• 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!

Virginia's proposed gun laws have predictable results

jimbo said:
Then don't shoot people over a couple hundred dollars.

But that's not you've been saying.
Click to expand...

A declarative statement like that doesn't give me any insight into what you think I've been saying. I'm quite aware of my intentions and meaning behind each thing I've written. I think that seeing someone commit an armed robbery does not always give some other person blanket license to shoot that person. I'm not an expert on this subject, but it would be disadvantageous to society as a whole to have armed civilians shooting each other as a form of law enforcement when there is otherwise no imminent threat of injury. If a robber can take some money from a liquor store cash register and retreat without any physical damage to any person, then that is a preferable result to another customer shooting that person, in my opinion.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Well.....hear me out.

What if a left wing anti gun nut shows up and shoots a couple hundred rounds into the crowd............just to further the liberal anti gun agenda?

What if a member of some extremist group shows up and does the same thing............and liberals continue assaulting gun owners as racists, and white nationalists forever.



Think about it?
Click to expand...

Northram is praying for violence. It's possible that he has a plan to have someone start it.
 
Diesel said:
A declarative statement like that doesn't give me any insight into what you think I've been saying. I'm quite aware of my intentions and meaning behind each thing I've written. I think that seeing someone commit an armed robbery does not always give some other person blanket license to shoot that person. I'm not an expert on this subject, but it would be disadvantageous to society as a whole to have armed civilians shooting each other as a form of law enforcement when there is otherwise no imminent threat of injury. If a robber can take some money from a liquor store cash register and retreat without any physical damage to any person, then that is a preferable result to another customer shooting that person, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I stand by what I typed because it's true.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I doubt most patrons who pack obey that sign anyways.
Click to expand...

I obey those signs for two reasons: if they don't respect my civil rights, they don't get my coin and if I shoot someone in a business that's restricts guns, it's a felony.
 
Diesel said:
If a patron shot someone for robbing a liquor store he was shopping in, he would go to prison.
Click to expand...

Not much of a consolation for the person(s) he shot.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Liberals will be orgasmic if shots are fired tomorrow.

Every single one of them on here would be popping champagne corks.
Click to expand...

That’s a ****ed up post, even for you, congrats or something.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Liberals will be orgasmic if shots are fired tomorrow.

Every single one of them on here would be popping champagne corks.
Click to expand...

I'm wearing body armor. To carry, or not: we're debating.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Tell that to your usual liberal chain pullers on here.

You don't dare calling them out because you might loose a couple friends.
Click to expand...

You’re cute when you get mad! I avoid this sub-forum for good reason; I just had to comment on your post. You must be proud, given your cheerleader! ...:2wave:
 
RetiredUSN said:
I stand by what I typed because it's true.
Click to expand...

What you typed where? This post you responded to wasn't addressed to you. If you're referring to the NIH study you shared, you haven't addressed that either.
 
Rexedgar said:
You’re cute when you get mad! I avoid this sub-forum for good reason; I just had to comment on your post. You must be proud, given your cheerleader! ...:2wave:
Click to expand...

I don't get mad.

The truth triggered you.

I can dig up a couple hundred posts made by liberals that back up what I said...........and you cannot deny it.
 
apdst said:
Not much of a consolation for the person(s) he shot.
Click to expand...

The person he shot was engaged in an armed robbery. I doubt that he cares much about what that person thinks. Given the opportunity to make an unimpassioned cost-benefit analysis, I think most rational people would choose to let a robber escape with stolen cash and no injuries than shoot the robber out of a sense of social responsibility or justice.
 
Diesel said:
The person he shot was engaged in an armed robbery. I doubt that he cares much about what that person thinks. Given the opportunity to make an unimpassioned cost-benefit analysis, I think most rational people would choose to let a robber escape with stolen cash and no injuries than shoot the robber out of a sense of social responsibility or justice.
Click to expand...

I'd rather shoot the robber...multiple times. Send a message to other robber to not come ****ing around.
 
apdst said:
I'd rather shoot the robber...multiple times. Send a message to other robber to not come ****ing around.
Click to expand...

You're certainly not alone there. Of course, if liquor store customers carrying guns were a deterrent to people from robbing liquor stores, then I suspect we'd have fewer liquor store robberies. I appreciate a sense of social responsibility and justice that I referred to earlier, but frankly, I think a person who unnecessarily shoots a person committing a crime that has nothing directly to do with him (except being in the same place at the same time) rather than ducking behind a shelf of tequila and calling 911 should be arrested. In general, I don't think people should go around shooting other people unless they have to, even if it is for a good cause. I would rather hope that the justice system can locate and prosecute the robber than spend several hours downtown explaining why I shot someone for taking money that didn't even belong to me.
 
Bullseye said:
Yeah, and tell him to wrap it around a baseball bat. That's the only way it's going to hurt an armed robber.
Click to expand...

No, it's on the main door and behind the counter - both are very easy to see


If someone enters with a gun, they're breaking the law
 
Diesel said:
Do you think banning guns would be more or less effective than criminalizing marijuana?
Click to expand...

Way, way, way more effective


The point remains that the sign doesn't prevent anyone from sticking a gun in their waistband. No guns would be ideal, but since that's an impossibility, we have to consider how to attempt to regulate and restrict them.
Click to expand...

It means they're breaking the law so consequently people with a gun don't take one in.
 
Rich2018 said:
Way, way, way more effective




It means they're breaking the law so consequently people with a gun don't take one in.
Click to expand...

How do you figure that a gun ban would be more effective than criminalizing marijuana? I don't think prohibition is very effective in general. There certainly is no way we can eliminate guns from society. Will there be so many fewer guns in circulation under a gun ban that society would be safer?

People who plan and intend to break the law don't typically care how many laws they break, I imagine. If a person robs a bank or kills an estranged spouse in a grocery store, I sincerely doubt that the added gravity of carrying a gun in a restricted venue factors much into their decision to rob the bank or shoot the spouse.
 
Diesel said:
How do you figure that a gun ban would be more effective than criminalizing marijuana?
Click to expand...

Because guns are a lot harder to make and smuggle and rely on ammunition.

Almost anyone can grow some weed.

People who plan and intend to break the law don't typically care how many laws they break...
Click to expand...


No but a no guns sign keeps out the guns of people who don't plan to brewak the law and consequently there are less guns and therefore the establishment is safer.

Now the knee jerk reaction from the pro-gun lobby is "they're just stupid" and that blind perception is part of the character of gun owners...the world will burn before I had over my guns.



Maybe though you might actually think and come up with a reason why businesses and public buildings have such signs. There are a lot of them so supposedly it's a not uncommon or stupid motivation ?
 
Rich2018 said:
Because guns are a lot harder to make and smuggle and rely on ammunition.

Almost anyone can grow some weed.




No but a no guns sign keeps out the guns of people who don't plan to brewak the law and consequently there are less guns and therefore the establishment is safer.

Now the knee jerk reaction from the pro-gun lobby is "they're just stupid" and that blind perception is part of the character of gun owners...the world will burn before I had over my guns.



Maybe though you might actually think and come up with a reason why businesses and public buildings have such signs. There are a lot of them so supposedly it's a not uncommon or stupid motivation ?
Click to expand...

I didn't use the words uncommon or stupid. I said no guns signs aren't effective against people who are determined to bring guns into places that don't want them. I think it's unrealistically optimistic to think that a gun ban would be any more effective than the criminalization of marijuana. After all, most of the weed consumed in the US during its total prohibition came from outside its borders anyway. Guns might be more complicated to produce than marijuana, but they aren't any more difficult to smuggle.

Another point you made interests me. You said that fewer guns in an establishment makes the establishment safer. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
 
apdst said:
I'm wearing body armor. To carry, or not: we're debating.
Click to expand...

If you carry, you stay outside the fence. If you don't you will be herded inside the fence with thousands of other unarmed people and almost no way out.

It seemed like an easy choice for me.
 
Diesel said:
I didn't use the words uncommon or stupid. I said no guns signs aren't effective against people who are determined to bring guns into places that don't want them....
Click to expand...


Many in the gun lobby say it is stupid - TurtleDude for instance


So why do you think so many establishments exhibit a no guns sign ?


I think it's unrealistically optimistic to think that a gun ban would be any more effective than the criminalization of marijuana. After all, most of the weed consumed in the US during its total prohibition came from outside its borders anyway. Guns might be more complicated to produce than marijuana, but they aren't any more difficult to smuggle....
Click to expand...

Guns are definitely more difficult to smuggle than drugs

Another point you made interests me. You said that fewer guns in an establishment makes the establishment safer. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Click to expand...

Less guns = less gun use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom