• 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!

Employee shot gunman during Kalamazoo liquor store robbery, police say

Mach said:
Bad analogy.

Guns have successfully been kept at extremely limited levels in many western styled nations around the world, most with dramatically less gun violence than the U.S.
Entirely unlike alcohol prohibition.
-Alcohol, in contrast, is largely legal around the world
-Its primary purpose is self-medication (feeling good), as opposed to killing humans like most firearms we discuss.

The absurdly high rate of gun related deaths in the U.S., is due in some significant part, to the incredible access to firearms we have in the U.S., it's not some big mystery.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Click to expand...

But everywhere is already flooded with drugs, so that doesn't work. And the US is already flooded with firearms, so that horse done left the barn.
 
AProudLefty said:
It's actually pretty easy to get anything in prison. Inmates even have phones and tablets.
Click to expand...

"I don't have access to drugs."

Ever heard anything so stupid?
 
ecofarm said:
Convicts in prison have access to drugs. Do you think everyone is an idiot?
Click to expand...

Because they probably use drugs and bribe prison officers.


Do you think every is a drug addicts and on first name terms with a Mexican drug cartel ?
 
ecofarm said:
But everywhere is already flooded with drugs, so that doesn't work. And the US is already flooded with firearms, so that horse done left the barn.
Click to expand...
Claiming we can't control quantity of firearms in circulation isn't an excuse for that bad analogy.

Drugs, as well as firearms, can be reduced as a matter of fact, and in practice/from examples.

You know that there is only one primary reason this doesn't occur in the U.S. The linking of gun ownership to one of the two major political parties, and the associated power of the gun lobby. The rest is all derivative.
There is an argument to be made that with that many people that want a gun-filled, murderous nation, that it's perfect for them and with voting, it's properly expressed.
Doesn't make it a good choice.
 
Mach said:
You know that there is only one primary reason this doesn't occur in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Self defense is a natural right.
 
AProudLefty said:
Nope. You claimed that the ruling include the policemen.
Click to expand...

Post #69


"Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur"....




Police Officers OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

What part are you not getting ?



Are you really this illiterate ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Post #69


"Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur"....




Police Officers OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

What part are you not getting ?



Are you really this illiterate ?
Click to expand...

Why do you think I cannot read that part? You made the claim that the ruling said that. The ruling doesn't say that. Then you moved the goalpost to saying that the title said it. Why?

Are you telling me that the police has lied to us for decades?
 
Rich2018 said:
But not defense of property.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you have a misconception of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground.

Both are based not on the defense of property but on threat. I'll try to explain it like this:

If a robber demands my wallet, I have the right to say 'no', don't I? Of course I have the right to say no. Of course you agree. So, what happens when I say no. What can we reasonably expect? We can reasonably expect that I will be attacked. That's why I can defend myself when someone demands my wallet. Not because I have a right to defend property. Because I have a right to say no and a right to reasonable expectation of threat in that event.

Same with Castle Doctrine. We don't have a right to defend property. We have a right to defend ourselves against reasonable expectation of threat. When someone breaks into your house with you home, it's reasonable to presume they would do you harm. Thus, you can defend yourself due to the threat inherent to a home invasion. It's not that you can defend property. It's that you are under threat if you say no.


This is important stuff. It's ****ing mentally disabled to not grasp this. One must be a ****ing Neanderthal to not see the concepts behind these laws. To interpret these laws as a right to defend property is moronic beyond belief.

Honestly. If someone can't get this, I wouldn't be friends with them because they're too stupid.
 
AProudLefty said:
Why do you think I cannot read that part? You made the claim that the ruling said that. The ruling doesn't say that.
Click to expand...

The ruling said "police officers" and "other government officials"

Who does that not include in law enforcement ?


Why can you not assimilate written text ?


Why are you still in denial ?
 
Mach said:
Bad analogy.

Guns have successfully been kept at extremely limited levels in many western styled nations around the world, most with dramatically less gun violence than the U.S.
Entirely unlike alcohol prohibition.
-Alcohol, in contrast, is largely legal around the world
-Its primary purpose is self-medication (feeling good), as opposed to killing humans like most firearms we discuss.

The absurdly high rate of gun related deaths in the U.S., is due in some significant part, to the incredible access to firearms we have in the U.S., it's not some big mystery.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review)
2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide
3. Across states, more guns = more homicide
Click to expand...

citing a well known anti gun propaganda site. And the number of guns in the USA has gone WAY up in the last 25 years and the rate of gun violence has not gone up similarly. SO you are wrong. And areas with the most legal guns, are often the safest.
 
Rich2018 said:
The ruling said "police officers" and "other government officials"

Who does that not include in law enforcement ?


Why can you not assimilate written text ?


Why are you still in denial ?
Click to expand...

Then you'll be able to quote that from the ruling.
 
AProudLefty said:
Yep they do actually. Guards are caught having sex with inmates all the time.
Click to expand...

some of my colleagues prosecuted federal corrections officers for such acts
 
Mach said:
Claiming we can't control quantity of firearms in circulation isn't an excuse for that bad analogy.

Drugs, as well as firearms, can be reduced as a matter of fact, and in practice/from examples.

You know that there is only one primary reason this doesn't occur in the U.S. The linking of gun ownership to one of the two major political parties, and the associated power of the gun lobby. The rest is all derivative.
There is an argument to be made that with that many people that want a gun-filled, murderous nation, that it's perfect for them and with voting, it's properly expressed.
Doesn't make it a good choice.
Click to expand...

well what you want is a society where only the government and criminals are armed.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm guessing you have a misconception of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground....
Click to expand...

Yes you are right the controversial Florida law muddies the water somewhat.

You can kill someone just by saying you thought they might have been a threat to your life.

Someone was acquitted in a shooting over a car parking space.

The robber doesn't even need to be armed.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes you are right the controversial Florida law muddies the water somewhat.

You can kill someone just by saying you thought they might have been a threat to your life.

Someone was acquitted in a shooting over a car parking space.

The robber doesn't even need to be armed.
Click to expand...

It makes for good neighbors and a polite public.
 
AProudLefty said:
Then you'll be able to quote that from the ruling.
Click to expand...


""Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur"...."




That was a quote.
 
Rich2018 said:
""Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur"...."




That was a quote.
Click to expand...

From a professor.

If you give me a link to the ruling, I will concede if it says that.
 
Rich2018 said:
""Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur"...."



That was a quote.
Click to expand...


which is why intelligent and prudent citizens keep and bear arms, and know how to use them
 
TurtleDude said:
which is why intelligent and prudent citizens keep and bear arms, and know how to use them
Click to expand...

For some reason he believes that the police has no duty to protect citizens despite their motto. Don't they swear an oath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom