• 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!

In light of today's events

How to reduce gun related violence

  • Tighter restrictions

    Votes: 19 26.8%

  • Ban Guns (repeal the second amendment)

    Votes: 3 4.2%

  • Allow for the wider use of guns for self protection

    Votes: 27 38.0%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 22 31.0%
  • Total voters
    71
Carleen said:
As of 6:00 PM my time, he used a semi automatic weapon which is an assault weapon.
Click to expand...

A semi-automatic weapon is not an assault weapon. The 1994 assault weapons ban did not ban assault rifles, it banned features on guns that made anti-gun loons piss their panties and it had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the weapon,.
 
iacardsfan said:
As you all have certainly heard there was ANOTHER mass shooting, this time at a elementary school, killing at least 27. This is just one of numerous examples of gun related violence in the news recently. As with any other shooting, this raises the question of how to prevent the violence. Please share your ideas on how to prevent another major incident like this.

Ps- I would like to express my sadness and deep sorrow about this incident and my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.
Click to expand...
''

I voted other and I say enforce the gun laws already on the books.
 
This needs a sweeping law that helps to deter gun violence. Of course gun violence will happen regardless, but other countries have had success with laws. Here is what I would like see happen:

-all persons are subject to a mental test before purchasing a gun
-you may only buy a set amount of guns a year
-handguns you must be a rifle owner for amount of years with zero violent crimes on record
-semi automatics banned
-extended clips banned
-if caught outside your property with a gun you personally didn't purchase without papers automatic jail time
-a 5% federal tax over what state taxes may be imposed to fund education and their security on guns
-teachers drilled on what to do in these situations
-no concealed weapons on goverenment property regardless of permit.
-more funding implemented for mental health and education to teachers and parents on warning signs
-federal offense to sell rated r or rated m material to minors
 
JohnWOlin said:
This needs a sweeping law that helps to deter gun violence. Of course gun violence will happen regardless, but other countries have had success with laws. Here is what I would like see happen:

-all persons are subject to a mental test before purchasing a gun
-you may only buy a set amount of guns a year
-handguns you must be a rifle owner for amount of years with zero violent crimes on record
-semi automatics banned
-extended clips banned
-if caught outside your property with a gun you personally didn't purchase without papers automatic jail time
-a 5% federal tax over what state taxes may be imposed to fund education and their security on guns
-teachers drilled on what to do in these situations
-no concealed weapons on goverenment property regardless of permit.
-more funding implemented for mental health and education to teachers and parents on warning signs
-federal offense to sell rated r or rated m material to minors
Click to expand...

The thing about your proposal is that its a violation of the 2nd amendment.It is a constitutional right for people to not only keep arms but to bear IE carry them as well without any infringements. .
 
Goshin said:
You have some good points... however: It was apparently widely known that this young man had mental and behavioral issues. Given that, it seems to me that someone should have been a bit more on-guard in his case.
Click to expand...

Being on guard, even if someone has clearly identifiable sociopathic neural circuitry, conflicts with being treated equally and fairly with some people here. Having a sociopath with a potential to do harm such as this tragedy in school is alright, and one should not be more on guard, such as observing them a bit more or so, for then they could be stigmatized and treated as secondary citizens, which is not an alright situation. You know someone has to watch out for the rights of sociopaths too.
 
DDD said:
Being on guard, even if someone has clearly identifiable sociopathic neural circuitry, conflicts with being treated equally and fairly with some people here. Having a sociopath with a potential to do harm such as this tragedy in school is alright, and one should not be more on guard, such as observing them a bit more or so, for then they could be stigmatized and treated as secondary citizens, which is not an alright situation. You know someone has to watch out for the rights of sociopaths too.
Click to expand...
Well, the thing is not to isolate them are treat or them without regard to their dignity or well being. What we need to do is get them help, whether that be therapy or just someone to talk to, in the meantime we can at least keep an eye on them to keep them from harming themselves or others.
 
Lutherf said:
You aren't going to prevent another incident. The entire concept of using the power of the state to prevent bad behavior is a pipe dream. It can't work.

The best we, as a society, can do to reduce the likelihood of this kind of thing happening is to start encouraging personal responsibility and making sure that consequences for bad behavior are both tendered and enforced.

Look at this mess....millions of people blaming guns for the shooting or blaming lax gun laws or blaming hate speech or whatever. The fact of the matter is that the person that should get the blame is the shooter and anybody that helped him. It's HIS fault that these kids got shot and not the fault of the 2nd amendment or the NRA or anyone else. It was HIM....just him.

No sane person wants to see a tragedy like this occur. No sane person thinks that it's a good thing that it did happen but to hold millions upon millions of responsible, law abiding people responsible (even indirectly) for this kind of thing is unconscionable.

Let me ask this question...if we are to cede all responsibility for our safety to the state and the state lets us down then who are we supposed to turn to? Who will protect us when we have taken away all means to protect ourselves and our "benefactor" either can't or won't protect us?
Click to expand...

The state IS NOT responsible for your saftey. The Supreme court and lower courts have stated this and even went so far as to comment on the irony of not being able to arm yourself in those districts that make that exceedingly difficult. The government and Law enforcemnt in particular, have no obligation to you whatsoever. If you ceed your responsibilty it will be for nought. Not only cant they protect you they have no obligation to protect you.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, the thing is not to isolate them are treat or them without regard to their dignity or well being. What we need to do is get them help, whether that be therapy or just someone to talk to, in the meantime we can at least keep an eye on them to keep them from harming themselves or others.
Click to expand...

That is a very humane idea. But sociopaths are known to manipulate the therapist and crave on humane ideas which they probably perceive as weaknesses. While statistically they are the least to be positively influenced from psychotherapy.
 
DDD said:
That is a very humane idea. But sociopaths are known to manipulate the therapist and crave on humane ideas which they probably perceive as weaknesses. While statistically they are the least to be positively influenced from psychotherapy.
Click to expand...
Sociopaths are very good at manipulation, this is true. We need to figure out as people what differentiates the sociopath that kills from the sociopath that is simply anti-social.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Sociopaths are very good at manipulation, this is true. We need to figure out as people what differentiates the sociopath that kills from the sociopath that is simply anti-social.
Click to expand...

That has to do with prediction of intent and decision making. Neuroscience has went as far on this subject as to offer neural patterns of a decision maker. That way with added research we may get to know which decision one has taken before they are to apply it with behavior.

But then one may argue just because a sociopath has decided to kill, not until they practice murder was it clear enough that the decision was to be behaved upon until the end. Just because a sociopath decided it may not mean that they will carry out the decision until the end.

Some people and their defense of freedom, they want proof until a crime is actually committed. Makes up for facts and builds up cases and judicial penalties, but then it may be too late for the victim themselves.
 
DDD said:
That has to do with prediction of intent and decision making. Neuroscience has went as far on this subject as to offer neural patterns of a decision maker. That way with added research we may get to know which decision one has taken before they are to apply it with behavior.

But then one may argue just because a sociopath has decided to kill, not until they practice murder was it clear enough that the decision was to be behaved upon until the end. Just because a sociopath decided it may not mean that they will carry out the decision until the end.

Some people and their defense of freedom, they want proof until a crime is actually committed. Makes up for facts and builds up cases and judicial penalties, but then it may be too late for the victim themselves.
Click to expand...
I'd rather risk a little and be free to be honest. We can always prepare for the worst.
 
Lutherf said:
Societal conditions can influence the decisions that one makes but, ultimately, the decision regarding how to respond to those influences lies with the individual.

Let's say that this shooter was locked in his basement for 10 years and tortured by his mother. His choice to shoot her would likely have been influenced by his social conditioning and it would have been understandable. His further decision to go to the school and shoot the kids might also be understandable but it definitely wouldn't be acceptable.
Click to expand...

If you look at the post I was responding too, it suggested everything was down to the perpetrator. Of course, we have no evidence of direct coercion influencing/guiding his actions, but what I'm saying is society has played a part, in the build up of this persons psyche/mental state hitherto. What is up for discussion, is the extent that those 'societal conditions' and what they actually are, and how they can help us understand.
Are you familiar with social contract theory?

Paul
 
DDD said:
Like you were prepared for this sad crime in Connecticut?

Or many others for that matter.
Click to expand...
Well, not exactly. Everyone is disgusted about it, but Connecticut is relatively a safe place, then again safety is always relative. What I mean by prepared is if we can't stop the factors of crimes like these we need to be prepared to stop the criminals.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The state IS NOT responsible for your saftey. The Supreme court and lower courts have stated this and even went so far as to comment on the irony of not being able to arm yourself in those districts that make that exceedingly difficult. The government and Law enforcemnt in particular, have no obligation to you whatsoever. If you ceed your responsibilty it will be for nought. Not only cant they protect you they have no obligation to protect you.
Click to expand...

This can be traced back to social contract theory

"In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory"

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions".[21] Most scholars trace the phrase, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence to Locke's theory of rights,[22] though other origins have been suggested"

John Locke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul
 
gunner said:
This can be traced back to social contract theory

"In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory"

Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory. Unlike Thomas Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature is characterised by reason and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of currency. In a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his “Life, health, Liberty, or Possessions".[21] Most scholars trace the phrase, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence to Locke's theory of rights,[22] though other origins have been suggested"

John Locke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul
Click to expand...

I am slightly dense, could you expound a bit?
 
PirateMk1 said:
I am slightly dense, could you expound a bit?
Click to expand...

What you suggest about "the right of an individual to protect themselves" can be traced back to social contract theory. That was all. It doesn't mean all social contract theorists thought the same. Locke and Hobbes differed over who's responsibility it was to protect citizens. Sorry if I was a little abstract.

Paul
 
gunner said:
What you suggest about "the right of an individual to protect themselves" can be traced back to social contract theory. That was all. It doesn't mean all social contract theorists thought the same. Locke and Hobbes differed over who's responsibility it was to protect citizens. Sorry if I was a little abstract.

Paul
Click to expand...

Oh ok. Thanks. Appreaciate the insight.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Well, not exactly. Everyone is disgusted about it, but Connecticut is relatively a safe place, then again safety is always relative. What I mean by prepared is if we can't stop the factors of crimes like these we need to be prepared to stop the criminals.
Click to expand...

In concrete terms though, the issue of involving neuroimages for identification may be one solution.
 
DDD said:
In concrete terms though, the issue of involving neuroimages for identification may be one solution.
Click to expand...
If it shows promise, sure thing. My overall point is that life is dangerous, and we are always one heartbeat away from death. We can hide or we can be ready for the bad things.
 
LaMidRighter said:
If it shows promise, sure thing. My overall point is that life is dangerous, and we are always one heartbeat away from death. We can hide or we can be ready for the bad things.
Click to expand...

Well now this tends to get more abstract and philosophical. Uncertainty, chaos, never ending multiple variables in life and their various influences in one side, and humans in their creative ways to counter it on the other side, they balance each other out. Though continuing these new issues may hijack the thread, I do of course agree with all that. In fact I even involve the evolutionary theory, i.e., by practicing "being prepared" steps and "hiding" may in several generations cause one to have more advantages with one practice compared to the other.
 
DDD said:
Well now this tends to get more abstract and philosophical. Uncertainty, chaos, never ending multiple variables in life and their various influences in one side, and humans in their creative ways to counter it on the other side, they balance each other out. Though continuing these new issues may hijack the thread, I do of course agree with all that. In fact I even involve the evolutionary theory, i.e., by practicing "being prepared" steps and "hiding" may in several generations cause one to have more advantages with one practice compared to the other.
Click to expand...
It's part philosophical, part evolution. The primary purpose of life is survival, this involves at the primal level living, but in a moral sense requires certain boundaries. Interestingly, this is exacltly where the "rights versus safety" argument starts.
 
LaMidRighter said:
It's part philosophical, part evolution. The primary purpose of life is survival, this involves at the primal level living, but in a moral sense requires certain boundaries. Interestingly, this is exacltly where the "rights versus safety" argument starts.
Click to expand...

That is where it is at. Should we stop a known sociopath that has decided to kill?
 
jamesrage said:
The thing about your proposal is that its a violation of the 2nd amendment.It is a constitutional right for people to not only keep arms but to bear IE carry them as well without any infringements. .
Click to expand...

While I am not endorsing the items on the list you replied to, you are misusing the word INFRINGEMENT here and in doing so completely producing the incorrect interpretation of the Second Amendment. You are using the modern version of the word instead of the older and now obsolete definition which was in effect two centuries ago.
 
Sort of #3: Require schools to hire armed first-responders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom