• 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!

To the Gun Control Crowd: Who do you think we should rely on for our defense?

Is that an official NRA statement? Its mostly nonsense rhetoric, exactly the reason things are what they are and will likely only get worse, awesome, hoppe that makes you feel better every time someone gets gunned down, that you could use it as a political tool to whip up paranoia and futher your agenda, dismissed, as usual, youy have a lot of words and say nothing of signifigance.

Ah typical gun banner nonsense=it has nothing to do with crime control but your cultural hatred of those of us who oppose nanny government and politics based on feeling
 
Speaking of the LA riots... IIRC Rodney King was tasered. Didn't stop him from resisting the officers. Hell, many people have been tasered to no real effect.

And pepper spray? Better than nothing. How much better? I hope I n very have to depend on it.

Much like the hysteria on both sides of the debate, the examples you site are very weak sauce. Sure bud, it has happened, but people also have shot themselves in the head suicidally intent, and lived to give speeches about it later, but, much like your examples of how tazers and pepper spray are "ineffective". I won't presumeto know your experience, but I have never been tazered, not directly pepper sprayed, but I have been around both, and the likelihood of those methods not being effectiveis in the ballpark of slim to none odds....

Pepper spray, on a person, IDK, doubt it would fail completely, but on dogs it can be totally useless, I've used it on anumber of dogs (I'm a biker the MC kind ot BC, though I like bicycles a lot too) and it's next to useless with any dog that truly wants to **** you up IMO, just pisses them off more, but it can distract them long enoughto get away, I mean I was never actually bitten, but depending on the dog, I wouldn't wanna trust in that myself ever again, tho I have seen a lot of fools get the spray and not one of them any threat even if they have the ability to resist, the idea leaves their mind rather quickly

In the real world we actually live in,the only "resisting" someone with tazer prongs in them is gonna be doing is between jolts or perhaps if they PCP'd up first.... Or they get a one in a million miracle, or "god shot" as we call it in AA.
 
Last edited:
Much like the hysteria on both sides of the debate, the examples you site are very weak sauce. Sure bud, it has happened, but people also have shot themselves in the head suicidally intent, and lived to give speeches about it later, but, much like your examples of how tazers and pepper spray are "ineffective". I won't presumeto know your experience, but I have never been tazered, not directly pepper sprayed, but I have been around both, and the likelihood of those methods not being effectiveis in the ballpark of slim to none odds....
i have seen people on drugs get pepper sprayed and walk right through it. Tazers often fail-especially in the winter when people wear multiple layers of jackets etc.
 
I think you should rely solely on yourself. If you must rely on other people for your own defense, you obviously haven't learned a thing in this world no matter your age.
 
I think you should rely solely on yourself. If you must rely on other people for your own defense, you obviously haven't learned a thing in this world no matter your age.

It depends on one's mental state, where you life, what the circumstances are. Using lethal force should never be the first choice. The right to defend oneself, however, should not be taken away.
I guess both sides could work something out once we stop being defensive and start listening to each other.
 
You didn't address the question I was asking. WHY did the NRA try to prevent the CDC from conducting research? What were they trying to hide?


:roll: Tell me, who is stopping researchers from conducting research in universities? Independent research? What's stopping the Brady Center from doing research? Oh right...nothing. BTW, the CDC already admitted that 500,000 to 3 million people use guns for defensive purposes yearly. You can thank Obama for that as he directed the CDC to do some research.



CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’
 
You didn't address the question I was asking. WHY did the NRA try to prevent the CDC from conducting research? What were they trying to hide?

Ask them. :shrug: I'm neither an NRA member nor know what they're thinking. Only time I actually go to their site is when there's a link to it here at DP. Personally I'm of the opinion that the CDC is supposed to research medical type problems, not cultural, economical ones. Which is exactly what "gun violence" is actually about. The closest to a medical problem would be mental illness for those that commit mass murders but even then the cause is not guns so it'd be worthless to focus on the guns as a medical problem. Guns can no more cause a mental illness than a knife or sledgehammer or any other inanimate object.
 
Much like the hysteria on both sides of the debate, the examples you site are very weak sauce. Sure bud, it has happened, but people also have shot themselves in the head suicidally intent, and lived to give speeches about it later, but, much like your examples of how tazers and pepper spray are "ineffective". I won't presumeto know your experience, but I have never been tazered, not directly pepper sprayed, but I have been around both, and the likelihood of those methods not being effectiveis in the ballpark of slim to none odds....

Pepper spray, on a person, IDK, doubt it would fail completely, but on dogs it can be totally useless, I've used it on anumber of dogs (I'm a biker the MC kind ot BC, though I like bicycles a lot too) and it's next to useless with any dog that truly wants to **** you up IMO, just pisses them off more, but it can distract them long enoughto get away, I mean I was never actually bitten, but depending on the dog, I wouldn't wanna trust in that myself ever again, tho I have seen a lot of fools get the spray and not one of them any threat even if they have the ability to resist, the idea leaves their mind rather quickly

In the real world we actually live in,the only "resisting" someone with tazer prongs in them is gonna be doing is between jolts or perhaps if they PCP'd up first.... Or they get a one in a million miracle, or "god shot" as we call it in AA.

All that wrong in a single post....

Tasers often don’t work, review of LAPD incidents finds

A Los Angeles Times review of department statements and reports found that nearly a quarter of the people shot by on-duty LAPD officers last year — at least eight of 36 — were wounded or killed during encounters in which officers said they tried to use a Taser without success. Among the incidents:

Tasers often don?t work, review of LAPD incidents finds
 
So those students in Parkland were giving reasons to be attacked with guns? Hmm...Did Mrs. Gifford do the same? Sandy Hook? Horrible fallacy you have there.

There are hundreds of ways to kill hundreds of people. If you think banning one type of gun is going to erase that then you're sadly mistaken.

I love how my second point addressed your first, and my first addressed your second, but you just ignored that.

There are hundreds of ways to kill hundreds of people.
Start naming them...

Can you even give me one example of a thing that was used to murder hundreds of people in a single instance that wasn't immediately regulated right afterward?

You seem to be super worried about people attacking you in your home. If people are coming to murder your family and they know you have an AR-15 why not just set the house on fire? Why not drive a tractor-trailer into it? If there are so many ways to kill you what good is your AR-15 even going to be?
 
I love how my second point addressed your first, and my first addressed your second, but you just ignored that.

Really? Then where in your points does it address those students in Parkland? What did they do to give reason to be attacked with guns?


Start naming them...

Ironically you already names a couple. :lamo

Can you even give me one example of a thing that was used to murder hundreds of people in a single instance that wasn't immediately regulated right afterward?

You do know what an expression is right? Trying to be semantical here is not going to achieve anything. Besides, we're talking about criminals here right? After all, why would you want to regulate law abiding innocent people that have no intention of ever using a gun improperly?

You seem to be super worried about people attacking you in your home. If people are coming to murder your family and they know you have an AR-15 why not just set the house on fire? Why not drive a tractor-trailer into it? If there are so many ways to kill you what good is your AR-15 even going to be?

Well now that's the trick isn't it? Don't let them know you have a gun and they won't think to try anything else. ;)
 
All that wrong in a single post....

Tasers often don’t work, review of LAPD incidents finds

A Los Angeles Times review of department statements and reports found that nearly a quarter of the people shot by on-duty LAPD officers last year — at least eight of 36 — were wounded or killed during encounters in which officers said they tried to use a Taser without success. Among the incidents:

Tasers often don?t work, review of LAPD incidents finds

YOu didn't prove anything, the link says it "failed"but does it go into detail? No time to even follow it at the moment, sorry for that, but I bet it says nothing about whether police were injured because the tazer "failed". You just mentioned the perp was injured or killed, sonds like the tzer worked fine. If I knew more, maybe I would be convinced that you'd proved something, but really you didn't prove me wrong with that tomy knowlege, you just found a piece of onfirmation bias, for all I know. A lot of times such stories are light on such details, and it is impossible to make a fully formed opinion on the matter. If anyone expects a tazer to get someone to be polite and allow themselves to be apprehended, they're fools, if it prevented loss of life or grievous injury it worked. A gun would have just kiled the perps. And fopr who knows what, could end up people die for getting beliggerent over a DUI because "tazers don't work" in your opinionon? Naw,prolly weak sauce too, when I have time I will check your link tho, maybe have more to say IDK....
 
Really? Then where in your points does it address those students in Parkland? What did they do to give reason to be attacked with guns?




Ironically you already names a couple. :lamo



You do know what an expression is right? Trying to be semantical here is not going to achieve anything. Besides, we're talking about criminals here right? After all, why would you want to regulate law abiding innocent people that have no intention of ever using a gun improperly?



Well now that's the trick isn't it? Don't let them know you have a gun and they won't think to try anything else. ;)

Yeah, that link proves not a damn thing, too complicated an issue, and too little info, I made time to read it, and as expected, no rreal info, just some confirmation bias. For police use it doesn't surprise me a bit. I bet they are far more effective in civillian use anyway.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, your link proves not a damn thing, too complicated an issue, and too little info, I made time to read it, and as expected, no rreal info, just some confirmation bias. For police use it doesn't surprise me a bit. I bet they are far more effective in civillian use anyway.

Umm...which link are you referring to? You quoted a post that has no links provided by me in it.
 
Umm...which link are you referring to? You quoted a post that has no links provided by me in it.

Sorry then, the other guy's link about tazers not working, does not in any way describe how bad the fails were. It begins to, but then it's quite vague.
 
Really? Then where in your points does it address those students in Parkland? What did they do to give reason to be attacked with guns?
Nothing. But if you'd ban assault weapons there's a very good chance more of them would have survived.


Ironically you already names a couple.
Both are more regulated than guns.

Buildings are designed with fire codes.

Please link to a situation where a truck has been used to maliciously kill 100 people in one incident.


You do know what an expression is right?
So you admit assault weapons are realistically the only way to kill hundreds of people in a short time frame that aren't already insanely regulated?

After all, why would you want to regulate law abiding innocent people that have no intention of ever using a gun improperly?
The same reason you check every person getting on an airplane even though most of them aren't planning to hijack it.

The same reason everyone is required to obey the speed limit even the ones that are really good drivers.

The same reason you check everyone at a DUI checkpoint and don't just stop the ones that look drunk.

The same reason all buildings have to follow fire codes, not just the ones that are going to burn down.

The same reason you can't buy a military grade flamethrower even though you don't intend to harm anyone with it.
 
Bold: That right there is why you view guns the way that you do. And its highly incorrect. Whether you believe it or not.

He may be wrong, however, that does not make you right whether you want to believe it, or not.
 
Nothing. But if you'd ban assault weapons there's a very good chance more of them would have survived.

Bombs are far more regulated and yet they are used to kill people.

Both are more regulated than guns.

Actually, no their not.

Buildings are designed with fire codes.

Yet lots of buildings are set on fire all the time. And not one single regulation stops a person from owning or living in a building.

Please link to a situation where a truck has been used to maliciously kill 100 people in one incident.

Name me an incident where a gun was used to kill 100 people in one incident.

So you admit assault weapons are realistically the only way to kill hundreds of people in a short time frame that aren't already insanely regulated?

9/11 shows that to be wrong.

The same reason you check every person getting on an airplane even though most of them aren't planning to hijack it.

The same reason everyone is required to obey the speed limit even the ones that are really good drivers.

The same reason you check everyone at a DUI checkpoint and don't just stop the ones that look drunk.

The same reason all buildings have to follow fire codes, not just the ones that are going to burn down.

The same reason you can't buy a military grade flamethrower even though you don't intend to harm anyone with it.

Except that most of those aren't banning people from objects.

And just an fyi on the flame thrower thing: ThrowFlame
 
NYC is one of the safest large cities in the world. You are comparing two cities with strict gun control! LOL

So, obviously, gun control hasn't caused the murder rate to go down. The murder rate in England is rising. The murder rate in New York is decreasing to levels seen in the 1950s, when there was zero gun control.
 
So, obviously, gun control hasn't caused the murder rate to go down. The murder rate in England is rising. The murder rate in New York is decreasing to levels seen in the 1950s, when there was zero gun control.

The murder rate is still a fraction of cities with lax gun control.
 
The murder rate is still a fraction of cities with lax gun control.

Not Chicago, or Baltimore.

In 1950's New York City there was no gun control and the murder rate was lower.

Bottom line is, gun control has nothing to do with it. If it did, the murder rate in England wouldn't be on the rise.
 
Nothing. But if you'd ban assault weapons there's a very good chance more of them would have survived.
Define "very good chance", given that no proposed AWB has taken away any "assault weapons", pre-ban "assault weapons" can still be bought and sold, firearms like Ruger Ranch Rifle would still be legal, not all "assault weapons" would be sold and still available on the black market and a shooter with a pistol and 10 round magazines killed over 30 adults in about 10 minutes.

Please link to a situation where a truck has been used to maliciously kill 100 people in one incident.

Please link to where an "assault weapon" has been used to kill 100 people in one incident.

Vegas shooting - 58 people dead.
Norway shooting - 67 shot dead with a non-"assault weapon".
Nice truck attack - 86 dead.
So you admit assault weapons are realistically the only way to kill hundreds of people in a short time frame that aren't already insanely regulated?

Evidently the strong regulation of firearms in Norway and France didn't stop those massacres, and no one has ever killed hundreds of people in a short time frame with an "assault weapon".
 
Not Chicago, or Baltimore.

In 1950's New York City there was no gun control and the murder rate was lower.

Bottom line is, gun control has nothing to do with it. If it did, the murder rate in England wouldn't be on the rise.

In the 1950's there were also millions of guns not in circulation. Bottom line is NYC and England have very low murder rates and this is due in part to gun control
 
In the 1950's there were also millions of guns not in circulation. Bottom line is NYC and England have very low murder rates and this is due in part to gun control

Chicago has strict gun control. Why isn't it as safe as NYC?
 
Chicago has strict gun control. Why isn't it as safe as NYC?

Indiana is 20 minutes away and has lax gun control. NYC is surrounded with areas that all have strict gun control.
 
Back
Top Bottom