• 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!

Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

Should Gun Violence be a Homeland Security Issue?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 13.2%

  • No

    Votes: 33 86.8%
  • Total voters
    38
Kal'Stang said:
Then why continue blaming an object? Why not make harsher penalties on those that commit violent acts? Why not push for better education since the more educated a person is the less likely they will commit a crime? Why not push for things that will actually reduce over all crime instead of blaming an object which millions of law abiding people use....a number which far exceeds the amount of people that commit violent crime with guns.
Click to expand...


I personally do not think harshness of penalties is necessarily the answer. I think instead we should be rehabilitating those that break the law. In our current system we for the most part lock them away with other like minded people who often prey on one another and expect them to come out model citizens. I feel we should put education and motivational tools in place to help them understandwhy their behavior is unacceptable instead of just telling them that it is and then making their life hell. Until they understand the why I believe all harsher sentences would do is encourage them not to get caught and not discourage the crime.
 
aberrant85 said:
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
Click to expand...

No, it's a law enforcement issue. I'd be wary of creating new organizations to combat crime, something police are already charged with doing. .
 
aberrant85 said:
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of people killed by guns each year equals more than 10 9/11's. More than 2/3's are suicides.

Several times a year a massacre like the ones perpetuated at Aurora and Newtown kill more people than the Boston Marathon Bombing.

The threat of violence has made large parts of many cities off-limits to outsiders.

Four US presidents have been assassinated by an assassin's bullet. Attempts have been made on 11 presidents in all.

The NRA suggests the solution is arming more people with more guns. In a war this would be known as "escalation."

Terrorism is an ideological threat to the US, but domestic gun violence is as much or more pressing a concern that inevitably results in more loss of life.

Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
Click to expand...

Should auto-accidents be categorized as a Homeland Security priority? What about domestic violence? If we were going to classify anything as a security (as opposed to legal) issue/jurisdiction I'd vote for foreign gangs which have ruined so many cities and hurt millions of Americans.
 
I agree with all the objections posted that DHS is just a behemoth that sucks resources from criminal investigations, disaster relief, etc. and devotes it to fighting terrorism.
 
aberrant85 said:
Those are...all actually very good ideas. It's debatable if harsher penalties are a deterrence, but you are right about the rest. If you noticed, I haven't once vilified guns in this thread, but gun violence, which you seem to agree requires a response.

I name you Assistant Director if this baby ever gets off the ground.
Click to expand...

Generalize to violence in general and not just gun violence and I'd agree.
 
Gaius46 said:
Generalize to violence in general and not just gun violence and I'd agree.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. But this report from the FBI shows 2/3 of homicides were by firearm. So in any case any action on reducing violence would have to seriously look at guns.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Also interesting is that according to those stats the murder rate is consistently falling. I just wonder if it's falling fast enough and if it continues.
 
aberrant85 said:
False comparison. I'm talking about identifying and preventing people that want to murder other people. If it's ideological we call it terrorism, but if it isn't then it falls into this pool of crime in the US that is less sensationalized.
Click to expand...

In your OP, you only wrote of “gun violence”, and wrote of guns killing rather than people killing, and you included the statistic that 2/3 of the deaths were suicides.

:failpail:
 
aberrant85 said:
False comparison. I'm talking about identifying and preventing people that want to murder other people. If it's ideological we call it terrorism, but if it isn't then it falls into this pool of crime in the US that is less sensationalized.
Click to expand...
we are not allowed to do that it is called profiling


NY did it and it was very successful in preventing crime but now you liberals want to do away with it because you don't like who they identified as criminals and preventing them from committing crime
 
Baralis said:
I personally do not think harshness of penalties is necessarily the answer. I think instead we should be rehabilitating those that break the law. In our current system we for the most part lock them away with other like minded people who often prey on one another and expect them to come out model citizens. I feel we should put education and motivational tools in place to help them understandwhy their behavior is unacceptable instead of just telling them that it is and then making their life hell. Until they understand the why I believe all harsher sentences would do is encourage them not to get caught and not discourage the crime.
Click to expand...

Rehabilitation would be great. But part of rehabilitation would require making it to where their records would not haunt them their entire lives as part of the reason for recidivism is them not being able to make it on the outside due to society treating them like pariahs.
 
aberrant85 said:
Those are...all actually very good ideas. It's debatable if harsher penalties are a deterrence, but you are right about the rest. If you noticed, I haven't once vilified guns in this thread, but gun violence, which you seem to agree requires a response.

I name you Assistant Director if this baby ever gets off the ground.
Click to expand...

With our governments track record? bye bye guns given half a chance.

But yes, you have vilified guns in the OP. Otherwise you shouldn't have specifically mentioned them but kept your arguement towards violent crimes period.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
In your OP, you only wrote of “gun violence”, and wrote of guns killing rather than people killing, and you included the statistic that 2/3 of the deaths were suicides.

:failpail:
Click to expand...

It's called a metonym: the substitution of a specific, closely related term to stand for the thing actually meant ("the crown" stands for the king). In this case the gun stands for the person that used the gun. I'm aware that guns don't grow cartoon arms and feet while we're no watching that lets them pull their own triggers, although that would liven up the discussion.

And suicides still count towards the number of deaths caused by them.

PPPPPP....PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP...... (that's the sound of your fail bucket)
 
Kal'Stang said:
With our governments track record? bye bye guns given half a chance.

But yes, you have vilified guns in the OP. Otherwise you shouldn't have specifically mentioned them but kept your arguement towards violent crimes period.
Click to expand...

The FBI shows 2/3 of homicides were by firearm. So in any case any action on reducing violence would have to seriously look at guns.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
 
aberrant85 said:
The FBI shows 2/3 of homicides were by firearm. So in any case any action on reducing violence would have to seriously look at guns.

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
Click to expand...

Irrelevent. There was a person in each and every single one of those that pulled the trigger. No gun points itself and pulls its own trigger. Focus on the people, not the object. Focusing on the gun in the end does only 2 things.

1: It puts a burden, or removes Rights depending on the law, from law abiding citizens exercising their rights. Which far out number the amount of homicides by guns.

2: It creates a black market which will allow criminals to be armed against innocent people who will not be armed due to those laws. Even if the law just raises taxes it will affect some law abiding citizen putting guns out of their reach.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Irrelevent. There was a person in each and every single one of those that pulled the trigger. No gun points itself and pulls its own trigger. Focus on the people, not the object. Focusing on the gun in the end does only 2 things.

1: It puts a burden, or removes Rights depending on the law, from law abiding citizens exercising their rights. Which far out number the amount of homicides by guns.

2: It creates a black market which will allow criminals to be armed against innocent people who will not be armed due to those laws. Even if the law just raises taxes it will affect some law abiding citizen putting guns out of their reach.
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. A gun is not just a projection of its owner's goodness or badness like a wand in Harry Potter. It is an indifferent object capable of inflicting bodily harm regardless of the intent, morality, or ideology of anyone who yields it.

1. All laws but a burden on citizens to abide by them. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, nor is pointing out that people will break the law by itself a reason to drop the law.

2. Where criminals get their guns is not a simple answer. They can get them from a black market, or they can simply walk into a gun store with a person with a clean record and have them by one. This is called a "straw purchase." Licensed dealers can also sell them to criminals under the table.

A complicated issue does not deserve a simple, pat answer. It deserves debate and compromise, and requires law abiding citizens to accept some necessary burdens to protect their rights if it can reasonably address the problem in a positive manner.

How criminals get guns: frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
 
aberrant85 said:
Should Gun Violence be re-prioritized as a Homeland Security issue?
Click to expand...

Crime is a local issue not a federal issue. That said I would be all for sending gang bangers to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib prison to be waterboarded on a daily basis.
 
jamesrage said:
Crime is a local issue not a federal issue. That said I would be all for sending gang bangers to Gitmo or Abu Ghraib prison to be waterboarded on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Do you think it should be changed to a federal or state issue? It's the only way we got rid of the Hell's Angels in Canada.
 
Carjosse said:
Do you think it should be changed to a federal or state issue? It's the only way we got rid of the Hell's Angels in Canada.
Click to expand...

I think it already is, isn't it? There are federal gun control laws, etc.
 
aberrant85 said:
I think it already is, isn't it? There are federal gun control laws, etc.
Click to expand...

No like federal police and law enforcement should be involved in suppressing gang activity. They would basically be the big guns quite literally.
 
aberrant85 said:
This is ridiculous. A gun is not just a projection of its owner's goodness or badness like a wand in Harry Potter. It is an indifferent object capable of inflicting bodily harm regardless of the intent, morality, or ideology of anyone who yields it.
Click to expand...

Exactly! So why make laws against them? Laws should be against people, not objects.

aberrant85 said:
1. All laws but a burden on citizens to abide by them. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, nor is pointing out that people will break the law by itself a reason to drop the law.
Click to expand...

But a law that is useless and interfere's with a Right should be dropped. I'm no pot lover (exact opposite actually)...but even I think that it should be legalized....and it's not even a Right!

aberrant85 said:
2. Where criminals get their guns is not a simple answer. They can get them from a black market, or they can simply walk into a gun store with a person with a clean record and have them by one. This is called a "straw purchase." Licensed dealers can also sell them to criminals under the table.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't even BE a black market for something that is considered a Right to have. ;) But yes, you are correct, there are many ways in which to get a gun...legal or not.

aberrant85 said:
A complicated issue does not deserve a simple, pat answer. It deserves debate and compromise, and requires law abiding citizens to accept some necessary burdens to protect their rights if it can reasonably address the problem in a positive manner.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a complicated issue that deserves a concerted effort from various angles. But gun control has proven to be just as futile as marijuana. Indeed banning any widely available, easy to get object has a history of being futile to control. Remember the history of Prohibition Era? Just another example...and alcohol isn't even slightly considered a right to have.

As far as compromise goes...lots of compromise has happened. Everything from background checks to non-violent ex-cons not being allowed to purchase a gun. Just how much compromise do you expect people to do when everything that we have compromised on has proven to be non-effective? The only thing that is going to be effective is addressing the reasons that crimes happen and work on those and the people themselves. It is not a short term goal that must be looked at, but long term.

I could give you a list of countries where gun control started out small and eventually turned into full out gun bans...and what happened after those gun bans. As the old saying goes...."Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it." I do not wish history to be ignored. Compromise on objects is no longer an option.
 
What does homeland security, which was originally charged to homeland threat from abroad, have to do with local gun policy and especially homeland citizens rights?
 
aberrant85 said:
It's called a metonym: the substitution of a specific, closely related term to stand for the thing actually meant ("the crown" stands for the king). In this case the gun stands for the person that used the gun. I'm aware that guns don't grow cartoon arms and feet while we're no watching that lets them pull their own triggers, although that would liven up the discussion.

And suicides still count towards the number of deaths caused by them.

PPPPPP....PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP...... (that's the sound of your fail bucket)
Click to expand...


The problem may not be you specifically but people who are on the side who want to stop gun violence often fall into the pathetic fallacy. They begin to think of the gun as an active agent at an emotional level and want to limit or ban it instead of looking at the person behind the gun and deal with the underlying causes for that. Of course that would be a might more difficult so they try to ban the gun.
 
aberrant85 said:
This is ridiculous. A gun is not just a projection of its owner's goodness or badness like a wand in Harry Potter. It is an indifferent object capable of inflicting bodily harm regardless of the intent, morality, or ideology of anyone who yields it.
Click to expand...

A gun and a wand are both tools that the possessor uses to enact their will. With a gun the purpose is to affect grave bodily harm to the extent that it it can and is expected to kill. It is of course the person using it that determines the morality or ideology (as you say) and that person may have an intent unless it was the result of an accident.

I am not a grammar nazi and thus I would not comment normally but at the end of your quote instead of using "wields" you used "yields" and if would accept the yields as what was intended and correct the grammar I get ". . . of anyone who yields (to) it." I could assume that this was a Freudian slip and this would mean that you might have a subconscious belief that just having a gun would lead one to do things that one normally would not do. Just a point for self reflection.


1. All laws but a burden on citizens to abide by them. Ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, nor is pointing out that people will break the law by itself a reason to drop the law.
Click to expand...

A law should not be a "burden". The purpose of having laws is to protect the rights of The People and to delineate the responsibilities of the same. In a sense having the Right to Bear Arms is a burden. Having to protect the property and one life as well the property and life of others is a cost of being a free people and of which their is no replacement possible. The police are not there to protect but to investigate violations of the law. Police have no obligation to protect period.

2. Where criminals get their guns is not a simple answer. They can get them from a black market, or they can simply walk into a gun store with a person with a clean record and have them by one. This is called a "straw purchase." Licensed dealers can also sell them to criminals under the table.
Click to expand...

Criminals violate laws. Your examples are those of laws being violated. What would be needed is enforcing the laws and prosecuting those who violate them.

The vast majority of guns are purchased legally and are used within the parameters of law thus not criminal. And also thus not an object to reduce gun violence.

A complicated issue does not deserve a simple, pat answer.
Click to expand...

Yet banning guns would qualify as a simple, pat answer. Also so would gun registration.


It deserves debate and compromise
Click to expand...

Somethings cannot be subject to compromise the right to bear (personal) firearms either exists or it doesn't. If it can be restricted to any significant extent it is no longer a right and would then be subject to further dwindling of when and if you can do so.


, and requires law abiding citizens to accept some necessary burdens to protect their rights
Click to expand...

Restricting the right to bear arms is not a reasonable nor necessary burden. The issue is not arms in general but specific types of people (criminals) who use them wrongly


if it can reasonably address the problem in a positive manner.

How criminals get guns: frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS
Click to expand...

Restrciting the right to bear arms would not lead to a positive outcome. Violent crimes would increase. The restricting of the right to bear arms is not a positive "manner" since it would require subjecting the citizenry to a second class status to those who would wield the authority to bear due to their position with the government.
 
anonymous polls suck big time. Gun ownership is increasing in the USA
more guns now than anytime in history
gun violence is going down. so why are liberals whining?
 
Shadow Serious said:
instead of using "wields" you used "yields"
Click to expand...

Yep, "wields."

Shadow Serious said:
Somethings cannot be subject to compromise the right to bear (personal) firearms either exists or it doesn't. If it can be restricted to any significant extent it is no longer a right and would then be subject to further dwindling of when and if you can do so.
Click to expand...

You can't debate something when your position is it's not debatable. You're just shutting down the discussion.

TurtleDude said:
Gun ownership is increasing in the USA
more guns now than anytime in history
Click to expand...

More guns, less gun owners (by %).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom