• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Gun injury and suicide

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A common argument used by gun control advocates is to point to accidental gun injuries and gun suicides. By invoking such an argument, you are saying that the government should, and has a right to protect individuals from themselves.

If these people are going to remain consistent, they should also argue for the banning of tobacco, which kills a magnitude more people than all gun deaths combined. They might also want to look into banning swimming without lifeguards present -- as accidental drowning kills thousands.

Diet regulation is also consistent with this mentality, as obesity kills an estimated 100,000 per year.

Alcohol kills tens of thousands as well.

Another common mentality is the sensationalized appeal to emotion centered around specific incidents like mass shootings -- which, although make up a tiny fraction of homicides -- are far more emotionally charged. Many people have the mentality of (if it saves one person's life, its worth it). Consider, then, banning extreme sports, and hunting, as well.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,433
Reaction score
6,178
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What this means is the government should be regulating gun access such as background checks for all sales and required safety courses.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Its also called thinning the herd. Stupid people hurt themselves in cars everyday. Ban cars?
 

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What this means is the government should be regulating gun access such as background checks for all sales and required safety courses.

So you agree that the government should protect people from themselves, i.e. by banning alcohol, tobacco, and more?

Also, there are already background checks. It is doubtful at best that these will do anything to stop criminals from getting guns. 93% of guns in crimes are already obtained illegally. Only 1% of crime guns are obtained at gun shows -- a common point of rhetoric for gun control nuts.

Laws cannot stop criminals from getting guns, anymore than prohibition stopped the black market alcohol trade, of the war on drugs stops people from getting drugs.
 
Last edited:

CalGun

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
Messages
7,039
Reaction score
3,268
Location
Denio Junction
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
How about for hammers? I mean you do know hammers kill more people in America then so called assault rifles so are you going to add a class and registration to a non constitutionally gauranteed right to a hammer?

How about we register and force classes on government officials and politicos? According to the UOHawaii 262 million people have been killed by govts in just the last 100 years alone. So why not put govt officials in classes.


What this means is the government should be regulating gun access such as background checks for all sales and required safety courses.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A common argument used by gun control advocates is to point to accidental gun injuries and gun suicides. By invoking such an argument, you are saying that the government should, and has a right to protect individuals from themselves.

If these people are going to remain consistent, they should also argue for the banning of tobacco, which kills a magnitude more people than all gun deaths combined. They might also want to look into banning swimming without lifeguards present -- as accidental drowning kills thousands.

Diet regulation is also consistent with this mentality, as obesity kills an estimated 100,000 per year.

Alcohol kills tens of thousands as well.

Another common mentality is the sensationalized appeal to emotion centered around specific incidents like mass shootings -- which, although make up a tiny fraction of homicides -- are far more emotionally charged. Many people have the mentality of (if it saves one person's life, its worth it). Consider, then, banning extreme sports, and hunting, as well.
They'll just make the arguement of "apples and oranges" and "cars and knives and hammers are more useful than guns" etc etc. They'll have a ton of responses to what you said....none of them having one iota of actual common sense attached to them.
 

mtguy8787

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
111
Reaction score
35
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They'll just make the arguement of "apples and oranges" and "cars and knives and hammers are more useful than guns" etc etc. They'll have a ton of responses to what you said....none of them having one iota of actual common sense attached to them.
Well, I didnt mention hammers and knives. Tobacco and alcohol arent really useful, and being obese isn't really useful either. Makes just as much sense to restrict them as guns, if you believe government should protect people from themselves.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, I didnt mention hammers and knives. Tobacco and alcohol arent really useful, and being obese isn't really useful either. Makes just as much sense to restrict them as guns, if you believe government should protect people from themselves.
Those were just a few examples of the many excuses that they use. I was showing that they will find an excuse to use no matter what just to "try" and further their agenda.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,511
Reaction score
16,300
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
A common argument used by gun control advocates is to point to accidental gun injuries and gun suicides. By invoking such an argument, you are saying that the government should, and has a right to protect individuals from themselves.

If these people are going to remain consistent, they should also argue for the banning of tobacco, which kills a magnitude more people than all gun deaths combined. They might also want to look into banning swimming without lifeguards present -- as accidental drowning kills thousands.

Diet regulation is also consistent with this mentality, as obesity kills an estimated 100,000 per year.

Alcohol kills tens of thousands as well.

Another common mentality is the sensationalized appeal to emotion centered around specific incidents like mass shootings -- which, although make up a tiny fraction of homicides -- are far more emotionally charged. Many people have the mentality of (if it saves one person's life, its worth it). Consider, then, banning extreme sports, and hunting, as well.

The only reason they use these numbers is because 30,000 sounds a like a lot more impressive number number than say 10,000(the average number of homicides where a firearm was used). Even then I am sure that if you took out the scumbag on scumbag shooting then it is much lower than 10,000. But if you look at the fact there is 70-80 million firearm owners and over 310 million firearms in this country the 30,000 deaths due to firearms being used is an extremely tiny number.
 
Top Bottom