• 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!

At least 8 people were killed and more than 60 hurt in mass shootings across the US this weekend

Even twice as many wouldn't be all that many, in the grand scheme of things. Far more than that were killed by drunk drivers this weekend, and every other weekend. Strange nobody started a thread about it.
Actually, America has imposed relatively heavy restrictions around driving. The government has done what it can. That is why there isn’t a thread about it.
 
We care about mass shootings because every one of them is preventable. All you need are real, effective, national and sensible gun regulation.

Last thing I needed to read from you. Utter nonsense.
 
Actually, America has imposed relatively heavy restrictions around driving. The government has done what it can. That is why there isn’t a thread about it.

No it hasn't. Not even close. You would understand this if you would imagine, just for a second, what would happen if the kinds of restrictions Democrats want to impose on firearm ownership, and more specifically the kinds of penalties they want to impose for violating those restrictions, were applied to speeding and drunk driving.
 
Last edited:
That's a different problem, and a completely unrelated issue. Why can't you see that?

Just because it's a different problem doesn't mean it's not worth referring to as a point of comparison. It's actually a great idea if you care about having standards.
 
Buht muh freedumb...
yeah freedom seems to upset many on the left-when they see those enjoying that freedom happening to be mainly GOP voters.
 
LOL.

Your whataboutisms are very feeble, but I know that you 1) probably do not have the capacity to understand that and/or understand why...and 2) would not care even if you did have the capacity to understand that.
Disgusting little society we've nurtured for ourselves here....a real shithole. Chickens are coming home to roost.🐔🐔
But at least FrEeDuMbZ$™.(y)

Yawn. The fact that you think it is "whataboutism" is what is feeble, and just highlights your hypocrisy (or your own inability to comprehend the obvious).
 
Its worth pointing out that the OP cared so much about the 8 people killed and more than 60 hurt that they posted once and bailed. No discussion of circumstances, no discussion of the shooters, no discussion of the culture that leads to the incidents...a snippet from CNN on gun violence and then peace out.

Thats how little the left actually cares about the victims of the day to day violence in the country.
 
Just because it's a different problem doesn't mean it's not worth referring to as a point of comparison. It's actually a great idea if you care about having standards.

At least 8 people were killed and more than 60 hurt in mass shootings across the US this weekend​




yeah, so

it's my god damn right!


















/sarcasm

How many of the rights you personally enjoy are you willing to surrender in order to have a small chance to save a fraction of 8 lives per weekend?
 
It's funny. I see a lot of people whining about supposed "whataboutism" and "thread hijacking," but I can't seem to find any posts by those same people identifying a supposed solution to the problem that is even remotely proportional to what we apply to solving much more serious problems.
 
How many of the rights you personally enjoy are you willing to surrender in order to have a small chance to save a fraction of 8 lives per weekend?
How many gun deaths does it take until you say guns are the problem?

Dont worry, you dont have to answer that question. We know the answer.


"as long as i have mine, i dont give a shit about anyone else"
typical con mentality.
 
How many gun deaths does it take until you say guns are the problem?

Dont worry, you dont have to answer that question. We know the answer.


"as long as i have mine, i dont give a shit about anyone else"
typical con mentality.

How many times will you dodge the question with an argument that is a non sequitur, straw man, false dichotomy, and red herring all rolled into one?

No number of "gun deaths" would necessarily lead anyone with half a brain to the conclusion that "guns are the problem" unless there's some convincing evidence that those deaths wouldn't have happened but for the lack of some solution offered by those claiming that "guns are the problem."

But if I want to be like you, and "give a shit about" stuff regardless of inconvenient facts like that, I need a point of comparison to answer your question. So I'll tell you what. When each of the following things has happened, I'll consider your argument that "guns are the problem" (whatever that actually means), and that I've been a selfish dufus all this time for thinking otherwise:

1. The "gun death" rate becomes equal to the alcohol death rate (right now it's less than half).
2. Democrats tell us that alcohol-related deaths are a national epidemic that require immediate Congressional action, and make the issue a central point in their party platform.
3. Democrats insist that we need to pass all kinds of new laws regulating the sale, possession, and use of alcohol at the federal level, all backed by the threat of felony-level convictions for first violations of even the most seemingly innocuous restrictions by individual alcohol users.

When all that happens, I'll know that the people who most claim "give a shit about" people dying aren't just hypocrites who want to have their cake and eat it too. Do you "give a shit about anyone else" that is dying because we don't have "common sense" alcohol laws? Or do you only "give a shit" if the proposed solution to the problem (guns, alcohol) doesn't require you to sacrifice anything personally?
 
No, they’re not. You’re dreaming. How, for example, would you have prevented the 2015 Paris attacks, in which ISIS-affiliated terrorists used a Yugoslavian-made AK variant and suicide belts to kill 130 people? These weapons were already illegal in France.



What’s normal is Democrat-style revolving-door justice in which violent criminals are arrested and then let out on bail or paroled to murder thousands of people every year.



Yeah, like I said, good luck with that. And even if you get the guns who’s going to prevent the loons or terrorists from using a vehicle to mow people down at parades? NOBODY.

The fact is that you had to go back seven yaars to find an American style mass shooting.

But, search as you may, you won’t find one in which some crazed white guy steeped in gun culture shoots up a school or a shopping center.

But the gun nuts in the US would rather that be normalized, instead of registering guns or requiring that anyone be stable or proficient in its safe use.

How many have we had here since. Your response refutes your own argument.

The revolving door justice theme is just as old and hoary. It came out of the mouths of George Wallace, Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and Spiro Agnew.
 
The fact is that you had to go back seven yaars to find an American style mass shooting.

Well, no, I didn't. That one just came to mind. But, yes, I will concede there are more "American-style" mass shootings in the United States, although I could have mentioned other countries like Mexico, which has one gun store and about 30,000 people murdered a year. A number of mass shootings have occurred there in recent years, such as the 2019 massacre of nine people in La Mora, Sonora, or the 2021 massacre of migrants who were shot and had their corpses burned in Camargo, Tamaulipas.

In general, rifles of all types are used in about 300 homicides a year. While any death is a personal tragedy, those numbers pale in comparison to the six or seven thousand homicides a year committed using handguns. Many if not most of those victims are black. Many of the perpetrators are already prohibited from legally owning or possessing a firearm, because they're either under-age, convicted felons, or using a weapon obtained illegally. Most mass shootings involve handguns.

So my question to you is why are you focused on "assault rifles," which fall into the rifle category? Is it because they're scary looking to the public and you think there's a better chance of getting them banned? I mean, you have to start somewhere, right? Where would the bans stop? Because it would soon become apparent that a ban on these weapons would be a flop. I mean, one of the worst mass murders in American history, Columbine, occurred during the last so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazine ban. And do you honestly believe any ban of these weapons would stop someone who is hellbent on committing mass murder? What's to stop him from using a homemade bomb or a vehicle, as in the 2016 Nice terrorist incident in which 86 people were killed and 458 others were injured in less than a minute? Why are you ignoring the black genocide? You need to snap out of your utopian fantasyland and check in with the dystopian reality of progressivism's lax attitude towards criminals. Progressive legislators, judges, parole boards, and DA's have probably killed more people with their idiot policies of releasing violent criminals back into society than crazed white guys wielding assault weapons, Rambo-style.


 
Back
Top Bottom