• 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!

3 Dead over Dog

Rich2018 said:
Because guns are the raison d'être for gun control.
Click to expand...

That's circular. We should control guns because controlling guns is required for gun control.
 
lwf said:
The people killing is the problem, not the tools they used to kill. Had he used a hammer would there be a case for hammer control?
Click to expand...

You have a point, of course, but not about the choice of weapon. He would not have killed two with a hammer--if he managed at 82 to kill even one. Four people in the house escaped. The little girl would have too, if not the Dad. And I have never heard of anyone killing themselves with a hammer, either. The police would have shut him down when they first arrived.

To me, it is all about damage control. Yes, people are still going to be violent, want to attack and kill each other even if you take away their guns. But they will have a harder time doing it, and they will do less damage than a very pissed off person with a gun. It is all too easy to take a human life with one of those things.
 
MaryP said:
You have a point, of course, but not about the choice of weapon. He would not have killed two with a hammer--if he managed at 82 to kill even one. Four people in the house escaped. The little girl would have too, if not the Dad. And I have never heard of anyone killing themselves with a hammer, either. The police would have shut him down when they first arrived.

To me, it is all about damage control. Yes, people are still going to be violent, want to attack and kill each other even if you take away their guns. But they will have a harder time doing it, and they will do less damage than a very pissed off person with a gun. It is all too easy to take a human life with one of those things.
Click to expand...

It's even easier to kill with a vehicle.
 
lwf said:
The people killing is the problem, not the tools they used to kill.
Click to expand...
I agree completely
Had he used a hammer would there be a case for hammer control?
Click to expand...
Sure there would be, and it would just as idiotic to advocate for some of the more extreme control measures as it is for guns.
 
lwf said:
It's even easier to kill with a vehicle.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to play these games with you. You know I've got a point.
 
jotathought said:
Lee Harvey Oswald was a good guy?
Click to expand...

Right up until he allegedly fired the shot. Then he was a bad guy. They're all good guys until they're not. Good guys need to have guns because of the bad guys. Nevermind the overlap.
 
MaryP said:
I'm not going to play these games with you. You know I've got a point.
Click to expand...

What kinds of control measures would you like to see in place that you think could of helped prevent this situation?

Not trying to lay out some gotcha trap just interested in your opinion
 
MaryP said:
I'm not going to play these games with you. You know I've got a point.
Click to expand...

Guns make killing easy it's true, but so do vehicles. Like guns, we regulate vehicles to an extent to try to make their use as safe as possible, but no one is seeking to outlaw them because they have other uses besides horrifically killing large numbers of our population each year.

Why should guns be any different? We have some gun control laws that make guns relatively safe. Occasionally they are still used to kill people, unfortunately. Why do we feel we need to do something about this but not about other just as dangerous things that we have the freedom to enjoy responsibly?
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
That's circular. We should control guns because controlling guns is required for gun control.
Click to expand...

No, the gun control should look to control guns because that is what they're set up to do.

You are essentially arguing that a lobby group like M.A.D.D. (mothers against drunk drivers) should also campaign for something line better safety regulations for railways.
 
MaryP said:
You have a point, of course, but not about the choice of weapon. He would not have killed two with a hammer--if he managed at 82 to kill even one. Four people in the house escaped. The little girl would have too, if not the Dad. And I have never heard of anyone killing themselves with a hammer, either. The police would have shut him down when they first arrived.

To me, it is all about damage control. Yes, people are still going to be violent, want to attack and kill each other even if you take away their guns. But they will have a harder time doing it, and they will do less damage than a very pissed off person with a gun. It is all too easy to take a human life with one of those things.
Click to expand...

That argument can be flipped as well. What are the self-defense chances of success for an average unarmed 82 year old?
 
Rich2018 said:
No, the gun control should look to control guns because that is what they're set up to do.

You are essentially arguing that a lobby group like M.A.D.D. (mothers against drunk drivers) should also campaign for something line better safety regulations for railways.
Click to expand...

The point is that the logic for hammer or vehicle control is the same as the logic for gun control. Whatever reason you have to not support the former can be applied to the latter.
 
lwf said:
The point is that the logic for hammer or vehicle control is the same as the logic for gun control. Whatever reason you have to not support the former can be applied to the latter.
Click to expand...

Then address your concerns to the hammer control lobby and the car control lobby.
 
lwf said:
Guns make killing easy it's true, but so do vehicles. Like guns, we regulate vehicles to an extent to try to make their use as safe as possible, but no one is seeking to outlaw them because they have other uses besides horrifically killing large numbers of our population each year.

Why should guns be any different? We have some gun control laws that make guns relatively safe. Occasionally they are still used to kill people, unfortunately. Why do we feel we need to do something about this but not about other just as dangerous things that we have the freedom to enjoy responsibly?
Click to expand...

14,452 times in 2019.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

Vehicles, if you're still talking about them, are for transportation that is crucial to our lifestyles and our economy. Guns were invented and refined and improved for one purpose: to kill.
 
Rich2018 said:
Then address your concerns to the hammer control lobby and the car control lobby.
Click to expand...

I'm not concerned with either. Nor am I concerned with gun control. All three are regulated enough.
 
MaryP said:
14,452 times in 2019.

Gun deaths in the U.S.: 10 key questions answered | Pew Research Center

Vehicles, if you're still talking about them, are for transportation that is crucial to our lifestyles and our economy. Guns were invented and refined and improved for one purpose: to kill.
Click to expand...

Guns have other uses besides killing as well, including recreation and personal defense. Vehicles kill more than twice that number.

Alcohol kills six times that number each year and has zero non-recreational uses. Are you in favor of an alcohol ban?
 
lwf said:
Guns have other uses besides killing as well, including recreation and personal defense. Vehicles kill more than twice that number.

Alcohol kills six times that number each year and has zero non-recreational uses. Are you in favor of an alcohol ban?
Click to expand...

Personal defense: the threat of "I'll kill you with this if you don't stop"
Recreation: killing animals or practicing your aim so you can hit and kill your target more accurately
 
lwf said:
I'm not concerned with either. Nor am I concerned with gun control. All three are regulated enough.
Click to expand...

Hammer and cars yes, guns no. There is huge scope to regulate firearms - and it all starts with repealing the 2nd amendment.
 
Chillfolks said:
What kinds of control measures would you like to see in place that you think could of helped prevent this situation?

Not trying to lay out some gotcha trap just interested in your opinion
Click to expand...

No law or regulation alone will prevent this from happening. To me, it seems the culture itself must change as well. That will take time and massive effort to educate, to influence social norms, to teach more respect for life, more sensitivity to mental health problems, and to no longer think it's cool to have the flashiest, biggest gun on the block. That needs to happen at the same time. We did it with cigarettes. We can do it with guns.
 
Rich2018 said:
Hammer and cars yes, guns no. There is huge scope to regulate firearms - and it all starts with repealing the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

You are the first person I've come across (besides me) to say that! I see it as an outdated obstacle to saving a tremendous number of lives.

Oh dear, here I was hoping I'd have a positive experience on this board. I think I've just blown it, haven't I?
 
Gee why is it every time a mentally disturbed person kills someone with a gun more mentally disturbed people want to blame an inanimate object for the deaths? Can it be that they are actually not intelligent enough to know that the man killed that little girl not the inanimate object?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom