• 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?

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.
we are asking you why this is unsafe. I deny your claims about "credible source". Again why is this less safe than having the firearm in a locked storage device
 
we are asking you why this is unsafe. I deny your claims about "credible source". Again why is this less safe than having the firearm in a locked storage device
You cannot deny any claim about a credible source. All you can do is ignore credible sources that do say it is not a safe practice.

A locked storage device specific to gun safety or do you mean a draw in a bedside cabinet.? There is a difference and again all you can do is ignore that gun safety does not include a bedside table.

And no, you are not asking why this is unsafe. You are making a weird association of a safe practice causing accidents by magically having objects move themselves.
 
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.
I guess people that keep fire extinguishers are paranoid too.

It's a level of paranoia that doesn't seem to be problematic.
 
You cannot deny any claim about a credible source. All you can do is ignore credible sources that do say it is not a safe practice.

A locked storage device specific to gun safety or do you mean a draw in a bedside cabinet.? There is a difference and again all you can do is ignore that gun safety does not include a bedside table.

And no, you are not asking why this is unsafe. You are making a weird association of a safe practice causing accidents by magically having objects move themselves.
We have asked you over and over how it is unsafe, and you spew out excuse after excuse and never answer it.
 
You cannot deny any claim about a credible source. All you can do is ignore credible sources that do say it is not a safe practice.

A locked storage device specific to gun safety or do you mean a draw in a bedside cabinet.? There is a difference and again all you can do is ignore that gun safety does not include a bedside table.

And no, you are not asking why this is unsafe. You are making a weird association of a safe practice causing accidents by magically having objects move themselves.
if they say that-which I doubt, they are obviously not credible
 
I guess people that keep fire extinguishers are paranoid too.

It's a level of paranoia that doesn't seem to be problematic.
Are 45,000 people per year being killed by fire extinguishers?
 
Are 45,000 people per year being killed by fire extinguishers?
It's 36,000. And 2/3 of those people are suicides, so that's their decision, their tragedy, their consequences. And few endanger the public.

So, 12,000/yr...same as drownings. Get rid of pools? Close the beaches?
 
I guess people that keep fire extinguishers are paranoid too.

Fire extinguishers were not invented specifically to kill living things.

If a thug breaks into my house and steals all of my fire extinguishers it is unlikely to increase the rate of homicides in the area significantly. I'm sure there's some possibility that it would increase the rate of fire-extinguisher related murders but given that they are unwieldy and difficult to conceal I'm guessing the numbers will be low.
 
Fire extinguishers were not invented specifically to kill living things.

We already discussed that that has no point...it fails as an argument because it's design is to protect people...which you agreed is a valid purpose.

For this argument or example, fire extinguishers were also created to protect, correct? So your argument fails.
 
We already discussed that that has no point...it fails as an argument because it's design is to protect people...which you agreed is a valid purpose.
Fire extinguishers definitely save more people in the home than they kill. This is not true with guns. If a gun kills in the home, it usually kills the owner or his/her loved one.
For this argument or example, fire extinguishers were also created to protect, correct? So your argument fails.
No, his strong argument embarrassed your weak one.
 
It's 36,000. And 2/3 of those people are suicides, so that's their decision, their tragedy, their consequences. And few endanger the public.
Yes, we've been over this. You are indifferent to suicide and the murders associated with 1/10 of them. I know.

BTW: It's 45,000 Now. Do the math.
650px-1999-_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

25+20=45

And, your 2/3 figure is bullshit.
 

BaN dOctOrS!!!

250,000 deaths per year from medical malpractice and yet we have people crying over guns, which just so happen to be Constitutionally protected.

An uncle of mine recently died from medical malpractice. He survived Covid only to be killed by the hospital that was treating him for something else.

You won't be able to ban guns in our lifetime, period, end of story.
 

BaN dOctOrS!!!

250,000 deaths per year from medical malpractice and yet we have people crying over guns, which just so happen to be Constitutionally protected.
A colleague at work went in for shoulder surgery and came out dead from liver cancer. He never complained about his liver. I still don't know what to make of it. Coincidence or serious **** up, who knows?
An uncle of mine recently died from medical malpractice. He survived Covid only to be killed by the hospital that was treating him for something else.
Sorry to hear that. You certainly have my heartfelt condolences. Like I said above, I can definitely relate to it.
You won't be able to ban guns in our lifetime, period, end of story.
True, but we can at least bitch about it.
 
We already discussed that that has no point...it fails as an argument because it's design is to protect people...which you agreed is a valid purpose.

We have discussed this but you remain incorrect in assuming that the gun is not made specifically to harm or kill living things. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY IT CAN BE USED TO PROTECT PEOPLE.

For this argument or example, fire extinguishers were also created to protect, correct? So your argument fails.

Did you ever take a logic class? It seems not.
 
We have discussed this but you remain incorrect in assuming that the gun is not made specifically to harm or kill living things. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY IT CAN BE USED TO PROTECT PEOPLE.



Did you ever take a logic class? It seems not.

So what's it called when someone insists that every example in a set shares a specific property, despite it being proven that some examples within that set don't share the claimed property?
 
So what's it called when someone insists that every example in a set shares a specific property, despite it being proven that some examples within that set don't share the claimed property?
Innumeracy.
 
So what's it called when someone insists that every example in a set shares a specific property, despite it being proven that some examples within that set don't share the claimed property?

You are incorrect.

Let me explain it to you.

Guns were initially invented for war, ie to kill or maim other people. Even on this board today people constantly reference "protection" as well as "hunting", two activities that leverage 100% the reason guns exist (to kill or maim).

So you trot out competition rifles or target shooting rifles which might be made in ways that make them less likely to be used for the purposes of maiming or killing but these both are sports predicated on practice to improve the utility of the gun (to maim or kill by long distance projectile).

You know EXACTLY why guns were invented and you know EXACTLY why they have value to you. They represent a means of inflicting death or injury to a foe or attacker.
 
You are incorrect.

Let me explain it to you.

Guns were initially invented for war, ie to kill or maim other people. Even on this board today people constantly reference "protection" as well as "hunting", two activities that leverage 100% the reason guns exist (to kill or maim).

So you trot out competition rifles or target shooting rifles which might be made in ways that make them less likely to be used for the purposes of maiming or killing but these both are sports predicated on practice to improve the utility of the gun (to maim or kill by long distance projectile).

You know EXACTLY why guns were invented and you know EXACTLY why they have value to you. They represent a means of inflicting death or injury to a foe or attacker.
"...which might be made in ways that make them less likely to be used for the purposes of maiming or killing..."

So not made "specifically to harm or kill living things."

You must have decided that contradicting yourself is a good argumentative tactic. Might work with some people.

BTW- Can you show any sort of evidence to support your proposition above as stated in your final two sentences? Anything at all?
 

BaN dOctOrS!!!

250,000 deaths per year from medical malpractice and yet we have people crying over guns, which just so happen to be Constitutionally protected.

An uncle of mine recently died from medical malpractice. He survived Covid only to be killed by the hospital that was treating him for something else.

You won't be able to ban guns in our lifetime, period, end of story.
That sure does put things into perspective.

I have been a victim of malpractice that resulted in having to undergo another surgery to correct it.

Red I am probably a lot older than you and can remember those days when your family doctor would make house calls to care for you. If you were really sick and the doctor had to leave town for symposiums and learning exercises etc., they would call you while they were out of town to check on you. They would also alert the hospital of your condition with all your medical history so you could be admitted immediately. Your doctor was a beloved member of your family. Today we are just a number where you are shoved off to a "specialist" but if you have multiple issues the other "specialists" have a very poor record of engaging with other "specialists" of the same patient.

Guns in the home and conceal and carry are what give the vulnerable a fighting chance. When you get old, you are an easy target for these rabid, evil hateful people and a firearm gives you a fighting chance.
 
Fire extinguishers definitely save more people in the home than they kill. This is not true with guns. If a gun kills in the home, it usually kills the owner or his/her loved one.

No, his strong argument embarrassed your weak one.
That wasnt the conversation, we werent discussing numbers...we were discussing his odd focus on using gun design as a reason to insist on more gun regulations.

So if you cant dispute that both were designed to protect people...you fail. :D

And I'd suggest you see post 2130 before you attempt it.
 
Yes, we've been over this. You are indifferent to suicide and the murders associated with 1/10 of them. I know.

BTW: It's 45,000 Now. Do the math.
650px-1999-_Gun-related_deaths_USA.png

25+20=45

And, your 2/3 figure is bullshit.
Source? It doesnt go anywhere.

And the 2/3s ratio is solid.

Try this:

"In 2020, gun violence killed nearly 20,000 Americans, according to data from the Gun Violence Archive, more than any other year in at least two decades. An additional 24,000 people died by suicide with a gun."​

I'm not concerned with gun suicides as a danger to public health in the US. Yes, go all dramatic on that statement, I dont care. If it doesnt harm the public, which the great majority do not, then other people should not be penalized with gun restrictions because of their tragic state. They make the decision, it's their consequences...and they are responsible for the pain they cause their loved ones. Responsible gun owners are NOT responsible for them.

If you plan some sanctimonious response, dont bother...water off a duck's back. It only shows you value gun owner's lives and their families lives less than those people. 🤷 Sorry, that's no moral High Ground.

If you have some gun legislation to recommend that doesnt penalize gun owners for suicide's behavior...let's see it.
 
Last edited:
Fire extinguishers were not invented specifically to kill living things.
They have a different application but the concept is the same.

Having a fire extinguisher gives me a method in which to fight a fire. Having a weapon gives me a method in which to fight off someone who intends to harm me.
If a thug breaks into my house and steals all of my fire extinguishers it is unlikely to increase the rate of homicides in the area significantly.
all the more reason to be armed.
 
You cannot deny any claim about a credible source.
sure I can. You're just claiming to have a credible source without actually having one.
All you can do is ignore credible sources that do say it is not a safe practice.
there is no such thing as a safe practice there are practices you can do that make things less dangerous. But if you take away the function of something then what are you sacrificing for safety.

If you want to sacrifice you're right to life for safety that's your business. I'll take the absolute miniscule risk of my gun being possessed by a demon flying around and shooting people for the benefit of having it should I need it
A locked storage device specific to gun safety or do you mean a draw in a bedside cabinet.? There is a difference and again all you can do is ignore that gun safety does not include a bedside table.

And no, you are not asking why this is unsafe. You are making a weird association of a safe practice causing accidents by magically having objects move themselves.
If you're not storing it then you wouldn't lock it in a storage device if I need it for possible defense then I'm using it.

If I put my guns in storage they don't have ammo in them the ammo is actually kept separately and the gun is disabled.

When a gun is in the state it can't be used for defense. For it to be used for the defense it has to have ammo ready within arms reach or you don't have to use a key or do some goofy combination to take it out.

Again I will take the absolute minuscule risk of some ghosts sneaking into my house and taking it while I'm asleep and going and shooting people with it it's extremely unlikely that that will happen.
 
We have discussed this but you remain incorrect in assuming that the gun is not made specifically to harm or kill living things. THAT IS PRECISELY WHY IT CAN BE USED TO PROTECT PEOPLE.



Did you ever take a logic class? It seems not.
I'm not wrong. We discussed this and you said you agreed: the reason they're designed for that is to protect people. If they didnt need to protect their loved ones, their own lives, their resources and territory (in the past), if they didnt need to kill to eat...they wouldnt have designed weapons that kill and injure. But even tho the technical 'design' has progressed, the reason is still the same...to protect people.

Please just reread this or post 2130 again anytime you want to use that failed argument. You even agreed that that purpose was accurate and that it's reasonable to use a gun to protect life.
 
Back
Top Bottom