• 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, crime, laws and solutions

Do you mean bullet holes?



That's why I train people to use their brains and not just their guns. I urge people to think of scenarios in their daily living as to when and how they might be useful to stop crime....starting with knowing their surroundings, observe and report, don't expect the police to help you and if a gun is needed, make it a good shoot by observing the rules of safe shooting.

Excellent advice and from all known records citizens have a very good reputation and responsibility when it comes to firearms.

Like everything there are going to be the aberrants and gun control just loves to blow up these rare events. It does there foul policy good to make gun owners look like nut cases.

Good for you that you spend time with the youth and the best favour you can do it also teach them to fight for our rights because we are the only people who will.
 
Physics. If you want to use laws to stop gun deaths you need to get rid of the laws of physics.

Nothing short of magic will make such laws work. All the huffing and puffing of gun control cannot make a law do what is impossible for it to do.
 
Of all the tragedies that took place in recent times and not only on US soil in which people were killed with guns, what laws would or could have prevented them and how? Please be specific.

I suspect a variation of the Australian model of gun control (introduced 20 years ago there) would be the one most likely to work given they havent had a gun massacre there since its introduction
 
I suspect a variation of the Australian model of gun control (introduced 20 years ago there) would be the one most likely to work given they havent had a gun massacre there since its introduction

Neither has New Zealand and that must have been one really powerful spell that was cast to have affected New Zealand as well.

What you cannot show is that the Australian buyback of low risk guns has been responsible for either. If you can then why have you not posted any evidence of that. Do note that Australia now has more guns than prior to the buy back.

Apparently the Chinese have bad news for you as well because they mange just fine without guns to have mass murders.

Shall I put on the kettle or take a holiday waiting for your proof the gun buy back did anything but waste time and money at huge public inconvenience?
 
Last edited:
I suspect a variation of the Australian model of gun control (introduced 20 years ago there) would be the one most likely to work given they havent had a gun massacre there since its introduction

they had almost none prior to that either.
 
Excellent advice and from all known records citizens have a very good reputation and responsibility when it comes to firearms.

Like everything there are going to be the aberrants and gun control just loves to blow up these rare events. It does there foul policy good to make gun owners look like nut cases.

Good for you that you spend time with the youth and the best favour you can do it also teach them to fight for our rights because we are the only people who will.

Isn't that the Truth. obama is a bloody failure at it and most Democrats in Congress....and Crooked Hillary .........will be worse.
Thank you for the support.

I suspect a variation of the Australian model of gun control (introduced 20 years ago there) would be the one most likely to work given they havent had a gun massacre there since its introduction

Fantasyland, flogger....pure fantasyland. :thumbdown

they had almost none prior to that either.

Correct.
 
Last edited:
Your principle was good your reasoning not.
But you have to show anything valid that refutes it.

The idea of trained specialists, a NRA suggestion chasing money is absurdly expensive.
Who said anything about such things?

The criminally irresponsibly idea of creating gun free zones is directly a cause in giving these nuts a location of choice as a safe shooting gallery.
While "gun free zones" achieve nothing, how many events took place in such zones?

The first thing needed is to reduce the attractiveness of guaranteed safety for the shooter.
Yes and you are content with that being done by any schmuck with a legal gun.
 
120,000,000 or so gun owners do just fine...
What exactly?

most of the bad actors you refer to are not legally allowed to own firearms in the first place.
Who said they were?

Or you can hold the 120,000,000 or so accountable for the criminal actions of .0001℅... Kind of like Trump.
Is that your solution?
 
It would be unconstitutional to legislate good manners so my answer is "none". There are a ton of laws already on the books. Crimes are illegal or they wouldn't be crimes. The end.
So, doing nothing is your position.
 
None! The laws that need be used, have been on the books for eons.
So, for instance which law(s) were not enforced say in Orlando or Newtown?

What is needed is the elimination of liberalism
Right, because ignorant talking points are the answer to everything.
 
That's why I train people to use their brains and not just their guns. I urge people to think of scenarios in their daily living as to when and how they might be useful to stop crime....starting with knowing their surroundings, observe and report, don't expect the police to help you and if a gun is needed, make it a good shoot by observing the rules of safe shooting.
Good points.
 
So, for instance which law(s) were not enforced say in Orlando or Newtown?

The question is not about "not" enforcing, but enforcement. ;)

Had the staff members at either place, been trained and armed, no law would need enforcing.....just cleanup of the dead perp's body.

Right, because ignorant talking points are the answer to everything.

And that is what you get with liberals in politics, schools, and elsewhere.

That first answer in red, may be confusing to you........I'm here to talk details if you would like.
 
While "gun free zones" achieve nothing, how many events took place in such zones?

Yes and you are content with that being done by any schmuck with a legal gun.

Almost all mass shootings have taken place in "gun free zones".

Those schmucks, as you call them, are often times, the only salvation a victim has, before being physically assaulted or killed. Police protection is an oxymoron.

So, doing nothing is your position.

I can't speak for others, but my position is to stop the nut****ery of liberalism.....and the laws connected to it.
 
Last edited:
But you have to show anything valid that refutes it.

That refutes what?

Who said anything about such things?

I was ruling it out and giving the reasoning. Can I not do that?

While "gun free zones" achieve nothing, how many events took place in such zones?

All of them bar two. Is that enough to show they are the killing zones of choice and I pointed out why they are.

Yes and you are content with that being done by any schmuck with a legal gun.

Any time your life is saved by a smuck with a gun do let me know if they are still a smuck.

You got any figures to put to your obvious unevidenced bias?
 
But you have to show anything valid that refutes it.

Training as I mention is a non solution were you not paying attention. Guards are out to expensive and logistically a nightmare t be effective.

Who said anything about such things?

I did. It was examined for viability. Was that not obvious?

While "gun free zones" achieve nothing, how many events took place in such zones?

It is not possible to say they achieve nothing. There is absolutely no doubt that defenceless victims are in a far worse situation than if they were armed. That is not an invitation for idiotic quips about arming children.

Yes and you are content with that being done by any schmuck with a legal gun.

The smuck that protects me is all I have what do you have? I rate my smuck better than any other useless intervention which is never there when you need them.

You have a better idea that has proof it works?
 
Good points.

They are but there is no evidence that citizens need training. If however they are placed in a situation that is known to be at risk the first sensible thing to do is reduce the risks. That risk is caused directly by making the area attractive to such events. Crowded places and children have a huge emotional impact. Making them "gun free" has to be the most idiotic thing we the people have sucked in. Nobody in their right mind can possibly think unarmed people are safer.

The first order of business has to be get rid of the reason for attractiveness. That on its own will send those figures plummeting. What the nuts choose next I have no idea but it will be crowded. The problem now is the nuts. These are created they are not born that way.
 
While "gun free zones" achieve nothing, how many events took place in such zones?

DS-mass-shootings.jpg
Research done at the Heritage Foundation found that fifty-four of the 153 incidents (35 percent) involved a shooter targeting people at random who were not relatives or adversaries of the attempted murderer.

Of the 54 incidents that fit these criteria, the shooter chose locations where guns were banned 37 times (69 percent). Alternatively, the shooting occurred where guns were legally allowed only 17 times (31 percent). See graphic.

Of the 17 shootings that occurred where citizens could legally carry firearms, 5 (29 percent) were ended when the gunman was stopped or slowed by a gun permit holder’s intervention.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/mass-shooters-prefer-gun-free-zones/
 
Gun-Free Zone Don't Save Lives -- Right to Carry Laws Do | National Review

A Look at the Facts on Gun-Free Zones
by John R. Lott Jr. October 20, 2015 4:00 AM

A very good read


Multiple Victim Public Shootings by John R. Lott, William M. Landes :: SSRN

Multiple Victim Public Shootings

John R. Lott Jr.
Crime Prevention Research Center

William M. Landes
University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)

October 19, 2000


Abstract:
Few events obtain the same instant worldwide news coverage as multiple victim public shootings. These crimes allow us to study the alternative methods used to kill a large number of people (e.g., shootings versus bombings), marginal deterrence and the severity of the crime, substitutability of penalties, private versus public methods of deterrence and incapacitation, and whether attacks produce "copycats." The criminals who commit these crimes are also fairly unusual, recent evidence suggests that about half of these criminals have received a "formal diagnosis of mental illness, often schizophrenia." Yet, economists have not studied multiple victim shootings. Using data that extends until 1999 and includes the recent public school shootings, our results are surprising and dramatic. While arrest or conviction rates and the death penalty reduce "normal" murder rates and these attacks lead to new calls from more gun control, our results find that the only policy factor to have a consistently significant influence on multiple victim public shootings is the passage of concealed handgun laws. We explain why public shootings are more sensitive than other violent crimes to concealed handguns, why the laws reduce the number of shootings and have an even greater effect on their severity.
 
And that is what you get with liberals in politics, schools, and elsewhere.

That first answer in red, may be confusing to you........I'm here to talk details if you would like.
You said that: "The laws that need be used, have been on the books for eons." and now are you suggesting that the citizens become involved in enforcement are a rule? Seriously?
 
Almost all mass shootings have taken place in "gun free zones".
Yet, even on an army base, which is not a gun free zone, it can happen.

I can't speak for others, but my position is to stop the nut****ery of liberalism.....and the laws connected to it.
Obviously, because so much has been resoled by partisan hacks.
 
You have a better idea that has proof it works?
Just one and that is why I raised the topic to see what others can bring to the table.

I would reinstate the draft. While not a panacea or a solution to all problems, it would go a long way into making people more capable, better disciplined and would aid in numerous other areas of social shortcoming.
 
Back
Top Bottom