• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Guns are killing us not protecting us

CLAX1911 said:
No no no the best way to reduce it is making it illegal to own guns. But I don't know how this will reduce it send Anna legally owned firearm is just as deadly as a legal owned one but apparently it's supposed to.

Aunt Helen some of those worldviews inanimate objects have agency yet people don't.
Click to expand...

Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell. Sure seems like it.
 
vegas giants said:
And gun control helps....according to the research
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. If it did then Japan wouldn't have a higher suicide rate than the US. At most you could claim that gun control would reduce the amount of successful suicides via gun. But you cannot factually claim that it would reduce suicides period.

Another question for you. What Right do you have to prevent someone from committing suicide?
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, it doesn't. If it did then Japan wouldn't have a higher suicide rate than the US. At most you could claim that gun control would reduce the amount of successful suicides via gun. But you cannot factually claim that it would reduce suicides period.

Another question for you. What Right do you have to prevent someone from committing suicide?
Click to expand...

Culture is a factor. But in the US the evidence is clear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

https://wgntv.com/2018/06/04/gun-removal-law-reduces-suicides-in-indiana-study-says/

There is lots more


What right do you have to prevent a child from jumping off a cliff? The reason I ask is to illustrate how an inability to to use reason and logic (in the case of the child due to incomplete cognitive development and in the case of the depressed person due to significant acute mental illness) is not grounds to allow someone to make a permanenet decision to a temporary problem. Depression interferes with your ability to make an informed choice (in almost all cases). We have a duty and a responsibility to protect that child.....and that depressed person.
 
vegas giants said:
Culture is a factor. But in the US the evidence is clear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

https://wgntv.com/2018/06/04/gun-removal-law-reduces-suicides-in-indiana-study-says/

There is lots more
Click to expand...

From your own article in the second link:

Research shows that whether attempters live or die depends in large part on the ready availability of highly lethal means, especially firearms.
Click to expand...

Second link is about Indiana's red flag law. Nothing wrong with it. But again, all that it does is reduce the successful chance of an attempted suicide.

Didn't read the first link because I do not feel like clearing my cookies.

Again, in the end all you can factually state is that it reduces successful suicides. It does not reduce suicides period.

vegas giants said:
What right do you have to prevent a child from jumping off a cliff? The reason I ask is to illustrate how an inability to to use reason and logic (in the case of the child due to incomplete cognitive development and in the case of the depressed person due to significant acute mental illness) is not grounds to allow someone to make a permanenet decision to a temporary problem. Depression interferes with your ability to make an informed choice (in almost all cases). We have a duty and a responsibility to protect that child.....and that depressed person.
Click to expand...

No child has full Rights. Parents have full authority over their children. You know this. Adults do have full rights. And no, we do not have a responsibility to protect adults from their own decisions. And even if you think you do have such a responsibility and try to help such people (a noble goal) it still does not give you a Right to stop them.
 
Kal'Stang said:
From your own article in the second link:



Second link is about Indiana's red flag law. Nothing wrong with it. But again, all that it does is reduce the successful chance of an attempted suicide.

Didn't read the first link because I do not feel like clearing my cookies.

Again, in the end all you can factually state is that it reduces successful suicides. It does not reduce suicides period.



No child has full Rights. Parents have full authority over their children. You know this. Adults do have full rights. And no, we do not have a responsibility to protect adults from their own decisions. And even if you think you do have such a responsibility and try to help such people (a noble goal) it still does not give you a Right to stop them.
Click to expand...

The research is clear

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...iting-periods-gun-purchases-have-been-linked/


Well the law in every state in the union disagrees with you. We do have a duty and responsibility to protect adults from themselves. Its why we have seatbelt laws for instance


But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
 
vegas giants said:
Well the law in every state in the union disagrees with you. We do have a duty and responsibility to protect adults from themselves. Its why we have seatbelt laws for instance


But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Click to expand...

Actually seat belt laws are to prevent people from being thrown out of the vehicle which can cause more accidents and fatalities.

Hmm..you tried the "think of the children" argument. It failed. So you moved on to something which affects other people physically. Another failure. What are you going to attempt next? When are you going to actually answer my question? What Right do you have to prevent someone from committing suicide?
 
PleasantValley said:
I collect weapons of war (rifles & pistols) that have probably been used in real wars and NOT ONE OF THEM has tried to kill me yet.

You see they have things called grips on pistols and things called stocks on rifles that have to be held by a human for proper aim.

Then they have these things called actions that are required to be loaded and a human to chamber a round before they can fire.

Thirdly they have these things called triggers that have to be pulled by a human once they are properly loaded and aimed to hit their target.

Without a human doing these three steps they are pretty much harmless.

A gun all by itself has never killed anyone.
Click to expand...

We need more guns, not less guns. More guns means there are more people out there that can kill people but also means that there are more guns out there that can kill the people trying to kill the people without guns. More guns makes us safer.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Actually seat belt laws are to prevent people from being thrown out of the vehicle which can cause more accidents and fatalities.

Hmm..you tried the "think of the children" argument. It failed. So you moved on to something which affects other people physically. Another failure. What are you going to attempt next? When are you going to actually answer my question? What Right do you have to prevent someone from committing suicide?
Click to expand...

I would be happy to see your evidence for the reason we have seatbelt laws. I have presented lots of evidence. You have presented none.

Now for your question. I have that right under the ninth amendment. I have the right to do anything that is not against the law.


But you are certainly entitled to your opinion
 
Bodhisattva said:
We need more guns, not less guns. More guns means there are more people out there that can kill people but also means that there are more guns out there that can kill the people trying to kill the people without guns. More guns makes us safer.
Click to expand...

Not in any country on the planet
 
vegas giants said:
I would be happy to see your evidence for the reason we have seatbelt laws. I have presented lots of evidence. You have presented none.
Click to expand...

Both decisions accept the argument that the legislature has a rational and reasonable basis to believe that unbelted drivers and passengers endanger the safety of others, not just themselves. For example, unrestrained drivers may be more likely to lose control of the vehicle during the accident and injure other parties. Unrestrained passengers may be thrown against the driver or others in the vehicle. In Kohrig and Hartog, the courts echoed similar decisions in other cases to the effect that preventing and reducing injuries and the societal costs associated with them are valid state interests and thus a valid exercise of the state's police power.
Click to expand...

Constitutionality of the Mandatory Seat Belt Use Law

vegas giants said:
Now for your question. I have that right under the ninth amendment. I have the right to do anything that is not against the law.


But you are certainly entitled to your opinion
Click to expand...

Sorry but Rights are individually based. And your Rights end where another persons Rights begin. That is not an opinion, but a fact. So sorry, but the 9th Amendment does not apply.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Suicide is a crime of opportunity. The easier/quicker it is the more likely it is to happen. If it involved getting a four-year degree few Republicans would ever commit suicide.
Click to expand...

Republicans are usually more educated than Democrats, or at least people that believe in gun rights are more educated than people who don't. Since Republicans tend to be for gun rights unlike Democrats who tend to be against gun rights its therefore the republicans who are usually the educated ones. Now there are exceptions. You might find the ever so odd Republican who is against gun rights and the ever so odd Democrat who is for gun rights and in that case it would be the Democrat who is more educated. The bottom line is people who believe in gun rights are educated and people who are against gun rights are uneducated. Since Republicans tend to be for gun rights and Democrats tend to be against gun rights therefore generally speaking its the Republicans who are more educated.
 
vegas giants said:
And gun control helps....according to the research
Click to expand...

How so? You've talked about having a waiting period, where you have to wait seven days or so before you can take possession of a gun you purchase that way if somebody on impulse buys a gun to commit suicide they will have seven days to think it over and change their mind. The problem is that people who commit suicide with guns usually already have guns. So how would your idea reduce suicide for them?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Republicans are usually more educated than Democrats, or at least people that believe in gun rights are more educated than people who don't. Since Republicans tend to be for gun rights unlike Democrats who tend to be against gun rights its therefore the republicans who are usually the educated ones. Now there are exceptions. You might find the ever so odd Republican who is against gun rights and the ever so odd Democrat who is for gun rights and in that case it would be the Democrat who is more educated. The bottom line is people who believe in gun rights are educated and people who are against gun rights are uneducated. Since Republicans tend to be for gun rights and Democrats tend to be against gun rights therefore generally speaking its the Republicans who are more educated.
Click to expand...

many, if not most, pro-rights posters have owned guns, used guns, understand guns and have learned the laws that apply to gun owners. Most, if not all, gun control advocates come to that position NOT because they understand guns, use guns, study guns, etc but because they don't like the politics of gun owners and the NRA. so not surprisingly, these anti gun advocates are pretty ignorant, stupid or dishonest about guns and their uses.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell. Sure seems like it.
Click to expand...
Its hard to tell when somebody is being sarcastic when they do it in writing. To really tell if somebody is being sarcastic, they have to be doing it out loud.
 
Kal'Stang said:
At most you could claim that gun control would reduce the amount of successful suicides via gun. But you cannot factually claim that it would reduce suicides period.
Click to expand...
My point exactly, which I've been saying time and time again. Gun control will not reduce suicide it will just change the method.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No child has full Rights. Parents have full authority over their children.
Click to expand...
No they don't. There are limits. For instance you can't rape your child and you can't murder your child. But that is a topic for another folder and another discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom