• 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
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...

Wow, in your opinion it is "selfish" to oppose your children, family, neighbors and yourself murdered by "armed maniacs" - that you "support" by demanding that no one can possibly resist their attacks nor harm them.

By identifying how has illegal guns you mean by investigating murders and rapes of defenseless people as you insist.

I gather it outrages you that statistically THE safest people with guns are people with conceal carry permits. Not ENOUGH gun deaths for you? EVERY anti-gun law imposed in the USA ALLOWS increases gun murders. Even attempt to enforce firearms regulations results in murders and mass murders - not only by gun but by bombs, arson and poison gas. Who must get murdered by what you want are women and children - and people with government get more murdered not with the government.

How many more murders and mass murders do you think there should be in the USA by what you want? 10,000 a year more murders? 50,000 more murders a year? 100,000?

But then as is often stated, the desire for gun control has nothing to do with ending murder. It has to do with giving 100% power to the government and criminals - reducing everyone else to defenseless peasants. If 1, 10, 50 million people have to die to accomplish it, then the view is 50 million people must die. Such is the logic of the new corporate-fascist Democrat progressives. To them, Mao and Stalin were two of the greatest men to ever live. How is your opinion on guns and ordinary people any different from theirs?
 
vegas giants said:
Guns are far far far more dangerous than cars. Most people never touch a gun but they have about the same deaths as something people use every day
Click to expand...

Cars kill 100,000 people a year.
 
vegas giants said:
My God you have to be kidding. This would destroy our entire economy. Productivity would crash. People would not want to work more than a few miles from home. Every good and service provided would come to a slow grinding mess.


It is a hilariously stupid idea
Click to expand...

Did that happen with the 55 mph speed limit?

"Gun industry contributes $51.3B to US economy, research shows
The firearms industry is responsible for more than 300,000 jobs and more than $15 billion in wages, when you count direct, supplier and induced jobs and wages, according to the NSSF report. For 20 states, the total economic impact of the gun industry measures into the billions."
Gun industry contributes $51.3B to US economy, research shows

To the contrary, reducing the speed limit to 25mph wouldn't cost anything. It would only save tens of thousands of lives, over a million injuries and a quarter of billion dollars a year. It would equate to an extra $820 per person (over $3000 per year for a family of four - and that does not include gasoline savings or ultimately the dramatically lower cost to buy a car since they would not longer be built to do 100+ mph.)

Also, you should never ever pretend anymore you care about climate change either. As the speed of a car increases, it's fuel demand per mile - and just CO2 output - increases exponentially as 90% of the power is required to push the car thru air (areodynamic drag). This would reduce auto CO2 and other pollution emissions also by nearly 90%.

Really, in your messages, it is just about what YOU want - not avoiding massive death and injury counts, not about saving money, and not about the climate. You don't care about any of that if it inconveniences you in any way. Typical progressive me! me! me! complete hypocrisy and lack of any intellectual integrity.
 
Phys251 said:
You okay, man? First you accuse me of genocide, then...that. And that's not to mention what you said in my sig.
Click to expand...

I have viewing signature lines turned off.

IF YOU ARE QUOTING ME IN YOUR SIGNATURE LINE - REMOVE IT. Consider this a formal demand.
 
apdst said:
Gun ownership prevents them from forcing collectivism on the citizenry. That's why they hate gun owners.
Click to expand...

that-=along with this

Democrats adopted gun control mainly in the 60s to both pretend they were doing something about the rising street crime and so as not to upset many of their constituents (who saw a GOP call for a crack down on street crime as "racist")

When Gun owners started mobilizing against these phony crime control measures (that only harassed honest gun owners), gun owners became the enemy of the Democrats and now gun control is nothing more than the eruption of a massive pimple-with the pus being hatred of those who vote against the left-wingers.
 
joko104 said:
I have viewing signature lines turned off.

IF YOU ARE QUOTING ME IN YOUR SIGNATURE LINE - REMOVE IT. Consider this a formal demand.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can do that-I have a poster who dishonestly quoted me twice and out of context and when I asked him to remove it he refused and the administration didn't do anything about it
 
The thing that jumps out to me about your question, are you saying these auto deaths are intentional like shootings?
 
joko104 said:
I have viewing signature lines turned off.

IF YOU ARE QUOTING ME IN YOUR SIGNATURE LINE - REMOVE IT. Consider this a formal demand.
Click to expand...

Just be glad you don't face life with the likely insurmountable problems other have, and view such reminders as a moment to give thanks for that.
 
joko104 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Joko104:

What an absurd reposte. Nitroglycerine, invented by an Italian, was used for blasting to increase profits, not to save lives. Only in the late 1880's was it discovered to have medicinal value as a vasodilator and used to help people. Dynamite was invented, along with gelignite, by Alfred Nobel for profit, not for humanitarian purposes. It was an important ingredient in manufacturing the propellant projectile charges for his armaments company - Bofors, and also as an explosive for his mining interests. None of his inventions ever won a Nobel Prize. He set up the Nobel Institute because he read scathing obituaries about himself as a viscious arms producer and seller during a false announcement of his death and wanted to rebrand himself as a good man in the public eye.

The Second Ammendment was written when the best armed a citizen could be was with a muzzle-loaded, rifled musket and some single-shot pistols. A good soldier with a lot of practice might be able to get off 2-4 rounds per minute with such weapons. Today with a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity clip-on mags a shooter can deliver about 90-100 rounds more accurately in that same minute. That is a whole lot of dead and wounded people in the minutes before armed responders can intervene. Therefore reasonable regulation of such semi-automatic and converted defacto automatic weapons is needed to ensure that they remain in the hands of only responsible, law abiding gun-owners and are not accessible to the insane, the angry, the unreliable and the criminal. I don't want to ban guns. I want to get them out of the hands of those who will abuse them at great cost to the whole society.

That same Second Amendment said that the US citizen's right to bear arms was necessary to maintain well regulated militias in each state and was thus a collective right rather than an individual one. That was the operating legal principle in Second Amendment jurisprudence until the early 2000's when the SCOTUS reinterpreted it as an individual right. As a collective right to maintain a well regulated militia certain types of arms could be permitted for only those who were trained, vetted and responsible enough to possess/own them. When the individual interpretation became dominant it became a free-for-all.

Semi-automatic weapons should be openly carried so that every one around the carrier knows that they are armed and can act accordingly. Regular searches of people who are armed or are suspected of being armed, should occur in public places and private places open to the general public. Legal gun owners will be inconvenienced but illegal gun holders can be arrested, can have their possessed arms confiscated and can be prosecuted. Put enough effort into searching all suspected gun carriers in public and well trafficked private places and you will go a long way to stopping gun violence by catching illegal and unstable gun owners before they can cause carnage.

Continued next post.
 
As far as I am concerned any US citizen who is of age, not medically interdicted by a panel of doctors and at least one judge or has not been found guilty of a serious violent crime or any crime involving firearms, should be able to buy, own and safely store their firearms at home or at their gun clubs or if applicable, their place of work. The more lethal a firearm is (in terms of numbers potentially killed/wounded per unit of time) the more training and background check thoroughness an owner must have. Guns being transferred outside of a person's property should be openly carried or disassembled and secured while being transported. Stored weapons should be trigger locked and/or secured in a locked and immoveable container.

Ammunition purchaces per month or per year should be limited based on whether or not a person is a member of a gun club or is a hunter, competitive shooter etc. Any device which can be used to make a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one or a defacto automatic one should be illegal to sell, buy or possess. Clip-on magazines should be limited to five or ten rounds maximum. No one except police should be allowed to carry more than one full magazine per gun which they are openly carrying in a public urban/suburban place, although they may carry more and unloaded ammo for the purpose of transporting them to their private property or their gun club/range where such restriction would not apply. In rural areas the one-armed-magazine limit should not apply. Anything designed to disguise or limit the report of a firearm should be illegal to sell, own or possess by a private citizens.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
bongsaway said:
The thing that jumps out to me about your question, are you saying these auto deaths are intentional like shootings?
Click to expand...

