• 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!

Not Arming Yourself So Bad Guys Wont Arm Themselves

tshade said:
make it harder to get the weapon in the first place
Click to expand...

That's the one I want.

Fills out 4473, passes background check, pays money.

See ya in three days!

Not particularly hard.
 
tshade said:
make it harder to get the weapon in the first place
Click to expand...
Does a waiting period really make it harder for someone who has been planning their evil deed for months?
 
RF667799 said:
That's the one I want.

Fills out 4473, passes background check, pays money.

See ya in three days!

Not particularly hard.
Click to expand...
A waiting period for someone who owns a gun already does nothing.
 
Rucker61 said:
Does a waiting period really make it harder for someone who has been planning their evil deed for months?
Click to expand...
yep--------------what do you want? Make it 'easier' ??

How about severe liability laws for parents and gun owners, etc.....................let's make people RESPONSIBLE for owning a firearm....
 
tshade said:
yep--------------what do you want? Make it 'easier' ??
Click to expand...
Then you should insist upon a one year waiting period, or you're making it easier.
tshade said:
How about severe liability laws for parents and gun owners, etc.....................let's make people RESPONSIBLE for owning a firearm....
Click to expand...
What kind of liability laws?
 
Rucker61 said:
A waiting period for someone who owns a gun already does nothing.
Click to expand...

True. I most especially never understood the point when I was trading one in on another.
 
DebateChallenge said:
if the police and military arm themselves then the bad guys they go up against are going to arm themselves too.
Click to expand...

We'll have to divide each city into no-gun zones, militia-stalemate zones and NRA war zones! The gun-control zones can be called the safe zones!

Real-life map of Mogadishu battle:
Screenshot_20221001_225000.jpg
-oldstannespass com


Black Hawk Down (2001) - Soliders Leaving to Safe Zone
 
tshade said:
yep--------------what do you want? Make it 'easier' ??

How about severe liability laws for parents and gun owners, etc.....................let's make people RESPONSIBLE for owning a firearm....
Click to expand...
Hey I know, lets make internet servers RESPONSIBLE for not alerting authorities with some whack jobber posts his intents and manifestos online. Forgot 1st Amendment right?
 
zsu2357 said:
Hey I know, lets make internet servers RESPONSIBLE for not alerting authorities with some whack jobber posts his intents and manifestos online. Forgot 1st Amendment right?
Click to expand...
anyone who works with kids knows about 'mandated reporter' laws-----------so yeah, similar thing = let's do it. 1st Amend. rights have limits.....
 
zsu2357 said:
Hey I know, lets make internet servers RESPONSIBLE for not alerting authorities with some whack jobber posts his intents and manifestos online. Forgot 1st Amendment right?
Click to expand...

The crime of threatening behaviour in most countries requires not only the sinister remarks but also a capacity to carry out the threat. I could threaten to blow up a police car but I don't have a rocket launcher and consequently no one would take me seriously. The difference with America is that your citizens actually do have the weaponry to back up any online threats!


Police Say School Shooter Had History Of School Shootings - The Onion
 
Michael McMahon said:
The crime of threatening behaviour in most countries requires not only the sinister remarks but also a capacity to carry out the threat. I could threaten to blow up a police car but I don't have a rocket launcher and consequently no one would take me seriously. The difference with America is that your citizens actually do have the weaponry to back up any online threats!
Click to expand...
You have got to be kidding with that line of reasoning.

An irish man complaining he cannot blow something up??? That must make the english feel safe.
 
Michael McMahon said:
The crime of threatening behaviour in most countries requires not only the sinister remarks but also a capacity to carry out the threat. I could threaten to blow up a police car but I don't have a rocket launcher and consequently no one would take me seriously. The difference with America is that your citizens actually do have the weaponry to back up any online threats!


Police Say School Shooter Had History Of School Shootings - The Onion
Click to expand...

I really don't know if that's sarcasm or not,. But just in case it isn't check out and see what The Onion is.
It's satire you do know that.
 
Last edited:
zsu2357 said:
I'm talking about conceal carry what the **** are you going on about? Like I didn't know with your stupid cartoon or comic page.
In other words you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I think your only knowledge is what other anti gunners say and write.
Click to expand...

So law enforcement training doesn't give cops the ability to distinguish a firearm from a cell phone, but sticking a gun in your pants grants you the preternatural ability to distinguish "the difference between waving around to intimidate and actually a threat?" You are deluding yourself into some kind of John Wick fantasy. You don't know. Graveyards are littered with the bodies of people who discovered the hard way that negligent discharges, poor storage practices, and bad choices in stressful situations are real things that can happen to people who carry.

This posturing bravado about "How do I know? I just do. You carry you know." is what is known in flight training as a "hazardous attitude." When it comes to things like flying planes and carrying firearms, hazardous attitudes can lead to tragedy. This is why students who appear unable to overcome their hazardous attitudes are not granted pilot's licenses.

I know, I know, if you restrict law-abiding citizens from flying planes, then only criminals will have planes (and, y'know, law-abiding citizens who were able to demonstrate competence in operating an aircraft and overcoming their hazardous attitudes.) Nonetheless, aviation deaths statistically went down after certification practices were implemented.
 
zsu2357 said:
I really don't know if that's sarcasm or not,. But just in case it isn't check out and see what The Onion is.
It's satire you do know that.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Humour can reduce tension. Anyway when it comes to guns we must remember that bullies are notorious for picking on smaller people. Just think of how outnumbered Ukraine is against the Russian invasion. School bullies might pick on younger or physically weaker people. Arming people won't stop bullying. Just think of the stereotype about the condescending drill sergeants. The irony is that the soldiers under their command are heavily armed. The army is more hierarchical than society and so it's hard to say that guns are an equaliser for soldiers. An armed child no matter how much firepower you give them will never be as strong or skilled as an armed adult. An elderly person can be as well-trained as a young adult at target practice but a child by definition doesn't have the experience to match them. When we refer to vulnerable people we don't mean Clint Eastwood in his retirement days!


Blood Work - Neighborhood Shooting Scene

Arming 5 year olds won't protect them from local gangs:

City of God | 'Lesson Learned'
 
Last edited:
AConcernedCitizen said:
So law enforcement training doesn't give cops the ability to distinguish a firearm from a cell phone, but sticking a gun in your pants grants you the preternatural ability to distinguish "the difference between waving around to intimidate and actually a threat?" You are deluding yourself into some kind of John Wick fantasy. You don't know. Graveyards are littered with the bodies of people who discovered the hard way that negligent discharges, poor storage practices, and bad choices in stressful situations are real things that can happen to people who carry.

This posturing bravado about "How do I know? I just do. You carry you know." is what is known in flight training as a "hazardous attitude." When it comes to things like flying planes and carrying firearms, hazardous attitudes can lead to tragedy. This is why students who appear unable to overcome their hazardous attitudes are not granted pilot's licenses.

I know, I know, if you restrict law-abiding citizens from flying planes, then only criminals will have planes (and, y'know, law-abiding citizens who were able to demonstrate competence in operating an aircraft and overcoming their hazardous attitudes.) Nonetheless, aviation deaths statistically went down after certification practices were implemented.
Click to expand...

Can you teach someone to safely fly an airplane in less than 5 minutes?
 
AConcernedCitizen said:
So law enforcement training doesn't give cops the ability to distinguish a firearm from a cell phone, but sticking a gun in your pants grants you the preternatural ability to distinguish "the difference between waving around to intimidate and actually a threat?" You are deluding yourself into some kind of John Wick fantasy. You don't know. Graveyards are littered with the bodies of people who discovered the hard way that negligent discharges, poor storage practices, and bad choices in stressful situations are real things that can happen to people who carry.

This posturing bravado about "How do I know? I just do. You carry you know." is what is known in flight training as a "hazardous attitude." When it comes to things like flying planes and carrying firearms, hazardous attitudes can lead to tragedy. This is why students who appear unable to overcome their hazardous attitudes are not granted pilot's licenses.

I know, I know, if you restrict law-abiding citizens from flying planes, then only criminals will have planes (and, y'know, law-abiding citizens who were able to demonstrate competence in operating an aircraft and overcoming their hazardous attitudes.) Nonetheless, aviation deaths statistically went down after certification practices were implemented.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a cop who "accidentally" shot a guy while trying to tase him? She pulled out her gun insread of the taser and din't notice the different weight, shape, colour...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom