• 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!

Stop talking and start doing!!!!!!

I already answered that, I mentioned having a more open societal discussion once the framing is set in a way where people can agree on a problem definition.
We couldn't do that around "firearms" but can around "weapons"?

Let's start. Define the "problem".
 
I already answered that, I mentioned having a more open societal discussion once the framing is set in a way where people can agree on a problem definition.

😆 😆

Bureaucratic nonsense talk.

Besides...all your argumentation has indicated you accept no definitions other than your own, and those are equivocal as is convenient to you.

There's no good faith to base a "societal discussion" there.
 
We couldn't do that around "firearms" but can around "weapons"?

Let's start. Define the "problem".
you keep arguing with me as I am doing that

I would prefer it to be collaborative as well.

:p
 
you keep arguing with me as I am doing that

I would prefer it to be collaborative as well.

:p
Ok, lets say we're past firearms/weapons.

What problem are we collaboratively working to solve?
 
I haven't lied yet.
When you state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons" that is a lie. It is a lie, because you've been shown that they are not. Posting without knowing it's false, is just ignorance. Posting it after you know it's false, is a lie.
I fully believe I am correct here.
And your belief has been shown to be proven false.
 
Ok, lets say we're past firearms/weapons.

What problem are we collaboratively working to solve?
How to get society to come to some sort agreement on what to do with weapons.
 
When you state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons" that is a lie. It is a lie, because you've been shown that they are not. Posting without knowing it's false, is just ignorance. Posting it after you know it's false, is a lie.
Incorrect, that is their essential nature.

There are some narrow exceptions, but those are narrow and do not alter the previous statement in any fundamental way.
And your belief has been shown to be proven false.
Incorrect.
 
Incorrect, that is their essential nature.

There are some narrow exceptions, but those are narrow and do not alter the previous statement in any fundamental way.

Incorrect.

How many are designed exclusively as weapons? If they aren't designed to exclusively be weapons, then you deciding what is their "essential nature" is as I alluded to in the beginning. Choosing one facet and arbitrarily claiming that defines the whole.

It's really only a slight variation on the idiotic argument that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. In fact, I believe that was exactly your jumping off point in the thread.
 
For decades I have listened to the stories of my family, friends, and customers. I often apply the old "what would I have done" in that position. Particularly with the knife attacks. I'm curious if a gun would have helped.

What I look for.....would a gun have changed things for the better? Did you anticipate the attack in other words did you see it coming? If not why. Was it a lack of situational awareness? Was the attack perfectly timed or executed? Stuff like this. I use it to better myself AND to help my customers. Besides selling guns, I give firearm training classes. We cover situational awareness in one part. These events both good and bad are educational.

I will not judge you.

Much lol.

First time I had a knife pulled on me was in a mall. On a beautifully landscaped stairscase which created many hidden spots behind the indoor shrubs and trees.
I was walking down and from behind one of the hidden spots jumped a guy with a long hunting knife.
I dont recall what he said but basically I became outraged and told him to put the damned knife away, in a very firm and no nonsense manner and walked right by him.
Second time a homeless guy pulled a razor to threaten me, on a NYC subway car. I did not say a word to him but did not comply with anything he said. I simply starred at the razor so I'd be prepared if he leapt at me. When we pulled into a station I got out, backing out. Never taking my eyes off the blade. He stayed on the train.

Funny, I was not scared at all during the mall incident but I was pretty tense during the subway confrontation.
 
as you've been shown, the CDC conducted a study and found that defensive use of firearms is around 500,000 times per year.

As I have show you, this is bullshit.
Complete and total bullshit.
Frankly it is a stupid, very stupid post.
 
How many are designed exclusively as weapons? If they aren't designed to exclusively be weapons, then you deciding what is their "essential nature" is as I alluded to in the beginning. Choosing one facet and arbitrarily claiming that defines the whole.

It's really only a slight variation on the idiotic argument that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. In fact, I believe that was exactly your jumping off point in the thread.
So far only two alternatives have been mentioned. A single trap shooting rifle and a gas powered device that uses CO2 which is an entirely different technology (paintball).
 
The alternative is more social breakdown.
that didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.
 
So far only two alternatives have been mentioned. A single trap shooting rifle and a gas powered device that uses CO2 which is an entirely different technology (paintball).

It wasn't a trap shooting rifle. Any rifle would be entirely unsuitable for shooting trap.

Do you see a large part of the problem here?

You're asserting that your determination of the essential nature of guns...the only purpose of guns...what guns are designed for...ALL guns...is correct, but you know very little about guns.
 
Incorrect, that is their essential nature.
This statement is a lie, and has been proven so.
There are some narrow exceptions, but those are narrow and do not alter the previous statement in any fundamental way.

Incorrect.
It's a proven lie to state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons"
 
As I have show you, this is bullshit.
you posted a study by the CDC that said their previously published study was wrong? lol
Complete and total bullshit.
Frankly it is a stupid, very stupid post.
It's reality. Your poor attempt at trolling does not change reality.
 
that didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.

Nor have we been given an example of a gun that is designed exclusively to kill (a weapon). One that its only purpose is to kill. One would think there might be many examples. Since that is claimed to be the essential nature of all guns.
 
you posted a study by the CDC that said their previously published study was wrong? lol

It's reality. Your poor attempt at trolling does not change reality.

why are you so adverse to truth?
 
This statement is a lie, and has been proven so.

It's a proven lie to state "firearms (all of them) are designed as weapons"
incorrect.
 
why are you so adverse to truth?
So you don't have a study published by the CDC, that retracted the study the CDC published which shows 500,000 defensive use of firearms?
 
that didn't quite answer my question. Given the vast gulf in viewpoints, I don't see any chance of a compromise being reached.
that might be the case
 
Back
Top Bottom