• 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!

Gun Control

Would you support more restrictions on guns if they had the potential to save lives?

  • Yes

    Votes: 59 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 74 50.0%

  • Others

    Votes: 15 10.1%
  • Total voters
    148
ChrisL said:
Why are you nitpicking about unimportant things. Discuss the topic please instead of going off on a tangent.
Click to expand...

Kind of like TD is? Just saying. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
It's rarely a planned thing. Not something go to he black market for. Often they use the weapons of opportunity, hose available. There are no absolutes, which is why I say limit and prevent.
Click to expand...

That is just totally untrue. MOST of these types of mass shootings are most certainly planned. A lot of times for weeks if not months in advance. We know this because a lot of times we have evidence such as notes or computer records of such plans, as well as farewell notes, lists of victims, etc.
 
Boo Radley said:
It does in my head. ;)

Example: you don't know my brother, but he's a idiot. Buys a gun, doesn't know it's loaded and plays with it around the house. Shoots through the closet into he next door apartment. Luckily he doesn't hit anyone. Still, idiot. Go the gun legally, but he would never even try black market. Not in him. Many idiots are that way. Again, one extra step limits.
Click to expand...

So then you want to treat EVERYONE like an idiot because you know a few? That is not logical.
 
ChrisL said:
That is just totally untrue. MOST of these types of mass shootings are most certainly planned. A lot of times for weeks if not months in advance. We know this because a lot of times we have evidence such as notes or computer records of such plans, as well as farewell notes, lists of victims, etc.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If you have anything present it. I'll do a search once I get to my computer. Some are planned, but not most.
 
ChrisL said:
So then you want to treat EVERYONE like an idiot because you know a few? That is not logical.
Click to expand...

Nope. I just accept what I see as a reasonable regulation (because f both idiots and the not ally ill). I do not support a complete response ban, which no n has proposed.
 
Mass killings often planned, not spontaneous, experts say - latimes.com

The motive behind the Connecticut elementary school rampage is not known, but behavioral specialists with expertise on mass killings note that such events typically do not occur spontaneously, that the perpetrator has harbored both resentments and fantasies of how he would carry out his objective.

The perpetrators often say things or exhibit behavior that, in hindsight, foreshadow their rampages.

After the fact, “it never ends up being a surprise,” said Dr. C. Andrew Morgan, a Yale University psychiatrist and behavioral advisor to the U.S. armed services.
 
Boo Radley said:
I don't think so. If you have anything present it. I'll do a search once I get to my computer. Some are planned, but not most.
Click to expand...

Forgot to quote. See post #606.
 
Here's something I found. It's only a summary paragraph, but I'm pretty sure you have to pay to see the whole article, and I'm not going to do that, so this will have to do. It pretty much describes the shooter in the most recent incident.

The "pseudocommando" mass murderer:... [J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI

Abstract
The pseudocommando is a type of mass murderer who kills in public during the daytime, plans his offense well in advance, and comes prepared with a powerful arsenal of weapons. He has no escape planned and expects to be killed during the incident. Research suggests that the pseudocommando is driven by strong feelings of anger and resentment, flowing from beliefs about being persecuted or grossly mistreated. He views himself as carrying out a highly personal agenda of payback. Some mass murderers take special steps to send a final communication to the public or news media; these communications, to date, have received little detailed analysis. An offender's use of language may reveal important data about his state of mind, motivation, and psychopathology. Part I of this article reviews the research on the pseudocommando, as well as the psychology of revenge, with special attention to revenge fantasies. It is argued that revenge fantasies become the last refuge for the pseudocommando's mortally wounded self-esteem and ultimately enable him to commit mass murder-suicide.
 
This one is absolutely fascinating. If you have the time, I suggest you read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt.

The Sociological Eye: CLUES TO MASS RAMPAGE KILLERS: DEEP BACKSTAGE, HIDDEN ARSENAL, CLANDESTINE EXCITEMENT

What can the micro-sociology of violence contribute to understanding the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado, and similar incidents? In the immediate shock of public attention, there is an imperative to give policy answers. I could join the chorus advocating a ban on weapons in the USA. This is a hope; it is not a guarantee. Mass shootings are very rare events. There are about 15,000 homicides per year in the USA; the great majority are single-victim killings. Less than 1% are mass killings (4 or more victims in the same incident). Spectacular mass shootings, where many persons are killed or wounded, have been happening at a rate of about 1 or 2 per year, in the 30 years since 1980, for the most common type, school shootings; shootings in other venues, apparently imitating school shootings, are rarer but on the rise. It is their rarity that attracts so much attention, and their out-of-the-blue, seemingly random relationship between killer and victims, that makes them so dramatically alarming.

This rarity means that very distinctive circumstances are needed to explain mass killings, and that widely available conditions cannot be very accurate predictors. There are approximately 190 million firearms in the civilian population in America, in a population of 310 million. The vast majority of these guns are not used to kill people. Even if we focus on the total number of yearly homicides by gun (about 12,000), the percentage of guns that kill someone is about 12,000 / 190,000,000, or 1 in 16,000. Another way to put it: of approximately 44 million gun owners in the US, 99.97% of them do not murder anyone. It is not surprising that their owners resist being accused of abetting murder.
 
I don't think instituting stricter gun control laws will help (though I do believe we need to eliminate the loopholes that allow people to avoid background checks, such as purchases at gun shows). The Columbine massacre occurred when the Assault Weapons ban was in place. The three most deadly domestic attacks in the United States also had nothing to do with firearms: the 1927 Bath Bombings in Michigan, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and even 9/11 itself. Even where gun control laws are rampant, like Norway, you still have horrific tragedies like the 2011 attacks against the Labor Party. Those that are determined to hurt people will find a way. It is just a sad fact.

Statistics show that the more guns a nation has, the lower its crime rate. When Britain and Australia instituted wide-spread firearm bans, crime rates increased. Switzerland, which has one of the highest guns per capita in the world, has a very low crime rate. Of course, this makes perfect sense since gun control only takes guns away from the honest citizen; those with criminal intentions aren't going to listen to laws that prohibit firearms or a certain subset of them. And even if there truly are no firearms available in a nation, they will find other means. Look at the many incidents where this is true.

Thus, instead of infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, we should make it easier to be properly trained with a firearm to increase the ability for people to act in self defense and in defense of others (on a similar note, gun safes and gun locks should be highly encouraged to prevent accidents with firearms). We should also make it easier to treat those with mental health issues. The vast majority of perpetrators of tragedies like Newtown and Virginia Tech had serious problems that should have received professional attention. Of course, we also need to do something about our culture of violence as so many others have pointed out. Truth be told, I'm not quite sure how to approach that necessary culture change, but I question if legally prohibiting it in video games and movies will do it. It's far more pervasive than that.
 
ChrisL said:
This one is absolutely fascinating. If you have the time, I suggest you read the whole thing, but here is an excerpt.

The Sociological Eye: CLUES TO MASS RAMPAGE KILLERS: DEEP BACKSTAGE, HIDDEN ARSENAL, CLANDESTINE EXCITEMENT

What can the micro-sociology of violence contribute to understanding the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado, and similar incidents? In the immediate shock of public attention, there is an imperative to give policy answers. I could join the chorus advocating a ban on weapons in the USA. This is a hope; it is not a guarantee. Mass shootings are very rare events. There are about 15,000 homicides per year in the USA; the great majority are single-victim killings. Less than 1% are mass killings (4 or more victims in the same incident). Spectacular mass shootings, where many persons are killed or wounded, have been happening at a rate of about 1 or 2 per year, in the 30 years since 1980, for the most common type, school shootings; shootings in other venues, apparently imitating school shootings, are rarer but on the rise. It is their rarity that attracts so much attention, and their out-of-the-blue, seemingly random relationship between killer and victims, that makes them so dramatically alarming.

This rarity means that very distinctive circumstances are needed to explain mass killings, and that widely available conditions cannot be very accurate predictors. There are approximately 190 million firearms in the civilian population in America, in a population of 310 million. The vast majority of these guns are not used to kill people. Even if we focus on the total number of yearly homicides by gun (about 12,000), the percentage of guns that kill someone is about 12,000 / 190,000,000, or 1 in 16,000. Another way to put it: of approximately 44 million gun owners in the US, 99.97% of them do not murder anyone. It is not surprising that their owners resist being accused of abetting murder.
Click to expand...

Good and interesting stuff. Kudos.
 
ChrisL said:
Why are you nitpicking about unimportant things. Discuss the topic please instead of going off on a tangent.
Click to expand...

People pulling stats out of..... wherever is the sure sign of an intellectual fraud. That should bother you.
 
haymarket said:
And I was being much to kind about you pulling it out of thin air. ;):roll:
Click to expand...

well I suppose I could ask you why most of the anti gun posters whine about the NRA and not criminals

I could ask you why everyone of the most anti gun posters admit to being "progressive" or very liberal

everything wrong one can do with a gun is illegal. use a gun in a crime you get extra years. in some states many years

its illegal to possess a gun with the INTENT to use it in a crime

its illegal to posses a gun if you are a fugitive, have a felony or DV record, etc

so who is affected by laws that limit magazine capacity or flash hiders on rifles etc?
 
Catawba said:
Those that wish to kill large numbers of people without reloading.
Click to expand...

so police officers carry such weapons so they can kill large numbers of people without reloading?
 
TurtleDude said:
so police officers carry such weapons so they can kill large numbers of people without reloading?
Click to expand...

You asked, "so who is affected by laws that limit magazine capacity?"

Police are not affected by the ban, and as much as you wannabe, you are not a policeman.
 
Catawba said:
You asked, "so who is affected by laws that limit magazine capacity?"

Police are not affected by the ban, and as much as you wannabe, you are not a policeman.
Click to expand...


well your comment was stupid. If police officers use those guns for self defense then obviously there are many other civilians who want them for the same reason and massacring lots of people is rarely the reason

what is also stupid is that the few people who want them for that reason are the ones least likely to be disarmed by such a law

and its fun watching you defend police-didn't you brag about fighting the cops when you were some sort of leftwing rioter?
 
TurtleDude said:
well your comment was stupid. If police officers use those guns for self defense then obviously there are many other civilians who want them for the same reason and massacring lots of people is rarely the reason

what is also stupid is that the few people who want them for that reason are the ones least likely to be disarmed by such a law

and its fun watching you defend police-didn't you brag about fighting the cops when you were some sort of leftwing rioter?
Click to expand...


You can wannabe a cop all you want, it still doesn't make you one! I did not need to use a gun in my fights. I guess that is one of the differences between us.
 
Catawba said:
You can wannabe a cop all you want, it still doesn't make you one! I did not need to use a gun in my fights. I guess that is one of the differences between us.
Click to expand...

You never went up against armed criminals

I have no desire to be a cop, I had cops answering to me for years. ONe of the differences between us is that I clearly state honestly my motivations on this issue and I don't constantly lie
 
How many magazines with a high capacity are sold each year?

How many are used in criminal actions? Or, how many are used in shooting other people

Here's a hint....

If those numbers are massively skewed towards the notion of "A very small percent actually are used for criminal activity or shooting people" then this answer:

"Those that wish to kill large numbers of people without reloading."

Is bull****. The correct answer would be "Those that wish to own a high capacity magazine for their arms"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom