• 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!

[W:2270] Does a Gun Make Your Home Safer?

soylentgreen said:
Yes, why not. Is that not the nature of an accident. A slip of the finger, a moment of not paying attention an occurrence that was not expected.
When was the last time you planned an accident?
Click to expand...

But if you drop a gun on your toe, that was not an unattended gun.
 
soylentgreen said:
Or as opposed you making false claims and then running away from providing evidence. Still waiting for the link that proves I cannot own a gun.
Click to expand...
I know about guns, I am a world class shooter with over 50 years of competitive experience. I teach people how to shoot. You don't own guns, you don't live with guns in your home and you apparently are unwilling to really debate the key issue. You have no clue about someone else's personal environment and you only prove that you are intending to be contrarian and afraid to debate the real issue that agitates you
 
soylentgreen said:
You still here desperately ignoring your shame. I have the evidence you are lying . Post 2100, 2105 and 2106 spell out your lie and your shame. You have nothing left to offer in this thread.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with Lursa on many things. She has attacked my posts and perhaps me more than a few times over Trump. However, she is correct here. Your arguments are specious and dishonest. and most of us are wondering why you pick this issue to battle over. You don't know the people, you don't know their environments, you don't understand gun ownership and you apparently are upset we can own things you cannot
 
TurtleDude said:
wow, one incident proves what? some people are stupid?
Click to expand...

A stupid person has been removed from the equation. The home is now safer.
 
Luce said:
A stupid person has been removed from the equation. The home is now safer.
Click to expand...
agreed, both were morons. one was violating the law by having a firearm
 
Luce said:
Of course it makes homes safer.

apnews.com

Woman using gun's laser sight to play with cat shoots friend

Authorities say a Wisconsin woman accidentally shot a friend while using the laser sight on a handgun to play with a cat.
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
I call bs. She shot the guy in the thigh? While trying to get the cat to chase the red dot...on the guy's thigh?
He's violating his bond by having a gun.
And the gun just went off?

Yeah. ..I suspect an argument gone wrong.
 
RF667799 said:
What is bizarre is someone confronted with a fact, and feeling that it calls for a long winded post of red herrings and ad hom that doesn't refute the fact at all.
Click to expand...
You're right. But at the end of the day they come away feeling like a know it all when they know nothing. And we all know that the basic anti gun person can't let those pesky facts get in the way.
 
Hafnium1979 said:
You might want to take a gun safety class. That's kind of one of the key take-aways about guns. They are ALWAYS a deadly instrument.
Click to expand...
Yes a deadly instument, but not "designed to kill or injure" as you imply. I'm sure jaeger is much safer then you are.
Hafnium1979 said:
So if the Second Amendment was overturned tomorrow you're first objection would be that it is not longer free for you to do target practice?

Honestly?
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure in your mind that is what the 2A is about...WRONG! Self defense, target practice and hunting are just a fringe benefit of it.
 
Hafnium1979 said:
If it is just for entertainment value then there is no need for special constitutional protection which means that, indeed, it IS up to us.

But if you want to actually 'fess up and tell us what a gun is ACTUALLY for we might have a reason for it to be constitutionally protected unlike literally EVERY OTHER ITEM IN YOUR HOME.
Click to expand...
So there is an US " indeed, it IS up to us." You admit it in well looky there post 1979
 
Lord of Planar said:
I really don't understand how more people don't see this. How can they be blind to something so obvious. Only the law abiding citizens will follow the gun laws, and be less protected against criminals. An armed public makes a criminal think twice.

I really don't get why they want to enable the criminals, unless they also have criminal intent.
Click to expand...
If you were a criminal would you vote (D) or (R) probably (D) since they would enable you.
An illegal? Well probably (D) more free shit when you get here. It's all about the almighty vote.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I really don't understand how more people don't see this. How can they be blind to something so obvious. Only the law abiding citizens will follow the gun laws, and be less protected against criminals. An armed public makes a criminal think twice.

I really don't get why they want to enable the criminals, unless they also have criminal intent.
Click to expand...

Oh goody! LOP is joining the fun! I'm sure his insights will be rich and valuable.

By this iron-clad reasoning the only people who follow laws against murder are non-murderers which pretty much means we don't need laws against murder since, you know, murderers gonna murder and non-murderers won't.

If the argument was as simple as this we might have an agreement of sorts...but it isn't. America has a VAST stockpile of weapons which increases the statistical likelihood that guns will be stolen or sold illegally and wind up in the hands of those who would do evil with them.

We have all manner of laws around the use and ownership of just about everything (cf cars etc.) so why can't we have MORE strict rules on ownership and use of something that was literally manufactured to be a threat to life?

It boggles the mind why Americans have this f'd up relationship with guns to the point that we now have about the highest rate of gun homicides of any first world developed nation.
 
aociswundumho said:
What difference does it make? You can kill someone with a shovel, or learn how to build a bomb and kill a bunch of people.
Click to expand...

-sigh-

BUT SHOVELS WERE NOT CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO KILL THINGS.

Why is this so frickin' hard for you guys?

Ladders are treated as more of a threat to life in the US (because of strict liability laws) than guns are! What is wrong with us?
 
Hafnium1979 said:
-sigh-

BUT SHOVELS WERE NOT CREATED SPECIFICALLY TO KILL THINGS.

Why is this so frickin' hard for you guys?

Ladders are treated as more of a threat to life in the US (because of strict liability laws) than guns are! What is wrong with us?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't buy a shovel for self defense, but if ever threatened by someone with a shovel, a gun in hand would be much more effective than an empty hand.
 
Hafnium1979 said:
What do you think guns were designed for?
Click to expand...
We already resolved this and you ended up not acknowledging it. Why?

Let's take another look:

Lursa said:
Let's examine why man needed to injure and kill, shall we? Why was it necessary to kill and injure?

To protect families and homes. To wage war to protect resources and territory. To kill for food. Since all of prehistory.

The gun was designed as better technology to PROTECT people and keep them alive. The need had always been there and man had always designed weapons to protect themselves and those things.

So should man not have invented a better means of protection? For getting food? Yes? No? If no, why not?
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
So you agree that my post is accurate then, and that they were designed for the purpose of protection? Yes?

So then why shouldnt people still keep them for that purpose?
Click to expand...

And then...*crickets* Can you please address this? It's plainly dishonest for you to keep making this argument when you havent been able to support it. There are bolded questions that, if answered directly, would lead to progress (not assuming I'll agree...just expecting honest debate)
 
Last edited:
aociswundumho said:
So is it your position that no one should be allowed to own something that was "created specifically to kill things?"
Click to expand...
there goes my collection of mouse traps. and the cat that patrols our horse barn
 
TurtleDude said:
fire bullets or shot
Click to expand...

...to what end? (I know you are going to dance around like this is some intellectual form of Zeno's Paradox, but it would be refreshing if the gun owners were honest about their guns for once.
 
Lursa said:
We already resolved this and you ended up not acknowledging it. Why?

Let's take another look:




And then...*crickets* Can you please address this? It's plainly dishonest for you to keep making this argument when you havent been able to support it. There are bolded questions that, if answered directly, would lead to progress (not assuming I'll agree...just expecting honest debate)
Click to expand...

To protect families? OK, so what does the gun do exactly? It represents a THREAT to those who would harm your family. ERGO it is intended to show the attacker that the gun owner can KILL OR MAIM them. That is 100% exactly what it is for. That is because it is made 100% to kill or maim. That is why you use it to protect your family.

Honestly how can you not understand this simple, simple, simple fact?

What do you think the use of the gun is for in "protection"? That you want to show the attacker a nice piece of machined metal and it will cause the other person to think "Hmmm, that's a nice piece of machined metal, I should not rob them or hurt them because I like machined metal too and we now have a common point of agreement!"
 
aociswundumho said:
So is it your position that no one should be allowed to own something that was "created specifically to kill things?"
Click to expand...

Jeeeezus this is so hard for you isn't it? No, my position is if you have something that is made to maim or kill and can EASILY AND IS EASILY used to maim and kill people it requires a MUCH HIGHER LEVEL OF CONTROL BY SOCIETY ON THAT THING.

God, it should be really much more simple for you, even if you like guns a lot you should be able to understand this simple, simple concept.

The fact that you are expressing so much confusion over it indicates either you are being disingenuous or you are an idiot. I will, for the sake of decency, assume the former. To what end are you being disingenuous about the point? I know...it's because you realize that in no small way our relationship with guns in this country is messed up but you don't want to give up any aspect of your "protected hobby" for even one other person on earth.

A dead kid in an elementary school? Not your problem. You love your guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom