• The forum will be going down at about 3:30PM EST to fix logout issues. We should be down less than 20 mins.

  • 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?

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,958
Reaction score
11,041
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What confuses me is why you won't answer a simple question. I'll ask you again:

You have no problem with state agents owning and carrying something "created specifically to kill things", correct?

A simple yes or no would be fine, thanks.
They do this because they're not interested in good faith discussion.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,646
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You are too funny. You have demonstrated you have no clue what unsecured and unattended mean when it comes to gun safety.
According to you..my loaded firearm on my bedside cabinet is more likely to shoot me..than the loaded firearm in my hand.
Yet your the one who claims you are magically connected to your gun no matter where you are in the house, laughable.

No that is according to you that your gun can magically move itself. Not one word have I said could be interpreted to that meaning.
 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yes...and you have yet to explain why that is wrong, despite your use of such emotionally-loaded words.

You managed to reiterate and support my point anyway. What's wrong with keeping firearms to protect your family?

(And now please stop using the argument about them being designed for injury and killing...we now have agreed that the reason for that need is to protect individuals and families. So that argument is refuted and does not work.)

How does a gun act to protect someone if it isn't intended as a promise of grievous bodily harm?


I do, and it seems I had to spell it out for you. You still havent explained what's wrong with keeping firearms for protection. Please do?

There is no problem for keeping them for protection. Not at all! But that is because they are specifically made to be a physical danger to living things. That's how it works.

I'd be happy with amazingly more restrictions on gun ownership and usage. That won't stop you from being able to protect your home and loved ones but it will treat the guns in a manner befitting their special place.

Well, just displaying or drawing a firearm can be very effective in stopping violence. Do you take issue with that? If so why?

WHY? I'll tell you! It's because the GUN IS MADE TO BE A DANGEROUS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT SPECIFICALLY MANUFACTURED TO CAUSE BODILY HARM TO LIVING THINGS.

That is the ONLY reason guns were invented and the ONLY reason they have value to protect.


Do you take issue with someone using the firearm TO injure or kill in order to protect self or family? If so, how so?

Why would you assume that? I don't understand your "thought" process. I can only assume you have none.

Why would you assume that?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,646
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
In that case it is an attended gun, but you have been going on about unattended guns.
Yes because the safety rule being ignored is the one about not leaving guns unattended, unsecured and loaded. The nonsense about an accident is all on the other people here.
 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
They do this because they're not interested in good faith discussion.

Oh jeeezus. This is the most amazingly self-unaware post I've ever seen. Or maybe it is intended to be ironic.

The guy whose primary specialty is bad faith "discussion" points calling out bad faith discussions.

Wow.

Just. Wow.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,958
Reaction score
11,041
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Oh jeeezus.
I've interacted enough with you to know that you do not discuss things in good faith.

I'm not interested in anything you have to say I don't feel like I need to defend myself against your accusations

So feel free to play your game with people who will play with you I'm going to inform them of what I learned.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,958
Reaction score
11,041
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yet your the one who claims you are magically connected to your gun no matter where you are in the house, laughable.

No that is according to you that your gun can magically move itself. Not one word have I said could be interpreted to that meaning.
If you need this level of security it's probably best you don't have a gun, perhaps you should take all the pointy corners off of your furniture too.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,957
Reaction score
46,957
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
How does a gun act to protect someone if it isn't intended as a promise of grievous bodily harm?

It is...we agreed on that. And it protects someone with 'the threat of gross bodily harm' or the actual use of 'gross bodily harm.'

And you have yet to explain what the problem is with that. Please do? Are you against someone using a firearm to protect life?

There is no problem for keeping them for protection. Not at all! But that is because they are specifically made to be a physical danger to living things. That's how it works.
Agreed. So what's the problem?
I'd be happy with amazingly more restrictions on gun ownership and usage. That won't stop you from being able to protect your home and loved ones but it will treat the guns in a manner befitting their special place.

How do you know if it will restrict people from protecting home and family? @iguanaman was insisting people should have to keep their firearms at shooting ranges....what good does that do? :rolleyes:

What restrictions do you recommend?

WHY? I'll tell you! It's because the GUN IS MADE TO BE A DANGEROUS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT SPECIFICALLY MANUFACTURED TO CAUSE BODILY HARM TO LIVING THINGS.

That is the ONLY reason guns were invented and the ONLY reason they have value to protect.
Correct, again. And it's a very good reason, isnt it? To protect self and family?

Why do we need more reasons than that? The purpose of guns: to protect.

Why would you assume that? I don't understand your "thought" process. I can only assume you have none.
Why would you assume that?

Why the attempt at insult? You keep 'shouting' about using firearms to protect people so it seems reasonable for me to have asked you if you object to it. If you dont object to that...why the continued drama?

 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is...we agreed on that. And it protects someone with 'the threat of gross bodily harm' or the actual use of 'gross bodily harm.'

And you have yet to explain what the problem is with that. Please do? Are you against someone using a firearm to protect life?

It's like you are unable to process language. I'm unsure how much more simple I can make it but I'll try again. Let's see if I can make my point using simple words you might understand:

Guns are made to be a danger to life. That is their main reason for being. That is why they were invented. And it is why they are useful as a protection device.

IMPORTANT POINT (please read, or have your mommy read it to you):

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GUNS FOR PROTECTION. I think they should be highly (HIGHLY) regulated and require frequent updates for ownership and I think a registry of gun ownership should be established. THIS IS BECAUSE GUNS ARE SPECIALLY MADE TO BE A DANGER TO LIFE. Just like we have a registry of who owns what car and where they are at we should have similar strictures (more stringent) on guns.


How do you know if it will restrict people from protecting home and family? @iguanaman was insisting people should have to keep their firearms at shooting ranges....what good does that do? :rolleyes:

I am not iguanaman. Why would I care what Iguanaman says?

What restrictions do you recommend?

Answered.

Why the attempt at insult?

Because you are partaking in bad faith arguments. You are playing coy and you want word games rather than actual conversation. You are either an idiot or acting disingenuously and I will assume it is the latter.

You keep 'shouting' about using firearms to protect people so it seems reasonable for me to have asked you if you object to it. If you dont object to that...why the continued drama?

...because apparently you can't read.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,957
Reaction score
46,957
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It's like you are unable to process language. I'm unsure how much more simple I can make it but I'll try again. Let's see if I can make my point using simple words you might understand:

Guns are made to be a danger to life. That is their main reason for being. That is why they were invented. And it is why they are useful as a protection device.

IMPORTANT POINT (please read, or have your mommy read it to you):

I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GUNS FOR PROTECTION. I think they should be highly (HIGHLY) regulated and require frequent updates for ownership and I think a registry of gun ownership should be established. THIS IS BECAUSE GUNS ARE SPECIALLY MADE TO BE A DANGER TO LIFE. Just like we have a registry of who owns what car and where they are at we should have similar strictures (more stringent) on guns.
Great. Thanks. I'll ignore the rest where you attempt to use insults, because my reason for asking is based in the real-life ambiguity of your posts...what was the point of your argument about guns only being designed for injury or killing then? Why were you bringing that up, what was the point?

You need to be more specific about 'highly regulated.' Registration has nothing to do with keeping guns out of homeowners' hands to protect families.

What specific regulations do you want to keep guns out of 'the wrong hands' that dont keep them out/highly restrict of individuals/home owners' hands?
 
Last edited:

Rucker61

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
16,255
Reaction score
7,088
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Great. Thanks. I'll ignore the rest where you attempt to use insults, because my reason for asking is based in the real-life ambiguity of your posts...what was the point of your argument about guns only being designed for injury or killing then? Why were you bringing that up, what was the point?
This is a poster who wants to get rid of all civilian firearms. This is no need to engage further in any discussion on gun control with this poster.
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,957
Reaction score
46,957
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a poster who wants to get rid of all civilian firearms. This is no need to engage further in any discussion on gun control with this poster.
He hasnt made much sense IMO. He went on and on that guns are designed only for injury and killing...and then admitted that's what makes them reasonable protection for people. So that's not an 'argument.'

And at its most basic, American citizens are allowed to keep firearms at home...so I wanted to know what regulations 'he believes' will meet whatever 'his goals' for public gun safety are.
 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Great. Thanks. I'll ignore the rest where you attempt to use insults,

Please don't.

because my reason for asking is based in the real-life ambiguity of your posts

My posts weren't ambiguous. Again, don't confuse your lack of facility with language for some ambiguity on my part.

...what was the point of your argument about guns only being designed for injury or killing then? Why were you bringing that up, what was the point?

God ahmighty! I honestly keep spelling it out explicitly for you. But you appear not be able to read or read only every 3rd word.

You need to be more specific about 'highly regulated.' Registration has nothing to do with keeping guns out of homeowners' hands to protect families.

What specific regulations do you want to keep guns out of 'the wrong hands' that dont keep them out/highly restrict of individuals/home owners' hands?

-sigh-

Why bother? Seriously if you are going to continue to act in horrifically bad faith I'm not sure what the point of it is.
 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a poster who wants to get rid of all civilian firearms.

Not really. I mean I wouldn't shed a tear if that happened but I'm not actually in favor of all civilian firearms being eliminated. As I've explicitly said over and over again, but you guys can't read so good.

This is no need to engage further in any discussion on gun control with this poster.

Such a scared little hot-house flower! My my! So thin skinned and unable to deal with ANYONE disagreeing with everything you think and feel...seems maybe you are uniquely unsuited to be given the right to carry a firearm.
 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
He hasnt made much sense IMO.

Opinion noted. Of course it's incorrect but if you only read every 3rd word I can see how you might fail to see what I've explicitly stated over and over and over again.

He went on and on that guns are designed only for injury and killing...and then admitted that's what makes them reasonable protection for people. So that's not an 'argument.'

Gawd....you REALLY need a remedial reading course.



 

Hafnium1979

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2021
Messages
1,681
Reaction score
429
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
I've interacted enough with you to know that you do not discuss things in good faith.

And you thing you do? Do you think anyone else believes you do?



So feel free to play your game with people who will play with you I'm going to inform them of what I learned.

You "learned" something somewhere? Wow! Congrats! Did you get a prize?
 

Lursa

Implacable
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
84,957
Reaction score
46,957
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
Opinion noted. Of course it's incorrect but if you only read every 3rd word I can see how you might fail to see what I've explicitly stated over and over and over again.



Gawd....you REALLY need a remedial reading course.
So your failure to actually articulate your arguments is your problem, not mine. Insults from someone with no credibility, which you have not established, are meaningless. If you cannot debate properly, why are you here?
 

RedAkston

Master of Shenanigans
Administrator
Dungeon Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
48,730
Reaction score
28,959
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moderator's Warning:
Let's knock off the personal attacks - all of them.
 

RF667799

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
5,692
Reaction score
2,324
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes because the safety rule being ignored is the one about not leaving guns unattended, unsecured and loaded. The nonsense about an accident is all on the other people here.

You were agreeing with how an accident with an unloaded gun could occur, but you missed that the gun wasn't unattended. Refer to Lursa's post above. Dropping a loaded gun on your toe might be a little more dangerous. Because it is heavier when loaded. Do you have some sort of regulation or safety rule in mind that will prohibit people from being butterfingers?

"Leaving a gun" kind of means it is unattended by definition, eh? I leave at least some of my guns unattended all the time, sometimes all of them. I have little choice in the matter. Is there any variance on what you consider as a secured gun, or is writ in stone somewhere?
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,646
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If you need this level of security it's probably best you don't have a gun, perhaps you should take all the pointy corners off of your furniture too.
I would of thought it a case of the other way around, ie. If you need to ignore safety rules with a gun and try an call it a level of security then your probably a touch paranoid.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,646
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You were agreeing with how an accident with an unloaded gun could occur, but you missed that the gun wasn't unattended. Refer to Lursa's post above. Dropping a loaded gun on your toe might be a little more dangerous. Because it is heavier when loaded. Do you have some sort of regulation or safety rule in mind that will prohibit people from being butterfingers?

"Leaving a gun" kind of means it is unattended by definition, eh? I leave at least some of my guns unattended all the time, sometimes all of them. I have little choice in the matter. Is there any variance on what you consider as a secured gun, or is writ in stone somewhere?

I did not miss that the gun was attended when the accident occurred. I simply assumed that magic does not cause a gun to move on its own.

I well understood that the attempts to get me to detail any type of accident would be given a reply of how it can be avoided. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.


The problem here is that all of you are treating this as a if/then situation. If you leave a gun unattended then an accident will occur.

Try shifting to a and/then situation. When you leave a gun unattended, unsecured and loaded and there is a accident, then it could be more severe.

Of course you do leave some guns that you own unattended. That is only being denied by the pro gun side who keep coming up with excuses as to why some guns are never left alone even when they are not in the same room as the gun. Or did you miss that?

If I may try a simile. Wearing a seatbelt is a safety rule while driving. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt that does not mean an accident will occur. But if an accident does occur then it is more likely to be more severe. These are two separate things. One thing is the safety rules and another thing is the the reason to use safety rules.

The pro gun crowd here are the ones trying to twist logic into a if/then argument . Which only demonstrates a lack of understanding how accidents work. A planned accident is an oxymoron.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
265,475
Reaction score
82,865
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I did not miss that the gun was attended when the accident occurred. I simply assumed that magic does not cause a gun to move on its own.

I well understood that the attempts to get me to detail any type of accident would be given a reply of how it can be avoided. Hindsight is always a wonderful thing.


The problem here is that all of you are treating this as a if/then situation. If you leave a gun unattended then an accident will occur.

Try shifting to a and/then situation. When you leave a gun unattended, unsecured and loaded and there is a accident, then it could be more severe.

Of course you do leave some guns that you own unattended. That is only being denied by the pro gun side who keep coming up with excuses as to why some guns are never left alone even when they are not in the same room as the gun. Or did you miss that?

If I may try a simile. Wearing a seatbelt is a safety rule while driving. If you choose not to wear a seatbelt that does not mean an accident will occur. But if an accident does occur then it is more likely to be more severe. These are two separate things. One thing is the safety rules and another thing is the the reason to use safety rules.

The pro gun crowd here are the ones trying to twist logic into a if/then argument . Which only demonstrates a lack of understanding how accidents work. A planned accident is an oxymoron.
If someone lives alone, and they leave their home defense weapon in their bedroom, loaded when they leave their locked home, the firearms secured
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,646
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If someone lives alone, and they leave their home defense weapon in their bedroom, loaded when they leave their locked home, the firearms secured

Indubitably.

Not according to any credible source on gun safety though.

But as far as magic is not involved then an inanimate object that is not moved do not usually have accidents without some cause.
 
Top Bottom