• 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!

Keeping guns out the wrong hands

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,623
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]
 
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]

the people who advocate such things are either ignorant or dishonest

you have those who say disarming a million honest people is worth it if it stops one killer

in most cases its disarming the honest people over a dislike of their perceived politics or life values that motivates such advocates
 
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]
You cant, get over it.
 
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]

Since it's been pretty much proven that no argument for more gun control can be logical or necessary, the only other reason politicians would push this so hard is for some underlying political agenda. In my opinion, no agenda that involves disarming of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless, could be anything other than bad bad bad.
 
Since it's been pretty much proven that no argument for more gun control can be logical or necessary, the only other reason politicians would push this so hard is for some underlying political agenda. In my opinion, no agenda that involves disarming of law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless, could be anything other than bad bad bad.

More gun control? You mean any gun control? How is more bad but some is not?

Nope, politicians may well have an agenda but no political agenda can be forward without public support. Blaming this on politicians or thinking politicians hold the key is a mistake even the NRA makes. You cannot buy a political outcome by bribing politicians if it is against public opinion. That much is just common sense and gun control keeps showing us the error of that thinking. We just don't seem to be able to figure it out. Government the master must be able to do what it wants maybe? What else explains it? No politician is going to piss people off and lose votes and power. It is when people either agree or sit on their bum that political agendas flourish.

So who's fault is it we have gun control? Ours. We are to blame when we could have prevented it by getting off our bums. The question is, we show no sign of realising that, when are we going to?
 
More gun control? You mean any gun control? How is more bad but some is not?

Nope, politicians may well have an agenda but no political agenda can be forward without public support. Blaming this on politicians or thinking politicians hold the key is a mistake even the NRA makes. You cannot buy a political outcome by bribing politicians if it is against public opinion. That much is just common sense and gun control keeps showing us the error of that thinking. We just don't seem to be able to figure it out. Government the master must be able to do what it wants maybe? What else explains it? No politician is going to piss people off and lose votes and power. It is when people either agree or sit on their bum that political agendas flourish.

So who's fault is it we have gun control? Ours. We are to blame when we could have prevented it by getting off our bums. The question is, we show no sign of realising that, when are we going to?
What is YOUR version of gun control you would be happy with?
 
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]

Why are we yelling?
 
More gun control? You mean any gun control? How is more bad but some is not?

Nope, politicians may well have an agenda but no political agenda can be forward without public support.

I disagree. I believe our government has evolved to a point where the government does what they what, not what the people want. They simply spin the words in a way that makes it look good, or it's so obfuscated that things slip through. Case and point: Obamacare. Of course, there is no proof of this.

You cannot buy a political outcome by bribing politicians if it is against public opinion.

I feel in many cases, this is exactly what happens. There are several high ranking officials of national corporations sitting in congress. I doubt they would vote against something that would be detrimental to their business, and to the same token, they probably put forth topics and suggestions that would further their own agenda and/or benefit their businesses in some way. See Monsanto. If not an exchange of money, then an exchange of votes, power, and benefits.

No politician is going to piss people off and lose votes and power.

These people are skilled in making the ignorant and lazy believe things. They wave one hand promising all sorts of fancy things for your vote, all while the other does the real work.

So who's fault is it we have gun control? Ours.

It is the fault of the people who misuse and disrespect the power and responsibility that comes with ownership of a firearm. I'm 25 years old, have a gun, and have contributed in no way to the existence of gun control. My gun has never floated out of it's case, loaded itself, and shot someone for no good reason. While people are responsible for the bringing about of these laws, saying the fault is "ours" implies that every gun owner is responsible for it. That said, I do believe gun control is necessary. I don't believe guns should be stripped from innocent law abiding citizens, but some letter of law should restrict gun shop operators from dispensing weapons to foreigners and felons. These people are going to acquire weapons if they really really want them, but at least it's making it less available to them. I have no problem passing a background check, and I have no problem proving I'm an American. Where the red line needs to be drawn is in how deep do these searches go. Unfortunately it's not a simple answer, but the short one is no foreign intervention is warranted nor necessary, since no intervention thus far has had a severe impact on the people who use firearms to commit crimes.
 
What is YOUR version of gun control you would be happy with?

When did you stop beating your wife?

For what valid rational reason do we need gun control?
 
I disagree. I believe our government has evolved to a point where the government does what they what, not what the people want. They simply spin the words in a way that makes it look good, or it's so obfuscated that things slip through. Case and point: Obamacare. Of course, there is no proof of this.

So you have conceded defeat and surrendered before we have even begun based on a few undetermined people opposing government and being told to buzz off. You suggest we put our tail between our legs and say yes sir three bags full.

No government can withstand the will of the people unless it holds a far superior controlling power.

It is when the people are to frightened or just don't care becasue they are to buzzy enjoying the goodies government hands out that we have a major problem in the making. I'd say that describes the situation now. Citizens are busy selling their right to government on the promise of being taken care of and looked after. All we want to know is what is government going to give us.
 
I disagree. I believe our government has evolved to a point where the government does what they what, not what the people want. They simply spin the words in a way that makes it look good, or it's so obfuscated that things slip through. Case and point: Obamacare. Of course, there is no proof of this.

So you have conceded defeat and surrendered before we have even begun based on a few undetermined people opposing government and being told to buzz off. You suggest we put our tail between our legs and say yes sir three bags full.

No government can withstand the will of the people unless it holds a far superior controlling power.

It is when the people are to frightened or just don't care becasue they are to busy enjoying the goodies government hands out that we have a major problem in the making. I'd say that describes the situation now. Citizens are busy selling their right to government on the promise of being taken care of and looked after. All we want to know is what is government going to give us.

Irresponsible gun owners have accidents and people get killed accidentally. So how many of these does it take to punish a very large segment of society for the possible misdeeds of other? More than are killed by bees?

Is it possibly irresponsible and inhuman to punish the innocent or suggest they are punished to appease your beliefs?
 
So you have conceded defeat and surrendered before we have even begun based on a few undetermined people opposing government and being told to buzz off. You suggest we put our tail between our legs and say yes sir three bags full.

No, I'm not conceding defeat. There is a very active group trying to bring awareness to the way the government is operating today and they aren't backing down. I'm participating with my votes. But to put it in perspective, if you have 100 educated people who know what the candidates are all about voting, and 1000 people who aren't and don't respectively, it doesn't matter how many of the 100 educated you get to vote the right way (right assuming there is only one right answer to solve these issues), the 1000 ignorant will almost always outvote the educated. Part of that is indeed because of the happy poor receiving handouts from the government. I don't support this.

No government can withstand the will of the people unless it holds a far superior controlling power.

Sure they can, if the government is skilled enough at making **** look like gold. That's exactly what our government does.

It is when the people are to frightened or just don't care because they are to busy enjoying the goodies government hands out that we have a major problem in the making. I'd say that describes the situation now. Citizens are busy selling their right to government on the promise of being taken care of and looked after. All we want to know is what is government going to give us.

I agree. But I think the underlying problem is people thinking getting handouts is a good thing. This is only good for people who have nothing, and I for one would rather give them a job than give them a check every month to pay their bills while they sit around and do nothing, or worse, break the law.

Irresponsible gun owners have accidents and people get killed accidentally.

Yes they do. But that is a small fraction of the total population of gun owners. I hardly think this fits the bill of "out of control". This warrants more education on how to own and use a firearm, not international intervention.

So how many of these does it take to punish a very large segment of society for the possible misdeeds of other?

I think this is the wrong question to be asking. I think we should be asking, "If this is happening this frequently, how can we decrease the frequency of occurrence without taking the rights away from the people who have done nothing wrong?" People get in car accidents all the time. How many of these have to occur before it warrants international intervention? You see there really isn't a number because it doesn't affect anyone but us. It is our problem, our responsibility. If we can't fix it then whatever happens as a result of it will happen. But unless like more than 50% of gun owners are having accidental discharges resulting in injury or death, I don't think this is an arguable point. Gun control is focused on people who use guns to kill others without warrant.

Is it possibly irresponsible and inhuman to punish the innocent or suggest they are punished to appease your beliefs?

Yes, it is. So why should I have to suffer the punishment of having my right to bear arms stripped of me because other believe that will solve gun crime? I shouldn't, plain and simple.
 
More gun control? You mean any gun control? How is more bad but some is not?

Nope, politicians may well have an agenda but no political agenda can be forward without public support. Blaming this on politicians or thinking politicians hold the key is a mistake even the NRA makes. You cannot buy a political outcome by bribing politicians if it is against public opinion. That much is just common sense and gun control keeps showing us the error of that thinking. We just don't seem to be able to figure it out. Government the master must be able to do what it wants maybe? What else explains it? No politician is going to piss people off and lose votes and power. It is when people either agree or sit on their bum that political agendas flourish.

So who's fault is it we have gun control? Ours. We are to blame when we could have prevented it by getting off our bums. The question is, we show no sign of realising that, when are we going to?

Snort!

Blame yourself.
 
[h=5]I am as concerned about our safety as anyone but I just have a great deal of difficulty in believing we can be made safer by removing guns from citizens hands, the victims of crime.

How does this keeping guns out of the wrong hands work when all it appears to do is keep guns out of the right hands?
How will we be safer?[/h]

Only convicted criminals should ever be denied the right to own guns, end of discussion.
 
Only convicted criminals should ever be denied the right to own guns, end of discussion.

so a fugitive on the run, fleeing say multiple indictments for capital murder are OK?

someone decreed mentally incompetent?

illegal aliens

hmmmmm
 
Is it possibly irresponsible and inhuman to punish the innocent or suggest they are punished to appease your beliefs?

Correct. Only an ignorant bigot could possibly desire to deny the fundamental human right of gun ownership to anybody merely because of a prejudice against that person's mental impairments or immigration status, or some such irrelevant and nonsensical reason. That would be, as you so aptly put it, inhuman.
 
Only convicted criminals should ever be denied the right to own guns, end of discussion.

Once a convicted felon has served his punishment he is released back into society as a FREE person same as you. Are you saying that this punishment must now continue because you fear the felon or don't like the idea? Courts set the punishment does criminal law you don't need a gun control law. So if you want it get it made criminal law lets see how well the criminal rights organisations fight that and give us a lesson we very much need.
 
so a fugitive on the run, fleeing say multiple indictments for capital murder are OK?

someone decreed mentally incompetent?

illegal aliens

hmmmmm

None of these require a gun control law when criminal law should be used.

What is the point of emotional innuendo? To convince with emotions?
 
No, I'm not conceding defeat. There is a very active group trying to bring awareness to the way the government is operating today and they aren't backing down. I'm participating with my votes. But to put it in perspective, if you have 100 educated people who know what the candidates are all about voting, and 1000 people who aren't and don't respectively, it doesn't matter how many of the 100 educated you get to vote the right way (right assuming there is only one right answer to solve these issues), the 1000 ignorant will almost always outvote the educated. Part of that is indeed because of the happy poor receiving handouts from the government. I don't support this.

Well then since you know what the problem is fix it. 100 firearm owners buying and protecting guns is going to make no difference to 1000 people who want those 100 peoples rights to buy and posses guys will it?

How does one fix that problem? By voting? Trying to buy politicians? See anyone doing what is the only thing that can fix that situation?


Sure they can, if the government is skilled enough at making **** look like gold. That's exactly what our government does.

Oh! wow! a light. yes. Government is skilled enough and wants to enough that your rights and even life will not stand in the way. And if government is not skilled enough it will use you money to be or hire it which it does.

I agree. But I think the underlying problem is people thinking getting handouts is a good thing. This is only good for people who have nothing, and I for one would rather give them a job than give them a check every month to pay their bills while they sit around and do nothing, or worse, break the law.
It is simply buying votes with dependence.

Yes they do. But that is a small fraction of the total population of gun owners. I hardly think this fits the bill of "out of control". This warrants more education on how to own and use a firearm, not international intervention.

Small fraction? Which cave have you been hiding in? 50% of the population wants more strict gun control. Just 11% less. Get real and smell the figures of defeat. That is why gun control will win. We cannot figure out why we lose. And lose we do provably. No country in the world has less restrictive gun control laws than it did 50 years ago. None. Even Switzerland is now effectively disarmed. Ammunition may not be stored at home because greedy money grabbing fools run firearm organisations and are willing to sell our rights to make money or just give them away trying to get favour from government.


I think this is the wrong question to be asking. I think we should be asking, "If this is happening this frequently, how can we decrease the frequency of occurrence without taking the rights away from the people who have done nothing wrong?" People get in car accidents all the time. How many of these have to occur before it warrants international intervention? You see there really isn't a number because it doesn't affect anyone but us. It is our problem, our responsibility. If we can't fix it then whatever happens as a result of it will happen. But unless like more than 50% of gun owners are having accidental discharges resulting in injury or death, I don't think this is an arguable point. Gun control is focused on people who use guns to kill others without warrant.

Once again you are making an assumption for which you have not provided proof. Can you show that guns caused the problem or the number of guns in society did?

Is there any point in trying to control something if it has no hope of working and gains what government wants at the price of citizens safety and freedom?

International intervention simply shows the source of the drive and desire and how much is controlled by the source.

Yes, it is. So why should I have to suffer the punishment of having my right to bear arms stripped of me because other believe that will solve gun crime? I shouldn't, plain and simple.

Then make damn sure you don't ;-)
 
Back
Top Bottom