• 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 .
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.

:roll:
 
You can tear my shoulder-firing rocket launcher out of my cold, dead hand! This is 'Murca! When will those commie liberals learn?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Is a rocket launcher a firearm?
 
Lots of things are banned to the general public, like dynamite. Hell, I can't even buy M80's anymore. So, I do not get this super duper obsession with preserving all guns on the "Hey, if you can afford it, you should be allowed to have it" list. Bizarre, actually.

As for the poll? I'd say limiting it to under one death per second would be fine. So, 50 per minute gets my vote.

Let's ban HTH and brake fluid, too

https://youtu.be/aaYKCtbj4YM
 

Focusing on the deaths of 5-10 that can defend themselves while millions are killed that cant defend themselves is somewhere in the high range of hypocricy and probably pretty high in the ridiculous scale as well..

If the true issue to you is you dont like guns and want to take them away from others just say so. There no need to try to dress it up in a false narrative.
 
the penis fixation by some anti gun posters is really an interesting window into what makes them think
The irony in their comments abound. Not coincidentally...these are typically the same types of people that think that the highest form of insult you can direct towards another man is to call them gay. Put those two things together and it paints a pretty ugly picture of who and what they are.
 
Focusing on the deaths of 5-10 that can defend themselves while millions are killed that cant defend themselves is somewhere in the high range of hypocricy and probably pretty high in the ridiculous scale as well..

If the true issue to you is you dont like guns and want to take them away from others just say so. There no need to try to dress it up in a false narrative.

Abortion forum is that way ------>
 
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.

Considering officers have access to fully automatic weapons, I'm not sure you would support that law.......
 
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?

you really need to study some military history
 
Considering officers have access to fully automatic weapons, I'm not sure you would support that law.......

Would they need that access if those weapons weren't accessible by the bad guys?

The militarization of the police is another problem that needs to be reversed.
 
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.

most police officers support other civilians owning firearms. Janet Reno commissioned a study on that issue (assault weapon bans) in 1996. over 89% of the cops were against it. even more thought the Brady bill was a waste of time. Wonder why that study didn't make it to the public?

cops don't have any greater legal right to shoot someone than other civilians do, even though cops get more of a benefit of the doubt from the DA. meaning, the machine guns or SMGs cops use are for defensive purposes. If a weapon is suitable for cop self defense, it is equally useful for other civilians to use for self defense
 
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.

there are two kinds of gun banners-the stupid/ignorant ones who actually believe that restricting honest people who don't commit crimes will stop criminals who do and the dishonest gun banners who want to strip people of their rights over political spite and only pretend they are motivated by a desire to control crime
 
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.

so in your bizarre world, those who carry guns are cowards? and most cops carry a concealed backup so you are proving your ignorance in this subject.

but run with that claim that gun carriers are cowards. its demonstrates what truly motivates you
 
Would they need that access if those weapons weren't accessible by the bad guys?

The militarization of the police is another problem that needs to be reversed.

every weapon that is commonly issued to militaries all over the world are accessible to bad guys. How do you think Somali pirates, IRA separatists, Jihadists in France all have AK 47s
 
So you want disarm the law abiding people on the chance that a criminal may decide to obey that law?

That seems to be the play. The inane concept that lifelong criminals will suddenly become a law abiding citizen because of a law has a long and storied history of failure and commonly results in the death of a law abiding citizen. Gun grabbers are no friend of the innocent.
 
That seems to be the play. The inane concept that lifelong criminals will suddenly become a law abiding citizen because of a law has a long and storied history of failure and commonly results in the death of a law abiding citizen. Gun grabbers are no friend of the innocent.


Here is the "thinking" (since most gun banners know their schemes don't work and are dishonest about their motivations, this only applies to the stupid/ignorant gun banners who ACTUALLY believe gun bans will deter crime)

1) people who own their guns legally and have never used their guns to harm others must have additional restrictions imposed upon them so they won't be able to become criminals

2) those who disobey laws against murder, rape and armed robbery will suddenly stop committing those crimes if the guns they currently illegally possess are made "more illegal"

3) people who have no problem distributing and importing millions of dollars worth of narcotics (stuff that is constantly being used up) will be unable to distribute and import weapons if the 500 million weapons in the USA suddenly disappear
 
What I can't stand of the left and drives me bat crazy is that they believe gun control stops gun crimes. They have this delusion that we can let criminals run free and then pass laws keeping guns out of criminal's hands. I don't give a damn about guns but I am going to back up people's right to bear arms until the left comes to their senses and realize that if we keep criminals locked up then there would be no need for gun control. It is just plain stupid to let criminals run free and then think we can stop them from getting guns by passing gun control legislation.

only stupid gun banners believe laws that target honest people stop the dishonest criminals.

most of them despise the pro gun culture for the way we vote. they don't eve believe the schemes they support are anti criminal After all, many on the left make excuses for criminals. what the hate is the way the NRA lobbies for conservative politicians.
 
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?

the Russians would have to go through probably our military and several million more citizens owned with rifles that can easily kill at a half a mile. what do you think would happen to a military force that had a third of the adult population of the USA shooting at them with 30 caliber deer rifles-the same type rifles Carlos Hathcock used to kill dozens of Viet Cong soldiers 50 or so years ago. Soldiers cannot stay in tanks for long periods of time. Pilots cannot remain in a plane for long periods of time.
 
Stop? No. Reduce? Probably.

actually forcefully trying to disarm American citizens would be the end of the government that tries it along with most of its minions and lots of Citizens. Not a good idea.
 
Including SWAT?

they are still civilians aren't they? being a SWAT officer doesn't give you an additional right to shoot people. You can only shoot people who present a reasonable threat of causing innocents severe bodily harm
 
one is a group now? he did it in the name of his god? he had other organizations praising that god for carrying out his will? How many attacks have we had now from muslims like this, who did it in the name of thier god, praised by isis. Just so we can compare.

Who cares "if he did it in the name of his God"? It's still a terrorist attack. He still had every intention of killing innocent people. And there's been plenty of other attacks carried out in Europe by people who think like he does.

And I really do hate to break it to you, but ISIS is a fringe, whackjob organization, not mainstream in any way.
 
they are still civilians aren't they? being a SWAT officer doesn't give you an additional right to shoot people. You can only shoot people who present a reasonable threat of causing innocents severe bodily harm

But SWAT is a lot more heavily armed(and armored) than your average officer.

Pistols and shotguns are one thing; submachine guns and sniper rifles.......
 
But SWAT is a lot more heavily armed(and armored) than your average officer.

Pistols and shotguns are one thing; submachine guns and sniper rifles.......

why don't you see if you actually understand this topic

what is the difference between the Rifle SSGT Hathcock used to kill a Chinese General at 900 meters and the one he used to win the Wimbledon Cup at the National Rifle Championships?

what is the difference between the most popular centerfire varmint rifle in the USA and the most popular police sniper rifle
 
Who cares "if he did it in the name of his God"? It's still a terrorist attack. He still had every intention of killing innocent people. And there's been plenty of other attacks carried out in Europe by people who think like he does.

And I really do hate to break it to you, but ISIS is a fringe, whackjob organization, not mainstream in any way.


and crazed killers are an extremely small group of gun owners-see the point?
 
Back
Top Bottom