• 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!

Who or What is most responsible for the mass shootings

Who or What is most responsible for the mass shootings

  • Total voters
    64
CriticalThought said:
A gun is a weapon. It is, by its very nature, an instrument of violence. If you want one, then you want if for its capacity to inflict violence. Whether it is for hunting or defense, you own it for its ability to create violence when needed. It is naive to assume that a person would want a gun for any other reason.
Click to expand...

Utterly ridiculous. In fact, I have friends and family members, including my sister and her husband, who are into competitive shooting. No violence involved, unless you consider shooting targets on hay bales violent.
 
TurtleDude said:
This goes in the list of moronic babblings about guns. that is as stupid as saying fencers buy foils to skewer people.

YOu pretty much proved your posts are not to be taken seriously with that idiocy. the purpose of a rifle is to place a bullet accurately on a target. for some people that might mean a human. to some that might mean an animal, and to many others it might mean a steel gong or a piece of paper. your claim is dismissed as idiocy
Click to expand...

Wow, the fact that you are so offended by the reality that a gun is a WEAPON is sad.
 
CriticalThought said:
Could you point out where in any of my posts I made such a claim.
Click to expand...

sure right here

CriticalThought said:
A gun is a weapon. It is, by its very nature, an instrument of violence. If you want one, then you want if for its capacity to inflict violence. Whether it is for hunting or defense, you own it for its ability to create violence when needed. It is naive to assume that a person would want a gun for any other reason.
Click to expand...


Your lies are patent. you claim that someone like Matt Eamons (three olympic medals-should have been five) and Kim (5 medals and a wr) wanted their guns for something other than killing

you are WRONG
 
CriticalThought said:
Wow, the fact that you are so offended by the reality that a gun is a WEAPON is sad.
Click to expand...

a target rifle is not a weapon any more than a steak knife is

if you attack someone with a steak knife it becomes a weapon

if you cut meat with it or cardboard it is not

but your real crowning idiocy of a post was claiming the only reason why anyone wants a gun is to kill
 
Cephus said:
Utterly ridiculous. In fact, I have friends and family members, including my sister and her husband, who are into competitive shooting. No violence involved, unless you consider shooting targets on hay bales violent.
Click to expand...

Good for them. Now how does that have relevance to what I said?
 
Cephus said:
Utterly ridiculous. In fact, I have friends and family members, including my sister and her husband, who are into competitive shooting. No violence involved, unless you consider shooting targets on hay bales violent.
Click to expand...

Its one of the more moronic statements I have seen on a topic that has really caused the lunacy level of posts to ratchet way up as the gun haters have smelled blood and figured they could use the emotion of this massive tragedy to overcome logic and our rights in order to foist their hateful anti gun agenda upon us
 
CriticalThought said:
Good for them. Now how does that have relevance to what I said?
Click to expand...

CriticalThought said:
A gun is a weapon. It is, by its very nature, an instrument of violence. If you want one, then you want if for its capacity to inflict violence. Whether it is for hunting or defense, you own it for its ability to create violence when needed. It is naive to assume that a person would want a gun for any other reason.
Click to expand...
He was proving that idiotic statement of yours wrong. target shooting does NOT CREATE VIOLENCE
 
CriticalThought said:
The fact that you got that offended by the implication should probably tell you something.

You may buy a gun to use as a paperweight but that doesn't change what it is. How you use your gun doesn't change its capacity to inflict violence or kill. No matter how badly you want to pretend it isn't true, a gun is a WEAPON.
Click to expand...

"...its capacity..."

That's where the wheels came off the tracks. The firearm, by itself, has no capacity to do anything. It requires and operator and it is that operator that has intentions. For some reason you have decided to treat the firearm as if it has some kind of life of its own. A firearm is no different than a lawnmower or a tablespoon. It's a tool and nothing more. Anything and everything it "does" is wholly dependent on the person using it.
 
TurtleDude said:
He was proving that idiotic statement of yours wrong. target shooting does NOT CREATE VIOLENCE
Click to expand...

Oh good lord. It causes damage at a distance. That is, by definition, a form of violence.
 
CriticalThought said:
Good for them. Now how does that have relevance to what I said?
Click to expand...

You're the one arguing that gun owners only want guns because they are capable of violence. You're just wrong.
 
CriticalThought said:
Oh good lord. It causes damage at a distance. That is, by definition, a form of violence.
Click to expand...

OMG you continue to dig deeper. is a carpenter violent for driving nails into the screaming flesh of a dead tree? how about a plowman as he rapes the field with his tiller?

you lost give it up.
 
Cephus said:
You're the one arguing that gun owners only want guns because they are capable of violence. You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

He got caught posting something that is patently ridiculous and rather conceding his failure, he is trying to weasel out of it
 
TurtleDude said:
He got caught posting something that is patently ridiculous and rather conceding his failure, he is trying to weasel out of it
Click to expand...

Not really all that surprising though, is it?
 
I voted shooter. I thought about mental health system, but I really don't know enough about this shooter's history to make a determination that it was the mental health system's fault. Although the mother of the shooter may or may not have acted irresponsibly (not sure on this point either), I don't think I can actually blame her for the actions of her obviously mentally ill son.

I would also vote gun-free zones because I believe that all the people contained within a gun-free zone are sitting ducks to lunatics like this and are left completely unable to defend themselves. If just ONE person had a gun, they could have put an end to this massacre. That is a real tragedy.
 
Cephus said:
Not really all that surprising though, is it?
Click to expand...

Nah I was sort of thrown for a loop with the libertarian lean though, normally its "progressives" who think everyone who buys an Anschutz 54 three position target rifle or a Perazzi Mirage (the gun I won a ton of medals with) does so with the idea of killing people
 
Lutherf said:
"...its capacity..."

That's where the wheels came off the tracks. The firearm, by itself, has no capacity to do anything. It requires and operator and it is that operator that has intentions. For some reason you have decided to treat the firearm as if it has some kind of life of its own. A firearm is no different than a lawnmower or a tablespoon. It's a tool and nothing more. Anything and everything it "does" is wholly dependent on the person using it.
Click to expand...
I seldom use my tablespoons. I mostly use teaspoons. So, I have been considering turning all of them into awesome weapons.
 
CriticalThought said:
The fact that you got that offended by the implication should probably tell you something.

You may buy a gun to use as a paperweight but that doesn't change what it is. How you use your gun doesn't change its capacity to inflict violence or kill. No matter how badly you want to pretend it isn't true, a gun is a WEAPON.
Click to expand...

So are you actually saying that everyone who owns a gun wants to inflict violence on others or kill? I'm sure that most people who own a gun or guns for home defense are hopeful that they will never have to use them.
 
Misterveritis said:
I seldom use my tablespoons. I mostly use teaspoons. So, I have been considering turning all of them into awesome weapons.
Click to expand...

if they are silver you could slay werewolf cereal with them
 
ChrisL said:
So are you actually saying that everyone who owns a gun wants to inflict violence on others or kill? I'm sure that most people who own a gun or guns for home defense are hopeful that they will never have to use them.
Click to expand...

If my pistol never gets fire except at the range, I would definitely be happy with that.
 
ChrisL said:
So are you actually saying that everyone who owns a gun wants to inflict violence on others or kill? I'm sure that most people who own a gun or guns for home defense are hopeful that they will never have to use them.
Click to expand...

I own lots of guns-maybe 10 were purchased for self defense-none for offensive uses against humans

I have 5 for "bowling pin matches"

three for PPC (practical police competition-revolvers)

three for "Falling PLATE matches (Steel plates)

2 open, 2 limited, 2 limited ten and 2 production IPSC pistols

2 For ISU skeet
2 for ISU trap
2 for American Skeet
2 for American trap

6 for sporting clays

2 for "Three position small bore rifle
2 for National service rifle matches

2 for small bore bullseye pistol
2 for Center fire bullseye pistol (2700)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom