• 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!

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Dumb Idea Pushed By Dumb People

TurtleDude said:
sadly you demonstrate you really don't know much about this. claiming one weapon is more lethal than another is problematic. At 15 feet, the single most lethal weapon you can carry-short of a flamethrower perhaps-against massed humans is a semi automatic shotgun loaded with buckshot. however, at 200 meters, that weapon (or a flamethrower for that matter) is worthless and a man armed with a single shot bolt action rifle will make short work of someone armed with a shotgun, flamethrower etc.
Click to expand...

Sir, your myopic fixation on such technicalities indicates you can't see the forest through the trees.
I don't care whether the bullpup configuration edges out the blingblang configuration in lethality - good grief, all of these assault rifles are all a lot more useful for massacring people than a pistol is.


my attitude-anything civilian police are issued for self defense against violent criminals in our civilian environments should be legal for those with clean records to own and acquire rather easily. when you get to things like belt fed crew served machine guns, etc, then we can talk
Click to expand...

Ironically, a crew of deranged psychos is harder to bring together to man a crew-served weapon, than it is for a single psycho to spontaneously use an assault rifle to massacre people with in a lone wolf attack.


As far as I'm concerned, life isn't cheap.
 
sanman said:
Sir, your myopic fixation on such technicalities indicates you can't see the forest through the trees.
I don't care whether the bullpup configuration edges out the blingblang configuration in lethality - good grief, all of these assault rifles are all a lot more useful for massacring people than a pistol is.




Ironically, a crew of deranged psychos is harder to bring together to man a crew-served weapon, than it is for a single psycho to spontaneously use an assault rifle to massacre people with in a lone wolf attack.


As far as I'm concerned, life isn't cheap.
Click to expand...

you apparently don't want to use rational thought or logic. you are one of those posters who has a pressing need to DO SOMETHING before you have a clue what will actually work

do some research. Find out what weapons are used in the vast majority of crime.
 
sanman said:
And why is that, pray tell?
Click to expand...

He knows the answer-you are being asked because he (and I) don't believe you understand why
 
TurtleDude said:
without discussing your politics, why do you think that almost all the anti gun politicians and posters in the USA are left wingers?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Never give it any thought. If you hold a gun to my head and make me guess, I'll say maybe because so many leftists in the US live in urban areas and so many who live in the country are conservative.
Tell me, your politics aside, is that issue, the guns thing, is that the widest part of the divide in your society? Could all the other differences be discussed and worked on and even compromised but for the fact of the division on guns?
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't know. Never give it any thought. If you hold a gun to my head and make me guess, I'll say maybe because so many leftists in the US live in urban areas and so many who live in the country are conservative.
Tell me, your politics aside, is that issue, the guns thing, is that the widest part of the divide in your society? Could all the other differences be discussed and worked on and even compromised but for the fact of the division on guns?
Click to expand...
I think the abortion divide is even wider but it has much in common with the gun issue.
 
Praxas said:
So then the real question is, what is the Republican Senate, Republican house and Republican presidency doing about it?
Click to expand...

Republicans won't do anything about gun regulations. In fact they'll fight (tooth and nail) any new gun regulations.

cartoon20091019.jpg


So if you're tired of condolences & sympathies, you'll have to vote for Democrats this coming November in the 2018 midterm election cycle--to get common sense regulations on guns.

Those kids didn't have a chance yesterday, regardless of any definition. Neither did those people in Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Orlando Florida, Denver Colorado, or that church in Texas, & San Diego California.

Semi automatic weapons are nothing more than people killers, and they have got to be banned in this country.
 
Last edited:
Oreo said:
Republicans won't do anything about gun regulations. In fact they'll fight (tooth and nail) any new gun regulations.


So if you're tired of condolences & sympathies, you'll have to vote for Democrats this coming November in the 2018 midterm election cycle--to get common sense regulations on guns.

Those kids didn't have a chance yesterday, regardless of any definition. Neither did those people in Las Vegas, Sandy Hook, Orlando Florida, Denver Colorado, or that church in Texas, & San Diego California.

Semi automatic weapons are nothing more than people killers, and they have got to be banned in this country.
Click to expand...

translation-use the deaths to vote in Democrats.

semi automatic weapons are 90% of the handguns sold, more than half the 22 rifles sold, and have won at least half the world skeet shooting and sporting clays championships of the last 40 years.

So you are lying. its all about bashing conservatives. You have proven you really don't care about gun deaths. Its all about your hurt over the GOP winning the last election with NRA help
 
sanman said:
I know he knows the answer - so if you please, go ahead and explain rather than resort to smug know-it-all-ery.
I don't see why I should have to be a firearms expert just to support basic public safety.

https://www.range365.com/nj-court-says-man-cant-have-grandfathers-m1-carbine-back
Click to expand...

if you continue to demonstrate ignorance you cannot have your arguments of "public safety" taken seriously. its obvious you don't understand this issue and thus your arguments why some things should be banned or restricted based in ignorance are rejected
 
TurtleDude said:
I think the abortion divide is even wider but it has much in common with the gun issue.
Click to expand...

Why has it gotten so polarized? From here it's like watching a cell divide, you know that animation where everything in the cell drags apart and next you have two cells? That can't be made back into one?
Didn't used to be that way, not when I used to ride up and down the highways on the west coast.
 
TurtleDude said:
if you continue to demonstrate ignorance you cannot have your arguments of "public safety" taken seriously. its obvious you don't understand this issue and thus your arguments why some things should be banned or restricted based in ignorance are rejected
Click to expand...

Translation: I'm rejecting your argument without telling you why it's being rejected, because I don't have time to tell you why - I just have time to tell you that it's rejectable. :roll:
 
sanman said:
Translation: I'm rejecting your argument without telling you why it's being rejected, because I don't have time to tell you why - I just have time to tell you that it's rejectable. :roll:
Click to expand...

when you don't understand "lethality of a weapon" which changes depending on the environment, yet you want to base restrictions on a characteristic you are unable to define, let alone understand, I am going to reject your solutions

when you constantly prove you don't understand crime issues concerning firearms, I am going to reject your emotionally based "solutions"To crime
 
Grand Mal said:
Why has it gotten so polarized? From here it's like watching a cell divide, you know that animation where everything in the cell drags apart and next you have two cells? That can't be made back into one?
Didn't used to be that way, not when I used to ride up and down the highways on the west coast.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. I have some suspicions but I have neither the time nor the effort to lay it all out.
 
TurtleDude said:
when you don't understand "lethality of a weapon" which changes depending on the environment, yet you want to base restrictions on a characteristic you are unable to define, let alone understand, I am going to reject your solutions

when you constantly prove you don't understand crime issues concerning firearms, I am going to reject your emotionally based "solutions"To crime
Click to expand...

You're reflexively declaring everybody else "emotional" who doesn't agree with you.
Let's look at the massacre issue first - most massacres are done by active shooters, not by ninjas running around with swords.

Allowing hormonal teenagers the opportunity to own semi-automatic rifles is asking for trouble. Teenagers lack the life experience and emotional maturity to be entrusted with highly lethal weaponry like semi-automatic rifles. I don't see that an age-limit of 21 would cause the sky to fall - but you're talking like it will (thin end of the wedge, blahblah)
 
sanman said:
You're reflexively declaring everybody else "emotional" who doesn't agree with you.
Let's look at the massacre issue first - most massacres are done by active shooters, not by ninjas running around with swords.

Allowing hormonal teenagers the opportunity to own semi-automatic rifles is asking for trouble. Teenagers lack the life experience and emotional maturity to be entrusted with highly lethal weaponry like semi-automatic rifles. I don't see that an age-limit of 21 would cause the sky to fall - but you're talking like it will (thin end of the wedge, blahblah)
Click to expand...

How many of these shooters were under 21?

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
 
sanman said:
You're reflexively declaring everybody else "emotional" who doesn't agree with you.
Let's look at the massacre issue first - most massacres are done by active shooters, not by ninjas running around with swords.

Allowing hormonal teenagers the opportunity to own semi-automatic rifles is asking for trouble. Teenagers lack the life experience and emotional maturity to be entrusted with highly lethal weaponry like semi-automatic rifles. I don't see that an age-limit of 21 would cause the sky to fall - but you're talking like it will (thin end of the wedge, blahblah)
Click to expand...

so I guess we shouldn't put them behind automatic cannons mounted on armored vehicles then or have them flying helicopters carrying enough ordnance to wipe out the lower east side of Manhattan in 3.5 seconds
 
TurtleDude said:
so I guess we shouldn't put them behind automatic cannons mounted on armored vehicles then or have them flying helicopters carrying enough ordnance to wipe out the lower east side of Manhattan in 3.5 seconds
Click to expand...

Posse Comitatus already takes care of that.
 
sanman said:
Fair enough - an age limit restriction of 21 years won't stop everything, but at least it will benefit school shootings
Remember that "Perfect is the Enemy of the Good"
Click to expand...

School shooters from the school typically aren't 18. They'll just find the gun at home or buy it illegally.
 
sanman said:
Posse Comitatus already takes care of that.
Click to expand...

wrong-that has nothing to do with this argument. PC means the military cannot be used in civilian law enforcement. WTF does that have to do with maturity? if you don't trust an 18 year old to own a 22 rifle, why would you trust him to fly a weapon that can kill 5000 people in a couple seconds -often in civilian environments (I guess you don't understand that most of our military bases are near civilian populations)
 
sanman said:
Fair enough - an age limit restriction of 21 years won't stop everything, but at least it will benefit school shootings
Remember that "Perfect is the Enemy of the Good"
Click to expand...

why not make the age 50 then?
 
TurtleDude said:
so I guess we shouldn't put them behind automatic cannons mounted on armored vehicles then or have them flying helicopters carrying enough ordnance to wipe out the lower east side of Manhattan in 3.5 seconds
Click to expand...

Nothing like double standards. You can fight and die for this country but you are only an adult if you do something wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom