to defend myself always trumps your inordinate and unfounded fears.
Click to expand...

Well then we will disagree.

Law abiding gun owners will abide laws by definition and their cooperation will make it easier to target the non-law-abiding persons who are armed.

You are so wrapped up in "me" and "my" (words which do not appear in your constitution) that you have lost sight of we and us. We the people and the commonwealth of the US. Your selfish and egocentric position is blocking meaningful and greatly needed firearms reforms from being implemented. How many others must die or be wounded before your recognise that you are giving legal and political cover for armed maniacs to buy, possess and use firearms in order to kill innocent people all over your country. Your philosophy is a blackhole of selfishness in a Schwarzchild radius of self-entitlement. US citizens have the right to bear arms openly, not concealed, because they also have a responsibility to inform all around them that they are armed and must also consent/submit to being well regulated by their state including law enforcement officers of that state.

If the Second Amendment is ever further abridged or even overturned it will be as much the fault of fanatical gun rights advocates as mass shooters and other firearms armed criminals. Compromise not defiance and myopic self-interest are needed more than ever right now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
Well then we will disagree.

Law abiding gun owners will abide laws by definition and their cooperation will make it easier to target the non-law-abiding persons who are armed.

You are so wrapped up in "me" and "my" (words which do not appear in your constitution) that you have lost sight of we and us. We the people and the commonwealth of the US. Your selfish and egocentric position is blocking meaningful and greatly needed firearms reforms from being implemented. How many others must die or be wounded before your recognise that you are giving legal and political cover for armed maniacs to buy, possess and use firearms in order to kill innocent people all over your country. Your philosophy is a blackhole of selfishness in a Schwarzchild radius of self-entitlement. US citizens have the right to bear arms openly, not concealed, because they also have a responsibility to inform all around them that they are armed and must also consent/submit to being well regulated by their state including law enforcement officers of that state.

If the Second Amendment is ever further abridged or even overturned it will be as much the fault of fanatical gun rights advocates as mass shooters and other firearms armed criminals. Compromise not defiance and myopic self-interest are needed more than ever right now.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Here is my view on guns-you should be able to own any firearm you want as long as you have not been adjudicated too dangerous to do so. and you should have the absolute right not to own a gun

Period
 
"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.
 
Phys251 said:
Joko, of all the questions you've asked, this has to be one of your stupidest ones yet. :lol:

I'll let you think about why. :) I'll give you a hint: It has nothing to do with whether or not gun safety laws are effective.
Click to expand...

Of course it isn't. :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
I think what gun banners really hate is how gun owners tend to vote against the creeping crud of collectivization
Click to expand...

Gun ownership prevents them from forcing collectivism on the citizenry. That's why they hate gun owners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom