• 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!

1 dead, at least 24 shot, including children, at Arkansas car show

Pick one. Then show how it would comply with the constitution.

The availability of guns has increased by over 270 million since 1986, while the rate of violent crime and homicides has declined. Guns have nothing to do with it.
The current stance on guns does not necessarily comply with the constitution either. we are living under a pro gun activists interpretation of the 2nd, which leaves out the whole part of a well regulated militia.
 
When was the last shooting prior to this incident when the same gun laws were in place?
 
It seems the police are still suspecting more than one shooter, which makes me wonder if it was gang related. It apparently happened outside the show. Typical gang SOS?
 
No state allows shooting people (with narrow exceptions for self-defense), yet that law is less effective because criminals, by definition, ignore and/or violate laws. The idea that someone intending to commit a murder (or a mass shooting) will decide to change their plans based on fear of violating gun possession laws is ridiculous. BTW, most of those US “gun deaths” are suicides.
This isn't true. There are laws proven to limit this type of gun violence, and also the Red Flag Law lowers the suicide rate, since you brought it up.
There are laws proven to limit use by those with mental health issues, and misdemeanors. Also, there are laws to give officers discretion on issuing concealed carry permits. There's so many proven to lower these numbers, it's just politics that convince people it won't. Not the truth.

What we can't stop is the NRA wanting to sell, lobby and scare gun owners into not wanting the laws. They spend over 3 mil a year and 30 mil in campaign contributions convincing you. That's the problem.

None of the laws that would help prevent this, would impede on non violent gun owners. So why try to prevent the laws from being implemented around the country?
 
But we know the firearm is irrelevant to the homicide rate. As the rate of ownership increased by over 270 million, yet homicides decreased.

You should try reading something other than those sources that you KNOW speak the TRUTH

Feb 3, 2022

What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.

More Americans died of gun-related injuries in 2020 than in any other year on record, according to recently published statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). That included a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides. Despite the increase in such fatalities, the rate of gun deaths – a statistic that accounts for the nation’s growing population – remains below the levels of earlier years.
[. . .]
In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides, along with three other, less common types of gun-related deaths tracked by the CDC: those that were unintentional, those that involved law enforcement and those whose circumstances could not be determined.
[. . .]
Though they tend to get less public attention than gun-related murders, suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC.
here's the response to the claim about homicides decreasing
Gun murders, in particular, have climbed sharply in recent years. The 19,384 gun murders that took place in 2020 were the most since at least 1968, exceeding the previous peak of 18,253 recorded by the CDC in 1993. The 2020 total represented a 34% increase from the year before, a 49% increase over five years and a 75% increase over 10 years.
 
It's not about making them fearful of violating the law, it's about making it more difficult for them to obtain the object in the first place. Besides, conservatives certainly DO seem to think laws can affect criminal behavior. It's one of the main reasons they support the death penalty.

The DP (or LWOP) deter crime by eliminating recidivism - not by pretending that the law (alone) will prevent criminal activity. Making it “more difficult” to exercise a constitutional right seems to imply that freedom is the ‘root cause’ of crime, thus only by reducing freedom can crime be reduced. It is already illegal (a felony in many states) for a prohibited person to possess any gun, yet that law is not being strictly (aka resulting in substantial jail or prison time) enforced.

Since illegal gun possession (alone) is a non-violent crime many areas have decided to impose jail (or prison) time in less than 1/2 of such cases.

 
The belief that the 2nd Amendment absolutely bars any gun control legislation is ludicrous. For example, the 1st Amendment guarantees the rights to speech, assembly, and religion; yet, none of these rights is absolute. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, you need permits to hold protests and you need to meet certain standards to qualify as a tax-free religion.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment is a license for everyone to open carry, or to buy any firearm you wish including Tommy guns and freakin' howitzers, strains the bounds of sanity.
And yet that is the steadfast belief of the pro-gun crowd - that shooting deaths provide the blood that waters the tree of 2A liberty.

Sandy Hook should have been the tipping point, yet nothing changed. This is simply what America is.
 
What we can't stop is the NRA wanting to sell, lobby and scare gun owners into not wanting the laws. They spend over 3 mil a year and 30 mil in campaign contributions convincing you. That's the problem.
I had to laugh when I saw how NRA members were getting robbed blind.


 
And yet that is the steadfast belief of the pro-gun crowd - that shooting deaths provide the blood that waters the tree of 2A liberty.

Sandy Hook should have been the tipping point, yet nothing changed. This is simply what America is.
You know what sucks, most non violent gun owners agree with way more gun laws that are proven to lower the deaths but when it turns political those very same gun owners jump on the "no laws" train with the very government they seem to fear. It's sad.
 
What we can't stop is the NRA wanting to sell, lobby and scare gun owners into not wanting the laws. They spend over 3 mil a year and 30 mil in campaign contributions convincing you. That's the problem.
Bingo.
 
Thats a shame.

In other news....

Nice going NRA dad!!!! Keep that family and those kids "safe" from tyranny! Lots of FrEeDuMbZ$™ too!!!



PRAISE GUN ! ! ! ! 🙏🙏🙏
 
This isn't true. There are laws proven to limit this type of gun violence, and also the Red Flag Law lowers the suicide rate, since you brought it up.
There are laws proven to limit use by those with mental health issues, and misdemeanors. Also, there are laws to give officers discretion on issuing concealed carry permits. There's so many proven to lower these numbers, it's just politics that convince people it won't. Not the truth.

What we can't stop is the NRA wanting to sell, lobby and scare gun owners into not wanting the laws. They spend over 3 mil a year and 30 mil in campaign contributions convincing you. That's the problem.

None of the laws that would help prevent this, would impede on non violent gun owners. So why try to prevent the laws from being implemented around the country?

So called ‘red flag’ laws are simply an extension of civil asset forfeiture laws which impose a sentence without any criminal conviction or (in most cases) even a criminal charge. Absence of a criminal charge means that the ‘accused’ gets no state provided legal representation (a public defender) or any guarantee of a court date.

To assert that ‘red flag’ laws apply only to “violent gun owners” is pure BS.

After New Mexico enacted its red flag law last year, the head of the New Mexico Sheriffs' Association, Tony Mace, wrote a public letter disavowing the policy for that very reason.
"Citizens have a right to bear arms and we cannot circumvent that right when they have not even committed a crime or even been accused of committing one," he wrote.

 
The one that stops allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy guns.

Hmm… please tell us, exactly, what should have prevented the unnamed suspect (or person of interest) from buying a gun?
 
**** the Second Amendment.
It's rather interesting that so many people on the left love to claim that no one is trying to take away people's right to own guns but yet we have posts like this.

Hmmmm wonder why so many people in the right don't trust those on the left when they make the first claim.
 
The current stance on guns does not necessarily comply with the constitution either. we are living under a pro gun activists interpretation of the 2nd, which leaves out the whole part of a well regulated militia.
Except it doesn't.

The amendment says absolutely nothing about people being to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people.

Maybe ask a founder or two who the people are.
 
Except it doesn't.

The amendment says absolutely nothing about people being to be in a militia to keep and bear arms. It is the right of the people.

Maybe ask a founder or two who the people are.

Then what is the point of having the part stating militia in the BOR?
 
He wouldn't have a gun.

You don’t even know who “he” is, where (or how) “he” got the gun or how many others were (also) shooting into that crowd.
 
Then what is the point of having the part stating militia in the BOR?
It says why the people have the right to keep and bear arms is important.

Not that one needs be in a formal milita to have that right. Other wise it would say the right of the milita not the right of the people.

And the founders were quite clear who the people were.

But it's clear why so many want to pretend that is not the case.
 
The DP (or LWOP) deter crime by eliminating recidivism - not by pretending that the law (alone) will prevent criminal activity.

It is literally one of the first argument proponents go to every time I debate them: 'the death penalty makes people think twice before committing murders.' It may not be YOUR argument but it is undeniably one of the top 3 arguments conservatives make.

Making it “more difficult” to exercise a constitutional right seems to imply that freedom is the ‘root cause’ of crime, thus only by reducing freedom can crime be reduced.

Is that the argument to be made against driver's licenses regulations, which are literally harder to get than guns?

It is already illegal (a felony in many states) for a prohibited person to possess any gun, yet that law is not being strictly (aka resulting in substantial jail or prison time) enforced.

The only people I see pushing for prohibited persons to be allowed to obtain guns are conservatives. They even advocate those previously convicted of violent crimes such as domestic abuse be allowed to buy/own guns.

Since illegal gun possession (alone) is a non-violent crime many areas have decided to impose jail (or prison) time in less than 1/2 of such cases.


And one of the few crimes a liberal judge is more likely to impose harsher sentences than a conservative one.
 
It's rather interesting that so many people on the left love to claim that no one is trying to take away people's right to own guns but yet we have posts like this.

Hmmmm wonder why so many people in the right don't trust those on the left when they make the first claim.
I don't presume to speak for the whole left.
 
I don't presume to speak for the whole left.
Didn't say you did.
Was talking about those on the left who try and pretend that no one is out to take away the people's 2nd amendment. Clearly some on the left are.
 
i wonder how many would have been shot if everyone was using tasers instead.
 
It is literally one of the first argument proponents go to every time I debate them: 'the death penalty makes people think twice before committing murders.' It may not be YOUR argument but it is undeniably one of the top 3 arguments conservatives make.



OK, so that makes it a straw man.


Is that the argument to be made against driver's licenses regulations, which are literally harder to get than guns?

Driving on public roadways is not a right - it is merely a state issued privilege. Your argument appears to be to turn gun possession into a state issued privilege.

The only people I see pushing for prohibited persons to be allowed to obtain guns are conservatives. They even advocate those previously convicted of violent crimes such as domestic abuse be allowed to buy/own guns.

Again, that was not what I said. I am not advocating for more leniency for prohibited persons being found illegally armed. In fact, I am arguing the reverse.

And one of the few crimes a liberal judge is more likely to impose harsher sentences than a conservative one.

Not so, as the link noted. The problem appears to be that too many (young, male) black folks end up getting caught, thus would end up being jailed ‘disproportionally’.
 
I don't presume to speak for the whole left.

Nobody claimed that you did so. You have yet to say what specific law would have prevented the (as yet unknown) shooter(s) from having a gun in this case.
 
Back
Top Bottom