• 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!

Firearms - The Primary Problem

The primary problem with firearms

  • Total voters
    45
BlueKC said:
Then why don't I have the right to manufacture anthrax? That could certainly be defined as a weapon. I believe that it has been in plenty of military literature. Unless you think we should be able to buy smallpox at Wal-Mart too?
Click to expand...

HUH? He said killing should be ILLegal.

Reading comprehension is your friend.:2wave:
 
BlueKC said:
If I can't hold off a man trying to rape my daughter without a gun for 8 minutes, then I'm not worthy of being her father. Maybe that would encourage everybody to go to the gym as well. Then we're saving lives on two fronts, getting rid of gun deaths and battling obesity.
Click to expand...

:surrender

You must be French.:rofl
 
obvious Child said:
Is it the weapon or the person pulling the trigger?
Click to expand...

Neither, I do not see firearms as a problem. What I have a problem with is the chicken **** little ******s who want to severely restrict and or deny me my 2nd amendment rights. Sometimes a bat,pen,pencil,knife,sword or anything else that can be used as a weapon is not as efficient as a gun when it comes to stopping a criminal,especially if their is more than one criminal or the criminal has a gun(who buy the way doesn't give a **** about obeying the law so no anti-2nd law on the planet is going to stop him from getting a firearm).Law enforcement can not prevent a lot of crimes,after all they are no psychic. Besides the government has nothing to fear from a population that is not adequately armed or a population that is unarmed.
 
BlueKC said:
Then why don't I have the right to manufacture anthrax? That could certainly be defined as a weapon. I believe that it has been in plenty of military literature. Unless you think we should be able to buy smallpox at Wal-Mart too?
Click to expand...

You can manufacture anthrax, smallpox, even cholera in the US if you want. However, you need the proper paperwork, licenses, and approvals due to the ability of those to be weapons of mass destruction. Much in the same way that heavy caliber firearms are classed as "destructive devices" in some states that require paperwork, tax stamps, and approvals.

Once again, since you apparently failed to read my prior post, a car is not manufactured to kill people. Certain guns and ammunition are designed exactly for that purpose. The comparison can only exist between weapons that were designed to kill human beings. And none of them should be legal.
Click to expand...

There is no Constitutional amendment regarding cars or vehicles of any type nor any mandate about using said vehicles in a fight against foes foreign or domestic. Although I wouldn't mind going to war in an up-armored Lamborgini. :mrgreen:

My daughter's life is in far less danger if nobody is holding a deadly weapon, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Guns can be found in the hands of criminals even in nations that have banned their ownership. You should take a look at UK gun crime.

I guess in your experience a rape could happen in under 8 minutes. That would be the time it takes the police to arrive in my town. I pay very good money for that kind of service.
Click to expand...

The 8 minutes would start after you make the phone call. Thats assuming you have get to make it. Otherwise, yeah the cops will be sure to document everything and make a COPS episode out of it.
 
That's a good idea, why DON'T we take a look at UK gun crime? Let's see, in 2002, there were 0.15 gun deaths per 100,000 people. In 2001 in the United States there were 3.98. Or over 25x as many. Doesn't seem to be the same level of problem. Then again, maybe the issue is that the people who own guns in America are more likely to be insane. Such as considering that right akin to freedom of speech.
 
That's a good idea, why DON'T we take a look at UK gun crime? Let's see, in 2002, there were 0.15 gun deaths per 100,000 people. In 2001 in the United States there were 3.98. Or over 25x as many. Doesn't seem to be the same level of problem. Then again, maybe the issue is that the people who own guns in America are more likely to be insane. Such as considering that right akin to freedom of speech.
Click to expand...

Why don't we take a look at gun crime in Chicago? Highest murder rate in America with quite possibly the most stringent gun control laws in the country. Nice try.
 
Ethereal said:
Why don't we take a look at gun crime in Chicago? Highest murder rate in America with quite possibly the most stringent gun control laws in the country. Nice try.
Click to expand...

Causation and correlation?
 
Causation and correlation?
Click to expand...

The same thing (Causation and correlation?) could be said of your argument.
 
jamesrage said:
Neither, I do not see firearms as a problem. What I have a problem with is the chicken **** little ******s who want to severely restrict and or deny me my 2nd amendment rights. Sometimes a bat,pen,pencil,knife,sword or anything else that can be used as a weapon is not as efficient as a gun when it comes to stopping a criminal,especially if their is more than one criminal or the criminal has a gun(who buy the way doesn't give a **** about obeying the law so no anti-2nd law on the planet is going to stop him from getting a firearm).Law enforcement can not prevent a lot of crimes,after all they are no psychic. Besides the government has nothing to fear from a population that is not adequately armed or a population that is unarmed.
Click to expand...

The more I study this issue I still come to the inescapable conclusion that firearms are a problem. In that I mean those who should not possess them gain access to them and possess them illegally and then, in turn, use them in the commission of crimes, mayhem and murder.

IMO there seems to be no viable solution to this issue, how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, et al those determined to be prohibited persons under the GCA. Do you have a solution james?
 
IMO there seems to be no viable solution to this issue, how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, et al those determined to be prohibited persons under the GCA. Do you have a solution james?
Click to expand...

The solution is to reduce crime. How do we go about reducing crime? Reduce poverty and incarceration. How do we go about reducing poverty and incarceration? Education and elimaniting the war on drugs, respectively. At least, that's my opinion.
 
Ethereal said:
The solution is to reduce crime. How do we go about reducing crime? Reduce poverty and incarceration. How do we go about reducing poverty and incarceration? Education and elimaniting the war on drugs, respectively. At least, that's my opinion.
Click to expand...
Then we actually agree on most things. I just consider my side of the solution more comprehensive.
 
BlueKC said:
Causation and correlation?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The only thing we know for sure is that the gun control laws in Chicago do not prevent murders. The evidence shows that to be true. It maybe caused by any number of things, but what is unequivocably proven is that really strict gun control laws did NOT prevent Chicago from being Murder Capital of the USA.
 
Ethereal said:
The same thing (Causation and correlation?) could be said of your argument.
Click to expand...

What are kentucy fried colonel ignores is that england had almost NO handgun violence before they started banning them and once they banned them their rate of handgun violence went up as did HOME INVASION robberies. White Americans have a lower rate of gun violence than whites in the UK
 
rsixing said:
The more I study this issue I still come to the inescapable conclusion that firearms are a problem. In that I mean those who should not possess them gain access to them and possess them illegally and then, in turn, use them in the commission of crimes, mayhem and murder.

IMO there seems to be no viable solution to this issue, how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, et al those determined to be prohibited persons under the GCA. Do you have a solution james?
Click to expand...


Well I can tell you what is the worst possible reaction-banning honest people from owning guns.
 
TurtleDude said:
What are kentucy fried colonel ignores is that england had almost NO handgun violence before they started banning them and once they banned them their rate of handgun violence went up as did HOME INVASION robberies. White Americans have a lower rate of gun violence than whites in the UK
Click to expand...

Oh, so then perhaps we should only extend the 2nd amendment to white people. That was an intelligent comment.
 
BlueKC said:
Oh, so then perhaps we should only extend the 2nd amendment to white people. That was an intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

IT is an intelligent comment because it is true. White people in the USA-with a fair amount of freedom to own guns have a lower rater of violence with guns than whites in the UK where handguns are banned. That is a pretty good argument that gun bans won't make us safer and remember, England is an Island while we have thousands of miles of borders.
 
Originally Posted by bhkad
That's why there should be a major study conducted on the effects of video games on the youngest generation to determine if there is a cause and effect on young people committing random acts of violence.

The 8 year old who killed his dad and the dad's friend seemed well adjusted to killing. Not just shooting, as his dad may have taught him, but killing.

That may have come from an over exposure to violent games. Just as not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic, not every kid who plays "Grand Theft Auto" is going to go on a shooting rampage.
But some may.

We need to KNOW THE TRUTH about the effects of video games and acts of violence in this country.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the christian guy in "Bowling for Columbine" that was against Marylin Manson and said that he was bad because not eveybody that goes to see him will kill somebody, but some do just like not everybody that watches a Lexus add will buy one, but some do!

I think that we seriously need to study the effects of eating vegetables, because I bet the we would find that not everybody that eats vegetables goes out and kills somebody, but some do! ;)

I have played tons of violent video games, as have many many many others that I know, and NOT ONE of us has ever even started a fight, let alone killed somebody. It is innate to the person and/or how they are raised as well as the environment in which they live... this violent nature, and it has NOTHING to do with games and such solely.
 
BlueKC said:
Oh, so then perhaps we should only extend the 2nd amendment to white people. That was an intelligent comment.
Click to expand...

Intelligence would be to atempt to understand the others reasoning PRIOR to making an ignorant assumption... right? Right! ;)
 
TurtleDude said:
IT is an intelligent comment because it is true. White people in the USA-with a fair amount of freedom to own guns have a lower rater of violence with guns than whites in the UK where handguns are banned. That is a pretty good argument that gun bans won't make us safer and remember, England is an Island while we have thousands of miles of borders.
Click to expand...

Or it is an example of white flight from the areas most predisposed to violence. Does that stat control for socio-economic variables?
 
BlueKC said:
Or it is an example of white flight from the areas most predisposed to violence. Does that stat control for socio-economic variables?
Click to expand...

In the USA perhaps... what about the UK?
 
TurtleDude said:
Well I can tell you what is the worst possible reaction-banning honest people from owning guns.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The 2nd Amendment is our guarantee to bear arms and the GCA augments the 2nd by stipulating who may not possess weapons.

I guess for me the question I'm seeking answers to is how do we realistically, without pandering to some sort of unreachable utopian ideal, keep arms out of the hands of the criminal element who would use them for their own heinous purposes...
 
rsixing said:
Agreed. The 2nd Amendment is our guarantee to bear arms and the GCA augments the 2nd by stipulating who may not possess weapons.

I guess for me the question I'm seeking answers to is how do we realistically, without pandering to some sort of unreachable utopian ideal, keep arms out of the hands of the criminal element who would use them for their own heinous purposes...
Click to expand...



You can't. prepare accordingly.
 
BlueKC said:
That one's easy; in the UK it's tougher to shoot each other because there is gun control.
Click to expand...

Where is the disconnect? Is it me? :confused:

It doesn't matter whether the whites live in the ghetto or in the suburbs if they are falling victim to home invasions and gun violence. If the USA whites flee they can still be subject to crimes... so why are the UK whites rates of crime rising faster than those in the USA?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom