• 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!

Just one question for the gun control types

A lot of gun supporters claim shootings are mental illness/mental health issues. That is the dumbest argument I have heard. A shooter wouldn't inflict as much damage with a knife.

The truth of the matter is that certain people who claim shootings are mental health issues are the same people that have no issues with arming those with mental health issues. That kid who shot up the school in Florida was surrounded publically with guns. Nobody in the government did anything to stop him.
 
Bucky said:
A lot of gun supporters claim shootings are mental illness/mental health issues. That is the dumbest argument I have heard. A shooter wouldn't inflict as much damage with a knife.
Click to expand...

No, as recent terrorist attacks in central London prove


The truth of the matter is that certain people who claim shootings are mental health issues are the same people that have no issues with arming those with mental health issues. That kid who shot up the school in Florida was surrounded publically with guns. Nobody in the government did anything to stop him.
Click to expand...


Some states like Oklahoma have seemingly scrapped "red flag" laws.
 
Bucky said:
A lot of gun supporters claim shootings are mental illness/mental health issues. That is the dumbest argument I have heard. A shooter wouldn't inflict as much damage with a knife.

The truth of the matter is that certain people who claim shootings are mental health issues are the same people that have no issues with arming those with mental health issues. That kid who shot up the school in Florida was surrounded publically with guns. Nobody in the government did anything to stop him.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Show me a 'certain person' who has 'no issue' with arming those with mental health issues (specifically with a high risk of harming others, as we arent talking about anxiety here)
 
Rich2018 said:
How and in what way ?
Click to expand...

People being targeted by anti gun individuals using red flag laws.

If someone says they believe you are a danger to yourself or others, your guns are gone. Now the burden is on you to prove otherwise. Been abused by arguing individuals and LE alike.


Like a woman misusing domestic violence laws and restraining orders to remove a man from the home even though there was no domestic violence.
 
Rich2018 said:
No you used the conditional:


OK, substitute a rubber band gun

The point is that guns don't just launch ANY projectile, they shoot bullets or some kind of shot DESIGNED to kill generally (and OK, some guns are specifically designed to kill animal and some to shoot holes in paper targets) but for the most part they're designed to kill PEOPLE

They don't shoot "projectiles" like rubber bands or ping-pong balls - which are not the same
(I kinda expect a certain poster to trawl the internet now looking for an incident where a rubber band gun did actually kill someone in a freak.




You're getting confused with a shield.
A gun's primary use is attack.
Click to expand...

Definition of gun.......Webster.......a device that throws a projectile. The fact IS that a gun is designed to contain the explosion from a cartridge and direct that explosion out the barrel. This action forces the projectile from the gun at high velocity. It litterally launches a projectile.

Also as I said earlier most guns are defensive tools. Police and Americans like myself carry a gun all day everyday. The vast majority have never been used to kill. If we are forced to defend ourselves from a violent deadly attack the gun will be used to force said attacker to stop. In the vast majority of cases this does not lead to death. None the less most firearms primary use is defensive by a mile. Again this is fact. The statistics prove it.

BTW If hammers kill more people per year than "assault rifles" should they be banned? Are they now defined by you as designed to kill? Woman I know was attacked by a man with a hammer. She spent over a week in the hospital and has months of physical therapy to endure. Just as expensive as a gunshot causing similar care I assume. What say you?
 
Daddyo said:
People being targeted by anti gun individuals using red flag laws.

If someone says they believe you are a danger to yourself or others, your guns are gone. Now the burden is on you to prove otherwise. Been abused by arguing individuals and LE alike.
Click to expand...

Reg Flag laws are meant to target individuals, that's what they're for

No, it's not just "someone" making some random accusation, it requires a red flag. The recent pointing of a loaded gun at a black family by a hot-headed white woman in Michigan is such an example


Please provide examples of where you feel red flag laws have been abused


Definition of gun.......Webster.......a device that throws a projectile...
Click to expand...

Bad definition, that makes a trebuchet a "gun"

For "gun" you are better off substituting the word "firearm"


Also as I said earlier most guns are defensive tools.
Click to expand...

Nope, a shield is a defensive tool
You can use a sword offensively to strike a opponent or defensively to parry a blow aimed at you

There is no defensive use for a firearm - only offensive use. It can only be used to strike a blow, not defend from one
The so called defensive use of firearms is really offensive use (like Napoleon's famous maxim, "offense is the best for of defense")


Police and Americans like myself carry a gun all day everyday. The vast majority have never been used to kill.
Click to expand...

So you have no need of any guns if the vast majority of guns in circulation, are never used to attack victims ???


If we are forced to defend ourselves from a violent deadly attack the gun will be used to force said attacker to stop....
Click to expand...

So you plan to attack the attacker....even though this is a rare event as the "vast majority" of guns "have never been used to kill" ?
I feel the same way about my baseball bat

In the vast majority of cases this does not lead to death. None the less most firearms primary use is defensive by a mile. Again this is fact. The statistics prove it.
Click to expand...

Then why do you have a gun ?


BTW If hammers kill more people per year than "assault rifles" should they be banned? Are they now defined by you as designed to kill? Woman I know was attacked by a man with a hammer. She spent over a week in the hospital and has months of physical therapy to endure. Just as expensive as a gunshot causing similar care I assume. What say you?
Click to expand...

Sigh

No, a neither should cars, kitchen knives or swimming pools

And more "what-about-isms" ?
Hammers are necessary tools, guns are not.
 
Rich2018 said:
Reg Flag laws are meant to target individuals, that's what they're for

No, it's not just "someone" making some random accusation, it requires a red flag. The recent pointing of a loaded gun at a black family by a hot-headed white woman in Michigan is such an example


Please provide examples of where you feel red flag laws have been abused




Bad definition, that makes a trebuchet a "gun"

For "gun" you are better off substituting the word "firearm"




Nope, a shield is a defensive tool
You can use a sword offensively to strike a opponent or defensively to parry a blow aimed at you

There is no defensive use for a firearm - only offensive use. It can only be used to strike a blow, not defend from one
The so called defensive use of firearms is really offensive use (like Napoleon's famous maxim, "offense is the best for of defense")




So you have no need of any guns if the vast majority of guns in circulation, are never used to attack victims ???




So you plan to attack the attacker....even though this is a rare event as the "vast majority" of guns "have never been used to kill" ?
I feel the same way about my baseball bat



Then why do you have a gun ?




Sigh

No, a neither should cars, kitchen knives or swimming pools

And more "what-about-isms" ?
Hammers are necessary tools, guns are not.
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsensical Humpty Dumpty rhetorical contortion.



defensive adjective

de·​fen·​sive | \ di-ˈfen(t)-siv How to pronounce defensive (audio) , ˈdē-ˌfen(t)- How to pronounce defensive (audio) \



Definition of defensive (Entry 1 of 2)


1 : serving to defend or protect


Oh, and guns are just as necessary as hammers. That's nothing but an assertion without context on your part. Prove they aren't.
 
Nickyjo said:
Too many guns already in circulation. Fewer guns, fewer gun deaths. Other countries have strict gun control yet fewer shootings. How do you explain that?
Click to expand...

But not too many than they can't all be seized following a gun ban*


*gun ban with the previously mentioned caveats.
 
Rich2018 said:
But not too many than they can't all be seized following a gun ban*


*gun ban with the previously mentioned caveats.
Click to expand...

Given my post immediately above, it was necessary for you to respond to a post from over two weeks ago. Lol

Can't let such a demolition of your argument just stand there like that, eh? :lamo
 
My former boss was forced to stay home after he threatened to leave his home during an argument with his wife. She told him to sit. He refused. She banged her head into the wall and told him to sit or she would call police. He sat.

Same woman filed for a restraining order against him. She came into the gun shop and told me and my coworker to tell our boss that all his fing guns were gone. I was forced to testify against her to prevent the restraining order which would have forced him out of his business.


That's 2. Both cases show how law can be misused to violate rights. Red flag laws are even easier to manipulate.

Red flag laws being misused to violate rights is no different.

I saw another case which a picture of a kid with a rifle was used to remove the fathers guns.

Maybe as you age you will gain the experience to understand what we are saying. Until then your ignorance is glaring. You live in a bubble? Lol pathetic.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's called losing by default


And no matter how strong your case, you will lose if you don't show up.
Click to expand...

The point of the study was that minorities and the poor were less able to show up, and so more abused by the policy when they cant defend themselves against govt abuse. You asked how its abused, there you go.
 
Daddyo said:
My former boss was forced to stay home after he threatened to leave his home during an argument with his wife. She told him to sit. He refused. She banged her head into the wall and told him to sit or she would call police. He sat.

Same woman filed for a restraining order against him. She came into the gun shop and told me and my coworker to tell our boss that all his fing guns were gone. I was forced to testify against her to prevent the restraining order which would have forced him out of his business.


That's 2. Both cases show how law can be misused to violate rights. Red flag laws are even easier to manipulate.

Red flag laws being misused to violate rights is no different.

I saw another case which a picture of a kid with a rifle was used to remove the fathers guns.

Maybe as you age you will gain the experience to understand what we are saying. Until then your ignorance is glaring. You live in a bubble? Lol pathetic.
Click to expand...

I had a team member in a not too dissimilar position, his wife would fly into a rage and involve self hard and just on her say so, he was arrested

His lawyer advised him to record his wife next time, so he did
He was still arrested but the charges were dropped and his record wiped clean

He divorced her

What are you arguing for ?
 
jonny5 said:
The point of the study was that minorities and the poor were less able to show up, and so more abused by the policy when they cant defend themselves against govt abuse. You asked how its abused, there you go.
Click to expand...

Explain how "minorities and the poor" are less able to show up.
 
Rich2018 said:
Explain how "minorities and the poor" are less able to show up.
Click to expand...
Many don't have their own automobiles, maybe cant even afford public transportation. Or have the type of job where they just can't take off of work for a court date or they could be fired.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
Many don't have their own automobiles, maybe cant even afford public transportation. Or have the type of job where they just can't take off of work for a court date or they could be fired.
Click to expand...

There is Uber.
Give an example of a court no-show because the plaintiff or defendant was unable to afford the travel cost of getting to court
You're being beyond ridiculous


In which state can you be fired for attending a mandatory court date ?
 
Rich2018 said:
There is Uber.
Give an example of a court no-show because the plaintiff or defendant was unable to afford the travel cost of getting to court
You're being beyond ridiculous


In which state can you be fired for attending a mandatory court date ?
Click to expand...
I'm using the same excuses that the left uses for poor people not being able to procure an I.D. so they shouldn't have to have one to vote, even though having to have an ID would cut down on voter fraud.. No transportation, can't afford the fee, etc.....exception for voting is that an employer must give you time off to vote, that's the law. Of course I can't provide specific examples for my scenario, but I can tell you this...... If one of my employees came to me and said they had to have a day off for whatever reason other than a death in the family or something, and the schedule was already posted, if they didn't cover their shift and no-showed they would be fired.
 
Maidenrules29 said:
I'm using the same excuses that the left uses for poor people not being able to procure an I.D.
Click to expand...


No you're not

Please give an example of those "excuses"

And going to get an ID does not put your employer under anywhere near the same obligation as releasing you for a court date, so that's NOT the same excuse. Not even close.


....so they shouldn't have to have one to vote, even though having to have an ID would cut down on voter fraud..
Click to expand...

No they should not

It's basically asking for a license to vote
The RW will howl at the prospect of having to have a license to buy a gun, well it can't have it both ways
No-one should EVER be denied a vote if they attend the prescribed voting station, within the prescribed hours


No transportation, can't afford the fee, etc.....
Click to expand...


The best "excuse" is : there should be nothing required in order to vote. Not EVER


exception for voting is that an employer must give you time off to vote, that's the law.
Click to expand...


Same as attending a court date


Of course I can't provide specific examples for my scenario, but I can tell you this...... If one of my employees came to me and said they had to have a day off for whatever reason other than a death in the family or something, and the schedule was already posted, if they didn't cover their shift and no-showed they would be fired.
Click to expand...


How about:
They decided to become more active in their church and need every Saturday or Sunday (or even Friday for some faiths) off
They've received a jury summons
They've received a court subpoena
They're a member of the National Guard and their unit has been mobilized (not uncommon these days)
Their partner has had a stroke and they've submitted FMLA paperwork to your HR dept
They have a Dr's appointment for emergency dental work
They have an emergency in the house (burst pipe or something)


If you tried to fire an employee for the above, it would be YOU who would be facing HR
If you owned the company, you would be facing a lawsuit.
 
Rich2018 said:
No you're not

Please give an example of those "excuses"

And going to get an ID does not put your employer under anywhere near the same obligation as releasing you for a court date, so that's NOT the same excuse. Not even close.




No they should not

It's basically asking for a license to vote
The RW will howl at the prospect of having to have a license to buy a gun, well it can't have it both ways
No-one should EVER be denied a vote if they attend the prescribed voting station, within the prescribed hours





The best "excuse" is : there should be nothing required in order to vote. Not EVER





Same as attending a court date





How about:
They decided to become more active in their church and need every Saturday or Sunday (or even Friday for some faiths) off
They've received a jury summons
They've received a court subpoena
They're a member of the National Guard and their unit has been mobilized (not uncommon these days)
Their partner has had a stroke and they've submitted FMLA paperwork to your HR dept
They have a Dr's appointment for emergency dental work
They have an emergency in the house (burst pipe or something)


If you tried to fire an employee for the above, it would be YOU who would be facing HR
If you owned the company, you would be facing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
In the restaurant business working weekends is mandatory and no religious reasons can override that. If you apply at a restaurant and say "I can't work weekends" They will tell you to go kick rocks.

The National Guard, partner with a stroke, jury duty reasons are of course OK and fall under my "or whatever " Pipes burst in your house? prove it. Same with the dental work. Show me proof. If I had a dollar for every cockamaimy excuse (lie) that one of my employees told me to get out of work I could retire.
 
Rich2018 said:
No you're not

Please give an example of those "excuses"

And going to get an ID does not put your employer under anywhere near the same obligation as releasing you for a court date, so that's NOT the same excuse. Not even close.




No they should not

It's basically asking for a license to vote
The RW will howl at the prospect of having to have a license to buy a gun, well it can't have it both ways
No-one should EVER be denied a vote if they attend the prescribed voting station, within the prescribed hours





The best "excuse" is : there should be nothing required in order to vote. Not EVER





Same as attending a court date





How about:
They decided to become more active in their church and need every Saturday or Sunday (or even Friday for some faiths) off
They've received a jury summons
They've received a court subpoena
They're a member of the National Guard and their unit has been mobilized (not uncommon these days)
Their partner has had a stroke and they've submitted FMLA paperwork to your HR dept
They have a Dr's appointment for emergency dental work
They have an emergency in the house (burst pipe or something)


If you tried to fire an employee for the above, it would be YOU who would be facing HR
If you owned the company, you would be facing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
AND......before you say that I must be a horrible boss, please know that at my company's annual conference I received an award and $5000 for having the lowest employee turnover in our company, which has 185 locations. I am very fun to work with, have great rapport with our customers, and my employees trust me to do what I say I will do and hold people accountable for their actions, while also giving recognition for performance. The restaurant business is tough my friend.
 
Rich2018 said:
No you're not

Please give an example of those "excuses"

And going to get an ID does not put your employer under anywhere near the same obligation as releasing you for a court date, so that's NOT the same excuse. Not even close.




No they should not

It's basically asking for a license to vote
The RW will howl at the prospect of having to have a license to buy a gun, well it can't have it both ways
No-one should EVER be denied a vote if they attend the prescribed voting station, within the prescribed hours





The best "excuse" is : there should be nothing required in order to vote. Not EVER





Same as attending a court date





How about:
They decided to become more active in their church and need every Saturday or Sunday (or even Friday for some faiths) off
They've received a jury summons
They've received a court subpoena
They're a member of the National Guard and their unit has been mobilized (not uncommon these days)
Their partner has had a stroke and they've submitted FMLA paperwork to your HR dept
They have a Dr's appointment for emergency dental work
They have an emergency in the house (burst pipe or something)


If you tried to fire an employee for the above, it would be YOU who would be facing HR
If you owned the company, you would be facing a lawsuit.
Click to expand...
Also, I am quite familiar with FMLA since I just had to invoke it ( I exhausted all of my PTO time) in order to care for my mother while she was in hospice for terminal cancer.
 
Rich2018 said:
Explain how "minorities and the poor" are less able to show up.
Click to expand...

As it says in the study, they lack the time and money to get to court, and with a lawyer who could help them. Another abuse it that people who are targeted, are sometimes not even informed.

Because most red flag laws provide for an initial ex
parte process by which guns may be ordered removed or
kept from persons without notice to them, the argument
goes that post-deprivation procedures are constitutionally
inadequate.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11205.pdf
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom