• 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 .

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
12,111
Reaction score
7,237
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
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?
 
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?

8 billion.


Dumb question, even dumber answer. Now it's your turn to offer up an even dumber response so that we keep this fun little game going....
 
8 billion.


Dumb question, even dumber answer. Now it's your turn to offer up an even dumber response so that we keep this fun little game going....

So I have you on record being anti-Death Star? Or were you referring more to chemical weapons or bio weapons?
 
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?
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
 
Why is deaths per minute your standard? Have something in mind you would like to prohibit?

Okay, how about nuclear arms? Surface to air missiles capable of downing a commercial aircraft? Those are arms right?

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."
 
Last edited:
Yeah, we should all be limited to a single shot, flintlock:roll: Or maybe slingshots, oops, several states would have to rollback slingshot bans, such as NY NJ and RI.
 
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?

As many as necessary. A 6 shot revolver might be effective against up to 6 attackers but it's going to come up a little short against 10 attackers or a mob or some other such threat.
 
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?

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.
 
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.

Ever heard of tannerite? Legal explosive.
 
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?

This discussion comes up every month or so. The answer is always the same. The Constitution is clear, given the definition of arms operative at the time the 2nd was drafted, that the 2A covers "personal weapons" things that an individual soldier carries for his own use. That covers sidearms and any long gun operable by an individual. It does not cover weapons that require more than 1 person to operate, tanks, fighter jets or nuclear weapons.


And while we're at it I'd point out that the talking about banning weapons because they have high rates of fire is silly as it makes them less effective as self defense weapons - a major reason people buy guns afterall. People seem to labor under the notion that one bullet ends a confrontation. You don't need to look any further than the most recent police shooting to know that that isn't so.
 
Last edited:
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?

IIRC, box cutters were the weapons used to cause mass death on 9/11 and yet I can buy them w/o a BG check at Walmart. Maybe we should just make killing folks illegal and not ban anything that some nut decides to use in the process.
 
Nope. Are they good for making a big boom?

Yep, it is a binary mixture that is mixed by the end user, then it is commonly put in a plastic bottle and shot from a distance with a high powered rifle. It is a very safe mixture, most formulas will not detonate if a 22 is used. Until mixed, it is not explosive at all.
 
Yep, it is a binary mixture that is mixed by the end user, then it is commonly put in a plastic bottle and shot from a distance with a high powered rifle. It is a very safe mixture, most formulas will not detonate if a 22 is used. Until mixed, it is not explosive at all.

Mix it yourself? :shock: Sounds like a "watch this" kind of thing.

I much prefer M80's with inch-long wicks.
 
Mix it yourself? :shock: Sounds like a "watch this" kind of thing.

I much prefer M80's with inch-long wicks.

It is perfectly safe, a simple one to one mixture, our local gun shop carrys it. It is very stable, even when mixed. You would get a kick out my exploding sling bullets!:)
 
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?

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

Under what conditions? Under ideal theoretical conditions you can probably kill a hundred people in a minute with an AR-15, but in reality the number would be far less.
 
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?

That would never be how I would determine how to ban/limit a weapon. Seems like a very silly way to go about it, meaningless actually and totally illogical. How many people can i kill driving my truck through a crowd in a minute? Mixing poison and putting in a water system some where etc. Terrible way to look at it.
 
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?

I haven't seen this anti-2nd amendment talking point in a gun control debate in awhile. Its the anti-2nd amendment talking point of "if nuclear weapons and surface to air missiles are illegal for civilians to own then its okay to ban magazine fed semi-automatic firearms under the guise of an assault weapons ban" . Although I don't post every day in the gun control forum, so that anti-2nd amendment talking point might come up more often than I think.
 
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.
 
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?

We also have to factor in competence of the shooter/user.

Some people should be allowed weapons of mass destruction because they would ever be able to arm or deploy them properly... whereas others should not be allowed a butter knife, like a Navy SEAL, because they could wipe out a Mall full of people in a minute. Context really matters here.
 
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?
Yours truly is a stupid question. But I reckon you must have drawn the short straw so its your turn in the box. OK then...

The 2nd Amendment was written to preserve the right of US citizens to keep and bear military grade firearms to support if needed the Militia in he preservation of country against all enemies both foreign and domestic. As such...all combat arms an infantryman might be expected reasonably to carry should be legally owned by US citizens.

You know the drill. Since you feel the need to wet yourself over ridiculous hypotheticals, then rather than start stupid threads why dont you jump on that whole 'amendment' process? Get busy, son. 2018 is just a few months away.
 
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
 
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?

And the award for Dumbest Poll of the Week goes to....
 
Back
Top Bottom