• 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 in Home Kills Loved ones and Owner

calamity said:
30 years ago, when most people did not have guns, one could smooth these things over. Now? Boom!
Click to expand...

I don't know which people you believe did not have guns 30 years ago. Just because you didn't see them.... or better still hear them, does not mean Americans have not been armed.

What I suspect is that you grew up in a area or a culture where this particular tool was not common--- which maybe explains your unreasonable fear of this tool. Where I grew up guns are very common, and it was never a democrat or Republican thing--- not even a hunter non hunter thing. Gun are as common as chainsaws, table saws, pipe wrenches, and step stools. Just another tool and no reason to fear them, but ALWAYS a tool to be respected and properly handled--- same as that table saw.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Because the point is not the type of weapon that he had... the semantics... the point is the fact that it is a gun.
Click to expand...

Semantics? If you want to go by semantics, according to the title of this thread, the GUN itself got up and killed its loved ones and its owner.
 
Sabre said:
Semantics? If you want to go by semantics, according to the title of this thread, the GUN itself got up and killed its loved ones and its owner.
Click to expand...

Complain to that guy about it... has nothing to do with gun owners bogging down the point with semantics.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Lol holy f****** s*** you actually think America is he better country than New Zealand that shows how absolutely ignorant and Clueless you are on travelling the world visiting other countries and living other countries lol
Click to expand...
Back at yuh. But at least we can say no.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. The Declaration of Independence is considered the shot that was heard around the world before you lecture me learn your history lol
Click to expand...
Your wrong,Glitch is right. More proof you shouldn't meddle in our affairs.:stop:
 
Bodhisattva said:
Not the actual phrase, shot heard round the world. What was heard around the world was the Declaration that people were free to choose whom lead them and how... that is why the Declaration was censored for a while and why monarchs in Europe were wary of it. The actual "shots" were of small little battles in places that nobody around the world had ever heard of... what was heard around the world was the Declaration of Independence.

The rulers feared that their subjects would see the American action not as a rebellion against a rightful monarch in his own territories—there had been plenty of rebellions against European sovereigns—but as the proclamation of a revolutionary doctrine of universal application, as the Declaration indeed announced it to be.

The Shot Heard Round The World | The New Republic

Global Influence - Declaration of Independence
Click to expand...

The phrase originates and pertains specifically to the battles of Concord and Lexington in 1775, not the Declaration of Independence as you erroneously claimed, and your twisted attempts to revise history only further demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. Even your own sources acknowledge this fact:
Thus the news of the "battles" of Lexington and Concord, fought on April 19, 1775, appeared on May 29 in the London press, from which the French papers, as usual, took their news of America; and from them the press in the rest of Europe picked up the story. By June 19 it appeared in a newspaper as far away as St. Petersburg. Similarly the news of the Declaration of Independence was first published in a London newspaper on August 17, 1776; a week later it appeared in papers in Hamburg, on August 30 in Sweden, and on September 2 in Denmark. The actions in Lexington and Concord had been no more than skirmishes in two villages whose names Europeans can never have heard before. Yet the news excited editors across Europe, and they knew it would arouse their readers. They saw at once the size of the event.
Click to expand...
 
Lursa said:
No, any change doesnt work. A change that removes/limits my personal choice of defensive firearm has great potential to harm me.

Why are other peoples' lives more valuable than mine or other law-abiding gun owners?
Click to expand...

Because what is good for society is better than what is good for the individual. You are one in 7 billion, important to you and your loved ones. What makes you feel you are more important than others that could be killed by your defensive weapon?
 
Lursa said:
So take away/restrict the defense of others that choose firearms for protection?

Is that your solution? :doh
Click to expand...

Let's try, if more than 40,000 people are killed with all guns being illegal we can try something else. We know how many people die because of current laws, is that acceptable to you?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes of course if an Aussie kills people it's totally cool the more they kill the better that is an absolutely great comprehension you have their Aussies kill people = awesome
Click to expand...
This is what I'm replying to ↓ , your the one saying it's "totally cool". You seem too think America is a shining beacon of arming everybody. Wasn't an American that did your shooting now was it.
Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Not one person... there have been a bunch of mass shootings here, and in Aussie... and of course we have America to look at as the shining beacon of how ****ty arming everybody works.
Click to expand...
 
Glitch said:
Let's put it this way. The last time fascist scum tried to take firearms away from Americans it began the American Revolution in 1775. The Battle at Concord in 1775 has been heralded as "The Shot Heard Around the World." It is a lesson to all future wanna-be fascists.
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be copied from that known fascist country New Zealand. Here's one point...American gun owners have shown an inability to use their guns safely. Time for a timeout.
 
Lursa said:
Who says he only needed a few short seconds?

Nothing you wrote disputes my post.
Click to expand...

Your post is opinion, no one can refute an opinion without the cooperation of the spouter.
 
Lursa said:
Maybe more women should be more capable of defending themselves and also of removing themselves from such situations.

It only places their children in greater danger of all types of abuse and passed that cycle of violence on to them.

And no, I didnt say it was easy...but it doesnt end until someone is dead or has left.
Click to expand...

Right, if only the victim...Weak.
 
zsu2357 said:
Would you be good enough to explain how this can happen? Enquiring minds want too know.
Click to expand...

"Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."

Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
 
Court Jester said:
Yep, she already had a restraining order on him, but she failed to realize that the police and the courts can not defend her or anyone else. She should have moved someplace safer or chosen to protect herself and her children with a gun if necessary. Because in that scenario then this story would have been a happy ending when the good person used the gun to defend against the bad person with their gun.
Click to expand...

That would be a myth. Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault
 
mrjurrs said:
Let's try, if more than 40,000 people are killed with all guns being illegal we can try something else. We know how many people die because of current laws, is that acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

I don't support making all guns illegal but I will play along.

If such a law was passed it would need to state how many fewer deaths it wpils create and in what time frame it would accomplish that goal. If it failed to meet its stated goal then it would automatically become null and void and all firearms confiscated would be required to be returned to their rightful owners.
 
Chillfolks said:
I don't support making all guns illegal but I will play along.

If such a law was passed it would need to state how many fewer deaths it wpils create and in what time frame it would accomplish that goal. If it failed to meet its stated goal then it would automatically become null and void and all firearms confiscated would be required to be returned to their rightful owners.
Click to expand...

I'd say it was successful it it resulted in one less gun death than the year before. I never mentioned confiscation. Gun owners could keep their guns until the experiment is over and they are returned, or it works and the government buys them back. Completely legal, eminent domain for the benefit of the people.
 
Bodhisattva said:
You are really really Clueless I don't care because guns should not be legal at least not semi automatic or fully automatic weapons so I'm not going to get caught up in the minutiae of what he had and get bogged down and stupid gun loving nutter arguments about what should be legal and what isn't legal and why it should be legal and that you have your right to own a gun that's designed to kill people I don't care about all that f****** bul**** I don't care about hearing your ****en stupid arguments
Click to expand...
Somebodies pack a sad, nice too know it's easy too get under your scales. Looking at your reply I see I was correct. All you see is big bad gun must be banned. That's ALL you see is guns kill people. It's easy too see where you stand, and the farther away the better. Sound like some of our politicians in congress.
 
mrjurrs said:
Because what is good for society is better than what is good for the individual. You are one in 7 billion, important to you and your loved ones. What makes you feel you are more important than others that could be killed by your defensive weapon?
Click to expand...

There are millions of gun owners, you didnt answer the question.

Why are the millions of non-gun owners' lives more important?

Both are a huge part of society.
 
mrjurrs said:
Let's try, if more than 40,000 people are killed with all guns being illegal we can try something else. We know how many people die because of current laws, is that acceptable to you?
Click to expand...

Let's start with the fact that 2/3 of those 40,000 are suicide. Did you miss my posts on that? No gun laws will stop that. The ONLY thing that will prevent that is repeal of the 2A and confiscation of all guns in the US. (Because at it's very most basic, the 2A ensures an adult American can own one firearm, even if a basic single-action revolver. Or black powder pistol. Or hunting rifle. All still deadly, still perfectly capable of assisting a suicide.)

So we're down to about 10,000-15,000 deaths then.

About 40,000 people a year are killed in car accidents. If we reduced the national speed limits to no more than 35 mph, we could save at least 2/3 of those. So then, why dont we do that? People can schedule things differently, leave earlier, etc. It's just a little inconvenience, totally doable.

Why should we do it for guns and not cars? Why are the lives lost in car accidents not viewed the same as those lost to gunfire?
 
mrjurrs said:
Your post is opinion, no one can refute an opinion without the cooperation of the spouter.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out.

If he needed more, then why focus on the necessity of the gun? Or the fact that the gun is an effective FAST means?
 
mrjurrs said:
Right, if only the victim...Weak.
Click to expand...

Yes...those victims also had/have choices and are weak not to make good ones.

Those women can also arm themselves. They can leave.

They are enabling the same dangerous cycle in their children.

Any person that knowingly leaves themself in a position of jeopardy should have to accept some responsibility.
 
mrjurrs said:
Because what is good for society is better than what is good for the individual. You are one in 7 billion, important to you and your loved ones. What makes you feel you are more important than others that could be killed by your defensive weapon?
Click to expand...

Well.. I would say that if a fellow is trying to rape her.. and she kills that person with her defensive weapon... I would say that her right to self determination... pretty much trumps the rapists desire to well rape and kill her.

Please explain why you believe that the rapist's desire to rape and kill her.. is more important than her right to defend herself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom