Tired Pro-Gun Talking Points

Author: Double_R

Posts

Total: 190
#31
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TheMorningsStar
We already know how banning guns has turned out for the past 50 years in major cities. Gun-free zones invite more crime and murderers.

I think we could end this discussion once and for all if all the gun owners in the country started posting a list of all the people who live on their block who do not own a registered gun. 
#32
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,907
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@TheMorningsStar
Greyparrot:
We already know how banning guns has turned out for the past 50 years in major cities. Gun-free zones invite more crime and murderers.

I think we could end this discussion once and for all if all the gun owners in the country started posting a list of all the people who live on their block who do not own a registered gun. 
And we should rob them at gunpoint to teach them a lesson. 
#33
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
There’s a lot of bias. You hear of all the instances where guns committed mass shootings, but you never hear of those that stopped mass shootings. That’s the problem — the media.
#34
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Democrats don't even care about actual gun control because they banned stop and frisk.

It's all a bunch of lies for votes as usual.


Stop-and-frisk was banned by a federal judge, not Democrats, because it is unconstitutional. 

#35
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Danielle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shira_Scheindlin , a Clinton appointee could hardly be classified as a Republican, but the point still stands.

If stop and frisk is unconstitutional, then there can exist no policy for banning and removing guns in America.

Any Democrat promising to do this is outright lying to get votes.
#36
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Greyparrot
If stop and frisk is unconstitutional, then there can exist no policy for banning and removing guns in America.

I should have been more clear. The practice itself is not unconstitutional; the way police carried it out was found to be unconstitutional because there was evidence of racial profiling. I don't see what this has to do with banning guns. We can't ban guns (in the foreseeable future) because of the 2nd amendment.
Topic's author
#37
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
Well it is about mental health because mentally healthy people don’t do this.
Is the US the only nation on earth with mentally unwell citizens? If not, then please explain, since this is the problem, why these shootings only happen here.
#38
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Is the US the only nation on earth with mentally unwell citizens? If not, then please explain, since this is the problem, why these sitting only happen here.
It’s not, and it’s also not the only country with spree killings. The massive population size of the US obscures things somewhat. Just off the top of my head there were major spree killings in really small countries like Norway in 2011 or New Zealand in 2019. There was a huge wave of spree killings in France in 2015-2016…the US population is sixty times the population of Norway/New Zealand, five times that of France. Are spree killings more common per capita in America than the rest of the developed world, probably. But it isn’t quite as stark as it seems on the surface before you take into account population size. The fact remains that in almost all of these cases the suspects are “known to police” and frequently exhibit signs of sociopathy and danger to others. That they are still empowered to purchase dangerous weapons is a problem I would agree but it seems one that is solvable. 

But in the rest of my post I did agree that there are some minor roadblocks we could put in that I think would deter a surprising number of these events, I just don’t support banning so called “assault rifles.” Such a ban would be unlikely to survive the courts, would be written by people that know nothing about guns (look up some of the guns that were legal under the previous “assault weapons ban”), and addresses only a minor facet of gun crime. The US has very limited reform capacity, lets not waste it on trying to ban guns 
Topic's author
#39
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheMorningsStar
You are a genius! Let's make it so that the law abiding citizens don't have guns!
Nearly every mass shooter was a law abiding citizen before they fired the first bullet.

Wait... if a criminal already doesn't give a damn about the law and will go around shooting people... Gasp! Maybe they won't actually care about the laws around how to acquire guns either! Impossible!
Ah yes, the tired “criminals don’t follow our laws” argument.

No one is proposing we pass laws telling criminals they are not allowed to be criminals. Gun safety law proposals target those who distribute guns, which last I checked qualify under your framing here as “law abiding citizens”.

Locked doors get picked all the time, and alarms get bypassed. Yet somehow I doubt you would make the same argument; that the possibility of a safety measure not working means we abandon any attempt to improve safety. Somehow I suspect you will still lock your doors when you go to sleep.

And besides, the majority of these are deranged individuals who don’t have any meaningful relationships in their lives. Laws making guns harder to get especially targets these types of individuals because acquiring guns illegally means you have to know people, and those people need to know you’re legit. That wouldn’t happen with most of them if we had actual laws designed to stop them.
#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 if we had actual laws designed to stop them.

Wasn't the mass shooter already known to the police? How would you reform the police so that they can be more effective with existing gun laws?
#41
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,005
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Greyparrot
Wasn't the mass shooter already known to the police? How would you reform the police so that they can be more effective with existing gun laws?
In this specific case, not expunging juvenile criminal records from background checks would’ve done the trick. For other cases my unpopular opinion is that we need to be involuntarily committing people more often
Topic's author
#42
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@thett3
The massive population size of the US obscures things somewhat.
The last statistic I saw on that was that the US accounts for 31% of the world’s mass shootings, despite accounting for 5% of the world’s population. I’d Google it but am not interested in a Google battle since there are countless sources with “studies” to affirm either position. What is definitive here is that this is not a problem anywhere else in the eyes of their own citizens. The rest of the world looks at us like we’re crazy, so that right there says it all. Or at least it should.

But in the rest of my post I did agree that there are some minor roadblocks we could put in that I think would deter a surprising number of these events, I just don’t support banning so called “assault rifles.”
We’re not that far apart, but it’s a debate site so how boring would it be to focus on our agreements?

I never understood the opposition to an assault weapons. Of course we can cherry pick little things wrong with the bill, that’s a reason to amend it, not get rid of it.

If guns are about self defense, no one needs an AR15. If guns are about sport, then I would love to see someone explain to the parents of the Uvalde victims that our love of sport is more important than their child’s life.
Topic's author
#43
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
We already know how banning guns has turned out for the past 50 years in major cities. Gun-free zones invite more crime and murderers.
Last time I checked, there was nothing to stop anyone from driving over to the county next door where guns are worshipped, purchasing a gun and driving it right into any major city in the US.
#44
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Last time I checked, there was nothing to stop anyone from driving over to the county next door where guns are worshipped, purchasing a gun and driving it right into any major city in the US.

So why create these dangerous gun-free zones?
Topic's author
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s a lot of bias. You hear of all the instances where guns committed mass shootings, but you never hear of those that stopped mass shootings. That’s the problem — the media.
Agreed, the media is the problem. Once upon a time, like back in the Walter Cronkite days, all reporters were held to basic journalistic standards. Then one day Rupert Murdoch funded a news network who’s explicitly stated mission was to “put the GOP on television”, a network who to this day rails against every other news network as fake, and propaganda while their own prime time hosts text strategy with the White House, appear on stage with their party’s president, and where their senate candidates stand on stage thanking them for the help they gave them in their primaries.

It is in this media environment where, suddenly, guns have become fetishized while the most basic of common sense arguments are ignored in favor of ridiculous talking points uttered by this very network and the countless copy cat networks it inspired.

You’re certainly right. Take a step back and look at the GOP’s position on this issue;

‘The answer to less gun violence is more guns’. Only bias could explain that.

‘Laws don’t work to stop criminals’. Only bias could explain that.

‘The problem with school shootings are the doors’. Only bias could explain that.

Once again, only in America is this a problem. Meanwhile every developed nation on earth shares every factor we do except one; we’re flooded with guns. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be.
Topic's author
#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,242
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So why create these dangerous gun-free zones?
Let’s try this again.

Laws banning guns in one city does not work in a country where guns are readily available.

Is that clearer? Do you think you can purchase a truckload of guns in Mexico and drive it into the US without issue? 
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Laws banning guns in one city does not work in a country where guns are readily available.

So why create these dangerous gun free zones?
#48
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Do you think you can purchase a truckload of guns in Mexico and drive it into the US without issue? 

Of course, especially under the current President of law enforcement.
#49
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
we’re flooded with guns. 
To the dismay of every American Marxist.
#50
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Once again, only in America is this a problem. Meanwhile every developed nation on earth shares every factor we do except one; we’re flooded with guns. This isn’t complicated, unless you want it to be.
Every developed country isn’t the United States. Their histories and culture are far different than that of the United States. You can deny it, but that’s the facts no matter what you think. There was a time where kids took guns to schools. There was a time where African Americans fought for their right to own a gun. Hell Chicago v McDonald was decided because of a black man wanting a gun to protect himself. That decision incorporated DC v Heller to the states.

You’re arguing for something that isn’t feasible, nor is it in spirit of the Constitution. If the Founders could own cannons that could kill hundreds, an AR-15 is nothing. If the cops let the parents go in, he wouldn’t have killed as many people. If the teacher who died protecting the children had a gun, people wouldn’t have died.

Your solution takes guns away from lawful citizens. A pattern we see in communist and authoritarian countries.

And again, how are you going to regulate private sales of guns. We already saw what happened during Prohibition.
#51
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Of course, especially under the current President of law enforcement.
Everyone forgets Obama gave guns to the cartels. Just pull the Uno-Reverse card
#52
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,469
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Danielle
I should have been more clear. The practice itself is not unconstitutional; the way police carried it out was found to be unconstitutional because there was evidence of racial profiling. I don't see what this has to do with banning guns. We can't ban guns (in the foreseeable future) because of the 2nd amendment. 
Based
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Everyone forgets Obama gave guns to the cartels. Just pull the Uno-Reverse card
Free busrides to the nearest gun-free zone. And if anyone complains, pull out the ole "the GOP made me do it" card.
#54
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Every developed country isn’t the United States. Their histories and culture are far different than that of the United States. You can deny it, but that’s the facts no matter what you think.
Most of those nations developed off the backs of American innovation that was only made possible with the policy of private property and private ownership of guns to prevent government seizure of private innovation.

That's the cold and dirty truth.

Even today, more people migrate out of European developed nations to live in America than the other way around.

Anyone that wants to emulate those countries are regressive thinkers.
#55
TheMorningsStar
TheMorningsStar's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 398
2
3
7
TheMorningsStar's avatar
TheMorningsStar
2
3
7
-->
@Double_R
Laws banning guns in one city does not work in a country where guns are readily available.
Oh no... so you mean... that now that we have 3D printed guns and that such things will only become higher quality and more readily available with advances in technology that...
Laws banning guns will stop working within the next decade or two?
Oh, the horror! Damn you technological advancements! Damn you all!
#56
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Arming teachers with guns to potentially kill children is the stupidest most backwards shit I've ever read. Has to be. 
#57
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,902
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@badger
They won't use them just like the police don't use them to protect kids.
#58
Novice
Novice's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 24
0
2
5
Novice's avatar
Novice
0
2
5
-->
@badger
I would see it as reasonable for a school to potentially have one gun in case of emergency, but it really depends on the isntitution
#59
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
While nothing technically wrong with this, it’s clearly the most absurd. We have already seen countless examples where security and police officers fail to properly engage mass shooters, but we expect teachers are going to get the job done?
I'm not a republican and i'm more so progressive.. i don't think this is absurd. Actually, if you think about it, there is one thing in the gun debate we haven't tried, the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis. I think if we roll that out, it should be done carefully, but if done right it could possibly have the most profound impact on these shootings. Done right, it should be with some extra laws like testing, mental health background checks (if well defined), raising the age for being able to buy guns, etc. If everyone could conceal carry, then there will be more chances for someone to not be a coward and shoot back. Plus, shooters in this world would have no idea who is carrying adding to extra fear. Bc honestly, we can ban AR's, we can change the age, we can be tougher with background checks, but i don't think they would have a meaningful impact. But if a teacher had a gun, a custodian, random parents, a bystander, etc.. there are just more chances for someone to shoot back and stop these threats. In order for us to truly test the "good guy with a gun" hypothesis, everyone that can and is trained should be able to carry. You can't say it's already like that bc it's not. The police were armed sure, but they were cowards. The parents i guess some were armed, but the police were negligent, but if a random teacher had a means to shoot back, this could have been stopped. The only way this hypothesis is truly tested is if everyone can conceal carry. I'm not just advocating for this bc i'm confident it's a good idea to have this level of armed people... i just don't know. But if it works, i think it would have the most profound impact on shootings more so than some other ideas i'm hearing.  

#60
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 167
Posts: 3,837
5
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
5
8
11
I believe that the police should receive better training. I don't expect the police to have the power telekinesis, but they at least shouldn't have to jump out in near-death situations.