DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on June 21, 2015, 06:05:05 AM
-
Since the good professor is actively trying to ignore the 800lb gun in the room, let's ask the question more directly. Keeping in mind, that the question is serious, so some statement of a blanket ban on guns is moot, as that's neither going to happen, nor being proposed
We have the President taking this tragedy, proclaiming how congress needs to act to pass gun control legislation that has stalled in congress. So, what specifically, in ANY of this stalled gun control legislation, would have prevented this racist moron from killing??
-
REGISTER ALL GUNS.
Have the NSA check the Internet for websites like the "Last Rhodesian" to assure that people like Roof do not own guns.
-
REGISTER ALL GUNS.
And how would that have prevented the killings??
-
Register guns, cross reference gun ownership with people that have hate groups like the Last Rhodesian, and then bust them and take away their guns.
Really quite simple.
This is what I believe the Swiss do.
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/call-for-death-penalty-in-shooting-but-state-lacks-the-drug/ar-AAbU18E
Perhaps the best candidate for the death penalty SC will have this decade, and it is too hard to get the proper drug.
Death penalty opponents can be proud.
-
Register guns, cross reference gun ownership with people that have hate groups like the Last Rhodesian, and then bust them and take away their guns.
Really quite simple.
This is what I believe the Swiss do.
This young fellow has very few infractions on his record.
So we need the thought police , who will make his rights as a citizen depend on his political correctness.
I doubt that the Swiss do that.
-
Exactly
-
WHY DO GUNMEN TARGET CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS,
NOT NRA MEETINGS?
In the wake of the heinous attack on Charleston's Emanuel American Methodist Episcopal Church, Democrats' ritual calls for more gun control have louder than usual, and a mainstream media's focus on the threat of "mass shootings" has been kicked up a notch.
The question none of the Democrats or media outlets have asked is why gunmen, historically speaking, attack churches and school but bypass NRA meetings?
Why do they target Fort Hood twice within a five years period while opening fire in Walmart remains unpopular?
To ask the questions is to answer them. Law-abiding citizens are largely prohibited from possessing guns for self-defense in churches and schools around the country, but they may be heavily and openly armed at an NRA meeting. Likewise, soldiers are then mandated to be unarmed on stateside military bases while law-abiding shoppers at Walmart can and frequently do carry guns to protect themselves and their families.
Consider James Holmes, the individual who allegedly shot and killed 12 and wounded 70 during a July 20, 2012, showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at an Aurora movie theater. Shortly after the attack, Fox News reported that there were seven movie theaters showing the film within a 20-minute radius of Holmes? residence, some of which were closer than the Cinemark theater he attacked.
For example, the Cinemark theater was a four mile long, eight minute car ride, while another theater showing the film "was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away." But of all the theaters within a 20-minute radius, including the one just three minutes away, the Cinemark theater was the only one that barred law-abiding citizens from carrying guns for self-defense.
The lesson is clear: Gun control literally enables criminals; it makes their lives easier by guaranteeing otherwise pesky and determined victims will not have the ability to defend themselves once the shooting starts.
Example: A survivor from the attack on Charleston's Emanuel African American Episcopal Church said her only course of action against the gunman was to plead with him to stop.
Unarmed people are vulnerable people, and criminal predators prey upon them.
e-mail
-
Guns should be registered in National Gun Registry.
Advocating bringing guns to church is bullshit. That is blaming the victims. The blame is entirely on the racist twerp who decided to do his part to exterminate Black Americans.
-
And notice how the question couldn't be answered.....in that nothing being proposed would have stopped these murders. That once again, the left is trying to use a tragedy to simply push more Government control over its citizenry
And there's not a damn reason what-so-ever, that a law abiding gun owner shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm into a church. This isn't about mandating that someone be armed in a church, this is again about the concept of freedom. The notion that a responsble legal gun owner not be allowed to, simply is a self fulfulling prophrecy as to your so-called "useless gun nuts". How can they be useful, if they're not even allowed to be in places that may be targeted??
-
Again. guns should be registered in a national gun registry.
Churches have a perfect right to refuse entry of people with guns, or to require people to check their guns at the entrance, as was done in Wichita back in the days of the cattle drives.
Unrestricted guns are part of the problem, one of the larger parts of the problem. The Second Amendment would not be violated by requiring registration, just as it allows for cities to require registration.
If nothing is done, nothing will change. Every American will be more likely to be a victim.
-
And again....Registration would have done nothing to have prevented this murder from happening.
And no one is advocating "unrestricted guns", Dr Arguing-a-pont-no-one-is-making
And registration absolutely violates the concept of the 2nd amendment. If Government knows who and where the law abiding guns are, then at some point where "national security" is at stake, such weapons could then be confiscated. The point of the Bill of Rights, are restrictions ON GOVERNMENT, not the people. It's freedoms that the Government is legally not allowed to subvert. Shall we register everyone free speech?? Should you not be allowed to spew whatever vitriole at some Republican President, because its deemed too hateful, and may facilitate others to go out and do harm to others? It's the same concept as some Federal Firearms Registration
And before you pull out the literal card, in decrying to that yelling at some Republican isn't killing anyone, the point is that the Bill of Rights is a Constitutional contract, that LIMITS what the Government can do its citizenry. And that includes firearms
-
Advocating bringing guns to church is bullshit.
No....what is bullshit is knowing and allowing only the bad guys to be armed with guns.
I was in church yesterday and was happy to know a friend had his concealed/carry permit and was armed.
At least we'd have a fighting chance!
-
Ditto......in that case, I was the one with the CCW
-
So, you go to church to have a fighting chance?
Maybe when there are 660 million guns in the country, so everyone has a gun foir each hand, we will all be safer.
You are simply nucking futz.
-
So, you go to church to have a fighting chance?
No I go to church to hear the Good Word
but I put on my seat belt on my way...just in case.
I lock my SUV doors when I get out at church....just in case.
Yesterday I took my umbrella into church....just in case. (yes it rained again in Texas yesterday)
and I find comfort in knowing law abiding citizens with concealed/carry are in church with me...just in case
a bad guy were to appear in church with a gun... the bad guy would not be the only one with a gun
-
So, you go to church to have a fighting chance?
As it relates to entering the Kindom of God, perhaps. Otherwise, for me, its simply safer to be armed, where ever I go, be it church, or anywhere for the matter. The issue is having it if its ever needed vs not having it, if such an unfortunate situation did present itself
So, I guess its safe to assume you drive without wearing your seatbelt, correct? I mean, why would you, considering the odds of you ever being in an accident are pretty slim, right?
-
Wearing my seat belt is simply wise.
I will not be forced to strangle anyone with it to save my life.
My seat belt is not a lethal weapon, unlike your gun.
Besides, there is a law requiring me to wear a seat belt, and my car is so old it has no airbag.
-
Wearing my seat belt is simply wise.
Why? Because.......lemme guess.....it might save your life, right??
My seat belt is not a lethal weapon, unlike your gun.
Your car could be a lethal weapon, which of course, isn't the point. My gun can also be used to save a life. And statistically speaking, that's what the gun has been doing in this country....saving far more lives than they take. In the hands of one of us good gun nuts, they are just as safe and wise as your seatbelt. More so in fact
Besides, there is a law requiring me to wear a seat belt, and my car is so old it has no airbag.
So, you're saying you wouldn't wear your seatbelt, if there wasn't a law. Is that what you're saying, that it's only the law that's making you comply in wearing a seatbelt??
-
(and before professor literal starts to decry "so how many lives have you saved?", I made it clear that STATISTICALLY speaking, not personally speaking, more lives are saved with the use of a firearm, then taken. At least in this country. Personally, I've not yet saved or taken a life, despite having had a CCW for just over 2 decades now. Never even had to pull my firearm out. My goal is that the situation never arises either, but if it ever did, like Cu4 was referring, I and my loved ones, will at least have a fighting chance)
-
Again. guns should be registered in a national gun registry.
I don't understand what sort of crime this would prevent.
Certainly not the church shooting that provokes this discussion.
-
Well deduced Plane. It really doesn't prevent anything. It may be able to solve some cases, after the fact....but at what cost? More control to turn over to the Government. It's precisely why the founders put in place the very Bill of Rights. The amount of attrition it would take to start to degrade the #'s of firearms, by banning them, leaving any excess in the hands of the bad gun nuts and black market, would take perhaps a generation. And in the meantime, the people put at far greater risk is again, the law abiding, as they reluctantly adhere to the law
It's stunning to think that there are those who really believe that more gun laws and banning, will somehow dissuade the bad gun nut from still aquiring his/her weapons illegally :o
-
There is the experience of Canada when they tried to have a gun registry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry
......reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates.
Yes , in Canada the registration of Guns turned out to be more difficult and much more expensive than estimated.
There are still Canadians who support the measure, but most Canadians have noticed that the system is enormously expensive and that the benefits are difficult to demonstrate.
So the Canadian experience with registration is not a real success , not yet anyway, perhaps after they have spent a few billion more.
Now when we start registering guns in the USA it won't be so expensive or troublesome , because Americans are so much more co-operative than Canadians .
But even if it could be done for free, what sort of crime would it prevent?
Anyhow , it seems that the Canadians are just about to give up on it.
Upon passage of Bill C-19, the Province of Quebec moved for a motion to prevent the destruction of the Quebec portion of the records. A temporary injunction was granted on April 5, 2012 which will leave enough time for proper legal arguments to be heard.[5] On March 27, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled against Quebec, allowing the destruction of the records.[39]
On September 8, 2014 an appeal by the Barbra Schlifer Clinic to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to rule that the withdrawal of the Long Gun Registry was unconstitutional was denied. The applicants sought to show that the removal of the Registry denied women their rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to: "life, liberty and security of the person". In its judgment the court ruled that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that the Registry had been of any measurable benefit to women and that statistically rates of firearms-related violence had been following a trend downward before the Registry and had not changed after the Registry had been withdrawn.[40]
-
I bought a seatbelt and installed it in my 49 Studebaker. I have been wearing a seatbelt since 1963.
But a seatbelt is not a lethal weapon.
My seatbelt cannot be used to kill me if stolen.
Seatbelts and guns are entirely different things.
-
And no one claimed your seatbelt is a lethal weapon either, Dr Deflection. That'd be your car. The issue is you chose to use your seat belt it for safety reasons. To potentially save your life in fact. It's the same reason 99% of those who have a CCW use their firearm, for safety reasons, and to potentially save one's life, if not someone else's.
It's the use, that makes them the same
-
You defend yourself with a seatbelt in a passive way. It keeps you from being thrown out of the car.
No one uses their seatbelt to threaten anyone with death.
No one kills other bad drivers with a seatbelt.
Seatbelts and guns are entirely different in the way they might protect you, or don't.
No one will take your seatbelt out of the glove box and threaten you with it, as they could do with a gun.
This is an invalid comparison. Seatbelts are not the same as guns.
-
Defending yourself is defending yourself, regardless. Shall we list all the articles and stories of people being threatened, if not actually killed with an auto??
-
Seatbelts do not make cars more likely to have accidents.
Your argument is totally spurious.
-
And no one claimed seatbelts create more accidents Dr Deflection. They're merely a choice a person uses to better protect themselves from the potential of injury, or even death
Same use as a firearm in the hands of a responsible law abiding gun owner
-
There is no comparison between seat belts and guns.
-
already explained how their is......IN THEIR USE
-
Only in your mind are seat belts and guns related.
No one opposes seat belts, no one is killed with a seat belt, no one prevents seat belt crimes by pulling out a seat belt.
This is a lame, lame argument. It requires a prosthetic to even slither.
-
Only in your mind are seat belts and guns related.
Not in mind....but in practical use. Like I said...do you want a list of article upon article upon article of people being killed by an auto, who weren't wearing their seatbelts?? I can then demonstrate a plethora of articles of people whose lives were potentially saved with the use of a firearm
-
There is no comparison between seat belts and guns.
For both , you need to decide to have it , earlier than you need it, or it won't be there when you do.
For both , you have it on a lot with little or no need at all , for the sake of the unexpected need when it comes.
There are enough differences that no one would mistake one for the other, the similarity is in the argument .
-
BINGO!
-
Now let's compare it with your wife putting extra Tampons in her purse.
Or perhaps you packing some Depends or a catheter for that long trip.
There is no bingo, and this is your stupidest lamest argument ever.
-
It is not exactly like being prepared for a dangerous crash, but it is exactly like being prepared for attack by a dangerous animal.
How exactly alike do you need it to be?
I am in an office chair right now , without a seat belt, it is my judgment that the need for a seat belt is unlikely enough to do without it.
I am also not holding a gun at this time , same judgment call .
Neither of these judgments is going to be the same always.
-
Exactly. And the more xo decries how much Plane was in error, demonstrates just how much Plane was right on target....pun intended
-
Seat belts are not guns, they are not like guns. The whole argument is imbecilic.
-
And no one is equating that seatbelts are literally the same as guns. What's being equated is how they can be used....TO SAVE LIVES
-
Yeah, guns are also just like aspirin tablets, mouth to mouth respiration, defibrillators and Heimlich maneuvers.
Except that they kill people.
-
At least you're on the right track. Did you know a defibrillator could kill you as well?? Overdose of aspirins?? A Heimlich manuever done incorrectly could break ribs, which could puncture the lungs, or worse.
ITS IN HOW THEY ARE USED