I think that is important for a reason you might miss. Cars kill far more people than guns but almost all the car deaths are not INTENDED while the vast majority of gun deaths are intentional.
 
Evilroddy said:
As far as I am concerned any US citizen who is of age, not medically interdicted by a panel of doctors and at least one judge or has not been found guilty of a serious violent crime or any crime involving firearms, should be able to buy, own and safely store their firearms at home or at their gun clubs or if applicable, their place of work. The more lethal a firearm is (in terms of numbers potentially killed/wounded per unit of time) the more training and background check thoroughness an owner must have. Guns being transferred outside of a person's property should be openly carried or disassembled and secured while being transported. Stored weapons should be trigger locked and/or secured in a locked and immoveable container.

Ammunition purchaces per month or per year should be limited based on whether or not a person is a member of a gun club or is a hunter, competitive shooter etc. Any device which can be used to make a semiautomatic weapon into an automatic one or a defacto automatic one should be illegal to sell, buy or possess. Clip-on magazines should be limited to five or ten rounds maximum. No one except police should be allowed to carry more than one full magazine per gun which they are openly carrying in a public urban/suburban place, although they may carry more and unloaded ammo for the purpose of transporting them to their private property or their gun club/range where such restriction would not apply. In rural areas the one-armed-magazine limit should not apply. Anything designed to disguise or limit the report of a firearm should be illegal to sell, own or possess by a private citizens.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You don't understand the concept of a negative limitation. The government doesn't have the proper power to deny you your right to buy ammo. The government doesn't suddenly acquire that power after you have bought a certain amount of ammo

the bit about the "clip on" magazines is so idiotic I can only laugh at it. and your attack on suppressors is really silly
 
Evilroddy said:
Joko104:

What an absurd reposte. Nitroglycerine, invented by an Italian, was used for blasting to increase profits, not to save lives. Only in the late 1880's was it discovered to have medicinal value as a vasodilator and used to help people. Dynamite was invented, along with gelignite, by Alfred Nobel for profit, not for humanitarian purposes. It was an important ingredient in manufacturing the propellant projectile charges for his armaments company - Bofors, and also as an explosive for his mining interests. None of his inventions ever won a Nobel Prize. He set up the Nobel Institute because he read scathing obituaries about himself as a viscious arms producer and seller during a false announcement of his death and wanted to rebrand himself as a good man in the public eye.

The Second Ammendment was written when the best armed a citizen could be was with a muzzle-loaded, rifled musket and some single-shot pistols. A good soldier with a lot of practice might be able to get off 2-4 rounds per minute with such weapons. Today with a semi-automatic weapon and high capacity clip-on mags a shooter can deliver about 90-100 rounds more accurately in that same minute. That is a whole lot of dead and wounded people in the minutes before armed responders can intervene. Therefore reasonable regulation of such semi-automatic and converted defacto automatic weapons is needed to ensure that they remain in the hands of only responsible, law abiding gun-owners and are not accessible to the insane, the angry, the unreliable and the criminal. I don't want to ban guns. I want to get them out of the hands of those who will abuse them at great cost to the whole society.

That same Second Amendment said that the US citizen's right to bear arms was necessary to maintain well regulated militias in each state and was thus a collective right rather than an individual one. That was the operating legal principle in Second Amendment jurisprudence until the early 2000's when the SCOTUS reinterpreted it as an individual right. As a collective right to maintain a well regulated militia certain types of arms could be permitted for only those who were trained, vetted and responsible enough to possess/own them. When the individual interpretation became dominant it became a free-for-all.

Semi-automatic weapons should be openly carried so that every one around the carrier knows that they are armed and can act accordingly. Regular searches of people who are armed or are suspected of being armed, should occur in public places and private places open to the general public. Legal gun owners will be inconvenienced but illegal gun holders can be arrested, can have their possessed arms confiscated and can be prosecuted. Put enough effort into searching all suspected gun carriers in public and well trafficked private places and you will go a long way to stopping gun violence by catching illegal and unstable gun owners before they can cause carnage.

Continued next post.
Click to expand...

OMG is that funny.

Your take on the second amendment is purely WRONG
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't think you can do that-I have a poster who dishonestly quoted me twice and out of context and when I asked him to remove it he refused and the administration didn't do anything about it
Click to expand...

I've known them required to be removed in the past as they are 1.) calling someone out on every topic even if the person isn't in it and 2.) it is otherwise deliberate baiting. But, then, this isn't our decision and not a topic to debate on the forum.
 
Last edited:
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 not, but it has everything to do with whether "gun safety law" advocates are sincere and/or rational in their desire to save lives.

There's literally no question that applying the same kind of principles that they are proposing for gun laws to driving laws, would save thousands of lives. But they'll never do that, because that might require them to give up something, rather than just imposing the burden on others.
 
Tlrmln said:
Of course not, but it has everything to do with whether "gun safety law" advocates are sincere and/or rational in their desire to save lives.

There's literally no question that applying the same kind of principles that they are proposing for gun laws to driving laws, would save thousands of lives. But they'll never do that, because that might require them to give up something, rather than just imposing the burden on others.
Click to expand...

No. They would never do that because it would crash the economy and is an incredibly dumb idea
 
joko104 said:
Did that happen with the 55 mph speed limit?

"Gun industry contributes $51.3B to US economy, research shows
The firearms industry is responsible for more than 300,000 jobs and more than $15 billion in wages, when you count direct, supplier and induced jobs and wages, according to the NSSF report. For 20 states, the total economic impact of the gun industry measures into the billions."
Gun industry contributes $51.3B to US economy, research shows

To the contrary, reducing the speed limit to 25mph wouldn't cost anything. It would only save tens of thousands of lives, over a million injuries and a quarter of billion dollars a year. It would equate to an extra $820 per person (over $3000 per year for a family of four - and that does not include gasoline savings or ultimately the dramatically lower cost to buy a car since they would not longer be built to do 100+ mph.)

Also, you should never ever pretend anymore you care about climate change either. As the speed of a car increases, it's fuel demand per mile - and just CO2 output - increases exponentially as 90% of the power is required to push the car thru air (areodynamic drag). This would reduce auto CO2 and other pollution emissions also by nearly 90%.

Really, in your messages, it is just about what YOU want - not avoiding massive death and injury counts, not about saving money, and not about the climate. You don't care about any of that if it inconveniences you in any way. Typical progressive me! me! me! complete hypocrisy and lack of any intellectual integrity.
Click to expand...

Really dude to suggest that a 25 mph law would not cost billions of dollars and cripple the largest economy in the world which woukdvthen cause a worldwide depression is to deny reality. It is a dumb idea
 
Do both. If reducing the speed limit will save lives - reduce it. If banning guns saves lives - ban them. It is not a choice about doing one or the other - you can do both. NO society should accept any needless death - it should continually strive to reduce them as far as possible, and never rest on the fact it has got it down to x. I am currently campaigning to get better speed enforcement where I live, not because there has been any accidents, but because there is a problem with speeding, and it is only a matter of time before something happens. Might not be the most popular measure, but preventing a life being lost is worth it.
 
Leftists don’t give the first **** about life, violence, and certainly not in the lives lost daily in the black American communities across the country where the vast majority of dead Americans occur every year. All they care about is their pathetic impotent hatred of guns and attacking the gun rights of American citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
VanceMack said:
Leftists don’t give the first **** about life, violence, and certainly not in the lives lost daily in the black American communities across the country where the vast majority of dead Americans occur every year. All they care about is their pathetic impotent hatred of guns and attacking the gun rights of American citizens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Gun rubbers do not care if we have a mass shooting every day. It's good for their politics
 
joko104 said:
I have viewing signature lines turned off.

IF YOU ARE QUOTING ME IN YOUR SIGNATURE LINE - REMOVE IT. Consider this a formal demand.
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
That's quite enough thank you. All talk of signatures and "formal demands", ends now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom