• 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!

How many people can a weapon kill in under a minute before it should be banned?

How many deaths in under a minute is acceptable?

  • 10 deaths

    Votes: 5 38.5%
  • 20 deaths

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • 50 deaths

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • 100 deaths

    Votes: 1 7.7%
  • at least 200 or more deaths.

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
American deaths per year

cancer: 584,000

Smoking: 480,000

alcohol: 88,000

recreational drug overdoses: 47,055

opioids: 33,000

guns: 13,286

Yeah, let's go after guns

Why did you decide to lie to try to make your point? Because its already pretty weak?
There are twice as many gun deaths as you state.

From the CDC:

Mortality
All injury deaths

Number of deaths: 199,752
Deaths per 100,000 population: 62.6

All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 51,966
Deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,594
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18[PDF – 4.4 MB]
 
People have a right to bare arms. Okay, how about nuclear arms? Surface to air missiles capable of downing a commercial aircraft? Those are arms right?

Where do we draw the line? How much death can a weapon cause in under a minute before we should consider banning it?




Is this about muslims driving cars into innocent people?
 
whatever civilian authorities believe is acceptable for civilian law enforcement officers should be a starting point for other civilians. I didn't know the second amendment ceased operating at a certain number of rounds

obviously this means arms rather than artillery or ordnance though but if the civilian cops can use it in a civilian environment, same for other citizens
 
Why did you decide to lie to try to make your point? Because its already pretty weak?
There are twice as many gun deaths as you state.

From the CDC:

Mortality
All injury deaths

Number of deaths: 199,752
Deaths per 100,000 population: 62.6

All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 51,966
Deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,594
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18[PDF – 4.4 MB]

cars-almost always accidental deaths-not intentional

guns-almost always intentional deaths-mainly suicides.

big difference

cars are far more dangerous given most people killed are killed by accident without any intent to kill
 
Deaths per minute is not a great marker. Of course, other markers seem a bit arbitrary to me too, I'm pretty sure there is a contingent on DP who thinks that the more the weapon looks like a penis, the more precious it is to be able to own.

the penis fixation by some anti gun posters is really an interesting window into what makes them think
 
whatever civilian authorities believe is acceptable for civilian law enforcement officers should be a starting point for other civilians. I didn't know the second amendment ceased operating at a certain number of rounds

Well, clearly you didn't look at the Constitution hard enough. Did you miss the bold, TD?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (Except for weapons that shoot 700 rounds per minute)



;)
 
Why did you decide to lie to try to make your point? Because its already pretty weak?
There are twice as many gun deaths as you state.

From the CDC:

Mortality
All injury deaths

Number of deaths: 199,752
Deaths per 100,000 population: 62.6

All poisoning deaths
Number of deaths: 51,966
Deaths per 100,000 population: 16.3

Motor vehicle traffic deaths
Number of deaths: 33,736
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.6

All firearm deaths
Number of deaths: 33,594
Deaths per 100,000 population: 10.5

Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2014, table 18[PDF – 4.4 MB]

Most - if not the entire - discrepancy between your firearm death numbers and those published previously are attributable to suicides. Those should not be counted.
 
Those would be ordinance, not arms. The point of the militia is that each member should be able to quickly assemble with the best means of defense one could carry. Things like artillery or weapons requiring multiple operators like mounted guns aren't one's "arms."

You can carry a rocket launcher can you not?

And I thought we needed guns to defend ourselves from our own government if they ever got out of control? How exactly do you expect to fight the United States military with nothing more than semi automatic rifles?
 
As many as necessary.

So just in case the Russians come for your hobby farm you need nukes because mutually assured destruction is the only realistic defense against that?
 
What I can't stand of the left and drives me bat crazy is that they believe gun control stops gun crimes.
So what you're saying is that you want to change the subject because you don't have a good answer to this question?
 
whatever civilian authorities believe is acceptable for civilian law enforcement officers should be a starting point for other civilians.

I could support that limitation actually.

Unfortunately police would likely be willing to accept more restrictions on their own arms if they knew those same restrictions would apply to civilians as well.
 
I could support that limitation actually.

Unfortunately police would likely be willing to accept more restrictions on their own arms if they knew those same restrictions would apply to civilians as well.

The majority of cops are against gun control
 
cars-almost always accidental deaths-not intentional

guns-almost always intentional deaths-mainly suicides.

big difference

cars are far more dangerous given most people killed are killed by accident without any intent to kill

Add intent and a vehicle becomes far more deadly than a gun. It amazes me that people somehow feel that taking away guns will somehow stop mass murders or people killing each other.
 
The majority of cops are against gun control

Well then you should have nothing to worry about if someone passed a law limiting civilians ownership of guns to those which would be carried by and available to police officers right?

In fact I'd advocate another position. I'd like to eliminate conceal and carry, and require open carry just like police officers. If you're going to walk around in public with a gun, I'd prefer that you have to carry it on your hip so I know who the cowards are.
 
Why is deaths per minute your standard? Have something in mind you would like to prohibit?



Those would be ordinance, not arms. The point of the militia is that each member should be able to quickly assemble with the best means of defense one could carry. Things like artillery or weapons requiring multiple operators like mounted guns aren't one's "arms."

So, in other words, nothing on this list for example, would count.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crew-served_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces

Not that it should, nobody needs a 120mm mortar for home defense.
 
whatever civilian authorities believe is acceptable for civilian law enforcement officers should be a starting point for other civilians. I didn't know the second amendment ceased operating at a certain number of rounds

obviously this means arms rather than artillery or ordnance though but if the civilian cops can use it in a civilian environment, same for other citizens

Including SWAT?
 
Technically abortion is a weapon too and has much numbers than any of that.

If you want to talk about larger significant numbers of deaths like millions then you should go there.
 
People have a right to bare arms. Okay, how about nuclear arms? Surface to air missiles capable of downing a commercial aircraft? Those are arms right?

Where do we draw the line? How much death can a weapon cause in under a minute before we should consider banning it?

Faithful Servant nailed it: 8 billion.
 
People have a right to bare arms. Okay, how about nuclear arms? Surface to air missiles capable of downing a commercial aircraft? Those are arms right?

Where do we draw the line? How much death can a weapon cause in under a minute before we should consider banning it?

Those aren't "firearms".
 
Back
Top Bottom