Gun Control is dead after riots

Author: Dr.Franklin ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 140
  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,274
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @HistoryBuff
    right that guy and his wife when faced with up to 500 people some reports claim, who broke down their locked security gate were affected by fear mongering, gotcha, also why did they need more than 10 rounds?  oh nvm.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,281
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Ok, if you want to ban oil filters for cars, then fair enough.
    no, I want to ban suppressed weapons. Knives are fine, but if you use one to stab someone that is a crime. Oil filters are fine, but if you use one to suppress a killing machine that should be a crime. 

    so you admit that guns are much more deadly than a knife?
    That is the point. It allows someone who is weak to defend themselves from larger people.
    I mostly just wanted to point out that you seem to understand your other argument about how "if they can't get a gun they will use a knife" is completely bullshit. You understand that knives are much less deadly, but when it suits you, you will pretend that they aren't. 

    Outside of stop and frisk, I see little evidence of just pulling people over for no reason.
    ok, but do you live in a neighborhood with lots of black people? Or do you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and have no idea what you are talking about?

    Why is it all or nothing with you people? It is either "you must support getting rid of all guns" or "I bet you want everyone to own nukes".
    the point is to show that your argument is ridiculous. You believe you should have an unquestionable right to own weapons that no government has any right to curtail in any way. But you also accept that the government absolutely has the right to curtail what weapons people can have (grenade launchers, nukes etc). You want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and pretend like it is inviolable. But that line keeps moving all the time and you just pretend it doesn't and that anyone who thinks that line should be somewhere else is attacking the constitution. 

    You make a determination on both the chance of getting caught and the punishment/payoff.
    except most people don't do that. If they thought they were likely to get caught, they wouldn't commit the crime. They do it because they don't think they will be caught. So while the severity of the penalty does play a role, it is a relatively small one. 

    Nuclear weapons and grenades aren't self-defense or hunting tools. They really have no use outside of blowing things up.
    this is again, a silly argument. An assault rifle is not a particularly useful weapon for self defense. no one is going to announce they are attacking and give you time to get your weapon and then use it at an effective range. They are designed to assault enemy positions and put down high rates of fire. There is no reason for a civilian to own that. If your dividing line is things that are useful for self defense and hunting, then you should advocate for only handguns and hunting rifles. Is that your position?

    Again, it isn't the guns. That is like saying "men beating women is a problem. We need to do something about those fists". Awfully like UK blaming stabbings on knives and not the people. Much easier and convenient to blame inanimate objects instead of people. 
    I keep repeating this for you. I understand that there are underlying causes of crime that need to be addressed. You would likely oppose the methods needed to do that, but that is a separate argument. But you will never get crime down to 0. No matter how well we do, there will be criminals. And right now, virtually any criminal can arm himself to the teeth with little to no problem. Until the supply of guns is brought under control, it will never be possible to prevent this. 

  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,576
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    I mostly just wanted to point out that you seem to understand your other argument about how "if they can't get a gun they will use a knife" is completely bullshit. You understand that knives are much less deadly, but when it suits you, you will pretend that they aren't. 

    These are not mutually exclusive arguments. Criminals will use knives if they cannot get guns. Since that means that civilians also cannot get guns, they are more disadvantaged than the career criminal if they have to fight them.

    A gun puts them on equal footing. Guns are more deadly. That is why one person can fend off multiple attackers with them.



    ok, but do you live in a neighborhood with lots of black people? Or do you live in a predominantly white neighborhood and have no idea what you are talking about?

    I have black neighbors, but I don't see how the anecdotal evidence that you are sure to spew at me will prove anything as a general trend for every black person in the country.

    the point is to show that your argument is ridiculous. You believe you should have an unquestionable right to own weapons that no government has any right to curtail in any way. But you also accept that the government absolutely has the right to curtail what weapons people can have (grenade launchers, nukes etc). You want to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and pretend like it is inviolable. But that line keeps moving all the time and you just pretend it doesn't and that anyone who thinks that line should be somewhere else is attacking the constitution. 

    Something about bearing arms and not being VIOLATED. Arms referred to guns. So, drawing the line anywhere else is attacking the constitution.

    And stop projecting some whack positions. I don't think that you should be able to own any weapon you want. I don't think anybody should be able to own any weapon they want.

    There are laws preventing felons from buying guns. Guns aren't the same thing as explosives.

     An assault rifle is not a particularly useful weapon for self defense. no one is going to announce they are attacking and give you time to get your weapon and then use it at an effective range. They are designed to assault enemy positions and put down high rates of fire. There is no reason for a civilian to own that. If your dividing line is things that are useful for self defense and hunting, then you should advocate for only handguns and hunting rifles. Is that your position?

    They are a useful weapon. Do you not remember why this whole thread was started? It is effective for defending your home and life during a riot.

    You can use an "assault rifle", whatever that means other than 'scary-looking gun', at a close range.

    "High rates of fire"- most of what you would consider assault rifles are semi-automatic. Very few are fully automatic.

    And many people use the AR-15 to hunt. The 2nd Amendment was for a whole lot more than hunting, though.

    And if you are complaining about gun homicide still, I'll let you in on a little fun fact:
    Blunt objects like hammers kill more people than all rifles combined. Fists and feet kill more people than all rifles combined (NOT just "assault rifles".) 


    I keep repeating this for you. I understand that there are underlying causes of crime that need to be addressed. You would likely oppose the methods needed to do that, but that is a separate argument. But you will never get crime down to 0. No matter how well we do, there will be criminals. And right now, virtually any criminal can arm himself to the teeth with little to no problem. Until the supply of guns is brought under control, it will never be possible to prevent this. 

    And even if you get rid of guns, you won't get those crime rates down to zero.

    I went to extensive lengths to compare gun ownership rates to homicide rates in other countries. I showed how #19 in the world for most guns per capita, Switzerland, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and much lower than UK that had gotten rid of most guns.

    Switzerland is a great and safe country to live in, and it has a lot of guns. Obviously the two aren't mutually exclusive.

    And if your solution boils down to "give lazy people more handouts", I probably would oppose it, yes. If it is a real solution that provides a good job and they work themselves out of poverty, then I would support it.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,576
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @zedvictor4
    Who does and doesn't own guns absolutely matters. It shows which groups are more representative of gun owners.

    The link between guns and homicides is rather slim. Links between homicide and different groups in the US is rather strong.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,281
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @bmdrocks21
    A gun puts them on equal footing. Guns are more deadly. That is why one person can fend off multiple attackers with them.
    guns massively increase the odds of critical injury and death. 

    I have black neighbors, but I don't see how the anecdotal evidence that you are sure to spew at me will prove anything as a general trend for every black person in the country.
    See this is the problem. The systemically racist system collects the stats. If they choose not to note their racist interactions, or choose to misclassify it, then there is no stats to prove anything. So saying you won't believe it without stats is like saying you won't believe a crime happened unless the criminal describes in detail what they did. 

    Something about bearing arms and not being VIOLATED. Arms referred to guns. So, drawing the line anywhere else is attacking the constitution.
    no. It says right to bear arms in order to be part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't say that citizens can own any weapons they want. It says they can own weapons for the purpose of being part of a regulated militia. The intention was that the US military would be tiny and would need a large militia force to back it up. Since that is no longer true, the entire amendment is pointless. 

    And if you are complaining about gun homicide still, I'll let you in on a little fun fact:
    Blunt objects like hammers kill more people than all rifles combined. Fists and feet kill more people than all rifles combined (NOT just "assault rifles".) 
    so your argument is that because people die in other ways, we should do nothing about them dying in this way? So because people die in car accidents, we should stop all cancer research.... sounds logical. 

    And even if you get rid of guns, you won't get those crime rates down to zero.
    i know, i keep telling you that. 

    I went to extensive lengths to compare gun ownership rates to homicide rates in other countries. I showed how #19 in the world for most guns per capita, Switzerland, had one of the lowest homicide rates in the world, and much lower than UK that had gotten rid of most guns.
    true. Switzerland does more to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime. They also treat gun ownership as a significant responsibility. Everyone must get training and education on proper use of firearms. They don't wander around out in public with their assault rifles just to prove they have a tiny penis as the right loves to do. 


  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,672
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @bmdrocks21
    There’s no use arguing with the dude. He can’t even vote in US Elections cause he’s probably not even American.
  • HistoryBuff
    HistoryBuff avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,281
    3
    3
    2
    HistoryBuff avatar
    HistoryBuff
    --> @ILikePie5
    There’s no use arguing with the dude. He can’t even vote in US Elections cause he’s probably not even American.
    lol that's right. hide in your right wing echo chamber. I know you need a safe space. But if that is what you are looking for, you shouldn't be in a politics forum. 

  • TheDredPriateRoberts
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,274
    2
    3
    6
    TheDredPriateRoberts avatar
    TheDredPriateRoberts
    --> @ILikePie5
    it's funny this claim that Fox fear mongering is driving first time gun purchases(ers) when I would bet Fox watchers already had guns and leftist don't watch or would believe anything not on their liberal media channels.
    gun permits have increased the most during the COVID-19 pandemic in states that tend to be more liberal, both in terms of citizen ideology and political party of state governor.
    Michigan, the site of some of the more contentious anti-lockdown protests, saw a nearly 340% increase in gun permits from February to April 2020.

    well anyway, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,672
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @HistoryBuff
    lol that's right. hide in your right wing echo chamber. I know you need a safe space. But if that is what you are looking for, you shouldn't be in a politics forum. 
    I don’t need to argue with someone who isn’t from the nation and doesn’t understand core aspects of the nation.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,672
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @TheDredPriateRoberts
    well anyway, this really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
    People are getting redpilled. They’re just too afraid to say it because of cancel culture 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 7,856
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @HistoryBuff
    they were looting from boston to LA, it absolutey was nation wide
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 4,457
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    What is "gun control"? Has anyone ever heard a gun control supporter say exactly what gun control is?

    Here are some obvious, common sense thoughts.

    1. Criminal behavior cannot be controlled. It's why its called criminal behavior in the first place. So effectively, gun control advocates are talking about controlling the guns of law abiding citizens, not the guns of criminals.

    2. Gun control advocates want laws to make guns harder to get. But those laws affect only legal means of getting guns. Illegal means are outside the law. So effectively, gun control advocates are talking about making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns, not harder for criminals to get guns.

    3. Gun control advocates say if we ban abortions, otherwise law abiding citizens would break the law and get abortions. Thus, they argue, a law banning abortions would increase the total number of abortions.

    How does this argument NOT work for guns?
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,576
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @HistoryBuff
    guns massively increase the odds of critical injury and death. 

    And guns are used somewhere between 500,000 and 3,000,000 times per year in a defensive fashion according to the CDC.

    They prevent crimes from even happening. 

    And if it increases the likelihood of death for a criminal- good.

    See this is the problem. The systemically racist system collects the stats. If they choose not to note their racist interactions, or choose to misclassify it, then there is no stats to prove anything. So saying you won't believe it without stats is like saying you won't believe a crime happened unless the criminal describes in detail what they did. 

    Ok, and I am not going to take the word of people who have a ton to gain from this movement, whether that be reparations, more forced diversity programs, or whatever else they want.

    If there is no quantifiable proof that something is happening, and the best argument you can give me is "well of course they won't record it", I am not going to give credence to your argument.

    no. It says right to bear arms in order to be part of a well regulated militia. It doesn't say that citizens can own any weapons they want. It says they can own weapons for the purpose of being part of a regulated militia. The intention was that the US military would be tiny and would need a large militia force to back it up. Since that is no longer true, the entire amendment is pointless. 

    "District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee."

    Guess you are a better Constitutional analyst than the Supreme Court, huh?

    so your argument is that because people die in other ways, we should do nothing about them dying in this way? So because people die in car accidents, we should stop all cancer research.... sounds logical. 

    I further proved that you are placing blame on objects. Clearly hammers and fists aren't the problem, while killing more than rifles. But for some reason the rifle itself is a problem?

    true. Switzerland does more to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime. They also treat gun ownership as a significant responsibility. Everyone must get training and education on proper use of firearms. They don't wander around out in public with their assault rifles just to prove they have a tiny penis as the right loves to do. 

    Lol, why are you lefties so obsessed with penises. "I tell them that their penises are small so they get mad and gimme the guns. Super big brain move"

    Do the Black Panther terrorists also have tiny wee wees?

    And I would have no problem with requiring a training course before getting a firearms license as long as it wasn't used as a form of "gun control"- meaning they make it super rigorous for the mere reason of stopping normal people from legally acquiring a gun. If it was merely a course on safe storage and use, that's fine.
  • ILikePie5
    ILikePie5 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,672
    3
    3
    8
    ILikePie5 avatar
    ILikePie5
    --> @bmdrocks21
    And I would have no problem with requiring a training course before getting a firearms license as long as it wasn't used as a form of "gun control"- meaning they make it super rigorous for the mere reason of stopping normal people from legally acquiring a gun. If it was merely a course on safe storage and use, that's fine.
    Funny that a goal is the NRA is to train people in firearm safety. But hey let’s abolish the largest provider of gun safety training. Also funny how not one member of the NRA has committed a mass shooting.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,576
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @ILikePie5
    Also, crazy that an instructor for the NRA stopped an attempted mass shooting at a church


    But, I've been told that the good guy with a gun argument isn't valid so just ignore that link above.