• 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!

The real reason the anti gun crowd has a problem with armed self defense with a gun!

P_T said:
So; It's mostly agreed the Auto is The Weapon of choice to cause Draconian hell out of hell on the Population mostly and the highest cost estimates mean even more future hell for the innocent to endure ! See its the right to Drive that is the most damaging thing about Freedom. Of Course the Smart phone comes next along with Elon's plan to create a citizenry of Chipped Insane wanders ! Another Oligarchs verson of hell on Earth ! Do I believe in his vision of Man living on Mars ? Hell no !
Click to expand...
Guns will probably be illegal on mars from the get go.
 
brianpatrick said:
Fair enough. What were guns designed for. I don’t need an exhaustive list, just a few examples.
Click to expand...

Their use is a function of their designed attributes and how a person chooses to employ those attributes. Even if we can say that some specific gun is "designed to kill people" (perhaps by referring to the intent of the specific designer), that in no way proves the categorical assertion "guns are designed to kill people." If you manage to prove that a specific gun is "designed to kill people", then your task becomes to show how it is significantly, functionally different than other guns "not designed to kill people."

Beyond all that, proving "guns are designed to kill people" does nothing to advance a proposition of, "thus they should be regulated more than other dangerous items". For one thing, killing people isn't necessarily a negative action. If you want to say "guns are designed to murder", then feel free. I have to warn you that is an even higher bar for you to hurdle than your other contention.
 
Just Ask the Ukrainian mothers if they need Firearms and what they represent to their families and Democracy & in tote to protect their babies ! (Hell Yeah 99.96%, the rest are nutz already from loss !)

An Expert on CIA training say its the Grey area ya have to Train, not the Black or White when it comes to absolute survival in these extreme instances of Life;;;or;;;Death times we all can experience many times over these Autocrats hell that they intend to throw at all of us.

I don't have to name names. All of know from the recent 10 year past who all these constant liars are and they intend to do harm to most likely at least 95% of all of us the peoples of the Earth.

Ron White said, "you can't fix stupid" are you stupid and can't get fixed from Stupidly believing Liars ?

There is one obvious main problem on Mother Earth and that is there are not Copious supplies of potable water in most every Continent. Meanwhile millions of tons of ice water melt or flow down rivers into the Oceans continuously.

of course trillions of gallons of rainwater and Snow-ice melt or flow to the Seas every year but its just a shortfall of what is needed for Irrigation of all the Drought / Arid areas, dry lakes, drying lakes etc.

The small caliber firearm in the hands of honest peoples world wide are the least problems of the human race !
 
Last edited:
Yep the owner and his wife of the Pontoon boat could of beat the crap out of an asshole, been sued and spent the rest of their lives paying off the settlement of harmful intent. Yea right ! So good riddance to a crazy asshole ! If you can't respect peoples property when you are in it, on it you need to get clubbed !

MSN

www.msn.com
 
Marrybore said:
I feel that my logic isn't too far off from the logic of the pro-gun lobbyists. They don't trust the government with their guns. It leaves them defenseless and at risk. I don't trust random strangers with guns. It puts me in danger. They don't trust random strangers either. That's why they need guns, to defend themselves from possible atattacks.
Click to expand...
Your "logic" is flawed. It's not the random individual with guns that puts you in danger. TurtleDude and Rucker's guns don't put you in danger. My gun doesn't put you in danger. Unless you are a murderous criminal of course. If anything our guns, somewhat like the guns of law enforcement, would be more likely to save you if anything. What you fear is the random criminal with a gun. While I don't "fear" them they are why I prepare and carry.

So how are our guns more likely to save you than hurt you? In the course of defending ourselves from the killer/active shooter/terrorist/rabid dog......whatever the danger, if we are successful before they get to you or if our defense causes them to break off an attack that would have included you, then we have essentially saved you. Even though I would never voluntarily risk my life for someone who not only doesn't care to defend themselves but actively fights against me simply trying to protect self and family. The old I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire deal.

Your logic is furthur flawed because there are good and bad who carry. A random good guy isn't going to shoot you. A random bad guy is just as likely to kill you with his knife or his fists. So you actually fear bad guys! Logically speaking!
 
Ginger Ale said:
My gun won't help me get an abortion in Texas now will it.


Why do you allow the nosy neighbor to police women's health and rat out their community? You opened a nifty little loophole there.

That little menace of a law will soon be used to get rid of those guns. One day, your neighbor will be able to turn your ass in for owning a firearm and sue the gun makers for giving it to you. Then the conservatives will start paying the price for ****ing with others private lives.

DEL MAR, CA — Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced a bill on Friday that would allow private citizens to sue gun makers, a move that would hinder the ability to sell assault weapons in the state.
The legislation borrows tactics from a controversial approach to outlawing most abortions in Texas, in which residents are allowed to sue abortion clinics to stop procedures.


Thanks Trumpers! We were wondering just how to get around the law. You just showed us, and the Supreme Court just said, sure, go ahead and use it as you'd like. ;)(y)
Click to expand...
Lol and you source a shithole state that has crime oozing out every orifice. Gavin Newsome and folks like you are the problem. Misguided blame and marshmallow soft punishment for current laws.

Hopefully karma will find those who have brought us to this position.

As for conservstives paying......lol......we already pay out the ass for all the parasitic liberals on the government teet so we are use to it.

As for abortion..........Ronald Reagan once said that he noticed that everyone for abortion has already been born. You probably want guns banned to save the children lol yet support killing millions. We laugh at the hypocrisy!
 
Ginger Ale said:
"If gun owners are so irrationally dangerous why are you trying to piss them off?"

^This here is why I have a problem with gun owners, they eventually use their guns to threaten you.
They go on and on about it being for protection from "criminals" but eventually they use it on people who pose no immediate physical threat because they know it's a weapon, and it's purpose is to harm and scare others.

It doesn't take long does it. Anything they don't agree with is justified.
Click to expand...

She was arrested lol.

And you are wrong they don't eventually use their guns to threaten anyone. It is rare! You are not being truthful AKA lying.

I don't agree with you or any of your liberal comrades. I get into heated debates face to face while armed and have never threatened anyone especially with my gun. Been doing this for 35 years 30 while armed.

How wrong are you? Anyone convicted of using a firearm to threaten another is called aggravated assault with a firearm. A felony punishable in Florida by a minimum mandatory 3 years in prison. No legal gun owner has ever been convicted of a felony. That's how wrong you are.
 
poppopfox said:
So deliberately dishonest.

And wanting fewer violent deaths, especially amongst children, spouses and innocent others is a "silly goal?"
Click to expand...
Nope its a great goal and a hypocritical goal from you liberal abortionists.
 
poppopfox said:
It costs the taxpayers, including the those who don't own guns, large sums of revenue that could be put to better use. Just one reason.

The Economic Cost of Gun Violence

The pandemic has showcased the fragile, precarious state of public services, as every level of government strained to maintain basic government services, including schooling, public transportation and road systems, and critical hospital, fire, police, and sanitation functions. However, the government’s ability to make long-term, critical investments to ensure the future stability of these vital services is hindered by the cost of the nation’s gun violence epidemic. Our federal, state, and local governments are spending a combined average of $34.8 million each day to deal with the aftermath of gun violence across the country. The total annual bill for taxpayers, survivors, families, employers, and communities is $280 billion. The price associated with collective inaction to prevent gun violence is not just a loss of human life, but the loss of the potential to invest in vital public services that directly correlate to a stronger economy and greater quality of life for Americans.

On an average day:
  • American taxpayers pay a daily average of $34.8 million for medical care, first responders, ambulances, police, and criminal justice services related to gun violence.
  • Families directly affected by gun violence everyday face $4.7 million in out-of-pocket costs for medical bills and mental health support, and $140.3 million in losses from work missed due to injury or death.
  • Society loses an estimated $586.8 million per day in intangible costs from the pain and suffering of gun violence victims and their families.
  • Employers every day lose $1.4 million in productivity, revenue, and costs required to recruit and train replacements for victims of gun violence.
I added colors to the below graphic from the link which indicates which political party dominates each state. Opinion - Looks like the republican states love their "right to being armed" more than they do their states human population and economic well-being.

Republican Democrat No clear majority

View attachment 67380241
Click to expand...
Lol yet the majority of the crime from those red states comes from blue areas within the state! Break it down by county friend......if you have even an ounce of integrity you will.

Funny when you think you have won. When you believe you have finally got us. Yet all gets shot back into your face lol. Those pesky violent liberal shitholes got you again. In fact if you remove your people, liberals, from the stats, the U.S. is one of the safest places on Earth. Guns and all lol.
 
poppopfox said:
My grandson's high school was locked down today. Four students were involved in a shooting that took place shortly after dismissal yesterday that took place at a nearby playground. I would give odds that the gun(s) used all belong to or once belonged to lawful possessors, maybe the parents or another relative/friend left the weapons laying around to be swiped. Approximately 2,000 students were affected by this closure as well as their parents, not to mention the few thousand residents who lived nearby the playground.

Btw, couldn't possession of a law abiding citizen be considered kidnapping? ;)
Click to expand...
You should demand your local liberal officials punish gun law viviolators to the maximum. If your real goal is reducing gun violence that is.
 
Daddyo said:
Lol yet the majority of the crime from those red states comes from blue areas within the state! Break it down by county friend......if you have even an ounce of integrity you will.
Click to expand...
You break it down and prove your claim, if you have an ounce of integrity that is!
Daddyo said:
Funny when you think you have won. When you believe you have finally got us. Yet all gets shot back into your face lol. Those pesky violent liberal shitholes got you again. In fact if you remove your people, liberals, from the stats, the U.S. is one of the safest places on Earth. Guns and all lol.
Click to expand...
Prove it my friend. Funny what you think passes for truth.
 
Daddyo said:
You should demand your local liberal officials punish gun law viviolators to the maximum. If your real goal is reducing gun violence that is.
Click to expand...
Viviolators? I should demand a definition!! ;)
 
Daddyo said:
Nope its a great goal and a hypocritical goal from you liberal abortionists.
Click to expand...
All you seem to have are specious claims. Shame you can't evidence any of your projections. ☹️
 
You have to love the No Cash Bails in those Demo States. A Perp robs a mini mart, is out that afternoon and robs another one to pay his lawyer ! Then the Sheriffs Deputies quit and go to work in the State next to theirs for more Perks.

Ohio first passed a concealed carry weapons permit law in 2004. Since then it's been enormously popular and Ohio lawmakers have shaved down training requirements and expanded places where permitholders may carry. The new law eliminates the need for a permit unless the gun owner wants to carry a concealed weapon in other states.

www.concealedcarrystates.org

What are Iowa’s Concealed Carry Gun Laws? - Concealed Carry States

Iowa offers two types of permits and is a shall-issue state. Residents and non-residents may apply for a permit. If you want to carry outside city limits,
www.concealedcarrystates.org www.concealedcarrystates.org
 
Last edited:
Daddyo said:
Your "logic" is flawed. It's not the random individual with guns that puts you in danger. TurtleDude and Rucker's guns don't put you in danger. My gun doesn't put you in danger. Unless you are a murderous criminal of course. If anything our guns, somewhat like the guns of law enforcement, would be more likely to save you if anything. What you fear is the random criminal with a gun. While I don't "fear" them they are why I prepare and carry.

So how are our guns more likely to save you than hurt you? In the course of defending ourselves from the killer/active shooter/terrorist/rabid dog......whatever the danger, if we are successful before they get to you or if our defense causes them to break off an attack that would have included you, then we have essentially saved you. Even though I would never voluntarily risk my life for someone who not only doesn't care to defend themselves but actively fights against me simply trying to protect self and family. The old I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire deal.

Your logic is furthur flawed because there are good and bad who carry. A random good guy isn't going to shoot you. A random bad guy is just as likely to kill you with his knife or his fists. So you actually fear bad guys! Logically speaking!
Click to expand...
The flaw in your logic is, when I’m walking down the street, I don’t know you. You could be a murderer or a thief or the pastor of some mellow church who just wants to help. Or you could be a pedophile eyeing my kid.

I know that most people aren’t looking to harm me or my family, but there is always that chance, and the chance increases as more people (including bad guys) may have a gun. Criminals with guns increases as the possibility of victims having guns does.

Also, if there is an “active shooter” situation, the last thing law enforcement wants is multiple shooters (the bad guy/s, and the hero’s) in a situation. This increases the danger for everyone, even bystanders, people caught unaware.
 
Ginger Ale said:
There's already been the typical threats on this thread. "If you try to enforce a law, good luck, I own a gun."
"Why would you piss off a gun owner, beware."

Every thread gun owners do, there's at least a handful of bullshit threats. "Good luck taking my gun" etc....😞

Yes, it's easy to shut people down with that, because guns kill people. But, it's the very reason people think a gun toting public is dangerous, and harmful to society.

You say you have your gun to protect yourself, but the reality is you use your guns to threaten others when you don't like the laws of this country. On the larger side, you assemble militias, you practice defending yourselves against government.

On the small side, you threaten schools, parents, forum posters, etc.
Click to expand...
And also in the gun forums are anti gunners who threaten to send other people with guns to do the bidding that they don't have the eggs to do themselves. So friend it works both ways. Only you think your hands are clean.

Like the guy who find hunting despicable yet chomps down on that juicy all beef patty burger lol.
 
Daddyo said:
And also in the gun forums are anti gunners who threaten to send other people with guns to do the bidding that they don't have the eggs to do themselves. So friend it works both ways. Only you think your hands are clean.

Like the guy who find hunting despicable yet chomps down on that juicy all beef patty burger lol.
Click to expand...
They do. In a global world we outsource a monopoly on violence and give it governments. In free countries we all agree on this implicitly or explicitly. Even if you’re a “good guy” you can’t just shoot someone who might be a “bad guy” without an ensuing investigation. You and I are both “the government.” It’s not some boogeyman.
 
Daddyo said:
And also in the gun forums are anti gunners who threaten to send other people with guns to do the bidding that they don't have the eggs to do themselves. So friend it works both ways. Only you think your hands are clean.
Click to expand...
I didn't respond to all of your rant post to me because it seems you just needed to get some shit off your chest. What's fair for me is fair for you. Not much I can say about your feelings.

I don't think any kind of threatening with a gun is a good idea, regardless of who's doing it.

I have no problem with people hunting food they'll eat, in places it's legal to hunt. But I don't like the sport of it, especially if they leave the kill and then eat a burger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom