• 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!

Fear and gun ownership.

soylentgreen said:
No, keeping a loaded gun is an investment into being gullible.

But gun owners are not storing their gun safely. They are storing it in preparation for instant attack.

But clever wording. Yes they can store their guns safely. But they choose not to.
Click to expand...
Did you make a special trip here and arrange a tour of gun owners houses to make such a blanket statement/s?
 
soylentgreen said:
Bullshit. No one expects you to keep an insurance policy within easy reach in case of an invasion. Insurance can protect. A loaded gun is a weapon.
Click to expand...
The insurance policy IS that safely stored weapon. Could be the difference between your chalk outline or his.
soylentgreen said:
No, we had this conversation before. And no you cannot store a loaded gun safely. What you can do is ignore safety protocol because you are a sheeple who believes the lies the pro gun tell.
Click to expand...
How did you become such an expert in the field? A lot of hands on experience? Really, my guess is a lot of hands on anti gun propaganda.
soylentgreen said:
Your claim that there are many who do practice safety with a gun. Which of course is not what the pro gun group is doing. They are trying to spread fear so that their particular stupidity with a gun becomes acceptable.
Click to expand...
Did you take time off from your busy schedule to come here and interview pro gun groups to get first had information or just accept the first thing that sounded good to your brand of politics?
 
DebateChallenge said:
But an active insurance policy always is within easy reach, if you ever need it all you've got to do is make a phone call.

Insurance can protect, so can a loaded gun.

Yes you can.


If you want to be naive that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Well shit if our friend in NZ wants to spring for the safe on his side, yeah I could do that.;)
 
TurtleDude said:
cool story bro, but I don't see anyone who has demonstrated expertise in this subject buying the bull you are slinging
Click to expand...
It is unfortunate that the expertise you brag about is only useful on a target range. Where as as far as logic and good reasoning goes, your out of your league.
 
zsu2357 said:
Dusted off the Way Back Machine. You seem to know an awful lot about "bottom of the cliff mentality". If a criminal shows up I don't think he will be willing to talk about reducing crime. But do feel free to try though.


Hmmm. Pot meet Kettle.
Click to expand...
It's the "if' part. As long as you dwell on that one word. With nothing to actually back it but scary stories.

You do understand that your argument relies on a hidden premise that a criminal will show up. Not only that but if your using the home invasion scary story then the hidden premise must also include the criminal is either insane or has personal vengeance on his mind.

How is it pot meet kettle? You do understand that means we are alike. in argument. Which we are not.
 
DebateChallenge said:
But an active insurance policy always is within easy reach, if you ever need it all you've got to do is make a phone call.

Insurance can protect, so can a loaded gun.

Yes you can.


If you want to be naive that's your choice.
Click to expand...
No, just because americans are doing something does not mean that it should be done. It is not the mechanics we are discussing here. But instead the reason why you need a loaded gun secured or unsecured.
As well I would add that you must be well aware that a few of the pro gun here have boasted of a security no better than a wooden box by the bed. It is not an argument of whether it can be done, because it should be taken as a given that a gun can be stored safely. It is more an argument that the reasons you give for a loaded gun secured or not are fallacious.

Even insurance companies should not try and get you to buy insurance that is not necessary or is based only on a probability that is unlikely.

If you want to be naive that's your choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah! I can throw gullible right back at you.
 
VanceMack said:
Poisoning accounts for 53,400 accidental deaths in the home.
Falls account for 25,400 accidental deaths in the home.
Choking accounts for 2,700 accidental deaths in the home.
Firearms account for 400 accidental deaths in the home.
More people drown in the bathtub in the home (1,100) than from firearms.

140,000,000 gun owners vs 400 accidental firearm deaths. The facts clearly show that firearm owners and ownership is VERY safe.
Click to expand...
Nothing there actually tells me that acting stupidly with a gun is a safe act.
 
zsu2357 said:
Bad argument #1: I need it to rob a liqueur store.
Bad argument #2: I need it to make rape easier.
Bad argument #3: I need it to make robbery easier at ATMs.
Bad argument #4: It just makes being a criminal easier.

You get the point.

Good reason #1: See all the bad arguments above? And there are so many more bad arguments.
Click to expand...

Yes, You are arguing that you live in a third world criminal ridden shithole. My question is it all of america you must hate so to call it that or is it just the shithole you are living in at the moment?
 
Glitch said:
I keep a loaded firearm handy for other purposes that has nothing to do with criminals. Where I live there are not very many humans, and criminals are the least of my concern. My biggest concern during the Winter months are the wolves. Not for my sake, but rather out of concern for my dogs. I was always armed when I walked my dogs during the Winter. Wolves have a nasty habit of taking household pets that are outside during the Winter in Alaska. That includes attacking unprotected dog-sled teams that are typically chained up outside. The Summer months offer different challenges, and different firearm requirements.
Click to expand...


Same thing with Coyote. They come into urban/suburban areas. People walk their dogs in adjacent open space and a yotee will snatch a small dog right under their noses. Also from your yard. Using a gun would be illegal in city limits. A pellet gun would sting enough to probably make the coyote leave, if you had one at hand. By the time you might find something to throw at them, your dog is dinner and carried away. They are smart and fast.
 
soylentgreen said:
Nothing there actually tells me that acting stupidly with a gun is a safe act.
Click to expand...
No...what it tells you is that you are pissing yourself over something that is not an issue for the extremely large majority of the 140,000,000 law abiding gun owners, and that its stupid for people like you to try to attack the gun rights of an entire country of people because of the stupidity of the few. Using your logic, no one should drink, no one should drive, no one should have bathtubs, no one should be allowed to purchase potentially dangerous chemicals, and everyone should be forced to sit in a corner securely in bubble wrap.

On the other hand...people like you gave up your rights willfully...eagerly...so seriously...why the **** should I care about your opinions on ANYTHING?
 
soylentgreen said:
It is unfortunate that the expertise you brag about is only useful on a target range. Where as as far as logic and good reasoning goes, your out of your league.
Click to expand...
what expertise do you have on any gun related topic? The only thing you have to post is posting itself
 
braindrain said:
So can a fire extinguisher. I could strangle someone with a seat belt Doesn’t mean it’s not a safety feature designed for one thing.

My choice of words was just fine.
Click to expand...


Seat belts, et al, aren't designed to harm others. They are designed for safety, only, and in no way designed for harm. Guns are designed to do harm, whether used for safety/protection or not.

You're the one that said "a gun owned for home defense is just a safety feature used on criminals". Your further choice of words is only more confusing. A gun may be purchased for the purpose of home defense only, as you say "just a safety feature used on criminals". However, it is designed to do harm and any use of any kind can result in just that. Accidental, suicide or whatever.

Maybe you can clarify whatever it is you mean. That might be helpful.
 
bluesmoke said:
Seat belts, et al, aren't designed to harm others. They are designed for safety, only, and in no way designed for harm. Guns are designed to do harm, whether used for safety/protection or not.

You're the one that said "a gun owned for home defense is just a safety feature used on criminals". Your further choice of words is only more confusing. A gun may be purchased for the purpose of home defense only, as you say "just a safety feature used on criminals". However, it is designed to do harm and any use of any kind can result in just that. Accidental, suicide or whatever.

Maybe you can clarify whatever it is you mean. That might be helpful.
Click to expand...
If you can't understand the plain meaning of common words, then a conversation with you is futile.
 
VanceMack said:
No...what it tells you is that you are pissing yourself over something that is not an issue for the extremely large majority of the 140,000,000 law abiding gun owners, and that its stupid for people like you to try to attack the gun rights of an entire country of people because of the stupidity of the few. Using your logic, no one should drink, no one should drive, no one should have bathtubs, no one should be allowed to purchase potentially dangerous chemicals, and everyone should be forced to sit in a corner securely in bubble wrap.

On the other hand...people like you gave up your rights willfully...eagerly...so seriously...why the **** should I care about your opinions on ANYTHING?
Click to expand...
It is not a matter of numbers. The arguments put out by the pro gun crowd are weak and based on fear rather than good reasons. And no it is actually people like you who create fear by insisting that your gun rights are being attacked.

I do not need to attack your gun rights in order to demonstrate the weakness of the pro gun crowds propaganda. Nor do I accept that guns are somehow separate from your society that they have no effect. The stupidity of the few is a result of that propaganda.

I have given up no rights. I am just not locked into a set of rights regardless of their worth.
 
soylentgreen said:
No, just because americans are doing something does not mean that it should be done. It is not the mechanics we are discussing here. But instead the reason why you need a loaded gun secured or unsecured.
Click to expand...
Same reason you need insurance.
soylentgreen said:
As well I would add that you must be well aware that a few of the pro gun here have boasted of a security no better than a wooden box by the bed.
Click to expand...
Which is adequate if you live alone, or if you only live with people who can be trusted with guns.
soylentgreen said:
It is not an argument of whether it can be done, because it should be taken as a given that a gun can be stored safely. It is more an argument that the reasons you give for a loaded gun secured or not are fallacious.
Click to expand...
We don't need reasons, other than the reason that we choose to do it.
soylentgreen said:
Even insurance companies should not try and get you to buy insurance that is not necessary or is based only on a probability that is unlikely.
Click to expand...
And you're three times as likely to have a home invasion as you are a house fire, considering that fact do you think people shouldn't get fire insurance? If they should than why shouldn't they keep loaded guns when they're three times as likely to have home invasions?
soylentgreen said:
Yeah! I can throw gullible right back at you.
Click to expand...
Im not naive like you and Im not gullible.
 
soylentgreen said:
It is not a matter of numbers. The arguments put out by the pro gun crowd are weak and based on fear rather than good reasons. And no it is actually people like you who create fear by insisting that your gun rights are being attacked.

I do not need to attack your gun rights in order to demonstrate the weakness of the pro gun crowds propaganda. Nor do I accept that guns are somehow separate from your society that they have no effect. The stupidity of the few is a result of that propaganda.

I have given up no rights. I am just not locked into a set of rights regardless of their worth.
Click to expand...
more unsupported opinion. The arguments you put out are weak and based on fear and more disturbingly, ignorance.
 
soylentgreen said:
Really!!!

I need to dumb this down for you?
Click to expand...
Your posts are dumb and make no sense. Looks like you're building a strawman against gun ownership for irrelevant reasons. This is Constitutional, not emotional. Democrats are emotional, and tend toward emotional argument like a bass toward the shiny object.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Same reason you need insurance.
Click to expand...
No, I need insurance as a sensible precaution and in some cases a financial security. I do not need a loaded gun.

Which is adequate if you live alone, or if you only live with people who can be trusted with guns.

We don't need reasons, other than the reason that we choose to do it.
Click to expand...
Yes, you do need a reason.
Can I suggest you try the tack of a salesman. Telling me I do not need a reason to buy the gun your offering to sell is not a convincing selling point.

If you are that inclined to whimsy with how you keep a gun, then what argument could you give that you will not act without reason with a gun.

And you're three times as likely to have a home invasion as you are a house fire, considering that fact do you think people shouldn't get fire insurance? If they should than why shouldn't they keep loaded guns when they're three times as likely to have home invasions?

Im not naive like you and Im not gullible.
Click to expand...

You should complete those statistics
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt
A household member was present in roughly 1 million burglaries
and became victims of violent crimes in 266,560 burglaries.

*Simple assault (15%) was the most common form of violence when
a resident was home and violence occurred. Robbery (7%) and
rape (3%) were less likely to occur when a household member was
present and violence occurred.
Offenders were known to their victims in 65% of violent
burglaries; offenders were strangers in 28%.

*Overall, 61% of offenders were unarmed when violence occurred
during a burglary while a resident was present. About 12% of
all households violently burglarized while someone was home
faced an offender armed with a firearm.

Households residing in single family units and higher density
structures of 10 or more units were least likely to be
burglarized (8 per 1,000 households) while a household member
was present.

*Serious injury accounted for 9% and minor injury accounted for
36% of injuries sustained by household members who were home
and experienced violence during a completed burglary
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom