• 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!

Charlie Hebdo Massacre illustrates...

Is your argument essentially that if we can demonstrate that a law has been circumvented in one case, the entire legal principle behind that law is an unconditional failure and all laws in that field a pointless waste of time?

The number of mass shootings and shootings in general are significantly lower in Europe compared to the US. Do you not accept that gun laws could possibly be at least one of the factors in that?



Not entirely, read the last link.
 
And yet in the US, where there are sooo many guns, there has been more mass shootings than days in the year so far... Funny how the gun laws dont lower the amount of attacks eh?? Funny how we never hear about how a "good guy with a gun" stopped one of these mass shootings from happening... but hey!

How can good guys with guns stop mass shootings when they almost always happen where guns aren't allowed?
 
And yet in the US, where there are sooo many guns, there has been more mass shootings than days in the year so far... Funny how the gun laws dont lower the amount of attacks eh?? Funny how we never hear about how a "good guy with a gun" stopped one of these mass shootings from happening... but hey!

You don't hear about mass murders when a good guy with a gun stopped it because a gun guy with a gun stopped it. It happens much more often then you think.
 
Straw man argument. Charlie Hebdo was a mass shooting inspired by terrorism, location irrelevant.

No strawman dude: valid question. When is the last time a French mass murderer walked into his local gun store and bought the means with which to kill dozens of people in a few minutes? location - extremely relevant. It defeats you.

Yours is the strawman if I ever saw one.
 
No strawman dude: valid question. When is the last time a French mass murderer walked into his local gun store and bought the means with which to kill dozens of people in a few minutes? location - extremely relevant. It defeats you.

Yours is the strawman if I ever saw one.

Well since the French mass murders were committed with illegal weapons that changes everything. ��
 
When was the last time a French movie theater or grammar school was wiped out by a guy with an AR?

With an ar no, but france has actually had quite a few mass shooting just in the last year. Also if we use the same standard as the orlando attack and classify terrorist acts as anything but, france has us beat per capita by massive margins, meaning you are more likely to die in france during a mass shooting than in america.
 
No strawman dude: valid question. When is the last time a French mass murderer walked into his local gun store and bought the means with which to kill dozens of people in a few minutes? location - extremely relevant. It defeats you.

Yours is the strawman if I ever saw one.

The weapons used in france were illegal by france and even the us, they were full auto ak-47's and rpgs. Also a full auto submachine gun literally can be made with parts from home depot, Which backs up the statement that gun bans do not deter criminals, if they have a demand for it someone will supply it. Anti gun proponents think attacking the supply will change it, and refuse to adress the demand.
 
With an ar no, but france has actually had quite a few mass shooting just in the last year. Also if we use the same standard as the orlando attack and classify terrorist acts as anything but, france has us beat per capita by massive margins, meaning you are more likely to die in france during a mass shooting than in america.

Were the weapons purchased in France by French citizens? Per capita means nothing to that point. We're not talking about a standard I'm afraid.

No offense.
 
Were the weapons purchased in France by French citizens? Per capita means nothing to that point. We're not talking about a standard I'm afraid.

No offense.

So the strict gun control laws in France didn't stop mass shootings. How about that.
 
So the strict gun control laws in France didn't stop mass shootings. How about that.

So, the terrorists didn't walk into their local gun store and buy everything they needed for an act of terrorism.

How about that.
 
Were the weapons purchased in France by French citizens? Per capita means nothing to that point. We're not talking about a standard I'm afraid.

No offense.

So millions can die, guns be gotten just as easily, but it is alright as long as they could not legally purchase them?

Or are you creating goal posts so far off to back up your argument knowing it was a rediculous goalpost. Like for example the theatres and coffee shops and legally bought requirement. I assume you used those requirements because your argument would have been self defeated unless you went to obscure lengths to isolate anything incriminating against you out of the debate.
 
The weapons used in france were illegal by france and even the us, they were full auto ak-47's and rpgs. Also a full auto submachine gun literally can be made with parts from home depot, Which backs up the statement that gun bans do not deter criminals, if they have a demand for it someone will supply it. Anti gun proponents think attacking the supply will change it, and refuse to adress the demand.

Of course they were illegal: you know why? Those guys were enemy combatants committing an act of terrorism - that's why.
 
So millions can die, guns be gotten just as easily, but it is alright as long as they could not legally purchase them?

Or are you creating goal posts so far off to back up your argument knowing it was a rediculous goalpost. Like for example the theatres and coffee shops and legally bought requirement. I assume you used those requirements because your argument would have been self defeated unless you went to obscure lengths to isolate anything incriminating against you out of the debate.

I never said anything of the kind. We're talking about the difference between gun laws here and in France and how that effects acts of terrorism.
 
I never said anything of the kind. We're talking about the difference between gun laws here and in France and how that effects acts of terrorism.

Yes and you self defeated your argument, as france had heavy gunn restrictions, and their terrorist attack killed way more than the orlando shooter, and that is not even counting the other mass shootings. The france shooters got theirs illegally, so every single gun law in france did nothing, so should france just double secret probabtion ban full auto ak47s and rpgs?
 
Of course they were illegal: you know why? Those guys were enemy combatants committing an act of terrorism - that's why.

So why would criminals and mass mirderers here not use the same? full auto ak47 is equally illegal in france and america
 
So, the terrorists didn't walk into their local gun store and buy everything they needed for an act of terrorism.

How about that.

So as long as the murders weren't committed by guns bought legally gun control worked?
 
So as long as the murders weren't committed by guns bought legally gun control worked?

(chuckle)

dance much do ya?

And yeah, gun control worked. French citizens didn't walk into a gun store, buy what they needed and commit a mass shooting.
 
(chuckle)

dance much do ya?

And yeah, gun control worked. French citizens didn't walk into a gun store, buy what they needed and commit a mass shooting.

Because that is what French citizens would do if they could. Even their government cant trust em....
 
(chuckle)

dance much do ya?

And yeah, gun control worked. French citizens didn't walk into a gun store, buy what they needed and commit a mass shooting.

that's why french citizens cowered in the diners unable to fire back
 
(chuckle)

dance much do ya?

And yeah, gun control worked. French citizens didn't walk into a gun store, buy what they needed and commit a mass shooting.

The mass murders were committed with illegal guns so gun control worked, Brilliant!
 
So to you 67 million guns to choose from rather than 300 million guns to choose from is the deciding factor in the amount of gun crimes being committed?
Yet again (sheesh!), I’m not saying it is the deciding factor, the only factor or even a major factor. I was directly addressing a statement that is was no factor at all. That is delusional.

It’s not the raw numbers that I think is all that significant and as I’ve already pointed out, the ability of organised or career criminals to go out and obtain firearms (legally or not) with the intention of using them to commit crimes doesn’t account for a large proportion of the crimes. It’s the domestic availability of guns that I think is relevant, meaning that when unexpected incidents occur – domestic violence, road rage, bar fights etc., there’s a good change the people involved have firearms to hand when can be used to escalate the situation. It also means that if someone decides they are going to commit a crime – burglary, robbing a shop, mugging etc. – they’re more likely to be able to and to want to carry a firearm because they know there is a good chance their targets have them too.

Yet again, this doesn’t mean I’m saying American gun laws are bad or that you need to change them, this was merely a response to a single fundamentally flawed statement.
 
Yet again (sheesh!), I’m not saying it is the deciding factor, the only factor or even a major factor. I was directly addressing a statement that is was no factor at all. That is delusional.

It’s not the raw numbers that I think is all that significant and as I’ve already pointed out, the ability of organised or career criminals to go out and obtain firearms (legally or not) with the intention of using them to commit crimes doesn’t account for a large proportion of the crimes. It’s the domestic availability of guns that I think is relevant, meaning that when unexpected incidents occur – domestic violence, road rage, bar fights etc., there’s a good change the people involved have firearms to hand when can be used to escalate the situation. It also means that if someone decides they are going to commit a crime – burglary, robbing a shop, mugging etc. – they’re more likely to be able to and to want to carry a firearm because they know there is a good chance their targets have them too.

Yet again, this doesn’t mean I’m saying American gun laws are bad or that you need to change them, this was merely a response to a single fundamentally flawed statement.

You would rather they were defenseless? Why do you hate those least physically able to defend themselves? That's sarcasm, I know you don't, but you are demanding they be disarmed and left helpless.
 
And yet in the US, where there are sooo many guns, there has been more mass shootings than days in the year so far... Funny how the gun laws dont lower the amount of attacks eh?? Funny how we never hear about how a "good guy with a gun" stopped one of these mass shootings from happening... but hey!

The shootings occur in no gun zones?

Firearms are used many times a year to ward off criminals by legal gun owners without a shot being fired.
 
Why don't we see mass shootings at gun shows, shooting clubs, hunt clubs, police stations,........... or redneck picnics for that matter? ?
 
You would rather they were defenseless? Why do you hate those least physically able to defend themselves? That's sarcasm, I know you don't, but you are demanding they be disarmed and left helpless.
No, I’d rather people read what I’m actually writing rather than assuming what I’m saying! I’m not a strawman, I’m a real boy.

My statement: To state that vastly different gun laws can't possibly have any impact on gun crime rates is delusional. End of statement.

If you wish to know my position on any other aspect of the wider gun control debate, why not actually ask me (without the sarcasm)? :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom