• 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!

40, 30, 5

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
71,642
Reaction score
34,857
The USA has 40% of all the guns held by the citizenry in the world. The USA has 30% of all the mass shootings in teh world. The USA has 5% of the worlds population.

All studies by objective, non partisan groups show that the only correlation between mass shooting and where they occur is the proliferations of guns.

Does anyone still not support outlawing guns?
 
Correlation does not imply causation. NEXT.
 

Yes, many people still don't support outlawing guns, just like they don't support outlawing alcohol.
 
Bullseye said:
Correlation does not imply causation. NEXT.
Click to expand...

An obvious deflection like every rattlesnake worshipers loves to do.

If you want to debate the issue, post objective facts about this specific correlation to prove causation does not also exist.
 
Rich2018 said:
And many people do support banning guns, but not banning alcohol.
Click to expand...

No, not many. Probably more would support banning alcohol. Besides, the ones who support banning guns but not alcohol are hypocrites. We shouldn't care what they think.
 
Big todo about nothing. You are 35 time more likely to be struck by lightning than shot in a mass shooting. Beyond that nearly all mass shootings are gang on gang violence. Intelligent people realize that in a country of 330 million, you are going to have a few nut jobs and extremists.

However, if we stop taking immigrants from countries where we are conducting war, it would lower the number of mass shootings. For example, on Feb 25th we bombed Syria. Guess where the Boulder shooter is from.

Another example. The M13 gang has been involved in numerous mass shootings. Sealing the southern border would lessen that.
 

1.Mass shootings make up a tiny percentage of murders. Its like saying we got to ban bath tubs to stop drownings when most people who drowned did so in pool or natural water source.

2.If those studies were objective then they would show the amount of homicides those countries have before and after they enacted their gun bans. Because the UK Australia never saw a dramatic drop in homicides after their bans. Nor did they see a dramatic drop in mass shootings. Patting yourself on the back and saying we banned guns means nothing if nearly the same amount of people are being killed year after year after you banned guns.


Does anyone still not support outlawing guns?
Click to expand...
No I do not support banning guns. If we banned guns then only the government and criminals will have guns , the two groups of people I trust the least with guns. People who think the government will never turn on them probably think the easter bunny and Santa Clause are real and should stay away from people selling deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge and ocean front property in Arizona.
 

In order for this OP to be honest, it has to 3 things...
1. Define mass shooting.
2. Explain that large portions of the worlds population dont report at all,, or accurately,, mass shootings,, according to our definition..
3. Explain how if we included governments killing citizens as mass shootings, the math suddenly swings heavily in our favor.


And then u would still comment, that, just like with covid...if we removed NY, our deaths are actually in line...if we removed Chicago, our mass shootings go way down.
 
Tlrmln said:
No, not many. Probably more would support banning alcohol. Besides, the ones who support banning guns but not alcohol are hypocrites. We shouldn't care what they think.
Click to expand...

I think you're wrong, and many people would support banning guns
I think very few people would support banning alcohol
Why would people support the former and not the latter be hypocrites ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I think you're wrong, and many people would support banning guns
I think very few people would support banning alcohol
Why would people support the former and not the latter be hypocrites ?
Click to expand...
Because they both kill people. One kills a lot of people, actually. Way more than the other...
 
Rich2018 said:
I think you're wrong, and many people would support banning guns
I think very few people would support banning alcohol
Why would people support the former and not the latter be hypocrites ?
Click to expand...

I assume the reason that some people want to ban guns is that they think it will save lives. So they're asking people to give up some of their freedom, something they enjoy, in order to supposedly save lives. If they demand that to save lives, they should be willing to do the same with something they value and enjoy. The fact that they are are not is a blatant example of hypocrisy.

And if my assumption is wrong, that they want to ban guns for some reason other than saving lives, then chances are they are just dicks, and there's no reason to call them hypocrites.
 
You're already the most incarcerated country in the world, with the most prisoners, the most lawyers and the most law enforcement agencies.
I got to wonder if another law is really what you need.
 
Tlrmln said:
I assume the reason that some people want to ban guns is that they think it will save lives...
Click to expand...

Well yes, and it will cut some crime, but that's not the driving force behind calls for gun control

In the UK, Canada and Austria, gun control has been driven by mass shootings in all three countries

So they're asking people to give up some of their freedom, something they enjoy, in order to supposedly save lives....
Click to expand...

No, to reduce if not stop, shootings in general but mass shootings in particular


If they demand that to save lives, they should be willing to do the same with something they value and enjoy....
Click to expand...

They don't, so they won't


The fact that they are are not is a blatant example of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

No, you just don't understand the motivation behind gun control

And if my assumption is wrong, that they want to ban guns for some reason other than saving lives, then chances are they are just dicks, and there's no reason to call them hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Respectively:
You are
They do
They're not.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, you just don't understand the motivation behind gun control
Click to expand...

What am I missing? If it's just about mass shootings, is that not about saving lives? If so, that's just makes it even more hypocritical given how small an issue it is.
 
Tlrmln said:
What am I missing? If it's just about mass shootings, is that not about saving lives? If so, that's just makes it even more hypocritical given how small an issue it is.
Click to expand...


That gun control in the countries mentioned was in response to mass shootings.
 
Rich2018 said:
That gun control in the countries mentioned was in response to mass shootings.
Click to expand...

1. No it wasn't. They had plenty of gun control without there being any mass shootings.
2. So what? What's that have to do with my comment. Why are people so worried about mass shootings?
 
Tlrmln said:
1. No it wasn't. They had plenty of gun control without there being any mass shootings.
2. So what? What's that have to do with my comment. Why are people so worried about mass shootings?
Click to expand...

Australia, Canada and the UK all imposed gun control following mass shooting in their respected countries:

Australia (1996 Port Arthur massacre)
Canada (2020 Nova Scotia mass shootings)
UK (1987 Hungerford and 1996 Dunblane mass shootings)
 
Rich2018 said:
Australia, Canada and the UK all imposed gun control following mass shooting in their respected countries:

Australia (1996 Port Arthur massacre)
Canada (2020 Nova Scotia mass shootings)
UK (1987 Hungerford and 1996 Dunblane mass shootings)
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to answer my question, or stay on topic?
 
Yes,

Nothing above even impacts my view on the legality of law-abiding citizens owning guns in any way . . . why would it?
 

Why do you think outlawing guns will all of a sudden work when outlawing other things did not work out so well?

(Our nation’s history is not on your side and ultimately you will go after minorities the most.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…