• 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 .
Listen, they are certainly exceptions but both scientifically and rationally speaking, more guns = more gun deaths. Crime in general in the US has been on a downward trend over the past 30 years and that's a good thing. It's easy to conflate that downward trend with any cause you want to insert. It's just as legitimate to claim it's directly correlated with the consumption of chocolate cupcakes. Similarly, the more guns = more crime deaths fact should not be used as a game-stopper either -- it's like saying there are less deadly car crashes in regions where there are no cars. Um, yeah, duh.

You shouldn't make the assumption either that I am some sort of anti-gun nut. I am an avid, lifelong collector and own nearly 100 hand/long guns, including "AR's." I have more training and have fired more rounds that 99.5 percent of the US population, so that likely includes you. But like I said before, it is a non-debatable fact that more guns = more gun deaths -- and there I stand.

As for a solution to the troubling rate of gun violence we experience in America, I have NO solution and whole-heatedly disagree with most of the legislation that has been passed in an attempt to quell that number. But I'm open to new ideas and ardently refuse to participate in the loopy talking points issued by the NRA and other moonbat "pro-2A" people."

:thumbs:

"scientifically and rationally speaking, more guns = more gun deaths" That's not science, that's opinion. Another view might be that the quantity of guns isn't as important as what type of people own guns. You own over 100 guns, TD probably owns over 100 guns, and I own over 100 guns. Yet there is no evidence that the three of us owning so many guns is any threat to society. So maybe our focus shouldn't be on getting rid of any guns, but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands?
 
"scientifically and rationally speaking, more guns = more gun deaths" That's not science, that's opinion. Another view might be that the quantity of guns isn't as important as what type of people own guns. You own over 100 guns, TD probably owns over 100 guns, and I own over 100 guns. Yet there is no evidence that the three of us owning so many guns is any threat to society. So maybe our focus shouldn't be on getting rid of any guns, but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands?

It's not an opinion - "rain makes the street wet, the street is dry when it's not raining" - is that an opinion? The mere presence of something makes the results of that something more likely to occur. Of course, there are more gun deaths where there are more guns -- anyway that anyone tries to spin that TRUTH into something else is merely BSing you.

You said, "but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands? " I dunno? But I'll listen to just about any idea you might have.

You own guns and you're a "law abiding citizen" -- but there's no guarantee that you don't lose your **** tomorrow and go down to the mall and kill 75 people. The reality is, everyone is a "law abiding citizen"......until they're not.

:popcorn2:
 
It's not an opinion - "rain makes the street wet, the street is dry when it's not raining" - is that an opinion? The mere presence of something makes the results of that something more likely to occur. Of course, there are more gun deaths where there are more guns -- anyway that anyone tries to spin that TRUTH into something else is merely BSing you.

You said, "but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands? " I dunno? But I'll listen to just about any idea you might have.

You own guns and you're a "law abiding citizen" -- but there's no guarantee that you don't lose your **** tomorrow and go down to the mall and kill 75 people. The reality is, everyone is a "law abiding citizen"......until they're not.

:popcorn2:

That isn't true. Gun ownership is going up and the murder rate is going down, in The United States.
 
That isn't true. Gun ownership is going up and the murder rate is going down, in The United States.

We already addressed that. I claimed that the murder rate is going down due to the increase in consumption of chocolate cupcakes.

Disprove it.

:shock:
 
It's not an opinion - "rain makes the street wet, the street is dry when it's not raining" - is that an opinion? The mere presence of something makes the results of that something more likely to occur. Of course, there are more gun deaths where there are more guns -- anyway that anyone tries to spin that TRUTH into something else is merely BSing you.

You said, "but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands? " I dunno? But I'll listen to just about any idea you might have.

You own guns and you're a "law abiding citizen" -- but there's no guarantee that you don't lose your **** tomorrow and go down to the mall and kill 75 people. The reality is, everyone is a "law abiding citizen"......until they're not.

:popcorn2:

So show me the evidence that gun murder is highest where there is the largest concentration of guns per capita. THAT would be scientific. Rain causing wet streets is scientific BECAUSE there is direct evidence to support that theory. So show me the evidence. Not just guesses, not I think so, but hard scientific evidence.

"everyone is a law abiding citizen until they're not". WTF? What's that even mean? People can be happily married, until they're not. People can be safe drivers, until they're not. People can be healthy, until they're not. Do we outlaw marriage and cars? No, that would be stupid. You haven't made your case.
 
It's not an opinion - "rain makes the street wet, the street is dry when it's not raining" - is that an opinion? The mere presence of something makes the results of that something more likely to occur. Of course, there are more gun deaths where there are more guns -- anyway that anyone tries to spin that TRUTH into something else is merely BSing you.

You said, "but how do we keep them out of the bad guys hands? " I dunno? But I'll listen to just about any idea you might have.

You own guns and you're a "law abiding citizen" -- but there's no guarantee that you don't lose your **** tomorrow and go down to the mall and kill 75 people. The reality is, everyone is a "law abiding citizen"......until they're not.

:popcorn2:

There’s no guarantee you won’t mix some bleach and ammonia and put it in the ventilation of the closest grade school.
 
There’s no guarantee you won’t mix some bleach and ammonia and put it in the ventilation of the closest grade school.

Small_Arms_Survey_civilian_gun_ownership_by_country.png


gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg


If more than 30-something thousand Americans were being killed by bleach and ammonia , you can bet your ass that the electorate would be demanding their elected representatives do something about it.

But look, I understand your point -- there are many things that can kill you and although they're not even close to the top of the list, guns is one of them. Clearly we in the US have a problem. And we, as a civilized and honorable nation, can't sit back and be ******s about it, we need to, at least, try to do something. But like I said, I don't have a solution...

Do you?

:confused:
 
Small_Arms_Survey_civilian_gun_ownership_by_country.png


gun_homicides_per_capita.jpg


If more than 30-something thousand Americans were being killed by bleach and ammonia , you can bet your ass that the electorate would be demanding their elected representatives do something about it.

But look, I understand your point -- there are many things that can kill you and although they're not even close to the top of the list, guns is one of them. Clearly we in the US have a problem. And we, as a civilized and honorable nation, can't sit back and be ******s about it, we need to, at least, try to do something. But like I said, I don't have a solution...

Do you?

:confused:

I am afraid you are lusting for a disarmament of the lawful, based on the actions of those who would murder. That is a fairy tale and though you might change the way sicko's kill, it doesn't change the sicko's one iota, nor will it curb their drive. As pointed out, they will choose another method. Do you realize how much killing instruction is available on the net? The real answer to stopping random acts of murder is to identify and institutionalize the sick. That isn't happening today(Thank you liberal SC!)
It isn't guns that kill, though they can. I have several guns in my home right now, and not one of them has left this house on their own to kill anyone.
There are thousands killed by drunk drivers. Are we to then confiscate your driver license for the potential that as a licensed driver, I will get drunk and kill someone?
Regards,
CP
 
I am afraid you are lusting for a disarmament of the lawful, based on the actions of those who would murder. That is a fairy tale and though you might change the way sicko's kill, it doesn't change the sicko's one iota, nor will it curb their drive. As pointed out, they will choose another method. Do you realize how much killing instruction is available on the net? The real answer to stopping random acts of murder is to identify and institutionalize the sick. That isn't happening today(Thank you liberal SC!)
It isn't guns that kill, though they can. I have several guns in my home right now, and not one of them has left this house on their own to kill anyone.
There are thousands killed by drunk drivers. Are we to then confiscate your driver license for the potential that as a licensed driver, I will get drunk and kill someone?
Regards,
CP

crime control has little, if anything, to do, with what truly motivates the anti gun advocates.
 
Says who? Got a link to validate that positive claim ?

you combing threads -even stuff a month old- to post this same stupid question? Smart people get the point. Passing laws that only restrict what honest Americans-people who have not used their firearms illegally-can do is not designed to stop crime.
 
you combing threads -even stuff a month old- to post this same stupid question? Smart people get the point. Passing laws that only restrict what honest Americans-people who have not used their firearms illegally-can do is not designed to stop crime.

So that's a NO. You don't have have a link. You're simply posting your 'opinion', per usual.
 
So that's a NO. You don't have have a link. You're simply posting your 'opinion', per usual.

Smart people understand logic. If gun banners constantly push laws that ONLY change what people with clean records can do, then people who understand logic will figure out that such laws are not really designed to impact criminals.
 
Smart people understand logic. If gun banners constantly push laws that ONLY change what people with clean records can do, then people who understand logic will figure out that such laws are not really designed to impact criminals.

Smart people don't make positive claims they can't validate with factual evidence.
 
Smart people don't make positive claims they can't validate with factual evidence.

I guess you couldn't figure out that passing laws that only impact honest people is factual evidence.

Since you suddenly seem so interested in this thread that has lain untouched for a month answer these questions

1) can criminals buy guns legally from a dealer?

2) if not, then what does a law that prevents someone from buying more than one gun say a month impact

A) people who have clean records or B) those who have felonies

3) Due to the fifth Amendment-criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm they own

4) if the government passes a law making it a felony for failing to register a gun you already own, what group of people is impacted by this law

A) people who currently legally own firearms B) People who are in violation of 18 USC 922 by merely possessing a firearm.

5) In 80 years there have been maybe two cases of a legally owned machine gun being used for murder and one of those was a cop. In 1986 Democrats tried to derail a bipartisan pro gun bill by attaching a provision which had the effect of banning private citizens from owning machine guns made after May 9, 1986. Since there was essentially no real incidents of violent crime being perpetrated by those who legally owned machine guns, what was the purpose of that ban

A) to prevent violent crime that had not occurred in (at the time) half a century B) to harass lawful gun owners who wanted to buy modern machine guns
 
I guess you couldn't figure out that passing laws that only impact honest people is factual evidence.

Since you suddenly seem so interested in this thread that has lain untouched for a month answer these questions

1) can criminals buy guns legally from a dealer?

2) if not, then what does a law that prevents someone from buying more than one gun say a month impact

A) people who have clean records or B) those who have felonies

3) Due to the fifth Amendment-criminals cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm they own

4) if the government passes a law making it a felony for failing to register a gun you already own, what group of people is impacted by this law

A) people who currently legally own firearms B) People who are in violation of 18 USC 922 by merely possessing a firearm.

5) In 80 years there have been maybe two cases of a legally owned machine gun being used for murder and one of those was a cop. In 1986 Democrats tried to derail a bipartisan pro gun bill by attaching a provision which had the effect of banning private citizens from owning machine guns made after May 9, 1986. Since there was essentially no real incidents of violent crime being perpetrated by those who legally owned machine guns, what was the purpose of that ban

A) to prevent violent crime that had not occurred in (at the time) half a century B) to harass lawful gun owners who wanted to buy modern machine guns

If you want to discuss those issues, the proper and courteous thing to do is start your own thread, and not attempt to derail this thread.
 
If you want to discuss those issues, the proper and courteous thing to do is start your own thread, and not attempt to derail this thread.

OMG that has to be one of the least aware bits of nonsense I have ever seen
 
If you want to discuss those issues, the proper and courteous thing to do is start your own thread, and not attempt to derail this thread.

With all respect LM,TD's post was and is relevant to the question Do pro gun people have some responsibility to fix the mass shooting problem?. There is no redirection by that post.
Regards,
CP
 
With all respect LM,TD's post was and is relevant to the question Do pro gun people have some responsibility to fix the mass shooting problem?. There is no redirection by that post.
Regards,
CP

One wonders why he waited a month and didn't ask the same question of any other poster-
 
One wonders why he waited a month and didn't ask the same question of any other poster-

Because no one else made that specific claim , then failed, as you did, to back it up with valid links to factual evidence....duh...
 
Because no one else made that specific claim , then failed, as you did, to back it up with valid links to factual evidence....duh...

you are lying-the opening post makes a claim that is unsupported by any factual evidence. You didn't question him. He claimed mass shootings can be alleviated with "legislation"
 
you are lying-the opening post makes a claim that is unsupported by any factual evidence. You didn't question him. He claimed mass shootings can be alleviated with "legislation"

Clearly you are ignorant of what the term 'specific' claim. means. That's on you. Educate yourself on jr. high school level terminology, then,just maybe, you will understand your claim is not the same claim in the OP. You're struggling again...
 
Clearly you are ignorant of what the term 'specific' claim. means. That's on you. Educate yourself on jr. high school level terminology, then,just maybe, you will understand your claim is not the same claim in the OP. You're struggling again...

Yawn, others noted your argument is specious. This is the eight or so thread where you have done the same thing.
 
Yawn, others noted your argument is specious. This is the eight or so thread where you have done the same thing.

It's a debate forum, in case you missed that little fact. When a poster makes a positive claim, the norm is for other posters to ask the claim maker to support said claim with verifiable, factual evidence. ( debating 101 )
 
It's a debate forum, in case you missed that little fact. When a poster makes a positive claim, the norm is for other posters to ask the claim maker to support said claim with verifiable, factual evidence. ( debating 101 )

when you jump on several threads and do nothing but post the same stupid question to one poster, then others can question if your goal is debate or something else.
 
Back
Top Bottom