• 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!

An honest question for information...

zsu2357 said:
So then what you are saying is that the death doesn't matter in as much as the way of it. And I didn't read your link showing your "proof" since I'm not gonna re-figure my computer.
Click to expand...

The thread is about guns dude.
 
jimbo said:
The example you cite is an example of a person doing everything wrong and yet you claim that the gun killed her due to her fear.

I've never heard of a special gun purse with safety features, nor does a quick Google turn up any such thing. Their are purses designed for carry, but the focus seems to be a separate holster type compartment and easy access. I have seen nothing in this 3 year old story that she was carrying a weapons designed purse.

Rule 1 of gun safety. You never, ever, under any circumstances, leave a weapon unattended within reach of a child.

Rule 2. No toddler can rack he slide, chamber a round, **** the pistol, release the safety, and fire the weapon. They don't have the strength or the attention span. This weapon had to have been carried loaded, unlocked, and safety off. That would go double in a purse. More likely the gun was left unattended and unsecured within reach of the child.

This woman died of her own stupidity. Unfortunate, but that's the fact.
Click to expand...

Yes, your right she died from stupidity with a gun. But she herself was not stupid. She was a victim of the propoganda by the pro gun group of you need a gun to defend yourself against crime arguements.

Concealed carry purses are all over the internet, not hard to find at all.

Your last statement once again makes my arguement. You shrug her off as a mere casuality in your right to own a gun and be an idiot with it if you choose to. The gun is not the problem. The culture bred by fear is.
 
Maccabee said:
Your sources prove nothing other than the homicide rate was already on the decline and remain the same rate.
Click to expand...

In case you hadn't noticed, the thread is about guns. Who don;t you start a thread somewhere on homicide rates and we can debate that.

You're dancing around the fact that you've been proven wrong.
 
jet57 said:
In case you hadn't noticed, the thread is about guns. Who don;t you start a thread somewhere on homicide rates and we can debate that.

You're dancing around the fact that you've been proven wrong.
Click to expand...

more silly lies. homicide rates have gone DOWN as the number of GUNS in circulation and the NUMBER OF people carrying GUNS has gone WAY up
 
zsu2357 said:
Wow man your smart. And it is about the way isn't it? Killed by gun is bad,but killed any other way is OK.
Click to expand...

You're floundering and your diversionary tactic is not working. In Australia gun deaths are down markedly because of the bans.
 
jet57 said:
You're floundering and your diversionary tactic is not working. In Australia gun deaths are down markedly because of the bans.
Click to expand...

you're lying once again and the guns they banned were not the ones that are commonly used in violent crime. we get that you want gun bans in the USA like there are in California because you are angry that we in fairly free states can own AR 15s, and you cannot in the Peoples' Republic of Kalifornia. So you hope to spread the misery you live under to the rest of the USA
 
jet57 said:
In case you hadn't noticed, the thread is about guns. Who don;t you start a thread somewhere on homicide rates and we can debate that.

You're dancing around the fact that you've been proven wrong.
Click to expand...
Even gun deaths didn't dropped dramatically.
 
jet57 said:
From over 600 to 248, sure - whatever you say.
Click to expand...

what was the predicted number if the ban had not been implemented?
 
MaggieD said:
This post is a TLDR. I apologize in advance. But I thought we might be able to PUT together a list of what “better gun control” really means...

A good Friend posted on FB yesterday, highly intelligent, extremely liberal, sometimes pisses me off, if you can imagine that. Ha! It was a left wing article clamoring for gun control. I gave her a ration of **** about it criticizing the Left for not bullet pointing their suggestions. I think many pro-gun people believe this so-called “gun control” means banning guns. And, shrug, maybe that IS their motive in the end.

I’m an Illinoisian. We probably have the strictest gun laws in the country including things like background checks, fingerprinting, special firearms transfer forms executed on sale that must be kept for ten years, gun permits, gun registration, 3-day wait on handguns, special concealed carry licenses (good for ten years, by the way.) eight hours of classroom and range training to get the CC permit. No lasers in the City of Chicago. No magazines in Chicago for over ten bullets. No open carry unless in law enforcement. Many businesses ban CC weapons. And probably many other restrictions I can’t think of because they’d never apply to me.

The permits are easily and quickly gained though... except for the classes required for CC. And, frankly, I personally found the classes very very interesting. For instance, although some states have stand your ground laws exempting a righteous shoot from criminal and civil charges, Illinois law goes on to say something like, “except in the case of wanton and willful shoots that might have been avoided.” This, of course, opens a righteous shooter to civil suits to argue whether the shoot was willful or wanton. A very expensive and foreboding legal exercise indeed.

We keep hearing about the gun show loophole. I’ve never seen it explained. We keep hearing about no assault weapons. I’m fairly certain that real assault weapons are very different from the “ugly guns” that anti’s would classify as assault weapons that really aren’t.

My bullet list might include many things to restrict ownership. I threw some out there like universal background checks, no psychotropic meds within five years, mandatory doctor reporting to a databank HIPPA be damned. Magazine limits. No felons. Five years from any granted order of protection, Universal gun registration, universal permits, universal state to state reciprocity, and some others. Most of which I felt I could support ... and probably my IL strictest laws prepare me to do that.

So what is it that GUN CONTROL really MEAN? And why isn’t there a list out there somewhere that clearly delineates what the Left considers when the Left says, “We need stricter gun control!” One can’t argue a smoke screen.

just for discussion. And to inform all of us the essence of what the Left considers better gun control. I’m on and off the board today, but I really do look forward to an informative discussion. Be nice if that could happen...

to my TLDR friends, I completely understand.
Click to expand...

Sweetie, coming from a Liberal here, what they mean is all guns are banned, maybe some limited hunting guns kept under government control, but that is the end result they are looking to implement, nothing else will make them happy. This Liberal will Never give up his Right to Bear Arms. Live Free.
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

It proves how wrong you are dude.

/
Click to expand...

Going back to the title of this threat, with an honest question for information: what makes an AR-15 but not an M1 Carbine a "weapon of war"? Truly interested in your reasoning.
 
vegas giants said:
Show me how you can scientifically PROVE cause and effect for ANYTHING. LOL
Click to expand...

You're arguing semantics. Fine. Please provide sufficient evidence other countries' gun laws have a direct cause and effect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom