• 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!

Shooting at a MN city hall, couniclman draws his weapon to defend himself.

So somebody who shouldn't have guns, a civilian, pulls a gun and gets taken out by two cops and a city councilman who hides behind the counter, does nothing but pointing his gun at someone who wasn't even in the room proves what exactly? To me it proves the obvious 1) Civilians should not have guns 2) cops should have guns.
 

It shows civilians should have guns just like cops so one can protect himself and others. Just because he didn't have to open fire doesn't he wasn't ready too.
 

The councilman with the gun is a member of the PD and acted exactly as he should.

Thom Paine
 

sadly, you cannot prevent bad people from having guns so the rest of us should have them too

why do you spend so much time advocating safe working conditions for criminals and why is it that EVERY gun hater on this board is far left?
 
The people in the world today ,are crazy !:shoot:stop:
 

Well never going to happen, and I saw a movie where only the cops had guns..I was called Schindler's List.
 
The people in the world today ,are crazy !:shoot:stop:

Yeah it like there are people out there that do not understand criminals do not obey the law, or Good ideas do not translate into good results.
 
FYI cops are civilians. Anyone not on active-duty or drill orders under Title-10 or Title-32 is a civilian.
 
So applying Goodman's law changes the facts of history? Or just your having to accept it?

Applying Godwin's Law means you automatically lose for making lame Hitler references - the first resort of :censored
 
First, hypothetically, is killing someone more or less difficult if there was absolutely no guns? NONE. Let's give them to the armed forces. No guns in the civilian populace, and not even police officers, because they would be way too drunk with their power. None.

Don't you think less people would die? None of this, but he got this gun from Mexico thing. Just hypothetically, if there were no guns, how do you think it would affect the homicide count in particular?
 
Applying Godwin's Law means you automatically lose for making lame Hitler references - the first resort of :censored

So if I reference Hitler built the autobahn in a debate over highway construction I loose the argument? Non-sense, Goodwin's law is simply a, head in the sand, way out for those who can not participate in a debate.
 

First you have to explain in which reality would there ever be no guns?
 
So if I reference Hitler built the autobahn in a debate over highway construction I loose the argument? Non-sense, Goodwin's law is simply a, head in the sand, way out for those who can not participate in a debate.

Well no, because in the case of the Autobahn at least the example is true - and likely isn't made to score a cheap political shot.
 
First you have to explain in which reality would there ever be no guns?

That's part of my point. Gun manufacturers have essentially forced people to buy guns, not only for protection but for evil as well. And, as more school shootings happen, or homicides, that's exactly what they want!! Why? Because people want to defend themselves. So they buy guns.

And essentially this view would never happen, because not only would it kill jobs, but it would lose lots of revenue to the government. But honestly, if it were possible, and some countries in this world have done it, there would be far less violence without guns. I know people kill people, not guns. But guns are a form of technology designed to kill people instantly at a distance, and is somewhat easy to figure out how to shoot it. Guns make killing people easy, especially the automatics like in Columbine. If you make guns more easy to obtain, not only are guns easier to purchase for protection, but also for malice intent. To provide evidence about the gun industry wanting violence, there was a background check being considered in the senate. Over 90 percent of the general public was for this background check before purchasing a gun. Over 80 percent of NRA members were for this background check. The Senate didn't pass it.

It shows two things. First, the power of lobby. Second, that the NRA wants anybody and everybody, regardless of mental state, to buy a gun. The more violence you see on TV, the more prone you are to buy your own weapon.

In order to rid this country of weapons, we would have to disband the NRA and gun manufacturers, whenever a firearm is confiscated it is destroyed, and we would have to infiltrate the black market and destroy those guns. But America is so gunho and entrenched in this second amendment crap, that essentially we will never have a society with gun control, there are simply way too many guns. And that was exactly the plan from the get go from the gun industry.

Edit: I think you were deflecting my point. What would happen to the homicide rate if there were absolutely no guns?
 

nonsense

1) congress doesn't have the power to make private citizens, who are limited by federal law-to INTRA-state second hand sales, to conduct checks

2) the background check forced upon licensed dealers has done NOTHING to decrease crime-why would another check-one that cannot be enforced-be more effective?

3) what we have are way too many control freaks who want to tell others what they can own or buy
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…