• 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!

...you're More Likely to Shoot a Loved One

bluesmoke said:
“You are claiming that Mexico actually has gun laws like the USA. Do you realize how moronic that is?”

Do you realize how ignorant and stupid you are for not knowing or bothering to do the work of finding out that I am right in saying that Mexico has the right to bear arms? Then, accuse me of being moronic, claiming I made an untrue assertion which, with a few clicks, you could have found out was true? How idiotic can you get? A.) More.

The following is an excerpt from the link further below:

“The right to keep and bear arms was first recognized as a constitutional right under Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution of 1857.”

Firearms regulation in Mexico - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

I have been to mexico as a member of the US shooting team. There is only one gun store that private citizens can shop in in the entire country. Mexican "right to bear arms" is up there with "freedom of speech" in North Korea

so you are just saying foolish nonsense. Mexican citizens don't have anywhere near the same freedoms we have. Guns are essentially banned for the vast majority of honest citizens

from your own source (LOL)

Mexico has extremely restrictive laws regarding gun possession. There is only one gun store in the entire country, and it takes months of paperwork to have a chance at purchasing one legally.[3

a result of the changes to Article 10 of the Mexican Constitution and the enactment of the Federal Law of Firearms and Explosives, openly carrying a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon in public is virtually forbidden to private citizens, unless explicitly authorized by the Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA). For purposes of personal protection, firearms are only permitted within the place of residence and of the type and caliber permitted by law.


So why do you even try to insinuate that Mexican citizens have the same rights we do?
 
jaeger19 said:
You are 47 more times likely to be bitten by a dog.. than be shot by a firearm

4.7 million americans are bitten every year, 800,000 require medical attention.

AND dogs act on their own. They are dangerous on their own.

No firearm every just jumped up and shot someone.
Click to expand...

That IS NOT the question I asked. Please focus.

Again: how many scores of millions have died from dog bites as opposed to dying from guns in our history?
 
RF667799 said:
I haven't needed a fire extinguisher in near 62 years. Still, I have several.

Maybe a more apt comparison would be that my obsession with fire safety is like an obsession with religion?
Click to expand...

I already provided the more apt comparison between religion and guns.
 
RF667799 said:
I don't know why I would, since I didn't make a claim relevant to murdering people.
Click to expand...

Refer to topic of thread. Hint: it's not about fighting fires.
 
Logician Man said:
Pea shooters,poison darts, and slingshots,
Click to expand...

Well slingshots are banned in New Jersey, as for poison darts I don't know the legality on those although they are easy enough to make so a ban would be ineffective, and as for pea shooters why would you want to ban a children's toy?
 
calamity said:
Refer to topic of thread. Hint: it's not about fighting fires.
Click to expand...

Beyond me why you asked for data about fire extinguishers then.
 
Beowulf said:
Kind of like fire extinguishers. One doesn't need them every day, but when they are needed they are indispensable.
Click to expand...

Or for that matter fire insurance, or medical insurance.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Death of Diane Whipple - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

That one incident does NOT answer my question about the number of people killed by dogs versus the number of people who die from guns.

There is something here that needs to be pointed out. I get far more replies to anything I say about guns than any other subject here. It is not even close.

Why are gun advocates so incredibly sensitive to anything said about guns that might reflect negatively about how people use them? This whole thing about dogs is just the latest example of the complete and utter absurd lengths people allege to try to put guns in a better light.
 
haymarket said:
I already provided the more apt comparison between religion and guns.
Click to expand...

Not more apt...just as apt though. That's the beauty of your earlier comparison, Haymarket! It works for nearly anything.

An obsession (enthusiastic interest ?) for religion is just like an obsession (enthusiastic interest) for guns, boats, motorcycles, gardening......
 
haymarket said:
That IS NOT the question I asked. Please focus.

Again: how many scores of millions have died from dog bites as opposed to dying from guns in our history?
Click to expand...

Okay.. no one has "died from guns" ...

thousands have died from dogs.
 
haymarket said:
That one incident does NOT answer my question about the number of people killed by dogs versus the number of people who die from guns.

There is something here that needs to be pointed out. I get far more replies to anything I say about guns than any other subject here. It is not even close.

Why are gun advocates so incredibly sensitive to anything said about guns that might reflect negatively about how people use them? This whole thing about dogs is just the latest example of the complete and utter absurd lengths people allege to try to put guns in a better light.
Click to expand...

Maybe it happens when people dishonestly shift from "how people use them" to the guns themselves? Look, you indirectly did it yourself in your two final sentences,
 
jaeger19 said:
Okay.. no one has "died from guns" ...

thousands have died from dogs.
Click to expand...

Really?!?!?!?!!?!? I can think of at least scores of millions who died from gunfire.
 
RF667799 said:
Maybe it happens when people dishonestly shift from "how people use them" to the guns themselves? Look, you indirectly did it yourself in your two final sentences,
Click to expand...

How dense and how much of a mindless True Believer does any gun nut have to be to not understand that they are one and the same?
 
haymarket said:
How dense and how much of a mindless True Believer does any gun nut have to be to not understand that they are one and the same?
Click to expand...

In the same way, belching ad hominem like left-over pizza is not the same as providing a substantive argument.

Your concession is accepted. :)
 
haymarket said:
Really?!?!?!?!!?!? I can think of at least scores of millions who died from gunfire.
Click to expand...

oh.. great.. please provide evidence of guns who jumped up and shot people.. You can provide evidence of the number of guns perhaps that were prosecuted for murder? Or manslaughter?

I am quite positive that I could provide evidence of dogs that have been adjudicated as a menace and has having hurt, maimed or killed people and thus they were euthanized.

Could you please provide the same evidence of firearms that wantonly killed folks.. and were caught and prosecuted?
 
haymarket said:
How dense and how much of a mindless True Believer does any gun nut have to be to not understand that they are one and the same?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.. please clarify that... so a firearm which is an inanimate object.. is the same as the thinking, feeling, person that uses it? They are the same?

Yeah..it would seem you are the mindless true believer.
 
haymarket said:
That one incident does NOT answer my question about the number of people killed by dogs versus the number of people who die from guns.

There is something here that needs to be pointed out. I get far more replies to anything I say about guns than any other subject here. It is not even close.

Why are gun advocates so incredibly sensitive to anything said about guns that might reflect negatively about how people use them? This whole thing about dogs is just the latest example of the complete and utter absurd lengths people allege to try to put guns in a better light.
Click to expand...

Gun advocates are sensitive? It's the crowd that wants stricter gun control that's the sensitive crowd, they're the ones that function on emotion, not the gun advocates. And what's so absurd about the thing about dogs? It doesn't take much to know that certain dogs can be dangerous and a dog will act on its own, a gun will not. A dog has a mind of its own, a gun does not.
Fatal dog attacks in the United States - Wikipedia
 
RF667799 said:
In the same way, belching ad hominem like left-over pizza is not the same as providing a substantive argument.

Your concession is accepted. :)
Click to expand...

You are making no sense on any level.
 
jaeger19 said:
oh.. great.. please provide evidence of guns who jumped up and shot people.. You can provide evidence of the number of guns perhaps that were prosecuted for murder? Or manslaughter?

I am quite positive that I could provide evidence of dogs that have been adjudicated as a menace and has having hurt, maimed or killed people and thus they were euthanized.

Could you please provide the same evidence of firearms that wantonly killed folks.. and were caught and prosecuted?
Click to expand...

Start with the people who died in wars starting with the 20th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom