• 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!

If 90% of the people want background checks then ... [W:486]

bubbabgone said:
I figured it out.
Click to expand...

Doubt it. Or are you of the belief that those of us who think there are too many guns out there can't put up stories of gun carnage? Get it yet? Doubt it.
 
Danbury said:
Again, the purpose of alcohol is not to kill. The purpose of guns is to kill. But even if alcohol is used to kill someone, it cannot due so at the rate and carnage of an assault weapon. I suppose that, with enough force, one could force enough alcohol down ONE person's throat until that person dies of alcohol poisoning, but most deaths where alcohol is the culprit are either self-inflicted or accidental, like a car wreck via a drunk drive (and we DO have restrictions about that! Should drunk drives be shrieking about their freedom and how they're responsible drunk drivers?).

So no, alcohol is also a bad analogy. Guns and alcohol have nothing in common.
Click to expand...
Preventable deaths is the key word. You could prevent many more deaths, rapes, murders, child abuse and affect far more lives by further restricting the sales of alcohol. But you are stuck on the word kill.....guns kill. Do you understand that guns have the potential to benefit a civil society? You do know that there is a difference between kill and murder. Good people/law enforcement/soldiers kill in defense of society. People with evil intent use firearms to murder. So yes, guns are designed to kill. They are not designed or intended to murder. Alcohol on the other hand offers very little benefit to society yet more could be done to reduce the destruction to society that it causes. Simple measures that would affect everyone in order to effect the few that abuse it. Look at what they are doing in the UK. Coalition to set minimum alcohol price | Society | The Guardian seems reasonable does it not?

This is where the analogy kicks in. They are both freedoms. The freedoms of the majority of people are being restricted in order to prevent a exceedingly small minority of abusers. The only difference is that one freedom is practiced by more people is responsible for far more death.

Don't know about you, but I don't care if a drunk kills a child accidentally, I don't care if a criminal kills a child with an AR. A child was killed. Period. You seem to place more value on a child murdered on accident than a child killed intentionally. You cannot justify the disparity so you concentrate on the semantics.
 
Gasoline is by far more dangerous than any gun you can legally buy, and hell, more dangerous than most guns you CAN'T legally buy. Why aren't we talking about regulating THAT?

You got any idea what would happen to Derby, CT, if I poured 20 gallons of the stuff into the UNGUARDED, barely fenced water treatment plant down the street from...a gas station?

And still no one can tell me what makes the AR-15 so dangerous as compared to any other gun out there.

And we continue to tap dance and tip toe and finagle around semantics regarding exactly the PURPOSE behind "gun control". To reduce crime? Statistics are not in favor of more gun control, there, but less. To make our children safer in school? The majority of school shootings have occurred with ILLEGALLY obtained fire arms. Of course, the news doesn't play that little tid bit up. Nor is it national news every time a WOULD be mass shooting is PREVENTED...usually due to an armed member of the population present at the time, be they cop or civilian.

Frankly, I don't give two ****s about guns. I used to be an avid hunter when I lived in SC...but I don't do it anymore, and have no need for one for self defense. I don't car about the intended purpose of the 2nd in the bill of rights. Guns will do no more...less in fact, to protect my rights from my government than my votes do...

I care only because this will just be another "war" on something, and wars cost money. Lots of it. And if we're gonna spend money, I wanna to GET something for it...and I will get NOTHING for this. Not security or safety, no jobs, only more criminals. Who ALSO cost me a lot of money.
 
Danbury said:
Simplistic and false thinking and argument.
Click to expand...

Hey, YOU'RE the one who quoted the damn book, not ME. I simply pointed out the irony of it, is all.
 
Danbury said:
Doubt it. Or are you of the belief that those of us who think there are too many guns out there can't put up stories of gun carnage? Get it yet? Doubt it.
Click to expand...
... you said you didn't buy the self-defense argument so I gave you the news item about self-defense and you said it was irrelevant ... it was only my reluctance to embarrass an old aquaintance that prevented me from spelling it out for you.

BTW, that Lean: Centrist thing in your profile is a scream ... certainly funnier than Chris Rock ever was.
 
Danbury said:
A culture where an inanimate object that serves very little, if any, purpose, can cause such an emotional reaction among millions of people, cause them to not be rational, reasonable, scream obscenities, portray themselves as unable to live w/o this object, where fantasy reigns, where lack of proportion reigns...There is absolutely a gun culture in this country, and it's very weird.
Click to expand...

So you want to weigh the benefit of people's emotional and intellectual state? And if you were to determine that this culture needed to be eliminated, how would you go about eradicating these thoughts and reactions you describe from people's heads?
 
Federalist said:
What is a "gun culture"?
Click to expand...

A culture that celebrates guns, and gun ownership.

Remember when cigarettes were cool? How cool they were, how cool they looked...how cool the kids where that smoked them? One could call that a cigarette culture.

Well, we have a gun culture in the US. In the movies, TV shows, cartoons, comics, video games, etc. You take a given room full of people...the guy in that room with the gun is the coolest one there. He's the mover and the shaker, he gets the girl, and saves the day. Guns are more prevalent in our culture than Jesus.
 
Danbury said:
Simplistic and false thinking and argument.
Click to expand...

Yes you do. You want to make guns illegal.

It's obvious.

And until you work up the intellectual integrity to give a concrete answer as to what you want OTHER than that, as you have been asked for dozens of times now, it will remain obvious.

So, it's up to you -- explain what you want, or live with the fact that you're not fooling anyone and don't have the stones to admit it.
 
bubbabgone said:
... you said you didn't buy the self-defense argument so I gave you the news item about self-defense and you said it was irrelevant ... it was only my reluctance to embarrass an old aquaintance that prevented me from spelling it out for you.

BTW, that Lean: Centrist thing in your profile is a scream ... certainly funnier than Chris Rock ever was.
Click to expand...

Is Shalala here, does anybody know ?...........
 
Danbury said:
Deter tyranny! ROFL! That one's my favorite. "Have fun stormin' the castle, fellas!" Lol.

Btw, just how deluded does one have to be to believe they can take on the US government? And should people who are THAT deluded own guns? I don't believe so.
Click to expand...

If the U.S. government is so powerful, then why are you advocating an increase in the disparity? I think it is kind of deluded to think that will improve the situation.

So, if we had a tyrannical government, you would just capitulate? I would not, whether I thought it was a losing battle or not. But, I would rather have a gun or two than not, that is certain.

And by the way, the founders most recent experience was rebelling against their own tyrannical government. This fact was the foremost thing in their mind when they conceived of the Natural Right to bear arms. As such, it could be argued that this was the primary reason for the second.
 
Dezaad said:
And by the way, the founders most recent experience was rebelling against their own tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

Yes, the global superpower of the day, against which any sane person would have said they had no prayer of prevailing.
 
BretJ said:
Preventable deaths is the key word. You could prevent many more deaths, rapes, murders, child abuse and affect far more lives by further restricting the sales of alcohol. But you are stuck on the word kill.....guns kill. Do you understand that guns have the potential to benefit a civil society? You do know that there is a difference between kill and murder. Good people/law enforcement/soldiers kill in defense of society. People with evil intent use firearms to murder. So yes, guns are designed to kill. They are not designed or intended to murder. Alcohol on the other hand offers very little benefit to society yet more could be done to reduce the destruction to society that it causes. Simple measures that would affect everyone in order to effect the few that abuse it. Look at what they are doing in the UK. Coalition to set minimum alcohol price | Society | The Guardian seems reasonable does it not?

This is where the analogy kicks in. They are both freedoms. The freedoms of the majority of people are being restricted in order to prevent a exceedingly small minority of abusers. The only difference is that one freedom is practiced by more people is responsible for far more death.

Don't know about you, but I don't care if a drunk kills a child accidentally, I don't care if a criminal kills a child with an AR. A child was killed. Period. You seem to place more value on a child murdered on accident than a child killed intentionally. You cannot justify the disparity so you concentrate on the semantics.
Click to expand...


"Freedom" is a bad argument for guns. It's creepy yahoo language.
 
KevinKohler said:
A culture that celebrates guns, and gun ownership.

Remember when cigarettes were cool? How cool they were, how cool they looked...how cool the kids where that smoked them? One could call that a cigarette culture.

Well, we have a gun culture in the US. In the movies, TV shows, cartoons, comics, video games, etc. You take a given room full of people...the guy in that room with the gun is the coolest one there. He's the mover and the shaker, he gets the girl, and saves the day. Guns are more prevalent in our culture than Jesus.
Click to expand...

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that such a culture does indeed exist. Why does it matter whether or not people celebrate guns and gun ownership?
 
bubbabgone said:
... you said you didn't buy the self-defense argument so I gave you the news item about self-defense and you said it was irrelevant ... it was only my reluctance to embarrass an old aquaintance that prevented me from spelling it out for you.

BTW, that Lean: Centrist thing in your profile is a scream ... certainly funnier than Chris Rock ever was.
Click to expand...

As I said, I didn't think you'd get it, and you didn't. Congrats.
 
Danbury said:
"Freedom" is a bad argument for guns. It's creepy yahoo language.
Click to expand...

"Freedom" is "creepy yahoo language"?

Tell us more about how you don't want to take them away. No, really.
 
Federalist said:
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that such a culture does indeed exist. Why does it matter whether or not people celebrate guns and gun ownership?
Click to expand...

Because it increases the perception that the US is a violent culture. And to be honest, the US IS a violent culture. I don't see too many other countries with schools full of toddlers getting shot full of holes, except in third world, drug running hell holes.

The question that should be asked is, WHY is the gun celebrated so in this country?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
 
Danbury said:
You're kidding, right?
Click to expand...

No. I have presented my argument, on more than one occasion, and, for the most part, no one ever really addresses it.


So, I would hear why YOU think gun control is a good idea, and what exactly the goals of it are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom