• 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!

Why Would Somebody Carry A Gun?

noonereal said:
Because people are too cowardly to walk down the street as a man.
Click to expand...

Well, women (if you know what that is) don't want to walk down the streets as men.
 
j brown's body said:
I can't imagine walking through life so worried, minute-by-minute, for my personal security that I feel the need to carry a weapon with me wherever I go, and bear the responsibility that goes with it.
Click to expand...

The political left are so insecure they can't bear the idea of someone with a different opinion.
 
DebateChallenge said:
You're the one who made the claim, it falls upon you to provide a source.
Click to expand...
No, you have Google, too instead of using a trolling stunt. You can just refute it by sending me your link. My offer still stands.
 
Last edited:
Loulit01 said:
And you would like to add more guns without background checks.
Click to expand...

Why not? I mean, it’s not like the felons in possession of firearms are lining up to get their background checks done.
 
Loulit01 said:
Are you saying I can't go out right now and buy a gun without a background check? Because I know I can.
Click to expand...

Right. All you need is cash, a criminal record, and the right street corner and you can buy a gun.
 
Goshin said:
Socially, a lot of people just don't like to look at open carried guns. As a carrier, it helps me avoid awkward social situations where some goofus, instead of talking about the subject at hand, wants to make a big deal about the pistol on my belt... or some poor timid soul gets the vapors over my visible sidearm.
Click to expand...

"People who carry guns are dangerous killers. That guy's carrying a gun. I'm going to go take it from him to prove how dangerous he is!"
 
SMTA said:
Wrong - police don’t arrest criminals - everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law
Looks like legal knowledge should be on your reading list along with simple comprehension
Click to expand...

The point was they should only arrest people who have actually committed crimes, ergo criminals. I would have have said they should only arrest the piece of shit scumbags who, unfortunately, live among the rest of us.
 
noonereal said:
Because people are too cowardly to walk down the street as a man.
Click to expand...


ROFL.

I'm an ex-cop, hold two black belts and while I'm not the hoss I was when I was younger, I still pump iron and pack plenty of muscle. I been in more hand-to-hand scraps than I can easily remember.

I carry a gun because sometimes that isn't enough, and the consequences of not being prepared can be most severe, and not just to your self. We're not talking about some childish fear of getting a black eye, there are people running around loose who do FAR worse given a chance.... people I used to deal with in law enforcement, the stuff of your nightmares if you had any clue.
 
Evilroddy said:
DebateChallenge:

Ugh, I did not intend to type that. I apologise to you for my ham-handed typing and my poor editing skills. I also apologise for insulting you. This is the second apology I have had to make tonight for screwed-up posts by me. So sorry for so badly messing up your user name.

You are quite right. Even though the insult was not intentional, its presence does undermine my credibility badly. I apologise again to all in this thread for creating a sense of perceived acrimony through my error. What can I say, I f'ed up bad.

Cheers and sincere apologies to DebateChallenge and to anyone else whom I have put off.
A red-faced Evilroddy
Click to expand...

Even though you and I rarely agree on this subject, I respect your courtesy and honest debate.
 
Ahlevah said:
The point was they should only arrest people who have actually committed crimes, ergo criminals. I would have have said they should only arrest the piece of shit scumbags who, unfortunately, live among the rest of us.
Click to expand...
Nope
People are arrested because probable cause indicates that they probably have committed a crime
There is rarely absolute certainty prior to arrest
 
SMTA said:
Snort. Pure hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the left are hypocrites. Now go ahead, get snotty about me having a different opinion from yours and prove my point.
 
SMTA said:
Nope
People are arrested because probable cause indicates that they probably have committed a crime
There is rarely absolute certainty prior to arrest
Click to expand...

Yep. A criminal can be defined as someone who has committed a crime, whether they’ve been convicted or not:

crim·i·nal​

(krĭm′ə-nəl)
adj.
1. Of, involving, or having the nature of crime: criminal abuse.
2. Relating to the administration of penal law.
3.
a. Guilty of crime.
b. Characteristic of a criminal.
4. Shameful; disgraceful: a criminal waste of talent.
n.
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

[Middle English, from Old French criminel, from Late Latin crīminālis, from Latin crīmen, crīmin-, accusation; see crime.]
Click to expand...

But, as I said, a more nuanced term such as “piece of shit” will work for me. You don’t need probable cause or a conviction for that. Just truth.
 
DebateChallenge said:
No, its a way of saying you like to be prepared. How many times do I have to point it out to you? There is a difference between being prepared and being fearful. What part don't you understand?
Click to expand...
That buying insurance is being prepared. That buying a gun is being afraid not to have one. That is the difference.
Yes, having guns is practical.
Click to expand...
Nice try but I think you are deliberately missing the point of my statement. People may hope for things. But the moment a person take possession of a gun for the purpose of self defense they must decide once and for all if they can kill a person.
If you've bought a gun for the purpose of self defense, its not about being prepared to kill someone, its about being prepared to stop someone should you be attacked.
Click to expand...
That is called a justification. And most would agree with the ethics of self defense. But choosing a gun is not an ethical question it is a moral choice which is subjective. Must be because there are so many differing opinions about guns.

Some morality is a lot harder to justify than others. Choosing a gun is one of them.
Yes, I never said otherwise.

That might work if you're talking about legal restrictions in regards to carrying guns although even that would be a hard argument since the 2A identifies the right to keep and "bear" arms and bear in this case means to carry, but as far as owning guns, no, because there are no legal restrictions to owning cars, there are only legal restrictions to driving cars on public roads.
Click to expand...
Pointing out the law is on your side works well in a court of law. On a debate site it is just an admission that logic and good reasons are not needed by you.
While people still behave badly on the roads that we need such restrictions. Then I have been given no good reason to see why people will not also behave badly with guns.
True, most people who do own guns in the USA do own them for self defense but self defense with guns, as I said before, is not about killing, its about stopping.
Click to expand...
Putins exact thoughts as his finger hovers over that big red button in the kremlin bunkers.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Which means more guns means less gun violence, as paradoxical as that might sound.
Click to expand...
To who? Or on the other hand it means that mass shooting are common in america.

Which sounds more true? america is not a violent country or there are many mass shootings in americia.
 
Goshin said:
Even though you and I rarely agree on this subject, I respect your courtesy and honest debate.
Click to expand...
Goshin:

I've got to be courteous. Y'all have guns! ;)

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Yes I agree, that they should only arrest criminals.

And you will find such police officers in the USA too.
Click to expand...
Then you are agreeing to having an army control your population rather than a police force.

It is without doubt a stressful job. They deserve a lot more support.
 
it's just me said:
Yes, the left are hypocrites. Now go ahead, get snotty about me having a different opinion from yours and prove my point.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with me
The hypocrisy is always yours in your ignorant posts
 
Ahlevah said:
Yep. A criminal can be defined as someone who has committed a crime, whether they’ve been convicted or not:



But, as I said, a more nuanced term such as “piece of shit” will work for me. You don’t need probable cause or a conviction for that. Just truth.
Click to expand...
What a stupid post, devoid of legal logic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom