• 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:
If the victim had been armed and the perp had his weapons seized when served the Order of Protection...a family would still be alive today. THat is effective gun control.
Click to expand...

I can find a story of someone denied being armed because of gun control laws who wound up gravely hurt or dead.

So if you’re on the side of saving just one life, you’ve got a math problem.
 
calamity said:
I doubt it since energy is a function of velocity-squared. It's physics...and, at least a partial understanding of math.
Click to expand...

A 9mm, 115 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1335 ft/s has 617 joules of energy.

A .45 ACP, 185 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1100 ft/s has 674 joules of energy.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A 9mm, 115 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1335 ft/s has 617 joules of energy.

A .45 ACP, 185 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1100 ft/s has 674 joules of energy.
Click to expand...

Most .45 muzzle V is under 1000 fps.
 
Aberration said:
I can find a story of someone denied being armed because of gun control laws who wound up gravely hurt or dead.

So if you’re on the side of saving just one life, you’ve got a math problem.
Click to expand...


Saving one life at the expense of 40,000?

Yeah, let’s see that math. :roll:
 
Rich2018 said:
Because it saves people from being killed/injured

You think the medical profession's chief concern was the money it cost insurance companies to treat casualties ? Absolutely ridiculous that state legislatures consider insurance company profits as a deciding factor. If that we the case, guns would've been banned decades ago

"The most recent study, released last week, comes from three researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The yearly charges associated with treating gunshot patients in American hospitals, they determined, is nearly $3 billion."


What It Costs to Treat Gunshot Wounds in Hospitals


Do you think there much potential to lower insurance prices there...and that's not including the multi-million dollar lawsuits



"...current Georgia law requires drivers and front-seat passengers to wear seat belts. It also requires children age 8 to 17 to buckle up, regardless of where they sit (younger children must be in an age-appropriate car seat or booster seat). But Georgia is one of 20 states that don’t require rear-seat adults to be strapped in.
...in 2017, 1,057 passenger vehicle occupants died in crashes on Georgia roads. Of those, 44 percent were not wearing a seat belt, according to data compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Nationwide, 43 percent of people who died in crashes were not buckled up. “The data speaks for itself,” Allen Poole, director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, told committee. “We can save additional lives by requiring a seat belt to be buckled up if you’re the passenger in the back seat of a vehicle.”


Georgia Senate considers tougher seat belt law


So have the Georgian state legislature been lacking in your opinion, in protecting the profits of insurance companies?
Click to expand...

Seatbelt laws keep liability insurance prices down. That way drivers have to pay less for liability insurance. Whether or not that's the intention of having such laws that is an effect, and drivers like having to pay less for insurance and so that's why trying to get rid of seatbelt laws won't work.

Rich2018 said:
Total USA = 30%
What figure do you have and what is your source ?
I gave you two

What Percentage of Americans Own Guns?






Where is your proof that The Guardian is "not a necessarily reliable source" ?
I grant you that The Guardian is not a well known source to you.
Click to expand...
Polls only cover a certain sample of the population. A poll can only be so big as whoever is making the poll only has so many resources. To say for sure that 30% of all American citizens have guns you would have to distribute the poll to the entire American population. All 300 million plus American citizens would have to answer the poll and they would answer truthfully and correctly. Only then can you be absolutely certain that its 30% or whatever percentage the result is.

A well known and popular source is going to have more credibility than a not so well known or well used source. The Guardian is not well known in my book. What I consider well known and well used in terms of sources would be a source such as Fox News.
 
calamity said:
Most .45 muzzle V is under 1000 fps.
Click to expand...

A .45 ACP, 230 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 960 ft/s has 639 joules of energy. That's still more than the 617 joules of energy for the 9mm.
 
calamity said:
Yeah, I can see where slower moving large mass would cause far more damage than fast object which is less massive, especially if the smaller moving object passes through the target.
Click to expand...
Yes, just like if you were to yank a tablecloth fast enough you could pull it out and have the potted flowers still standing. If you're slow with the tablecloth the flowers will fall over. A faster bullet can be like the tablecloth being yanked fast where most of the energy is not dumped into the flowers and thus they are not knocked over.

calamity said:
I imagine that there is a reason compact female weapons of choice tend to be smaller caliber. 9mm's, like the Berreta Nano or a Glock 43 are ideal for CCW on the body of someone tiny. Weapon weight and recoil issues perhaps?
Click to expand...
Well anything is better than a peashooter. At the very most a peashooter might put an eye out, if you're accurate enough.
 
TurtleDude said:
women choose smaller weapons based on their hand size and the weight of the weapon. and yes they are easier to conceal.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The Ruger LC9 is a small 9mm and really good for concealed carry but it is sometimes called the pocket rocket because of how it recoils so much and thus can be hard to control. A Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 Magnum on the other hand is a much larger weapon which fires a much larger and much more powerful round yet in some ways it can be easier to control because of its much greater mass absorbing the recoil.
 
calamity said:
Saving one life at the expense of 40,000?

Yeah, let’s see that math. :roll:
Click to expand...
Guns in the right hands save many more lives than one, in fact they save more lives than 40,000.
 
DebateChallenge said:
A .45 ACP, 230 grain bullet with a muzzle velocity of 960 ft/s has 639 joules of energy. That's still more than the 617 joules of energy for the 9mm.
Click to expand...

Lets stick with apples and apples: compact weapons, K?

The standard issue military . 45 ACP round has a 230-grain bullet that travels at approximately 830 feet per second when fired from the government issue M1911A1 pistol

BTW: the argument is moot, as Turtle and I agreed that being hit by a slow train is worse than being bombarded by speeding photons.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Not necessarily. The Ruger LC9 is a small 9mm and really good for concealed carry but it is sometimes called the pocket rocket because of how it recoils so much and thus can be hard to control. A Ruger Super Redhawk in .44 Magnum on the other hand is a much larger weapon which fires a much larger and much more powerful round yet in some ways it can be easier to control because of its much greater mass absorbing the recoil.
Click to expand...

that is true but it doesn't dispute what I said. My wife had a ultra small Kahr-we sold it-too much bite, Her SIG 238s kick far less and were about the same size since they are made of metal.
 
People here often wonder why I am pro-gun control, and quite avid anti-gun-nutter, while also supporting gun rights and certainly not opposed to having one. Well, maybe this image can provide a clue.

EKi7O_uWwAEmhK2
 
calamity said:
People here often wonder why I am pro-gun control, and quite avid anti-gun-nutter, while also supporting gun rights and certainly not opposed to having one. Well, maybe this image can provide a clue.

EKi7O_uWwAEmhK2
Click to expand...


Nice picture, where did you get it ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I must have read that wrong then.

Thank you for your informed, if rather aggressive, correction
Click to expand...

lol....making a strong case for why some of us question the concept of just letting anyone have a gun. :doh
 
calamity said:
lol....making a strong case for why some of us question the concept of just letting anyone have a gun. :doh
Click to expand...

Some of us laugh at those who want to ban things that they are constantly wrong about. BTW that clown who drew that cartoon has been a gun hater for decades IIRC
 
calamity said:
lol....making a strong case for why some of us question the concept of just letting anyone have a gun. :doh
Click to expand...

If we are to accept denying gun ownership/possession to certain persons, should they not also be denied owning/possessing any and all objects which could be used to inflict harm on another/others?
 
Gun deaths could be reduced to less than half what they currently are if the pharmaceutical industry would produce an inexpensive, fast acting and painless, over the counter suicide pill.
 
calamity said:
People here often wonder why I am pro-gun control, and quite avid anti-gun-nutter, while also supporting gun rights and certainly not opposed to having one. Well, maybe this image can provide a clue.

EKi7O_uWwAEmhK2
Click to expand...
That is a bad cartoon. While there have been times when I've been armed almost to the same extent as the guy in the cartoon but with one rifle and one handgun not two, I haven't felt threatened when armed as such.

I will say this much, you do flip flop on your position on gun control.
 
DebateChallenge said:
That is a bad cartoon. While there have been times when I've been armed almost to the same extent as the guy in the cartoon but with one rifle and one handgun not two, I haven't felt threatened when armed as such.

I will say this much, you do flip flop on your position on gun control.
Click to expand...

So, you admit the 'toon flew over your head.
 
calamity said:
BTW: the argument is moot, as Turtle and I agreed that being hit by a slow train is worse than being bombarded by speeding photons.
Click to expand...

Not if the speeding photons are focused into a laser in the megawatt range.
 
calamity said:
So, you admit the 'toon flew over your head.
Click to expand...

After looking at the cartoon again I see the heavily armed individual is facing the direction of two men holding hands, so this implies he's homophobic.
 
DebateChallenge said:
After looking at the cartoon again I see the heavily armed individual is facing the direction of two men holding hands, so this implies he's homophobic.
Click to expand...

among other things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom