• 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!

Gun Survey: Americans believe Mass Shootings More Prevalent than Gun Suicides

CaughtInThe said:
If 17 people get shot and two die, is that classified as a mass shooting?
Click to expand...

Mass shootings in the USA are usually defined as shootings where 4 or more people die not including the shooter.
 
DebateChallenge said:
According to the gun grabbers its possible given time. It might take awhile, it might take a long long time, but at least it will happen sooner or later whether it takes 1 year, 10 years, or 100 years it will happen. At least that's how it is according to the gun grabbers.
Click to expand...

And I can demonstrate how, in that long run, in that fullness of time, the net result is no different than the war on drugs, FAILURE. I can demonstrate it and I have demonstrated it in the past.
 
=vegas giants;1070749202]The idea that anyone who supports reasonable gun control is a gun banner is why no discussion can be had with gun nuts.
Click to expand...
It's hard to have a discussion on reasonable gun control when it's your side that wants to do the discussing and our side just does the listening and is expected to agree.
I shoot all the time and love to be at the range. But if I suggest universal background checks to a gun nut they just cant hear it.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming these "gun nuts" are at the range you love shooting at. IF so check the politics at the door and you'd get along. If you love being at the range shooting,does that mean your a gun nut? Or maybe you mean gun nut is reserved for those against UBCs?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Challenged me with what? That response up there was to zsu-something or other (long random number) and not to you, so let's start off with the fact that you don't even know who you're responding to.

To get back to the thread, I wager I can reach out to a gun grabber and enlighten and educate them, and most of you guys cannot. Now, what did you challenge me on again?
Click to expand...
RUN,RUN as fast as you can because your The Checkerboard Strangler or something. (long random number here) wonders what this has to do with me? And yes I went back and re read everything(several times in fact) and came to the conclusion you got mixed up. Sh#* happens.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
read my post that you previously responded to. Argue the points I made. if it wasn't meant for me to read and respond to it should be a private message. If you post it on a public forum you're allowing anyone privilege to respond to it.

Did someone hack your account of course I know who I'm talking to unless there's somebody else with the exact same name as you and exact same Avatar.

Yeah well people like me are pretty much written off by the pigheaded.
Click to expand...
I went over it too and agree.
 
zsu2357 said:
FOUR or more shot and/or killed in a single event [incident], at the same general time and location, not including the shooter.
Click to expand...

"A "mass shooting" is an incident involving multiple victims of firearm violence. There is no widely accepted definition of the term "mass shooting" but the FBI defines a "mass murder" as "four or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders."

so, every shooting we have where 1, 2 or 3 people are killed (and anywhere from 0 to 100 people are shot but not killed) is NOT classified as a mass shooting.

crazy, no?
 
Negative consequences brought on by a shooters decisions are acceptable risk in our society

-VySky
 
zsu2357 said:
It's hard to have a discussion on reasonable gun control when it's your side that wants to do the discussing and our side just does the listening and is expected to agree.

I'm assuming these "gun nuts" are at the range you love shooting at. IF so check the politics at the door and you'd get along. If you love being at the range shooting,does that mean your a gun nut? Or maybe you mean gun nut is reserved for those against UBCs?
Click to expand...

Yes gun nut is reserved for those against UBC.
 
Originally Posted by vegas giants
I shoot all the time and love to be at the range. But if I suggest universal background checks to a gun nut they just cant hear it.
Click to expand...
So does this mean you are a "gun nut"? I await your answer with baited breath.
 
zsu2357 said:
So does this mean you are a "gun nut"? I await your answer with baited breath.
Click to expand...

Nope. I support reasonable gun control.


And I love to shoot. Got my new scope in today. Cant wait to sight it in
 
Sorry but I'm one of those gun owners who doesn't mind getting background checked six ways to Sunday, because aside from a few traffic tickets, I have absolutely nothing on my record.

I am a law abiding U.S. citizen, and therefore any state should be more than happy to step aside and let me buy my gun or guns. And all states should be "shall issue" in my humble opinion...if you've passed the background check you should not have to grovel and pray for a concealed permit if you've received proper training.

But I am okay with the background checks.
Besides, some form of background checking happens all the time, when you try to rent a house, apply for any kind of job that involves responsibility, etc.
When Tek Systems hired out crews to rewire the IT infrastructure for Air Force Plant #4 in White Settlement TX, the bunch of us were subjected to two different background checks, and tons of our family and friends got inquiries about us before we started working there.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Sorry but I'm one of those gun owners who doesn't mind getting background checked six ways to Sunday, because aside from a few traffic tickets, I have absolutely nothing on my record.
Click to expand...

Right, so if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear about getting a background check. By extension you should also have no worries about government surveillance in general, as long as you have nothing to hide. After all, they're only looking for illegal activity.
 
aociswundumho said:
Right, so if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear about getting a background check. By extension you should also have no worries about government surveillance in general, as long as you have nothing to hide. After all, they're only looking for illegal activity.
Click to expand...

You are against even background checks????
 
aociswundumho said:
Right, so if you have nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear about getting a background check. By extension you should also have no worries about government surveillance in general, as long as you have nothing to hide. After all, they're only looking for illegal activity.
Click to expand...

By who's extension, your extension?
I extended nothing. I am talking BG Chex for gunz.
You're the one anxious to talk about Big Bro and his telescreens.

Doubleplusgood if you can connect the dots between gun chex and warrantless surveillance, which by the way is something you connies invented when you ramrodded the Patriot Act through Congress, so don't whine about it to us.

Gun chex should consist of law enforcement not finding anything of concern on a rap sheet about you somewhere.
If you want to do a deep dive into the McDonald's Playhouse of Big Bro spooking, make your own thread about it somewhere else, thanx.
 
Just to clarify what we are doing talking about when it comes to universal background checks. it is already the law that all firearms sales through an FFL seller, just not private sales, this would be the change to the current law. So, with that said, how can this be enforced with a National Firearms Registration? Currently there is no complete listing if whom owns what firearms, so hence there is no way to prove someone sold a firearm privately without a BGC. Yes, some will claim that we need to require that all firearms should be Registered, the problem is Millions of firearm owners would not comply and that end any effectiveness of such a requirement, then what?
 
Casper said:
Just to clarify what we are doing talking about when it comes to universal background checks. it is already the law that all firearms sales through an FFL seller, just not private sales, this would be the change to the current law. So, with that said, how can this be enforced with a National Firearms Registration? Currently there is no complete listing if whom owns what firearms, so hence there is no way to prove someone sold a firearm privately without a BGC. Yes, some will claim that we need to require that all firearms should be Registered, the problem is Millions of firearm owners would not comply and that end any effectiveness of such a requirement, then what?
Click to expand...

It works quite well in canada
 
zsu2357 said:
Okay a little late but...v there is nothing cute about the levels of stupidity you aspire too.
Click to expand...

Awwwww. The insult.



You're cute too. Lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom