• 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!

Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

  • Yes, we can help

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • No, you'll only reduce mass shootings over my bullet ridden, bloody corpse

    Votes: 3 30.0%

  • Other, specify below

    Votes: 4 40.0%
  • Total voters
    10
The pro-gun folks can't do anything about it. The anti-gun folks can't do anything about it either.

Nothing will change until the idiots on both sides realize that we have a culture of violence and until we acknowledge that and start putting serious effort into changing our mindset, shootings will continue.
 
Rich2018 said:
I suspect that shooters ARE pro-gun folks
Click to expand...
I suppose they are to a certain extent but they're certainly not pro 2A. They're pro gun in the sense that they want to be able to have access to guns so they can do their mass shootings, but they're not 2A in the sense that they don't want other people to have access to guns so that they can shoot back, no wonder the vast majority of mass shootings happen in gun free zones.

I suppose you could say liberals are pro gun as well to a certain extent, they're all fine and good with the government having access to guns, or with their own security detail having access to guns.

Rich2018 said:
Why are liberals cowards ?
Because we don't want to get shot by pro-gun folks ?
Click to expand...
They're cowards because they're not the ones who stop mass shootings, at least the vast majority don't. You do occasionally find some liberals who are pro 2A and who do carry guns and who would act to stop an active shooter but they're far and few between. As a general rule liberals are against gun rights.
 
MamboDervish said:
Completely meaningless. There's absolutely no way to tell how many gun carriers were present at every shooting. For all you know, at half those events there were a dozen armed heroes hiding in the corner under a chair with their weapons still in their pants.
Click to expand...
But the fact remains that it was armed carriers who stopped the mass shootings in the examples I provided, it was pro 2A people who stopped the shootings, I never heard of an anti 2A person acting to stop a shooting.

MamboDervish said:
I recall hearing about at least a couple who came forward after the theater shooting in Aurora Colorado in 2012, admitting they just kept their heads down and did nothing. The theater was a "gun free zone", and the concealed carry cowards said they were afraid they'd be charged with having a weapon at the cinema. My brother relayed the story he had heard from some locals. He lives in Aurora and was in the same theater less than 2 weeks before the shooting.
Click to expand...
Which just goes to show you that gun free zones are playgrounds for mass shooters. They know that people aren't going to be shooting back at them either because they don't want to be charged with having a gun in a gun free zone or because they won't have guns to shoot back with in the first place. If the theater had not been a gun free zone no doubt those who were carrying would've shot Holmes and stopped him from killing so many people.

MamboDervish said:
Besides, the whole "good guys with guns" fallacy has been debunked more ways, and more times than is even worth mentioning.

www.businessinsider.com

New research puts the 'good guy with a gun' idea to rest: Loose concealed-carry laws are linked to more firearm homicides

States with looser concealed-carry laws have higher rates of gun homicide. And higher gun-ownership rates are associated with more mass shootings.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
abcnews.go.com

Breaking down the NRA-backed theory that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun

The idea is raised in the wake of many mass shootings.
abcnews.go.com abcnews.go.com
giffords.org

The “Good Guy with a Gun” Myth

The research is clear: owning a gun does not make you or the people around you safer.
giffords.org giffords.org
www.pbs.org

How the ‘good guy with a gun’ became a deadly American fantasy

The archetype can be traced back to 1920s detective fiction, when gruff, gun-toting, cigarette-smoking mavericks became heroic figures.
www.pbs.org www.pbs.org
Click to expand...
Those sources are unreliable and are unfairly biased in that they're against gun rights, particularly Insider and PBS.

MamboDervish said:
The simple truth is: The single most common reason given for obtaining a handgun is "personal protection". And what does that mean? Most people want guns because they're afraid.
Click to expand...
No they're prepared. There's a difference between being afraid and being prepared.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Which just goes to show you that gun free zones are playgrounds for mass shooters.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Mass shooters happen in any and every type of zone in the country. There's no direct evidence that mass shooters unduly target gun free zones. None whatsoever. And if people with guns are already in "gun free zones" - and we know they are - that's no guarantee that they'll stop anything. But the evidence that demonstrates that the presence of more guns results in more shootings is not in question. The data says what it says.
DebateChallenge said:
Those sources are unreliable and are unfairly biased in that they're against gun rights, particularly Insider and PBS.
Click to expand...
No - they're very reliable sources, and include scholarly studies. Please provide proof that "they're against gun rights". You simply won't admit that anything that challenges your falsely based beliefs will come under the heading "unreliable" source. Dismissing the messenger spares you from having to address the data in the message. It's just intellectual dishonesty on your part,
DebateChallenge said:
No they're prepared. There's a difference between being afraid and being prepared.
Click to expand...
LMAO - yeah, they're prepared because they're SCARED !!
 
TurtleDude said:
and no one has died from the guns of most lawful owners. Yet you want to ban them from being owned
Click to expand...

Because few pool owners, seize people to drag them home and drown them in their pool.

If you could make it so your guns could not be carried off your property, I'd have no problem letting you, and other gun owners, keep and bear them.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because few pool owners, seize people to drag them home and drown them in their pool.

If you could make it so your guns could not be carried off your property, I'd have no problem letting you, and other gun owners, keep and bear them.
Click to expand...
You're on record as claiming shotguns are not portable. By your definition they already cannot be carried off property.
 
Rich2018 said:
Because few pool owners, seize people to drag them home and drown them in their pool.

If you could make it so your guns could not be carried off your property, I'd have no problem letting you, and other gun owners, keep and bear them.
Click to expand...
we don't care Richard. We know that if saving innocent lives was the true motivation of the bannerrhoid movement, there are many other things that should merit their attention before firearms
 
TurtleDude said:
we don't care Richard. We know that if saving innocent lives was the true motivation of the bannerrhoid movement, there are many other things that should merit their attention before firearms
Click to expand...
No. It doesn't work that way. All kinds of things can, and are, being promoted to save innocent lives - not before sane gun control regulation - but simultaneously. Universal healthcare, for example, would definitely save innocent lives. Strong environmental regulation, oversight, and enforcement would definitely save innocent lives.

It's not a zero sum game.
 
MamboDervish said:
No. It doesn't work that way. All kinds of things can, and are, being promoted to save innocent lives - not before sane gun control regulation - but simultaneously. Universal healthcare, for example, would definitely save innocent lives. Strong environmental regulation, oversight, and enforcement would definitely save innocent lives.

It's not a zero sum game.
Click to expand...
here is the problem the bannerrhoids and those who blather on about "sane gun laws" (which invariably mean more restrictions only on honest people since criminals are already banned from owning firearms) have

1) good people with guns DECREASE crime
2) bad people with guns make crime worse

gun control only reduces 1 and not 2
 
TurtleDude said:
we don't care Richard. We know that if saving innocent lives was the true motivation of the bannerrhoid movement, there are many other things that should merit their attention before firearms
Click to expand...

So you have no answer.

You just don't care.
 
DebateChallenge said:
They're scared of other people who run out and buy guns, its that simple.
Click to expand...
? DUH ? Simple is right. Let's try this again. Perhaps if I write it louder.

IF THEY WERE SCARED, THEY'D RUN OUT AND BUY GUNS! BUT THEY DON'T !!!

It's only the scared people who run out and buy guns. Get it?
 
MamboDervish said:
? DUH ? Simple is right. Let's try this again. Perhaps if I write it louder.

IF THEY WERE SCARED, THEY'D RUN OUT AND BUY GUNS! BUT THEY DON'T !!!

It's only the scared people who run out and buy guns. Get it?
Click to expand...
The reason they don't run out and buy guns is not because they aren't scared, its because they're ignorant and naive.

People who do buy guns don't do it because they're scared they do it because they're prepared.
 
DebateChallenge said:
The reason they don't run out and buy guns is not because they aren't scared, its because they're ignorant and naive.

People who do buy guns don't do it because they're scared they do it because they're prepared.
Click to expand...
I can see that you are indeed Debate Challenged.
 
swing_voter said:
Can the pro gun folks help us prevent mass shootings in any way?

For example, mental health exams might've prevented both the Boulder super market shooting and the guy who killed all those Asian women. Both bought their guns shortly before they went on a rampage.

Longer waiting periods might've helped.

Is the pro gun crowd willing to do anything at all to reduce the problem?



.
Click to expand...
Both of those ideas are acceptable to me, but they wont work 100% which means you will just keep seeking more things that wont work 100%. Its not going to be a perfect answer, and that benefits the incremental strategy so many are really employing under the guise of prevention.
 
RF667799 said:
Take one attribute of gun design (the capability of killing), and then claim that "guns are designed to kill", implying that is their sole purpose.

Inherent to the design of cars is their capability of being driven into a tree at 100mph. Thus, cars are designed to be driven into trees at 100mph.
Click to expand...
Sure there's lots we can do with guns. Swing 'em I suppose, um...tap the butt on the ground. Er.. the Israeli Galil had a bottle opener under barrel; umm...masturbate over them? Guns are very versatile, they do heaps more than just shooting.
 
uptower said:
Sure there's lots we can do with guns. Swing 'em I suppose, um...tap the butt on the ground. Er.. the Israeli Galil had a bottle opener under barrel; umm...masturbate over them? Guns are very versatile, they do heaps more than just shooting.
Click to expand...
And you can stir your drink with some of them. Collect'em - trade'm - put stickers on them. Shove them in wet cement and pull them out before it hardens. Use them for earrings. They really are very versatile. They do so much more than just shoot.

And everyone knows that cars are designed, engineered, manufactured, advertised and sold to crash into things. It's probably their main purpose.


.:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom