• 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!

NARRATIVE FAIL: Minorities, LGBT Community, Women Show Up In Force At Pro-Gun Rally

TurtleDude said:
I don't believe in the federal government having powers that it what not given to it. Such as demanding private citizens who already are BANNED from selling or buying across state lines-conduct background checks using the FDR mutation of the commerce clause to pretend the congress has such power.

A Duke university study proved that the background checks did NOTHING to decrease violent crime
Click to expand...

In other words 'I don't care about protecting US citizens, reducing gun deaths, reducing gun casualties or limiting the economic and financial impact' because if you did you would put forth some intelligent solutions to the problem. Instead you make up excuses, provide no solutions and have nothing but narrow minded views.

I actually agree.......background checks are not the most effective mechanism but its one of the only things thats already implemented that those with a pro gun obsession partly allow. I was actually trying to work with you somewhat but guess cooperation isn't your peoples strong point.

I will make this point one final time to ensure it is clear.....gun control doesn't seek to reduce all violent crime. Can you not understand that. Gun control seeks to reduce gun deaths and injuries. You need to be factual and clear in what you are saying, instead you manipulate statistics and stretch the truth for your own gain.
 
RF667799 said:
So then I guess we both know the answer is "one". Did you mean an insensitive question or an inconvenient question?
Click to expand...

You posed the question, a question which I thought given you managed to sign up and log onto this forum, could answer.

Lets me be clear on this.......you asked a question pertaining to the use of a weapon for an individual to kill themselves. If you cannot see the insensitivity in that question, particularly given you know absolutely nothing about me, then you need to take a long and hard look at yourself in the mirror. Your question doesn't prove anything other than suicide is existent and is a devastating, upsetting and is an absolutely and utterly gut wrenching problem. Guns only create greater complexity in this are. And if I believe it is justified to march forth with what one believes in and if I see that firearms are a problem (whether through research, experience or passion for the issue) that increases the risk of suicide and heightens the overall risk upon mentally ill individuals then I will damn well stand for that and not be asked petty, disgraceful, insensitive questions from people such as yourself.
 
goldkam said:
You posed the question, a question which I thought given you managed to sign up and log onto this forum, could answer.

Lets me be clear on this.......you asked a question pertaining to the use of a weapon for an individual to kill themselves. If you cannot see the insensitivity in that question, particularly given you know absolutely nothing about me, then you need to take a long and hard look at yourself in the mirror. Your question doesn't prove anything other than suicide is existent and is a devastating, upsetting and is an absolutely and utterly gut wrenching problem. Guns only create greater complexity in this are. And if I believe it is justified to march forth with what one believes in and if I see that firearms are a problem (whether through research, experience or passion for the issue) that increases the risk of suicide and heightens the overall risk upon mentally ill individuals then I will damn well stand for that and not be asked petty, disgraceful, insensitive questions from people such as yourself.
Click to expand...

Interesting juxtaposition in the bolded above. But other than that, a bunch of sanctimonious gas.

If it only takes one gun for any given suicide by firearm, how far will you have to reduce the number of guns to accomplish a reduction in suicide?

BTW, given your sensitivity to the subject- what would you think of the argument that it takes the same sort of courage and determination to hang oneself as it takes to tear off a band aid or clean up a pile of puppy poop? Now, I myself thought that was a rather insensitive position to take. But of course that was the argument of someone on your side of the gun matter.
 
Last edited:
goldkam said:
In other words 'I don't care about protecting US citizens, reducing gun deaths, reducing gun casualties or limiting the economic and financial impact' because if you did you would put forth some intelligent solutions to the problem. Instead you make up excuses, provide no solutions and have nothing but narrow minded views.

I actually agree.......background checks are not the most effective mechanism but its one of the only things thats already implemented that those with a pro gun obsession partly allow. I was actually trying to work with you somewhat but guess cooperation isn't your peoples strong point.

I will make this point one final time to ensure it is clear.....gun control doesn't seek to reduce all violent crime. Can you not understand that. Gun control seeks to reduce gun deaths and injuries. You need to be factual and clear in what you are saying, instead you manipulate statistics and stretch the truth for your own gain.
Click to expand...

Horsecrap. Left-wing gun control pretends to do something about crime so the proponents can pander to low IQ voters who buy that nonsense, while not upsetting major constituencies of the Democrats: and at the same time harassing people who have opposed Democrats ever since Democrats started claiming Gun control was crime control.
 
Rich2018 said:
Perhaps.
Click to expand...

Right. Then you agree that convenience could go a long way in encouraging gun thieves and contraband gun buyers to register and title their stolen guns?
 
RF667799 said:
Interesting juxtaposition in the bolded above. But other than that, a bunch of sanctimonious gas.
Click to expand...

Its unfortunate you show little empathy or consideration to the issue of suicide but why should I be surprised when you posed such a disgraceful question before.

Its all valid. Its all justified. Its all reasonable.

Why on earth are you acting in such an inconsiderate, abrasive and disrespectful way? This is beyond being on a debate forum, you have now turned this into some personal triumph for yourself to win an argument or feel a sense of authority and its simply shameful.

If it only takes one gun for any given suicide by firearm, how far will you have to reduce the number of guns to accomplish a reduction in suicide?
Click to expand...

The reduction in the number of firearms is part of the solution to this growing and concerning issue, of which you could not care less about. The Second Amendment and the obsessive culture bred that feeds off this unhealthy relationship with firearms is at the crux of the problem. The fact there are 132 guns per 100 people. The fact there are 43,000 gun deaths last year (a 32% increase over 20 years), over 80,000 gun casualties last year, a rising economic and financial cost among so many other things.

A combination of smaller legislative changes over time such as closing the gap of background check avoidance in the private gun sector, along with broader Constitutional and cultural changes. These actions will see the inevitable application of Australia, British, Japanese, Indian, NZ style legislation, with have proven effectiveness.

More specifically to address suicide this in combination with greater preventative mechanisms, education and early detection signs of mentally ill students in school is fundamental.

The concerning prospects in moving forward undoubtedly is the fact no background check or the like will stop a mentally ill kid taking their gun off their parent, family member or friend or buying it from an illegal (or legal) marketplace. The saturation and exposure is the very problem here, a problem you could not even respect.

BTW, given your sensitivity to the subject- what would you think of the argument that it takes the same sort of courage and determination to hang oneself as it takes to tear off a band aid or clean up a pile of puppy poop? Now, I myself thought that was a rather insensitive position to take. But of course that was the argument of someone on your side of the gun matter.
Click to expand...

I made a very personal and thought out comment in the previous post informed only by research and experience. I mean I don't even know why you compare and contrast...I would assume to cover up the unbelievably disgraceful comments you made. You have no idea about the issue and therefore should simply not comment on it.
 
goldkam said:
Its unfortunate you show little empathy or consideration to the issue of suicide but why should I be surprised when you posed such a disgraceful question before.

Its all valid. Its all justified. Its all reasonable.

Why on earth are you acting in such an inconsiderate, abrasive and disrespectful way? This is beyond being on a debate forum, you have now turned this into some personal triumph for yourself to win an argument or feel a sense of authority and its simply shameful.



The reduction in the number of firearms is part of the solution to this growing and concerning issue, of which you could not care less about. The Second Amendment and the obsessive culture bred that feeds off this unhealthy relationship with firearms is at the crux of the problem. The fact there are 132 guns per 100 people. The fact there are 43,000 gun deaths last year (a 32% increase over 20 years), over 80,000 gun casualties last year, a rising economic and financial cost among so many other things.

A combination of smaller legislative changes over time such as closing the gap of background check avoidance in the private gun sector, along with broader Constitutional and cultural changes. These actions will see the inevitable application of Australia, British, Japanese, Indian, NZ style legislation, with have proven effectiveness.

More specifically to address suicide this in combination with greater preventative mechanisms, education and early detection signs of mentally ill students in school is fundamental.

The concerning prospects in moving forward undoubtedly is the fact no background check or the like will stop a mentally ill kid taking their gun off their parent, family member or friend or buying it from an illegal (or legal) marketplace. The saturation and exposure is the very problem here, a problem you could not even respect.



I made a very personal and thought out comment in the previous post informed only by research and experience. I mean I don't even know why you compare and contrast...I would assume to cover up the unbelievably disgraceful comments you made. You have no idea about the issue and therefore should simply not comment on it.
Click to expand...

SO WHAT are your desired solutions to deal with suicides? the vast majority of suicides involve people who will pass a background check.
 
TurtleDude said:
Horsecrap. Left-wing gun control pretends to do something about crime so the proponents can pander to low IQ voters who buy that nonsense, while not upsetting major constituencies of the Democrats: and at the same time harassing people who have opposed Democrats ever since Democrats started claiming Gun control was crime control.
Click to expand...

In other words 'I don't care about protecting US citizens, reducing gun deaths, reducing gun casualties or limiting the economic and financial impact' because if you did you would put forth some intelligent solutions to the problem. Instead you make up excuses, provide no solutions and have nothing but narrow minded views.


You are a very good finger pointer. You bag out, hate on and disagree with everyone but yourself. You state useless points and and come up with no solutions. Tell me this......do you accept that gun deaths are rising? Do you accept the economic and financial cost is in the hundreds of billions annually? Do you not feel sympathy towards those of whom have had family killed by a person with a gun?

Lets be clear on this. Gun Control has the aim of limiting people dying or being injured by people with guns. You can lie and point fingers as you always do to the falsehoods and manipulations but it proves nothing. You can hate on Democrats, people with views like me and me but you are not proving anything other than you like to shift the blame, ignore the problem and continue to live in this disillusioned pro gun obsessive bubble.
 
TurtleDude said:
SO WHAT are your desired solutions to deal with suicides? the vast majority of suicides involve people who will pass a background check.
Click to expand...

There are many solutions that could be sought but once again the pro gun groups and individuals like to stand there an ignore the problem by living in their unhealthy obsessive bubbles.

The solutions starts with who and where guns are. Quite simply and this should go without saying, the sheer number of guns in the US is disgraceful. There are more guns than people and that is not something to be proud of. It normalises guns and in a society where suicide is a prominent and concerning problem this oversaturation and normalising is not healthy, particularly not with the added complexity of school shootings. This indicates the number of firearms and culture are concerning problems.

Without writing a book on this issue.....Australia, NZ, UK, India and Japan style gun laws are what is needed. And yes shock and horror the 2nd Amendment will need to be changed.

The fact that the vasts majority of suicides involve those who pass background checks is the very crux of the issue as well. Curbing access starts with curbing the supply and creating more enforceable laws.
 
goldkam said:
In other words 'I don't care about protecting US citizens, reducing gun deaths, reducing gun casualties or limiting the economic and financial impact' because if you did you would put forth some intelligent solutions to the problem. Instead you make up excuses, provide no solutions and have nothing but narrow minded views.


You are a very good finger pointer. You bag out, hate on and disagree with everyone but yourself. You state useless points and and come up with no solutions. Tell me this......do you accept that gun deaths are rising? Do you accept the economic and financial cost is in the hundreds of billions annually? Do you not feel sympathy towards those of whom have had family killed by a person with a gun?

Lets be clear on this. Gun Control has the aim of limiting people dying or being injured by people with guns. You can lie and point fingers as you always do to the falsehoods and manipulations but it proves nothing. You can hate on Democrats, people with views like me and me but you are not proving anything other than you like to shift the blame, ignore the problem and continue to live in this disillusioned pro gun obsessive bubble.
Click to expand...

I don't buy that claim of yours about gun control. You have never given us a rational alternative solution. And I tire of honest gun owners being blamed by people like you-for crimes and suicides
 
goldkam said:
There are many solutions that could be sought but once again the pro gun groups and individuals like to stand there an ignore the problem by living in their unhealthy obsessive bubbles.

The solutions starts with who and where guns are. Quite simply and this should go without saying, the sheer number of guns in the US is disgraceful. There are more guns than people and that is not something to be proud of. It normalises guns and in a society where suicide is a prominent and concerning problem this oversaturation and normalising is not healthy, particularly not with the added complexity of school shootings. This indicates the number of firearms and culture are concerning problems.

Without writing a book on this issue.....Australia, NZ, UK, India and Japan style gun laws are what is needed. And yes shock and horror the 2nd Amendment will need to be changed.

The fact that the vasts majority of suicides involve those who pass background checks is the very crux of the issue as well. Curbing access starts with curbing the supply and creating more enforceable laws.
Click to expand...

Trying to impose Japanese style gun control laws would justify a civil war.
 
goldkam said:
Its unfortunate you show little empathy or consideration to the issue of suicide but why should I be surprised when you posed such a disgraceful question before.

Its all valid. Its all justified. Its all reasonable.

Why on earth are you acting in such an inconsiderate, abrasive and disrespectful way? This is beyond being on a debate forum, you have now turned this into some personal triumph for yourself to win an argument or feel a sense of authority and its simply shameful.



The reduction in the number of firearms is part of the solution to this growing and concerning issue, of which you could not care less about. The Second Amendment and the obsessive culture bred that feeds off this unhealthy relationship with firearms is at the crux of the problem. The fact there are 132 guns per 100 people. The fact there are 43,000 gun deaths last year (a 32% increase over 20 years), over 80,000 gun casualties last year, a rising economic and financial cost among so many other things.

A combination of smaller legislative changes over time such as closing the gap of background check avoidance in the private gun sector, along with broader Constitutional and cultural changes. These actions will see the inevitable application of Australia, British, Japanese, Indian, NZ style legislation, with have proven effectiveness.

More specifically to address suicide this in combination with greater preventative mechanisms, education and early detection signs of mentally ill students in school is fundamental.

The concerning prospects in moving forward undoubtedly is the fact no background check or the like will stop a mentally ill kid taking their gun off their parent, family member or friend or buying it from an illegal (or legal) marketplace. The saturation and exposure is the very problem here, a problem you could not even respect.



I made a very personal and thought out comment in the previous post informed only by research and experience. I mean I don't even know why you compare and contrast...I would assume to cover up the unbelievably disgraceful comments you made. You have no idea about the issue and therefore should simply not comment on it.
Click to expand...

I asked a simple question. How many guns does it take for an individual to kill himself. It seems we agree that number is one. I'll go further and say that single gun doesn't have to be an AR15 or any other semiautomatic, doesn't have to be multi-shot at all. It doesn't have to be anything other than the single shot shotgun that I have seen some anti-gunners indicate is something they might consider as proper for private ownership.

You went on at length with various opinions and personal attacks above, but I didn't notice where you answered my question. So again: If it only takes one gun for any given suicide by firearm, how far will you have to reduce the number of guns to accomplish a reduction in suicide?
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't buy that claim of yours about gun control. You have never given us a rational alternative solution. And I tire of honest gun owners being blamed by people like you-for crimes and suicides
Click to expand...

But your in complete and utter denial of the facts. You don't buy them because you don't like them. You don't buy them because seemingly prefer to worship this weapon. Rather than seek solutions in a cooperative manner to reduce deaths and injuries by firearm, reduce the economic and financial cost among so many other things you simply ignore it. People are ignorant until it inconveniences them.

There is nothing rational about 43,000 people dying every year. There is nothing rational about having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on gun crime each year. And then you try to lecture me on being rational. But once again it highlights where your priorities are, within this obsessive and unhealthy bubble of those who are pro gun.

You can play the victim. You can point fingers. You can get angry. However I am not going to and many others are not going to suddenly give up or drop our view because its hurting your feelings. Guns are a problem. Guns are being used to kill innocent people. Guns are being used by people to take their own life. Guns are an economic and financial burden that everyone is having to absorb. I am sorry that we are hurting your feelings but when people are being killed, when no action has been taken on the issue and when the financial cost soars in the billions its validated. You are part of the issue that puts fire onto the current unhealthy gun culture.
 
goldkam said:
But your in complete and utter denial of the facts. You don't buy them because you don't like them. You don't buy them because seemingly prefer to worship this weapon. Rather than seek solutions in a cooperative manner to reduce deaths and injuries by firearm, reduce the economic and financial cost among so many other things you simply ignore it. People are ignorant until it inconveniences them.

There is nothing rational about 43,000 people dying every year. There is nothing rational about having to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on gun crime each year. And then you try to lecture me on being rational. But once again it highlights where your priorities are, within this obsessive and unhealthy bubble of those who are pro gun.

You can play the victim. You can point fingers. You can get angry. However I am not going to and many others are not going to suddenly give up or drop our view because its hurting your feelings. Guns are a problem. Guns are being used to kill innocent people. Guns are being used by people to take their own life. Guns are an economic and financial burden that everyone is having to absorb. I am sorry that we are hurting your feelings but when people are being killed, when no action has been taken on the issue and when the financial cost soars in the billions its validated. You are part of the issue that puts fire onto the current unhealthy gun culture.
Click to expand...

Still no solutions, just whining about 43K deaths most due to suicides and felons killing other felons. You keep carping about the damage gun ownership does, and have no rational arguments on how to abate that what you claim vexes you so much
 
TurtleDude said:
Trying to impose Japanese style gun control laws would justify a civil war.
Click to expand...

That sounds like an argument made 200 years ago. Its outdated. Proves nothing. And indicates you once again value the need to be violent and upheave an action that would seek to reduce deaths, reduce injuries, saves lives and limit the economic and financial impact of gun crime.
 
goldkam said:
Without writing a book on this issue.....Australia, NZ, UK, India and Japan style gun laws are what is needed. And yes shock and horror the 2nd Amendment will need to be changed.
Click to expand...

When you have a coalition that can edit the 2nd Amendment, we can get into the weeds about the details of your new laws.
 
goldkam said:
To your first point: Its an interesting debate for a number of reasons namely that the US Supreme Court tends to back every citizen and legal resident to own a gun......when it suits them. As I made the point earlier why did they not for over 30 years back these citizens, as there was strict gun control measures in Washington state for this period. The answer is party politics and inconsistent application of the Constitution and law, indicative of the outdatedness and inapplicability of the 2nd Amendment to modern day politics, society and culture. Its 225 years old for crying out loud.

To your second point: Absolutely agree. However currently any progress is progress and the step that needs to happen before the 2nd Amendment to be repealed is a change to the current gun culture and cultures don't change overnight.
Click to expand...

The very concept of a militia is a relic from the 18th century. The 2nd amendment is also a relic and hasn't had relevance for over 200 years.

It was remarkably short sighted of the founders to think it would remain so.
 
RF667799 said:
I asked a simple question. How many guns does it take for an individual to kill himself. It seems we agree that number is one. I'll go further and say that single gun doesn't have to be an AR15 or any other semiautomatic, doesn't have to be multi-shot at all. It doesn't have to be anything other than the single shot shotgun that I have seen some anti-gunners indicate is something they might consider as proper for private ownership.

You went on at length with various opinions and personal attacks above, but I didn't notice where you answered my question. So again: If it only takes one gun for any given suicide by firearm, how far will you have to reduce the number of guns to accomplish a reduction in suicide?
Click to expand...


You asked a question you knew the answer to and one which proved absolutely nothing other than your inability to be mature and sensitive towards the topic.

The points you make have back fired because they indicate another quite alarming flaw in the current lax and unenforcible laws. Your comments "It seems we agree that number is one. I'll go further and say that single gun doesn't have to be an AR15 or any other semiautomatic, doesn't have to be multi-shot at all. It doesn't have to be anything other than the single shot shotgun" indicate how easily it can occur. It indicates that a teenager, a child, a mother, a sister, an aunty, an uncle, a grandfather or a grandmother can using a single gun in whatever form to take their life that easily. AND THAT IS MY VERY POINT. High accessibility, the obsessive and unhealthy gun culture and people like yourself are the problem.

I provided a justified opinion based on research and experience. You provided nothing more than an insensitive reply that indicates you have no limits when it comes to this issue. You don't deserve to have a question such as that to be answered.

To your final point. I am confused as to why you assume the only way to address suicides with a firearm or firearm violence more broadly is to take guns away. The falsehood you are creating here is simply a means of manipulating the situation for your own gain. What is clear is the legislative loop holes need to be mended as a short term solution, whilst longer term cultural and constitutional change occurs.
 
TurtleDude said:
Still no solutions
Click to expand...

Bit rich coming from someone who has no solutions themselves and uses this as a means of blaming and pointing the finger. I have put forth my solutions and you seemingly don't like them and strike them down as you live in this bubble fuelled by an obsessive and unhealthy relationship with firearms. Why is it pro gun individuals are so uncooperative and narrow minded?


just whining about 43K deaths most due to suicides and felons killing other felons.
Click to expand...

Once again you display this heartless act of undermining the deaths of 43,000 people. Your undermine suicides. You undermine a human dying. From the approach you take you wouldn't care if 5,000, 150,000 or 5 million people died, because you are so focused on firearms, you are so focused on yourself, you are so focused on outdated national principles.

Why do you downplay suicides with a firearm?


You keep carping about the damage gun ownership does, and have no rational arguments on how to abate that what you claim vexes you so much
Click to expand...

You are a hypocrite. Its this double standard set.....you ask for solutions (which you have none of) which I provide and you cannot even rationally have a debate or discussion about it. They are rational in dozens of countries around the world and are rational in the eyes of some within the US yet you knock them down because once again you are so focused on firearms, you are so focused on yourself, you are so focused on outdated national principles.
 
Meet the Gay Libertarian Gun Nuts

Meet the Gay Libertarian Gun Nuts - VICE

Gay libertarian activists argue that more guns would help prevent hate crimes.

Tom Palmer, a gay libertarian, was walking to dinner with a co-worker in 1982 when he was told by a group of passing homophobes that he would be killed and nobody would ever find his body. Walking slowly away, and then running, Palmer was pursued by the gang for about a hundred feet until he turned to face them with the handgun his mother had given him. His aggressors retreated when they saw the gun, and Palmer was safe—the gun may very well have saved his life. Today, Palmer, now a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, is fighting to tear down Washington DC's prohibition against carrying handguns.

Palmer isn't the only gay pro-gun libertarian activist out there. In fact, there are thousands of LGBT individuals who are skeptical of the government and love shooting things—or are at least prepared to do so in self-defense. I wasn't aware of this subculture until I attended LibertyFest NYC—initially, I was taken aback when Marcel Fontaine, a speaker at the convention and creator of the "LGBT for Gun Rights" Facebook page told me that the "more guns, less crime" argument often referenced by opponents of gun control can apply to hate crimes, too. "Armed gays don't get bashed" is how they often put it.
 
WillyPete said:
When you have a coalition that can edit the 2nd Amendment, we can get into the weeds about the details of your new laws.
Click to expand...

You may as well ask me to stand with my hands behind my back and do nothing if I follow the principle of your response. I agree and understand that change is required around the 2nd Amendment before meaningful change can occur. However there are so many other aspects to this issue......current laws, background checks, states powers, elected president, political parties, gun culture, firearms industry, NRA etc... that can addressed without changing the 2nd Amendment.

I don't deny this is a long term thing but it is fundamental that shorter term solutions are sought and aimed for, for the sake of everyone. Quite simply it is better than doing nothing which has been happening for decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom