• 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!

Do pro gun people have some responsibility to fix the mass shooting problem?

Do pro gun people have some responsibility to fix the mass shooting problem?

  • Need more info

    Votes: 6 6.8%
  • Yes, pro gun people should help fix the problem

    Votes: 26 29.5%
  • No, they're not responsible in the slightest

    Votes: 56 63.6%

  • Total voters
    88
  • Poll closed .
I think we need a very large tent public meeting, where you leave your preference (ideological) at the door and go in with an open mind to discuss both the current terrible situation of gun violence and the rights provided by the second amendment. A reasonable and considerate group would come out with a solution considering all the facts.
There are no gun ownership advocates who don't hate mass killing, and I don't think all so-called anti-gun folk are against any gun ownership.I am sure of that.
We need to leave the politicians in their mire where they are comfortable and get it done in spite of them.
Regards,
CP

For a compromise, both sides have to give something. If I come to you and say give me a thousand dollars and you say no, then I say OK I'll settle for $500. That is not a compromise.

That is what the anti gun crowd is trying to pull. They want to abuse the constitutional rights of gun owners. For it to be a compromise they need to give up some of their constitutional rights. Far in excess of 99% of all gun owners do not abuse their gun rights. Why should they be penalized for the less than 1% that do?

What the pro gun crowd wants is to address the real problems and not try to scapegoat us.
 
You acknowledge that taking cars away from legal safe drivers to deter drunken drivers makes no sense. Why do you think taking guns away from legal safe gun owners will stop gun violence?

Because a so called safe gun owner today may well be a killer tomorrow and then it is far too late to remove that gun after the carnage has been achieved.

We do deny safe drivers cars that do not meet road safety standards. There are types of cars that you are not permitted to drive on the road if they do not meet certain laws and regulations. So you are proceeding from a false premise.
 
Because a so called safe gun owner today may well be a killer tomorrow and then it is far too late to remove that gun after the carnage has been achieved.

We do deny safe drivers cars that do not meet road safety standards. There are types of cars that you are not permitted to drive on the road if they do not meet certain laws and regulations. So you are proceeding from a false premise.
Not a false premise. A safe driver today could be a killer tomorrow. A safe car today could kill tomorrow. How many suicides each year by automobile? How many random people killed each year? People are arrested every day for driving without a license, driving under suspension, stealing cars.

Ban the wheel.

The difference the right to bear arms in in the constitution the wheel is not.

Government can't keep criminals from the wheel how is it going to keep guns from criminals. Amazing how government can control the compliant and law abiding but is totally inept with the lawless. What you want is for the government and the lawless to have weapons and the rest of us to be sheep; compliant defenseless sheep.









Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
Why would the gun advocates not want to be at a discussion about fixing the mass shooting problem? What ever plans are approved they will effect gun owners in some way. If they are not in on fixing the problem it may get "fixed" in ways that they don't like.

It's not rocket science: if you have in interest in an issue and want a say in the solution you have to take some responsibility to be in on the discussion and planning.

Most of us who support gun rights understand that whenever a gun banner talks about solving a problem-the problem they really mean is not some crazy who ignores the consequences of being convicted of mass murder, but rather what Gun banners see as a real problem: lawful gun ownership and the voting patterns of gun owners.

The anti gun left only pushes for laws that are designed to restrict the legal activities of lawful people. And again , that is because the anti gun movement is not about crime control but rather, it is an arm of the Democrat party and it exists to harass those of us who have voted against Democrats ever since that party pretended it was doing SOMETHING about crime by adopting gun control
 
For a compromise, both sides have to give something. If I come to you and say give me a thousand dollars and you say no, then I say OK I'll settle for $500. That is not a compromise.

That is what the anti gun crowd is trying to pull. They want to abuse the constitutional rights of gun owners. For it to be a compromise they need to give up some of their constitutional rights. Far in excess of 99% of all gun owners do not abuse their gun rights. Why should they be penalized for the less than 1% that do?

What the pro gun crowd wants is to address the real problems and not try to scapegoat us.

There is no need to compromise. Trump did not compromise when he banned bumpstocks and massacre mitch will not compromise when he enacts gun control
 
There is no need to compromise. Trump did not compromise when he banned bumpstocks and massacre mitch will not compromise when he enacts gun control

Trump never banned bump stocks. He had the ATF categorize them as machine guns.

I expect Mitch and Trump to do the right thing, analyze the real problem, then take appropriate actions. Unlike the democrats who fly into hysterics every time anything happens.
 
Trump never banned bump stocks. He had the ATF categorize them as machine guns.

I expect Mitch and Trump to do the right thing, analyze the real problem, then take appropriate actions. Unlike the democrats who fly into hysterics every time anything happens.

Children are being shot in math class. And massacre mitch does nothing
 
Children are being shot in math class. And massacre mitch does nothing

Enlighten us, what did Obama do? How about all those Democrat politicians in Chicago? How is that going?
 
The "good guy with a gun" scenario is unlikely, so I don't think it would lend to any defense. However, I do believe that both open and concealed carry should be considered standard with the right to keep and bear arms.

It's a scenario that happens, although rarely.

OC & CC, as long as they're legally observed and followed. Should be completely fine.
 
It's a scenario that happens, although rarely.

OC & CC, as long as they're legally observed and followed. Should be completely fine.

What a ****ed-up society. I wouldnt raise a family someplace where I needed to carry a gun to protect them from their neighbours. How can you send your teen-age daughter out onto the streets where you yourself need a gun to be safe?
 
What a ****ed-up society. I wouldnt raise a family someplace where I needed to carry a gun to protect them from their neighbours. How can you send your teen-age daughter out onto the streets where you yourself need a gun to be safe?

Being hyperbolic doesn't help.

Though in the case of something horrible happening, no matter the case. A law abiding citizen being at the very least armed, can help with some aspects of such a problem. A gun here is not necessarily needed to protect against your neighbors, unless you live in some of the more over packed inner cities. But then again, it's most likely going to be anything ranging from a whole list of illegal activities and not a simple dispute about bushes on the property line with your neighbor.
 
What a ****ed-up society. I wouldnt raise a family someplace where I needed to carry a gun to protect them from their neighbours. How can you send your teen-age daughter out onto the streets where you yourself need a gun to be safe?

I prefer sending my children out in to the world prepared, instead of willfully ignorant. [emoji2369]
 
Technically he only reclassified an accessory. Reagan was a gun banner.

You should have heard the screams on here when anyone mentioned banning bump stocks after Vegas. Gun banner was the nicest thing said
 
Being hyperbolic doesn't help.

Though in the case of something horrible happening, no matter the case. A law abiding citizen being at the very least armed, can help with some aspects of such a problem. A gun here is not necessarily needed to protect against your neighbors, unless you live in some of the more over packed inner cities. But then again, it's most likely going to be anything ranging from a whole list of illegal activities and not a simple dispute about bushes on the property line with your neighbor.
You know what I'll admit there is one thing I do believe gun owners are guilty of not doing..we dont carry our gun enough so that when one of these freaks are killing people some one can stop it right away..However I'll tell you punishing is for this by taking away the gums from the people who may one day save your life is not the answer...let's do the math...if you have legal people all give up there guns...and the illegal freaks do not...what does that equal...less shootings....less rapes....less robberies? If you think this God help us all

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom