• 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!

These Are The People In Your Neighborhood [W:159]

Threegoofs said:
Do I need to type slower?

W i l l m a k I n g a u t o m a t I c w e a p o n s l e g a l r e d u c e c r I m e?

Don't dodge by saying they are legal, just 'highly regulated'. So are tanks.



And that question is in no way, shape, or form a 'straw man argument'. It's a question, first of all, not an argument, and it elicits a very specific point- at what level of weapon regulation do you cross the line between personal protection vs. public harm?
Click to expand...

Banning any type of gun will reduce gun crimes, which is rather important given that guns can kill and maim people with remarkable effectiveness. That's why criminals use automatic weapons and not spears.

So I think your question has perplexed the gun advocates' "argument".
 
Last edited:
You do know that most crimes are committed with pistols right? Guns are not the problem, but rather crime itself and gangs. My example : Chicago.

head of joaquin said:
Banning any type of gun will reduce gun crimes, which is rather important given that guns can kill and maim people with remarkable effectiveness. That's why criminals use automatic weapons and not spears.
Click to expand...
 
head of joaquin said:
Banning any type of gun will reduce gun crimes, which is rather important given that guns can kill and maim people with remarkable effectiveness. That's why criminals use automatic weapons and not spears.

So I think your question has perplexed the gun advocates' "argument".
Click to expand...

Except, as always, all the facts and statistic prove that your fantasy land utopian ideas are wrong.
 
These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

head of joaquin said:
Banning any type of gun will reduce gun crimes, which is rather important given that guns can kill and maim people with remarkable effectiveness. That's why criminals use automatic weapons and not spears.

So I think your question has perplexed the gun advocates' "argument".
Click to expand...

So you don't care about crime. Just gun crime. So where is your proof?
 
These Are The People In Your Neighborhood

I live in a high crime city. We have few murders and mostly drug crime. Murders are pretty much reserved for the gangs and I can't think of the last shooting in my town. Everyone I know owns a gun too.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Of course, to the Democrats that control Chicago, fewer hoodlums would also mean fewer votes for them, and more votes for their opposition. Violent criminals, gang members, drug dealers, petty robbers, and such, are their most important constituency. It's pretty much the same situation that led to the Sullivan Act in New York. Government by the criminals, of the criminals, for the criminals. Gun control is favored because it makes it easier and safer for criminals to do their jobs.
Click to expand...

Also, by making it easier for criminals means the populace will be more dependent on government for protection which will increase their hold on the law-abiding citizens.
 
head of joaquin said:
Banning any type of gun will reduce gun crimes, which is rather important given that guns can kill and maim people with remarkable effectiveness. That's why criminals use automatic weapons and not spears.

So I think your question has perplexed the gun advocates' "argument".
Click to expand...

Actually criminals very seldom use automatic weapons. In fact they use semi-automatic weapons and usually pistols.

His argument is stupid and has nothing whatsoever to do with what I posted. In fact he, Moot and now probably you and every other anti, have danced around it still. Hell I don't even expect coherent replies anymore. You will probably be no different.

Mainly the war on drugs allowed gangs an easy way to make money. Crack is highly addictive and when people get hooked, they are hooked. Add in a lack of fathers and to many mother only families on welfare and it is a recipe for disaster. Now add our economy which is slowly recovering but not anywhere close to what it was and you have gun crime in the inner cities shooting up the gun statistics.

No one seems to want to talk about minority on minority crime in the inner city but 70%+ of our gun crime comes from that alone. Everytime I mention it, it get's ignored. If you took away suicides and inner city crime from our overall statistics (adding suicide is just dishonest as it is not a crime) our gun crime rate even with mass shootings is about the same as any industrialized nation with or without strict gun laws.

The problem is nobody wants to hear that. They would rather rage about assault rifles and mass shootings (which are rare). Then pass laws that have no effect on either and pat themselves on the back. Then it happens again and they want even more laws that do nothing but disarm or make it harder for law abiding citizens to own guns.

That is how it got this way. We don't want to address the causes of said crime. We would rather pass more laws to make ourselves feel good. Until as I said, it happens again.

So here it is again. I expect more dancing, strawman and red herring arguments. That's OK though. It just shows your true colors in this. It's not about gun crime, it's about your own fear and partisan political crap. Nothing more.
 
stonewall50 said:
So you don't care about crime. Just gun crime. So where is your proof?
Click to expand...

No. They don't care about gun crime. If they did they would actually look at the statistics and do something about the root cause rather than a bandaid on the tool. Freaking useless.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Another gun thread, more personal attacks... Stick to the topic and stop attacking each other.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
I was informed I was banned from this thread by a moderator because I used a word describing a male appendage.

So I decline to comment.
Click to expand...

And yet you can reply. :roll:

Yea.
 
Threegoofs said:
I was informed I was banned from this thread by a moderator because I used a word describing a male appendage.

So I decline to comment.
Click to expand...


the internal contradictions in your post are stunning
 
TurtleDude said:
the internal contradictions in your post are stunning
Click to expand...

Well- I felt like I had to explain myself. And it's not on topic, per se, so I thought it was OK.

It's not like you guys really want to hear what I say, anyway.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well- I felt like I had to explain myself. And it's not on topic, per se, so I thought it was OK.

It's not like you guys really want to hear what I say, anyway.
Click to expand...

uh if you were threadbanned you could not post here

period
 
I have two rifles but since most strangers would not know that , they aren't really a deterrent. My Rottie barking like crazy at anybody approaching the front door is the real deterrent. And he has a doggie door in the back that allows him access to any approach someone might want to take.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well- I felt like I had to explain myself. And it's not on topic, per se, so I thought it was OK.

It's not like you guys really want to hear what I say, anyway.
Click to expand...

Nothing to explain. You have no argument, and you know it. So you make up the "thread banned" lie as an excuse. If you were thread banned you would not be able to post in this thread. It is not a suggestion, it is not possible had you been actually thread banned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom