• 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!

The main problem with the "good guy with a gun" slogan

Moon said:
When I was in the Air Force I qualified with the following:

S&W .38
Beretta 9mm
M-16
M-4
Remington 870 12 gauge pump shotgun

Obviously the M-16 and M-4 are military weapons, but what about the others? Would you classify them as “weapons designed for war” since they were in the military inventory?
Click to expand...
I'm more worried about the greater damage done by high-capacity assault weapons designed to kill many quickly. You're not ever going to get those other guns out of the hands of American citizens unless a potential future Authoritarian government would start to get worried about their bad decisions.
 
Craig234 said:
It's like drug dealers saying, "the best way to end drug abuse, is to have drugs all over the place freely sold, so that instead of being tempting by being illegal, people will get sick of drugs and bored of them, and will stop using them."

A self-serving, fallacious claim. Not that it's fair to lump the head of the NRA who apparently coined the slogan with drug dealers. To the drug dealers. Drug dealers don't have his level of corruption or promotion of mass violence in the country.
Click to expand...
Wtf are you talking about?
What a wild analogy.

Drugs should be legalized. Period. They would be less detrimental to society if they were.
 
Bear5131 said:
Other places don't have all the different variables we have either
Click to expand...

There is only one variable that's different.

Some other countries had that variable too, but they fixed it. Its not that hard.

www.nytimes.com

Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws. (Published 2022)

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
ataraxia said:
There is only one variable that's different.

Some other countries had that variable too, but they fixed it. Its not that hard.

www.nytimes.com

Other Countries Had Mass Shootings. Then They Changed Their Gun Laws. (Published 2022)

Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway: All had a culture of gun ownership, and all tightened restrictions anyway. Their violence statistics now diverge sharply from those of the U.S.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
That's like saying the people in California are the same as Indiana.

Nope different values, and cultures
 
Gateman_Wen said:
They're frightened of rifles that can penetrate their armor and have no duty to protect anyway.

In other words they are completely useless.

Personally I think they should all be charged as accessories.
Click to expand...
Think their hands will tremble a bit when they're handed their next paycheque? Will they be looking down at the floor?
 
Bear5131 said:
That's like saying the people in California are the same as Indiana.

Nope different values, and cultures
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not about culture. It works everywhere laws and regulations exist, and doens't work where it doesn't- states, countries, ... any way you slice it. Places which didn't have them and then get them, do much better.


It's just common sense. What other potentially hazardous tool or equipment do you know that does just fine with minimal regulations or laws?
 
ataraxia said:
Nope, it's not about culture. It works everywhere laws and regulations exist, and doens't work where it doesn't- states, countries, ... any way you slice it. Places which didn't have them and then get them, do much better.


It's just common sense. What other potentially hazardous tool or equipment do you know that does just fine with minimal regulations or laws?
Click to expand...
Of course it's about culture

The Japanese is all mostly Japanese

Scandinavian countries are mostly white


The US again has a huge single Parenthood problem glorified in print and media
 
Antiwar said:
You're for a responsible and sane conservative police state.
Click to expand...
Not the way you seem to be putting it. I'm talking about Police that are already there, they just need to make sure the resources are there to respond promptly to schools. If the local Police force can't handle a lone person with an assault weapon, then make sure a SWAT team or other capable force is close by or at the school. If there's no chance of banning assault weapons, then I'd support any new need for capable small forces in or nearby schools, which at this point should already be in place everywhere.
If you're worried about corruption, too late! It apparently will always be with us, and even may get worse, but that too should be dealt with.
 
Bear5131 said:
Of course it's about culture

The Japanese is all mostly Japanese

Scandinavian countries are mostly white


The US again has a huge single Parenthood problem glorified in print and media
Click to expand...

Poor attempt at gaslighting. It's not about culture or even just about guns. The pattern is the same everywhere: wherever the manufacture, sale, and use of hazardous tools and equipment is well-regulated, they pose less of a danger to the public.

Not sure why this is so hard.
 
beefheart said:
View attachment 67393457
Click to expand...
Or

dumb-dumber-poster.jpg
 
ataraxia said:
Poor attempt at gaslighting. It's not even just about guns. The pattern is the same everywhere: wherever the manufacture, sale, and use of hazardous tools and equipment is well-regulated, they pose less of a danger to the public.
Click to expand...
No gaslighting the left refuses to see the root of the cause and its not guns
 
element94 said:
Not the way you seem to be putting it. I'm talking about Police that are already there, they just need to make sure the resources are there to respond promptly to schools. If the local Police force can't handle a lone person with an assault weapon, then make sure a SWAT team or other capable force is close by or at the school. If there's no chance of banning assault weapons, then I'd support any new need for capable small forces in or nearby schools, which at this point should already be in place everywhere.
If you're worried about corruption, too late! It apparently will always be with us, and even may get worse, but that too should be dealt with.
Click to expand...

=> "All we need is a SWAT team near every school ... grocery store, church, concert, post office, movie theater, etc." That's a police state.
 
Last edited:
The gun nuts greatly overestimate how effective “A good guy with a gun” is at stopping a shooting. It’s happened 3% of the time. Most gun owners don’t have close to the training they need.
 
Antiwar said:
=> "All we need is a SWAT team near every school ... grocery store, church, concert, post office, movie theater, etc." That's a police state.
Click to expand...
Then we're mostly a "police state" already. I'm talking about keeping the lack of response that happened in Uvalde from happening anywhere else. What are you talking about?
 
element94 said:
Then we're mostly a "police state" already. I'm talking about keeping the lack of response that happened in Uvalde from happening anywhere else. What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I highlighted your quote in my #44.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom