• 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 In The Home And Children

vegas giants said:
GUN_SCATTERPLOT_2x.png
Click to expand...

you're still clinging to the fudged numbers and I am still not taking you seriously. It is kind of funny how you replied to a post that tore apart your numbers with a chart showing your same, discredited number.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
Law? Why do you need a law? Plain old common sense dictates that YOU are responsible for whatever happens within your own jurisdiction (control). If you leave a rake sitting upside down in your driveway and the mailman steps on it and breaks his nose...YOU are responsible, no? Do we really need a law to spell it out to that level of specificity?
Click to expand...

I do believe that there are laws in place to that effect. I agree, by the way, about common sense...
 
Jarhead1369 said:
you're still clinging to the fudged numbers and I am still not taking you seriously. It is kind of funny how you replied to a post that tore apart your numbers with a chart showing your same, discredited number.
Click to expand...

The numbers are factually correct in every way and if you have eveidence then provide it. I did.
 
vegas giants said:
Gun control reduces suicides. I want to save those lives. Many of them are veterans. You may not care about them but I do.
Click to expand...

And how do you plan on using gun control to reduce suicides? You've talked about a 7 day waiting period on gun purchases but what if somebody who wants to commit suicide already has guns? Obviously a 7 day waiting period wont help in a case like that. You talk about veterans, many of them already have guns. Also a certain amount of suicides with guns are done by police officers, they obviously will have guns prior to becoming suicidal.
 
DebateChallenge said:
And how do you plan on using gun control to reduce suicides? You've talked about a 7 day waiting period on gun purchases but what if somebody who wants to commit suicide already has guns? Obviously a 7 day waiting period wont help in a case like that. You talk about veterans, many of them already have guns. Also a certain amount of suicides with guns are done by police officers, they obviously will have guns prior to becoming suicidal.
Click to expand...

A better system.....not a perfect one
 
Atheist 2020 said:
When I was in the 6th grade, we had a gun safety done in one of my classes. Today, your not allowed to bring a firearm and shells to load into a shotgun. Or, taking two weeks off if your parent wants to take you for dear season and only counted as one day missed.

Nobody can control human nature, and you can pass as many laws as you want with firearms: only having more people violate the laws.
Click to expand...

Half the trucks in my high school parking lot had loaded gun racks in their windows. A lot of folks went huntin before class started. My, how times have changed. Instead of teaching kids how to behave and act responsibly, they blame inanimate objects.
 
Jarhead1369 said:
you're still clinging to the fudged numbers and I am still not taking you seriously. It is kind of funny how you replied to a post that tore apart your numbers with a chart showing your same, discredited number.
Click to expand...

For you guys that haven't figured it out yet, vegas is just a troll.
 
Anarchon said:
Half the trucks in my high school parking lot had loaded gun racks in their windows. A lot of folks went huntin before class started. My, how times have changed. Instead of teaching kids how to behave and act responsibly, they blame inanimate objects.
Click to expand...

The school district I went to, allowed students to get 10 days off during deer season and only counts as one day missed. My father was a corrections officer at the state prison. So I grew up with corrections officers and police. When I went with my father to the gun range at the prison, my babysitter was a African American that came back from World War II: he found out his wife was having an affair. He shot both of them when they were in bed together. I never owned a firearm in my life, but, I did borrow his 22 and shot less then 100 bullets.
 
Rucker61 said:
That's nice, but in Australia the police can show up without warning and inspect your premises. In Japan, it only requires notice, not a search warrant approved by a judge, for the police to inspect your premises. In the UK the police can simply ring your up, show up at your house and require you to open up your safe to inspect every firearm and bit of ammo inside.

None of these actions would be legal in the US.
.
Click to expand...
That it can happen does not then mean it must happen. Regardless that you can point to where it might happen i have pointed to where it does not. It still remains that you have only considered a really dumb way of doing something and then insisted it has to be that way despite evidence to the contrary.



Perhaps you've noticed that I don't support the OP's suggestion. I also know that under DC v Heller that a gun owner cannot be made to keep their firearms made unavailable for immediate use.
Click to expand...
It's not the op's suggestion that i am arguing with you about. Yet you also have laws against negligently stored firearms.



Any requirement to keep guns locked up violates DC v Heller.
Click to expand...
I suggest not.
Fourteen states and the District of Columbia have laws that impose criminal liability on persons who negligently store firearms, where minors could or do gain access to the firearm. Typically, these laws apply whenever the person “knows or reasonably should know” that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm.
Click to expand...


Why do you think that either criminal or civil proceedings would work to have people follow safety protocols if the consequence of losing a child does not? It's all part of the "it will never happen to me" syndrome
Click to expand...

It's called prevention. Which is what safety protocols are all about.
 
Into the Night said:
Civil cases can easily handle such things as gun accidents, leaving a weapon out where kids will hurt themselves on it, etc.

It a gun owner doesn't want to handle, store, or protect access to his gun, that's his own lookout. You do not need a law.
Click to expand...

No, it is not his own look out when another person dies because of the owners negligence.

No, it's a compositional error fallacy involving people as the class. That is bigotry.
Click to expand...

But no error has been made. It is an observation of what actually happens.

Not really. It is why democracy utterly fails and dissolves into anarchy, a dictatorship, or an oligarchy.

Any government can go rogue. A government that fears its own citizens won't try to control them.
Click to expand...
How laughable. Now that is what can be called a compositional error fallacy.

Then history is a 'masturbation fantasy'. You are denying history now.
Click to expand...
Not at all I am pointing out that you are having a masturbation fantasy with your desire to kill politicians instead of simply dealing with government without your violence fantasy.

According to you, there is only one use for a gun: to commit a mass murder
Click to expand...
Care to point out where exactly i said that? Copy an paste my words or is simply making the slur your best shot at an intelligent observation.

Yes, they are rare. We are a nation of 350 million people (more or less). 24 were shot in a mass shooting by ONE individual. Like most of the others, this one most likely will be from a shooter that was undergoing or has undergone psychiatric treatment and was prescribed the same f'ing drugs that tend to cause homicidal and suicidal tendencies.

BTW, he used a pistol, not an AR-15.
Click to expand...

What a ridiculous argument. If i pick only one apple of a tree then according to your thinking i can then claim there is only one apple on that tree.

I'll accept it because there is no such thing as total security.
Click to expand...
Again a ridiculous argument. If no one can offer you a perfect solution then you reject them all.

Then it is murder. I think that's pretty obvious.
Click to expand...

Very good, either the point went completely over your head or obfuscation is your point.

Nope. It IS sound medical advice.
Click to expand...

Really !! Again care to offer any link to back that or is quackery your specialty?
 
soylentgreen said:
That it can happen does not then mean it must happen. Regardless that you can point to where it might happen i have pointed to where it does not. It still remains that you have only considered a really dumb way of doing something and then insisted it has to be that way despite evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

Given the abuses of civil forfeiture in the US by police forces, the possibility of abuse of laws by the police has to be taken into consideration by those considering new laws. You just don't seem to understand that there are Constitutional barriers to imposing the laws you'd want.

It's not the op's suggestion that i am arguing with you about. Yet you also have laws against negligently stored firearms.
Click to expand...

The difference is your laws require all guns to be locked up. Ours are focused purely on negligence - if you live without children, or in a rural area, or your kids never are negligent with the guns, there is no need to lock them up.

I suggest not.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to believe that.

It's called prevention. Which is what safety protocols are all about.
Click to expand...

I'm all for prevention. I owned a gun safe before I brought the first gun in the house. Any law requiring guns to be locked up at all times by all owners won't be Constitutional nor is it 100% necessary.
 
Rucker61 said:
Given the abuses of civil forfeiture in the US by police forces, the possibility of abuse of laws by the police has to be taken into consideration by those considering new laws. You just don't seem to understand that there are Constitutional barriers to imposing the laws you'd want.
Click to expand...
That is nothing more than an argument for the fact that america is an incompetent, corrupt tyranny instead of a republic. Deal with you corruption rather than just shrug your shoulders and say it will deal with you. No wonder people like trump can become a president with that kind of thinking.

The difference is your laws require all guns to be locked up. Ours are focused purely on negligence - if you live without children, or in a rural area, or your kids never are negligent with the guns, there is no need to lock them up.
Click to expand...
No, that puts the onus on children. The legal responsibility for a gun is the gun owner or the legal guardian of a child. As well you are again only wanting to consider one and only one scenario.


You're welcome to believe that.
Click to expand...
I just pointed out where it is not by your laws. Belief has nothing to do with it.


I'm all for prevention. I owned a gun safe before I brought the first gun in the house. Any law requiring guns to be locked up at all times by all owners won't be Constitutional nor is it 100% necessary.
Click to expand...
No, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent such a law. All you have done is insist that a very silly scenario must be played.
 
Manc Skipper said:
How can they be made more effective?
Click to expand...

Well first.. lets start with the stupidity of regulating legal gun owners... All that time wasted with background checks, with registration so on and so forth,,. doesn;t do a thing to deter a criminal.. its just diverts resources.

So.. lets start with the criminals that are prohibited from buying a firearm...

Instead of doing a background check on law abiding person that buys a gun.

Simply mark drivers license or other state issued ID with a RESTRICTED FROM FIREARMS OWNERSHIP.. on every prohibited person.

Bingo.. then I or any other person.. or police officer... etc.. can easily identify a person that cannot have a firearm...
 
soylentgreen said:
That is nothing more than an argument for the fact that america is an incompetent, corrupt tyranny instead of a republic. Deal with you corruption rather than just shrug your shoulders and say it will deal with you. No wonder people like trump can become a president with that kind of thinking.
Click to expand...

Did this incompetent, corrupt tyranny begin with the inauguration of Trump, or is this a longer term problem? Is this any issue because of the importance the US plays on the world stage?

To be frank, I still have no idea how Trump got elected.

No, that puts the onus on children. The legal responsibility for a gun is the gun owner or the legal guardian of a child. As well you are again only wanting to consider one and only one scenario.
Click to expand...

You seem to consider that a law will make someone keep their guns locked up because of some criminal charge when the possible loss of a child is insufficient to do so.

I just pointed out where it is not by your laws. Belief has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

We have unconstitutional laws, and laws that haven't been reviewed for Constitutionality. Do the laws to which you refer allow the police or other civil authorities to inspect a gun owner's home without a warrant to see if the guns are secured, or do they simply allow criminal and civil actions to be brought against the owner for negligence? I have no problem with the latter set of laws.

No, there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent such a law. All you have done is insist that a very silly scenario must be played.
Click to expand...

If there's nothing in the Constitution, then the federal government isn't empowered to create such a law. That's how the Constitution works.

Exactly what law are you looking to implement here in the US?
 
vegas giants said:
Any objective person? Like objective people who live in Canada, Europe, Australia, New Zealand Japan....etc? Like those objective people? You see when you lie so openly you are easily defeated
Click to expand...

Yep.. objective people who live in Canada, Europe, Australia and NEW Zealand and Japan.. agree with me. Unfortunately their government is swayed more by emotional people that won't listen to reason.

sorry man.. the only one that is doing the lying here.

Heck.. I had this conversation with a Canadian who was an outfitter.. that claimed how handgun restrictions in Canada worked. And how HE.. did not have a handgun because the restrictions were so strict that he was afraid that he would violate them simply by forgetting to follow the route that he submits to the police (when you travel with a handgun.. you have to have an itinerary of where you are going with the handgun and if you deviate from that you are in violation).

He was shocked when I showed him the statistics.. that while HE, a law abiding citizen.. was not owning a firearm because of his fear of the restrictions... statistically the preferred firearm.. the one used the most by Canadian criminals was... handguns.

now.. he changed his mind after he was given the facts and realized that I was right..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom