We need to ban handguns

[apdst]

His response is insane. If that young man had decided to beat the snot out of him, a handgun would have probably been his only viable means of defense

The whole objective of gun control is to disarm the law abiding folks and leave us defenseless. Just imagine the **** the Democat militant wing would try to pull if they knew that no one had a gun for self defense.

 

[snakestretcher]

Says you.

Says every nation which abolished capital punishment.

 

[Craig234]

He's one of those binary boys....either you agree with him, or you worship Satan and copulate with raccoons...or something.

No, you are. Hey, let's give guns to every kid in schools, and when thousands are killed, say that calling that a mistake is binary boy.

 

[Craig234]

Nope.

This 'my way or the highway' attitude is so..... right wing.

Your comment is so... idiotic.

Bullet in your head, or no bullet in your head. Pros and cons? The issue has two sides, but you haven't said anything useful.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, see, you sound ridiculous. Faux-gressives like you is why we never get traction.

Too much idiocy to read further.

 

[Rucker61]

No, you are. Hey, let's give guns to every kid in schools, and when thousands are killed, say that calling that a mistake is binary boy.

The Democratic Party doesn't support banning handguns. Do you support the Democrats who evidently don't care about thousands of deaths?

 

[Craig234]

We need to put all males age 15-29 in education camps. You not supporting that is you supporting thousands of Americans killed, thousands of women raped, thousands of people violently assaulted.

It's idiotic post morning apparently. You're not wrong - I AM choosing to leave them free and it does result in those crimes. Thing is, there is a tradeoff, of millions of people not losing their freedom in concentration camps. The tradeoff of handguns being banned is a lot less clear. Tired of idiotic posts.

 

[Craig234]

The Democratic Party doesn't support banning handguns. Do you support the Democrats who evidently don't care about thousands of deaths?

Most Democrats don't yet. Most Democrats didn't used to support gay marriage. I don't support them on this issue, I do on others. I support them over Republicans who are far worse.

 

[Rucker61]

It's idiotic post morning apparently. You're not wrong - I AM choosing to leave them free and it does result in those crimes. Thing is, there is a tradeoff, of millions of people not losing their freedom in concentration camps. The tradeoff of handguns being banned is a lot less clear. Tired of idiotic posts.

So as long as the trade-off is acceptable, you do support actions allowing thousands of people to die and thousands of women to be raped. These aren't 'concentration camps' - they're education camps, where these young men are educated and trained to be useful citizens, given the necessary growth away from society to be able to better fit into society.

 

[Craig234]

So as long as the trade-off is acceptable, you do support actions allowing thousands of people to die and thousands of women to be raped. These aren't 'concentration camps' - they're education camps, where these young men are educated and trained to be useful citizens, given the necessary growth away from society to be able to better fit into society.

Obviously, if one option is better than the other, you pick it. Instead of actually giving a crap about people killed, you are wasting my time badly trying to score a debate point. If you have an actual suggestion for better educating young men to reduce violence, I'm interested. It doesn't require 'education camps'.

 

[Ikari]

Second amendment, self-defense, 'freedom', 'resisting the government', name all you want about reasons for guns, and it's fulfilled by long guns.

The only 'self-defense' not met is walking around with a handgun on you. And the fact that there are OTHER, criminal, hostile, people walking around with handguns far outweighs the benefit to your self-defense. The aggressor will far more often have the benefit of shooting first, of surprising or ambushing.

Today, I was assaulted by a young man who had a crazed level of hostility when told to wear his mask over his nose. I suspect he's a criminal mentality in general, with that level of hostility and readiness to use violence. If he'd had a handgun, there's no reason apparent he wouldn't use it.

We do not need that level of danger, that level of murder, because some idiotic, ignorant, deluded people are in a gun cult mentality, even if THEY don't live around the dangerous people who walk around with handguns and criminal mentalities and tempers.

I'm not anti-gun ownership or anti-gun rights. I'm anti-idiotic stealthy guns that greatly increase the danger and killing for only a small fraction of the benefit in return.

Pro-gun people love to say 'mass shootings are a tiny percent of the shootings, banning assault rifles is just a political feel good move that doesn't fix things'. So, let's ban the crime gun: the hand gun. Now.

I'm pretty tired of America being the worst country around in important areas.

Worst at jailing the most, worst at the virus, worst at gun violence, worst at arming the world in military weapons, worst at taking vaccines apparently. The only defense I know for handguns is mindless, and I have no respect for that position.

I DO have some sympathy for the enormous undertaking it would be practically, and the fact that it would be imperfect, where on occasion, 'the only person with a gun was a criminal'. But overall, the number of killings will plummet. I'm open to reasonable ways to implement it over time and phase it in. And I'm tired of the idiotic mentality of people who don't care unless they are personally affected by the violence.

My general take is that at minimum whatever the police can have, the People can have.

 

[Rucker61]

Obviously, if one option is better than the other, you pick it. Instead of actually giving a crap about people killed, you are wasting my time badly trying to score a debate point. If you have an actual suggestion for better educating young men to reduce violence, I'm interested. It doesn't require 'education camps'.

This is a debate site, and we're giving you the benefit of the doubt with your totally unworkable, unconstitutional, unsupported position.

 

[Craig234]

This is a debate site, and we're giving you the benefit of the doubt with your totally unworkable, unconstitutional, unsupported position.

You don't appear to understand the phrase 'debate point'. There is useful debate, but 'debate point' refers to trying to find a weasel way to make a meaningless, wrongful, semantic type argument. You haven't actually said a word that's useful. Lots of claims, zero support. It's quite constitutional, but five justices ruled wrongly on that and that does need to be fixed.

 

[Rucker61]

You don't appear to understand the phrase 'debate point'. There is useful debate, but 'debate point' refers to trying to find a weasel way to make a meaningless, wrongful, semantic type argument. You haven't actually said a word that's useful.

Nothing that anyone says would be considered 'useful' to you, as you've a adopted a fanatical, unconstitutional, untenable, unenforceable position not supported by anyone else here.

 

[Simpletruther]

Says every nation which abolished capital punishment.

Appeal to majority fallacy

 

[snakestretcher]

Appeal to majority fallacy

So why was capital punishment abolished in those nations in your opinion? Because they were bored on a wet Tuesday and legislators had nothing better to do? No, because it doesn't work as a deterrent and is no less than biblical, eye for an eye, judicial revenge killing. Of course that ignores the numerous instances of wrongful execution, one in particular which prompted the abolition in Britain.

https://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DPP-50-Years-on-pp1-68-1.pdf

 

[Craig234]

Nothing that anyone says would be considered 'useful' to you, as you've a adopted a fanatical, unconstitutional, untenable, unenforceable position not supported by anyone else here.

And yet it was about two posts ago I responded saying I'd be interested in a legitimate education effort to reduce crime. You are just lying with attacks. Done wasting my time.

 

[Craig234]

So why was capital punishment abolished in those nations in your opinion? Because they were bored on a wet Tuesday and legislators had nothing better to do?

Seems to happen a lot. That's how the civil rights bills got passed.

 

[Simpletruther]

So why was capital punishment abolished in those nations in your opinion? Because they were bored on a wet Tuesday and legislators had nothing better to do? No, because it doesn't work as a deterrent and is no less than biblical, eye for an eye, judicial revenge killing. Of course that ignores the numerous instances of wrongful execution, one in particular which prompted the abolition in Britain.

https://www.deathpenaltyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/DPP-50-Years-on-pp1-68-1.pdf

Emotionalism

It certainly doesn’t work when it’s rarely used.

 

[Rucker61]

And yet it was about two posts ago I responded saying I'd be interested in a legitimate education effort to reduce crime. You are just lying with attacks. Done wasting my time.

So you've changed from this position: "The issue to discuss first is what the right policy on handguns should be, and that is to ban them." You've been fairly unequivocal that the only result you'll accept is banning handguns. Period.

 

[Craig234]

So you've changed from this position: "The issue to discuss first is what the right policy on handguns should be, and that is to ban them." You've been fairly unequivocal that the only result you'll accept is banning handguns. Period.

No change. I support banning handguns. I also support partial measures in the meantime that help, other policies that help like the education idea, and other things.

 

[Lursa]

See post # 24.

Thanks but that didnt seem to do so.

He denied banning pot a bit in 22 but didnt back that up at all.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[snakestretcher]

Emotionalism

It certainly doesn’t work when it’s rarely used.

Yes, well people tend to get quite emotional if their lives are on the line; facing execution when innocent.