• 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!

'I'm here to say, hell no you're not'

Men cannot be trusted with guns. This was made rather obvious in the op.

Then I suppose men can't be trusted with gasoline, and they can't be trusted to go to the general store or hardware store.
 
The problem is he starts so many threads, that you cant come to talk about a current event without finding one already started by him and already on fire.

That's assuming Calamity is a he in the first place. Calamity will not disclose his or her gender so we can't assume if Calamity is a he or a she.
 
That's assuming Calamity is a he in the first place. Calamity will not disclose his or her gender so we can't assume if Calamity is a he or a she.

Why is this so important to you?
 
Then I suppose men can't be trusted with gasoline, and they can't be trusted to go to the general store or hardware store.

No, just guns. Men cannot be trusted with guns. Look at the gun homicide rate for proof of that.
 
Facts are facts. Men are more violent and commit more crimes than women

True, perhaps that means a greater level of force should be allowed when dealing with a male assailant than dealing with a female assailant.
 
True, perhaps that means a greater level of force should be allowed when dealing with a male assailant than dealing with a female assailant.

That would be the general theme of the thread, particularly in that females should be armed and males disarmed.
 
No, just guns. Men cannot be trusted with guns. Look at the gun homicide rate for proof of that.

A man can just as easily get gasoline and light up a building, killing many people, or buy the supplies at a hardware or general store to build a bomb, killing far more people than in a mass shooting.
 
That would be the general theme of the thread, particularly in that females should be armed and males disarmed.

More important with whether a person is armed or not is what they're doing with whatever it is they're armed with. If I slug an assailant whose a grown man I shouldn't get in trouble. If I slug an assailant whose a woman or a small child, it might come into question whether or not I used excessive force, but if the assailant is a grown man there should be no question about it.
 
True, perhaps that means a greater level of force should be allowed when dealing with a male assailant than dealing with a female assailant.

So why should women be better gun owners than men? More women should own guns than men.
 
One was in 1979, another in 2006, which really was more a spree killing than a mass shooting (you do know the difference, correct?) and the last one killed 3 in 2010, barely crossing the threshold of "mass shooting."

That all you got?

Like I stated you really don't research much. By the way your question about lone female shooters did not specify a time frame. Try framing refraining from broad statements.
 
So why should women be better gun owners than men? More women should own guns than men.

Bingo, it is them that needs to level the playing field. More and more women are starting to understand that concept, as sales have shown. Per the Banners agenda they would end up defenceless, well if they went American Women, those I know would have little problem when defending themselves. The difference is women often feel more pain even if justified and men tend to rationalize the need and accept the consiquences and just live with it. Yes, there are exceptions in both genders but it is the norm
 
Bingo, it is them that needs to level the playing field. More and more women are starting to understand that concept, as sales have shown. Per the Banners agenda they would end up defenceless, well if they went American Women, those I know would have little problem when defending themselves. The difference is women often feel more pain even if justified and men tend to rationalize the need and accept the consiquences and just live with it. Yes, there are exceptions in both genders but it is the norm

We need guns because of men
 
Like I stated you really don't research much. By the way your question about lone female shooters did not specify a time frame. Try framing refraining from broad statements.

Once again, 2 of your three references were not even mass shooters. And, the one who was, did it in 1979.
 
So why should women be better gun owners than men? More women should own guns than men.

I never said women were better gun owners than men or vice versa. And whether or not more women should own guns than men the fact of the matter is its the other way around. Even if women were catching up a bit during the Obama administration.
 
That would be the general theme of the thread, particularly in that females should be armed and males disarmed.

So only females should go into the military and law enforcement agencies.
 
We need guns because of men

Then go out and get them. Finding a local gun shop shouldn't be hard. If you want, I can give you recommendations where to shop and where not to shop, where to get the best guns for the best prices, ect.
 
No, just guns. Men cannot be trusted with guns. Look at the gun homicide rate for proof of that.

And doctors kill 4x as many people as men with guns. Don't hate.
 
Then go out and get them. Finding a local gun shop shouldn't be hard. If you want, I can give you recommendations where to shop and where not to shop, where to get the best guns for the best prices, ect.

I don't need your recommendations. I own a gun already.... wth...
 
Back
Top Bottom