• 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!

Another Good Guy with a Gun...

The real mental health crisis in this country is not about guns. It's about today's GOP and its policies.

The petition below was signed by over 65,000 mental health specialists from around the country in 2017:

"“We, the undersigned mental health professionals, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’”
"The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump" | Psychology Today

Yep, all of those mental health "professionals" are doing a real bang up job in this country aren't they? With tens of thousands of mentally ill people living unsheltered on the streets and subject to being influenced by illegal drug users. And what of all of the HUNDREDS of thousands of over medicated Americans including children who being mismanaged by these "mental health professionals" and who are easily becoming the next mass shooters? How about them?

When Eisenhower gave his speech about being wary of the "military industrial complex" to bad he didn't throw in a warning about the "mental health industrial complex" too. You really want to trust what those bozos are preaching?
 
Owning military style assault weapons is not necessary to defend anyone against anything unless they are in a battlefield situation. It's a dangerous tool, and like any dangerous tool, requires careful regulation.

What is your definition of a "military STYLE" weapon? I know you have mentioned AR-15 which is wrong anyway. But what else? Something about the way it looks? Something about how many rounds it can hold? What exactly is this "style" thing you speak of, because I can tell you that despite the AR-15 being dubbed this "military assault rifle" status it is functionally NO DIFFERENT than other semi-automatic center fire rifles with detachable magazines of the SAME caliber which are NOT considered "assault rifles" which are regulated the same way which ironically were designed in the '30s as MILITARY weapons but for some reason they don't have the same scary mystique as the civilian AR-15 rifle.

Because I can tell you that if I thought I needed to go into battle and AR-15 would be LOW on my list of choices. I'd much prefer a M1A (civilian version of the M14) which is not currently on anyone's scary list of banned rifles.

It's a public health disaster. No other country has this problem. That's too high a price to pay for your "freedom" to carry any crazy thing you want anywhere you want.

But you see here you are making a silly statement, because nobody can "carry anything they want".

Please see: National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act (1968) which both regulate the WHAT (machine guns, explosives, sawed off shotguns), and the WHO (felons, mentally ill, drug users, illegal aliens).

So no, you not telling the truth.... but maybe you just aren't informed.
 
These things don't keep anyone safe. If they did, war zones would be the safest place to live.

You see this is your fudamental problem. Wars aren't caused by guns, they are caused by PEOPLE... or by governments--- which are people.

Because on the other side of your statement I would ask you if you ever read about anyone robbing a police station???

No, I didn't think so.
 
You see this is your fudamental problem. Wars aren't caused by guns, they are caused by PEOPLE... or by governments--- which are people.

Because on the other side of your statement I would ask you if you ever read about anyone robbing a police station???

No, I didn't think so.

such a great point because no one knocks off an armored truck
 
more silly attempts to smear all gun owners because of the stupidity of one. BTW I believe it is illegal to have a loaded rifle in a car. It is in Ohio even if you have a CCW. recent legal changes allow you to have loaded magazines in a bag, but not inserted in the firearm. So someone violated a law before the woman was shot

Someone should make discharging a gun by accident against the law.
 
The Vegas shooter killed or injured almost 600 people in a very short period of time with those things....

The reality is that the Vegas shooter was actually GROSSLY inefficient in his evil deed, and I'm trying to be glib. But by using 'bump stocks' to simulate automatic fire (and it is a simulation) his weapons stalled many times requiring him to attempt to clear his weapon of move to a different one. Had the Vegas shooter elected to just use the regular semi-automatic fire and still concentrated his fire at he sea of people below him he may have killed many more. He may have also not given away is position so easily. However what actually worked sadly in his favor was the fact that people below did the WRONG THING when they chose to duck down rather than get their feet moving and run away--- or better yet--- seek cover. But that is what people do when they panic AND have never thought about what to do in these situations. Many people just rely on what they see in movies or TV shows. If you look at video on the ground of the situation you could see police officers seeking cover-- and a few people who actually understood that squatting down lower when a shooter is above you affords you nothing. The shooter fired about 1,100 round down at crowd of about 22,000 people. He killed 58 and wounded about another 400 with direct rifle fire or from ricochet wounds.

Like I said, since many people did not run or seek cover in their fear or confusion this shooter killed more than he otherwise would have. With 22,000 people at ground level in a close area with easy access from a nearby road. Had he taken a large heavy vehicle and crashed the fence he would have killed as many or maybe even more.


You can't do that with a pistol.

Forget inexperience. Which would you choose if you were a terrorist or a psychopath?

Which brings us now to your pistol claim...

See: Virginia Tech Shooting

No scary rifles were used. One shooter, two handguns (semi automatic pistols) ONE A .22 CALIBER the other a 9mm, with additional magazines...
and the shooter killed 32 and wounded 17 with a total of 174 shots fired before he killed himself. Note: The shooter had an additional 200 rounds available
that he did not use.

Now you do the math, which shooter was more efficient? The Vegas shooter with something like 24 firearms and 1,100 shots fired. Or the one with two handguns (one a .22 cal)???? A FACT that the anti-gun lobby doesn't like to talk about. That ANYONE can do an evil deed and kill many people; it's not about the "tool" they use, it comes down to their determination and a little luck.

Gee I wonder what someone could do with a rental truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil? Oh wait, I think there is a chapter somewhere on that too.
 
I'd kill more than he [Vegas Shooter] did. That's for sure. He was a moron employing auto fire to inflict casualties.

Bingo!

I could have done more damage at that venue with large heavy vehicle. Think about it: the guy had a lot of money, he could have acquired an armored vehicle (Brinks truck) and killed at least as many as he shot, and maybe a dozen more during his escape down the busy blvd before getting taken out. And had he booby trapped the vehicle with explosives like Tim McVeigh did--- God help us!


So you think a pistol can do more damage than an AR15? Seriously?

Try shooting a grizzly bear with a AR-15 and he will just laugh at you.

Not trying to pick on you, but you really don't know much about firearms do you? No worries, I think it is very common with anti-gun people to not know much about firearms. But stick around and you might learn some things.
 
Agreed. While I disagree with banning them [bumpstocks], I'd never own one since it seems like a big waste of ammo.

I'm with you, I don't own one and would never want one. They are a kooky gimmick if you ask me, but I see no reason to ban them. In fact, since they cause a gun to stall or jam then they are probably in most situations going to mean a shooter with malicious intent would be opening themself up to having someone rush in and disarm them while they are screwing around with their bumpstock.

At Las Vegas the shooter was a position where he had many more rifles loaded and ready to go--- which he did do. And as others have already noted, had the shooter stuck to standard controlled semi-automatic disciplined fire--- he would have killed many more.

I don't think they need to be banned, but I also don't view bump stocks as the high water mark for gun rights as they are NOT something designed as the normal function of a rifle.
 
If you can't handle the recoil on a handgun, you can't handle the recoil on an AR15.

PLEASE just stop!

There is virtually no recoil on an AR-15. Now try firing a 2 inch .357 mag revolver loaded with 158g Buffalo Bore and THEN YOU WILL KNOW WHY many people would use an AR-15 for home defense.
 
Depends how they are stored, if he has curious kids, et al. I presume most collectors store their guns properly.

Hate to break the news to you but the 2nd Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to "collect" guns. It wasn't even necessary to protect hunting, something that was considered as natural right and as much a necessity as owning a horse in the largely rural American colonies of the late 18th century. The 2nd Amendment secures the right of individuals to own guns for their defense. And as such no gun is capable of defending anyone if it is unloaded, trigger locked, and kept in a safe when you need it.

This idea that your own children once they are older than age 3 are not capable of understanding rules about guns, matches, swimming pools, pets, medicines--- sounds more like a parent problem not a kid problem. And while I respect your concern about "curious kid"--especially curious little boys. The best way to cure that is to make them NOT curious about guns. To expose them to guns and what the rules are. To let them hold them (supervised), and at the appropriate age shown how to safely fire and handle them. Because like it or not--- and even for families with no guns in their homes. Every kid may eventually be "introduced" to a firearm at another home where YOU ARE NOT able to control the situation, and I can tell you honestly right here and now that it WON'T be the children who were raised around firearms who will be "curious" to touch them, handle them, or otherwise stick around while some other kid does so.

People take time to teach their kids about "stranger danger", how to cross the street, and not to go swimming without an adult around. But if your kids aren't taught gun safety too, then you are doing them a disservice.
 
PLEASE just stop!

There is virtually no recoil on an AR-15. Now try firing a 2 inch .357 mag revolver loaded with 158g Buffalo Bore and THEN YOU WILL KNOW WHY many people would use an AR-15 for home defense.
I've got one, way more kick than the AR.
 
Hate to break the news to you but the 2nd Amendment was not drafted to protect the right to "collect" guns. It wasn't even necessary to protect hunting, something that was considered as natural right and as much a necessity as owning a horse in the largely rural American colonies of the late 18th century. The 2nd Amendment secures the right of individuals to own guns for their defense. And as such no gun is capable of defending anyone if it is unloaded, trigger locked, and kept in a safe when you need it.

This idea that your own children once they are older than age 3 are not capable of understanding rules about guns, matches, swimming pools, pets, medicines--- sounds more like a parent problem not a kid problem. And while I respect your concern about "curious kid"--especially curious little boys. The best way to cure that is to make them NOT curious about guns. To expose them to guns and what the rules are. To let them hold them (supervised), and at the appropriate age shown how to safely fire and handle them. Because like it or not--- and even for families with no guns in their homes. Every kid may eventually be "introduced" to a firearm at another home where YOU ARE NOT able to control the situation, and I can tell you honestly right here and now that it WON'T be the children who were raised around firearms who will be "curious" to touch them, handle them, or otherwise stick around while some other kid does so.

People take time to teach their kids about "stranger danger", how to cross the street, and not to go swimming without an adult around. But if your kids aren't taught gun safety too, then you are doing them a disservice.

We could argue for days about “well-regulated“ militia’s, which to me applies to the second part of the amendment. Been there and done that. But three year-olds? Perhaps with significant medication.
 
We could argue for days about “well-regulated“ militia’s, which to me applies to the second part of the amendment. Been there and done that. But three year-olds? Perhaps with significant medication.

A well regulated militia is a well organized one. It is an obsolete 18th century concept.

But a RW Supreme Court ruled that all people in the USA were members of the militia.

A ridiculous decision.
 
Yes, the "what-about-ism" raises its head.


Wait for cars and swimming pools next.

No, making a point those things kill too, you just don't care about those things because there isn't a conservative "KNIVES AND HAMMER" special interest group to hate on.
 
A well regulated militia is a well organized one. It is an obsolete 18th century concept.

But a RW Supreme Court ruled that all people in the USA were members of the militia.

A ridiculous decision.

What's ridiculous is your belief that disarming people would make them safer.
 
No, making a point those things kill too, you just don't care about those things because there isn't a conservative "KNIVES AND HAMMER" special interest group to hate on...

Even if the NRA were to disband tomorrow I'd still be in favor of gun control and banning guns
So you're wrong.

What's ridiculous is your belief that disarming people would make them safer.


It will

Having a gun in the home makes it statistically less safe due to accidents and negligent discharges.
Fact.
 
Even if the NRA were to disband tomorrow I'd still be in favor of gun control and banning guns
So you're wrong.




It will

Having a gun in the home makes it statistically less safe due to accidents and negligent discharges.
Fact.

Amid rising gun violence, accidental shooting deaths have plummeted. Why? - Los Angeles Times

A country music festival in Las Vegas: 58 dead. A Baptist church in Sutherland Springs, Texas: 26 dead. The streets of Baltimore last year: nearly 300 dead.

Gun violence has received no shortage of attention. But one bright spot has gotten much less: the number of accidental shooting deaths has steadily declined.

There were 489 people killed in unintentional shootings in the U.S. in 2015, the most recent year for which data is available. That was down from 824 deaths in 1999, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Taking into account population growth over that time, the rate fell 48%.

Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns. While the improvement occurred in every state, those with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths.
 
We could argue for days about “well-regulated“ militia’s, which to me applies to the second part of the amendment. Been there and done that.

Well, good thing is we don't have to argue about the 2nd Amendment right for INDIVIDUALS becuase the Scotus has already confirmed it as an individual right.
 
"More than 32,000 persons die and over 67,000 persons are injured by firearms each year..."

Firearm injuries in the United States

The vast majority of which are with handguns. Over 22,000 of which are suicides with a single shot fired. Not an AR, not a high capacity magazine.

Suicide Statistics — AFSP
Suicide-stats.jpg

If the Gun Banners really wanted to save lives, why do they not push as hard for better mental health care as they are doing to ban ARs and high capacity magazines?
 
I've got one, way more kick than the AR.

Same here. I have never owned a S&W J frame or a Ruger SP101 which was comfortable to shoot anything with more power than .38+P
Just no fun at all with any magnum loads. PAINFUL comes to mind after anything more than 20 rounds at the range.

A lot of anti-gun people automatically assume the AR platform is some mean scary military battlefield assault weapon which has no application to home defense. Nothing is further from the truth.
The AR is not my personal first choice; I prefer my handguns, and I worry about over penetration inside a house where drywall is basically just like a thick cardboard barrier. But for defending your home out beyond 20-50 yards in a situation where there has been a civil breakdown (LA riots, Baltimore riots, Katrina) something like an AR-15 or Mini14 makes sense.
 
Back
Top Bottom