• 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!

Republicans aren't wrong about 'People with Metnal health Issues'

Saboteur said:
I'm saying we need mental health control not government mandated but government aided.

I suppose some gun lover will now bestow me with of some kid of delusional dystopian view of going back to using government sanctioned asylums...:roll:

So what fantasy world do most gun owners live in?

1. The "hero, good guy with a gun" belief?

or

2. The "everyone is out get me and my stuff" paranoia?

View attachment 67266695
Click to expand...
That pie chart is misleading. The slices of pie for murder of strangers and family members represent some murders that could have been prevented if more law-abiding citizens in cities/counties that don't allow CCW were able to carry and defend themselves. Then that small black slice of pie would be much bigger. It makes me want to research how many women have been murdered by their estranged boyfriends or husbands/exes in L.A. , where it is virtually impossible to get a CCW, even if one has a restraining order against someone and can prove they have been threatened. California sucks. We coddle criminals here and refuse to protect the innocent or allow them to protect themselves. Our government thinks we live in some kind of parallel universe with "Minority Report" where the police can protect everyone. Well they cant.....

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
 
TurtleDude said:
Federal law bans the following

A citizen from State A from buying or selling ANY firearm from or to any citizen from another state

A Citizen from State A buying a Handgun from even a licensed dealer from any other state

Private citizens may sell firearms to licensed dealers across state lines, and in the case of adjacent states, buy rifles or shotguns from DEALERS in another state
Click to expand...



Thx for answering at least one of my questions. What about the others? Results are results, so how would demographics affect results opposite of what I gave? And how are the results I gave negatively affected by your explanation of neighboring state gun laws?
 
bluesmoke said:
Thx for answering at least one of my questions. What about the others? Results are results, so how would demographics affect results opposite of what I gave? And how are the results I gave negatively affected by your explanation of neighboring state gun laws?
Click to expand...

Red states tend to have more retirees, and more veterans than blue states. White Retirees, and vets tend to have higher rates of suicide than other groups
 
MrWonka said:
That is a lot of guns being stolen. It makes me wonder how many of those were actually stolen versus were reported stolen after they were used in a crime and the police showed up asking the owner where is gun was.
Click to expand...

There is a spot in our river that a detective told me was just slam full of guns. Said occasionally they will send a diver in there if they are confident a recent dump was made on a murder weapon. Said when they do send one in, they could spend all day pulling guns out. The spot is just off a wooded area near a particularly bad bad neighborhood.
 
Drawdown said:
There is a spot in our river that a detective told me was just slam full of guns. Said occasionally they will send a diver in there if they are confident a recent dump was made on a murder weapon. Said when they do send one in, they could spend all day pulling guns out. The spot is just off a wooded area near a particularly bad bad neighborhood.
Click to expand...
what's your location?
 
TurtleDude said:
Red states tend to have more retirees, and more veterans than blue states. White Retirees, and vets tend to have higher rates of suicide than other groups
Click to expand...



"Red states tend to have more retirees, and more veterans than blue states. White Retirees, and vets tend to have higher rates of suicide than other groups"

So what? That might explain why those states have a higher suicide rate than others, but does not have bearing on the fact that those other states with stronger gun laws have rates that are going down. The trend is upwards in the “red” states and downwards in the stronger gun law states. How is it possible those “red” states cause the other states rates to go down?

Also, the downward trend in the stronger gun law states is not affected by neighbor states except for those states’ reciprocal laws regarding out-of-state gun purchase. Which would be, if anything, a factor to do with stronger gun laws lowering overall suicide rate.
 
bluesmoke said:
"Red states tend to have more retirees, and more veterans than blue states. White Retirees, and vets tend to have higher rates of suicide than other groups"

So what? That might explain why those states have a higher suicide rate than others, but does not have bearing on the fact that those other states with stronger gun laws have rates that are going down. The trend is upwards in the “red” states and downwards in the stronger gun law states. How is it possible those “red” states cause the other states rates to go down?

Also, the downward trend in the stronger gun law states is not affected by neighbor states except for those states’ reciprocal laws regarding out-of-state gun purchase. Which would be, if anything, a factor to do with stronger gun laws lowering overall suicide rate.
Click to expand...

actually the number of guns has gone way up in the last 25 years. the number of people carrying guns legally has gone way up, but the rate of gun violence has gone down

and I don't believe that decreasing crime is what motivates activist gun restrictionists. Its invariably political.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have never seen any attempts to document those. criminals get lots of guns from straw purchasers and I am sure some of them claim the gun used in a robbery or homicide was stolen, when they intentionally bought it for the defendant
Click to expand...

What you describe is EXACTLY how criminals get guns. Very few are "stolen" from individuals. The vast majority are "straw purchases". MY oldest son used to be a police detective on our urban police department. He worked many, many cases of professional "straw purchases". There were guys who made a good living at it.....at least for a few months or years. Every petty thug knew the "guy" who could get them a handgun, any gun they wanted. How they usually got caught was going to the same gun shop just once too often, and the gun shop reports them. Or the Straw purchase just went through an individual with an FFL. Usually the BATF eventually caught on to that. And sometimes the criminal who actually buys the gun gets caught, and plea bargains a deal by flipping on the "guy". My son told me story after story of how the illegal gun trade works. The problem is there simply aren't enough guns actually stolen from individuals to meet the huge demand for illegal guns. So criminals game the system, figure out work-arounds, and one way or another get what they want.
 
TurtleDude said:
actually the number of guns has gone way up in the last 25 years. the number of people carrying guns legally has gone way up, but the rate of gun violence has gone down

and I don't believe that decreasing crime is what motivates activist gun restrictionists. Its invariably political.
Click to expand...



As you have shown on other threads numerous times, you can't give an honest, forthright answer. Instead, you make another claim that is easily refuted as to it's pertinence on the subject in debate. The fact is, the states with higher rate of gun ownership also have higher gun related deaths. The reason that though "actually the number of guns has gone way up in the last 25 years." and "the number of people carrying guns legally has gone way up," but "the rate of gun violence has gone down", as you say, is because more states are implementing stronger gun laws.

So, as I've done before on other threads, I'll no longer involve myself in this non-debate in which you cowardly avoid giving honest, forthright reply.
 
bluesmoke said:
As you have shown on other threads numerous times, you can't give an honest, forthright answer. Instead, you make another claim that is easily refuted as to it's pertinence on the subject in debate. The fact is, the states with higher rate of gun ownership also have higher gun related deaths. The reason that though "actually the number of guns has gone way up in the last 25 years." and "the number of people carrying guns legally has gone way up," but "the rate of gun violence has gone down", as you say, is because more states are implementing stronger gun laws.

So, as I've done before on other threads, I'll no longer involve myself in this non-debate in which you cowardly avoid giving honest, forthright reply.
Click to expand...

It is funny watching a gun banner talk about dishonesty when we both know that it is politics that motivates the vast majority of you gun banners, not a bonafide desire to control violent criminals. Tell me why the most unsafe areas in the USA are almost always areas run by anti gun democrats and feature idiotic laws that hamper lawful people from owning guns.

One of the problems people like you have, is that you have to put all your rotten eggs in one basket. That being-the only argument you have in favor of your freedom hating anti gun laws, is the claim that it reduces crime. If you cannot prove it-you have ZERO other avenues of support for your desires. We, pro freedom advocates, have several arguments that remain intact EVEN IF YOU can prove that restricting honest people will decrease crime.

The evidence is dubious that things like the background check, (the Duke study found that the background check imposed on licensed dealers did nothing to reduce violent crime) "assault weapons ban" (several studies demonstrated that these laws are worthless in decreasing crime), or magazine limits (again, the clinton gun ban was worthless in decreasing crime and crime continued to decease-due to other reasons-after his ban sunset) have any value in crime control. So you have a singular argument that you cannot prove as true.

We can easily prove that your proposed laws harass and impact, deleteriously, honest gun owners. Many of the things you propose are clearly unconstitutional at a federal level and probably unconstitutional at a state level. And there is no doubt that the "trickle down"theory of gun bans is inefficient as well: actually targeting criminals is far more efficient in terms of crime control

finally, almost every gun banner is a Democrat or left-winger. If gun control really was an obvious solution to criminal violence, you'd think there would be strong support for it among right wing non-gun owners. There isn't. It is obviously a political weapon more than a valid attempt to increase public safety
 
Rich2018 said:
They do seem to reduce gun homicides and mass shootings though.
Click to expand...

If that were true there would be objective studies that prove it. There are not. The only thing that gun control laws are proven to do is inconvenience honest gun owners and allow the proponents to pander to stupid people who want SOMETHING done, or people who -for cultural and political reasons-dislike pro gun voters. But then that is the main motivation of gun restrictionists, not crime control
 
Rich2018 said:
You'd have to look at places where guns were allowed and then were banned.

Like Australia or the UK.
Click to expand...

yeah Britain gets more and more violent. Australia is a mixed bag IIRC
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah Britain gets more and more violent. Australia is a mixed bag IIRC
Click to expand...

Britain is more urban than the USA and is more violent consequently.

British gun laws have stopped (largely) gun homicides though...since 1996 the UK with a population of 60 million has has just ONE mass shooting. Care to guess how many the US experiences every year ?

How many armed robberies compared between the UK and the USA per capita ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Britain is more urban than the USA and is more violent consequently.

British gun laws have stopped (largely) gun homicides though...since 1996 the UK with a population of 60 million has has just ONE mass shooting. Care to guess how many the US experiences every year ?

How many armed robberies compared between the UK and the USA per capita ?
Click to expand...

Here is what you miss

BEFORE England started banning guns or controlling ownership, it was far safer than the USA. As the USA has increased the number of guns in circulation and opened up more and more areas where people can carry concealed firearms, our rates of violent crime have decreased. As England restricted gun ownership more and more, it became more violent
 
TurtleDude said:
Here is what you miss

BEFORE England started banning guns or controlling ownership, it was far safer than the USA. As the USA has increased the number of guns in circulation and opened up more and more areas where people can carry concealed firearms, our rates of violent crime have decreased. As England restricted gun ownership more and more, it became more violent
Click to expand...

Britain, sadly, is a violent place but why on Earth would you allow people there to be armed with guns ?

Like the USA though the trend for violence in society has reduced since the 1990's

Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19% - BBC News


Guns don't really affect crime, they just magnify the severity of it.


You're quick to dismiss gang related gun deaths in the USA, but less likely it seems to dismiss gang crime with knives in the UK. I'm glad that gangs of youths in the UK are armed with knives and not guns,
 
Rich2018 said:
Britain, sadly, is a violent place but why on Earth would you allow people there to be armed with guns ?

Like the USA though the trend for violence in society has reduced since the 1990's

Crime figures: Violent crime recorded by police rises by 19% - BBC News


Guns don't really affect crime, they just magnify the severity of it.


You're quick to dismiss gang related gun deaths in the USA, but less likely it seems to dismiss gang crime with knives in the UK. I'm glad that gangs of youths in the UK are armed with knives and not guns,
Click to expand...

why should honest people who use guns properly suffer because of criminals? The fact is-most of those who push for gun bans don't like our politics or our world views and only pretend it is about crime
 
TurtleDude said:
why should honest people who use guns properly suffer because of criminals? The fact is-most of those who push for gun bans don't like our politics or our world views and only pretend it is about crime
Click to expand...

Why should good drivers be forced to obey speed limits because of a few people who can't handle their vehicle above that speed ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Why should good drivers be forced to obey speed limits because of a few people who can't handle their vehicle above that speed ?
Click to expand...

again you confuse USE of an item with ownership of an item
 
Jesus ****ing Christ am I really supposed to let the political left and right dominate the discussion regarding the well-being of, and societal stigma against, the mentally divergent? First issue with the entire premise of this discussion is treating people who function differently than neurotypical people as "ill" or "unhealthy".

FFS not everything in existence can be deduced down to a left vs. right bull**** dichotomy solution.
 
Saboteur said:
And you are saying that a normal person with a conscience who is forced to kill someone wouldn't then suffer from some sort of mental illness such as PTSD?
Click to expand...

You are projecting your own perspective on something you never experienced anyway. You are confusing the fear of being killed in battle with killing in battle, they aren't the same thing.
 
TurtleDude said:
again you confuse USE of an item with ownership of an item
Click to expand...

No, a person cannot use anything unless they have ownership of it - or at least "de facto" ownership.

But to reiterate my question which you tried to dodge: Why should good drivers be forced to obey speed limits because of a few people who can't handle their vehicle above that speed ?
 
Rich2018 said:
No, a person cannot use anything unless they have ownership of it - or at least "de facto" ownership.

But to reiterate my question which you tried to dodge: Why should good drivers be forced to obey speed limits because of a few people who can't handle their vehicle above that speed ?
Click to expand...

same reason why a world class wing shot like me cannot shoot pesky pigeons on fountain square in Cincinnati.
 
TurtleDude said:
same reason why a world class wing shot like me cannot shoot pesky pigeons on fountain square in Cincinnati.
Click to expand...

And why is that ? Why do you continue to dodge the question ?

Here it is again: Why should good drivers be forced to obey speed limits because of a few people who can't handle their vehicle above that speed ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom