Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Gun Control

Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.
AlwaysRight12345
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 6:51:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I have a debate on this topic going on right now that answers your question vehemently: http://www.debate.org...
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 9:01:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:51:58 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I have a debate on this topic going on right now that answers your question vehemently: http://www.debate.org...

In my country we have severe laws about guns possession, more severe than yours suggestions. We have NGO and public campaigns to disarm the population.
Ten years after the implementation of this laws and campaigns, homicides grow from 25% per person, to 29%, robbery and hijack grow too.

Today criminals have guns (not only pistols or rifles, but RPG and machine guns), and people use illegal guns to commit suicide.
jnedwards11
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 9:32:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

That's pretty general, since some liberals will tell you they fully support the 2nd amendment at the same time they are using it to wipe their own arses.

Do you support a specific "goal" or "vision" for guns in America? If so, what fact or intuition is this support based off of?

If you can offer detail, I'd love to offer my thoughts (as a spirited advocate of gun rights, of course!)
AlwaysRight12345
Posts: 66
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 10:29:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 9:01:00 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:51:58 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I have a debate on this topic going on right now that answers your question vehemently: http://www.debate.org...

In my country we have severe laws about guns possession, more severe than yours suggestions. We have NGO and public campaigns to disarm the population.
Ten years after the implementation of this laws and campaigns, homicides grow from 25% per person, to 29%, robbery and hijack grow too.

Today criminals have guns (not only pistols or rifles, but RPG and machine guns), and people use illegal guns to commit suicide.

What country is that?
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 11:32:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I don't know that I'd call myself a liberal, but I tend to agree with Democrats more than Republicans, and I support both gun control and the criminalization of marijuana.
Lupo
Posts: 90
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 11:52:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 10:29:45 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 9:01:00 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:51:58 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I have a debate on this topic going on right now that answers your question vehemently: http://www.debate.org...

In my country we have severe laws about guns possession, more severe than yours suggestions. We have NGO and public campaigns to disarm the population.
Ten years after the implementation of this laws and campaigns, homicides grow from 25% per person, to 29%, robbery and hijack grow too.

Today criminals have guns (not only pistols or rifles, but RPG and machine guns), and people use illegal guns to commit suicide.

What country is that?

Brazil
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 1:20:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I agree that an individual has a right to defend themselves. I once owned $10,000 worth of firearms and had a concealed carry license, which at that time required ay16 hour course and a demonstration of proficiency. However, I see absolutely no reason for private ownership of full automatic weapons or assault type weapons. Those are not defensive weapons.
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 1:28:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Well the liberal side is wrong. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that higher crime is correlative with less guns. Common sense says that people need guns to defend themselves, and gun control isn't going to keep criminals from obtaining guns (since they are lawless).
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 1:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I believe that people should have the right to own guns however there need to be certain restrictions. These should include licences, training, and background checks. (some states already require these but the laws vary by state),
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 1:58:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 1:28:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Well the liberal side is wrong. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that higher crime is correlative with less guns. Common sense says that people need guns to defend themselves, and gun control isn't going to keep criminals from obtaining guns (since they are lawless).

Could you please cite some of this "overwhelming evidence " not sponsored by the NRA or otherwise biased source?
Varrack
Posts: 2,410
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 2:16:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 1:58:16 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 1:28:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Well the liberal side is wrong. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that higher crime is correlative with less guns. Common sense says that people need guns to defend themselves, and gun control isn't going to keep criminals from obtaining guns (since they are lawless).

Could you please cite some of this "overwhelming evidence " not sponsored by the NRA or otherwise biased source?

http://theacru.org...
http://www.zerohedge.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.ijreview.com...
http://gunowners.org...
http://www.justfacts.com...
http://www.shtfplan.com...

Have fun.
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 2:56:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 2:16:30 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/27/2015 1:58:16 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 1:28:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Well the liberal side is wrong. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that higher crime is correlative with less guns. Common sense says that people need guns to defend themselves, and gun control isn't going to keep criminals from obtaining guns (since they are lawless).

Could you please cite some of this "overwhelming evidence " not sponsored by the NRA or otherwise biased source?

http://theacru.org...
http://www.zerohedge.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://www.ijreview.com...
http://gunowners.org...
http://www.justfacts.com...
http://www.shtfplan.com...

Have fun.

Literally one of those is from a credible source, and it is talking about a tiny sample size.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 1:20:17 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I agree that an individual has a right to defend themselves. I once owned $10,000 worth of firearms and had a concealed carry license, which at that time required ay16 hour course and a demonstration of proficiency. However, I see absolutely no reason for private ownership of full automatic weapons or assault type weapons. Those are not defensive weapons.

Why do you draw the line there?
One could argue that there is no need for private handguns, while allowing for hunting rifles and shotguns. We could also say that open carry of rifles would have the same effect, if not larger, than concealed carry.
My work here is, finally, done.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:24:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Have you considered reading any of the hundreds of other threads on the subject?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 4:26:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 1:20:17 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for private ownership of full automatic weapons or assault type weapons. Those are not defensive weapons.

Doesn't that depend on what and who you are defending yourself against?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 6:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

You do realize that all of those mass shootings happened in areas where no one was allowed a gun... that's the point... you just made his point...
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 10:10:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
According to the DOJ guns are used around 1,00,000 times a year to prevent crime and 400,000 of those times the person believed that if they did not have the gun they would have been killed. So guns save 400,000 lives a year and take 30,000 lives a year. And if guns were illegal you couldn't stop those 30,000 deaths--20,000 of then are suicides and 7000 are gang related homicides and since gangsters traffic drugs and other things illegally they would get their guns for sure. So by banning guns you could save 3000 lives but you would end 400,000 lives? Criminals will still get them like they do drugs and prostitutes. They will use their illegal weapons on defenseless god guys. Even with out a gun many criminals could over power their victim with their bodies . Doesn't the 5 foot women need a gun prevent a 6 foot man from raping her?
Assault weapons shouldn't be banned either. Criminal will get them and use them against law abiding citizens.
Instead of banning a tool used to kill ban the reasons to kill-- more Should be done about domestic violence, mental illness and gangs.
Ill debate anyone who wants.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 10:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 9:01:00 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:51:58 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:30:05 AM, Lupo wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

I never understood how a liberal can support gun control and the same time marijuana liberation. (more goverment control vs less goverment control)

I consider myself a liberal, but I support the right to have firearms.
Any man have the right to protect himself, gun possession shy away rape, hijack, free aggression, stealing and etc.

If you forbid guns, only the government and the criminals gonna have guns.

I have a debate on this topic going on right now that answers your question vehemently: http://www.debate.org...

In my country we have severe laws about guns possession, more severe than yours suggestions. We have NGO and public campaigns to disarm the population.
Ten years after the implementation of this laws and campaigns, homicides grow from 25% per person, to 29%, robbery and hijack grow too.

Today criminals have guns (not only pistols or rifles, but RPG and machine guns), and people use illegal guns to commit suicide.
What country are you in?
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2015 10:51:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.

Citizens could carry concealed at the Aurora theater with no consequence aside from being asked to leave (assuming of course said gun was some how found).
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 11:22:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 10:10:29 PM, Dilara wrote:
According to the DOJ guns are used around 1,00,000 times a year to prevent crime and 400,000 of those times the person believed that if they did not have the gun they would have been killed. So guns save 400,000 lives a year and take 30,000 lives a year. And if guns were illegal you couldn't stop those 30,000 deaths--20,000 of then are suicides and 7000 are gang related homicides and since gangsters traffic drugs and other things illegally they would get their guns for sure. So by banning guns you could save 3000 lives but you would end 400,000 lives? Criminals will still get them like they do drugs and prostitutes. They will use their illegal weapons on defenseless god guys. Even with out a gun many criminals could over power their victim with their bodies . Doesn't the 5 foot women need a gun prevent a 6 foot man from raping her?
Assault weapons shouldn't be banned either. Criminal will get them and use them against law abiding citizens.
Instead of banning a tool used to kill ban the reasons to kill-- more Should be done about domestic violence, mental illness and gangs.
Ill debate anyone who wants.

Want to post the DOJ article on this, because it isn't on their website.

First, are you trying to say 100,000 or 1,000,000? Second, "about 1,00,000 times," what kind of leniency are you giving that number? Third, there is no subjectivity to this study whatsoever if the people who were endangered are the ones determining what might have happened. I seriously doubt a DOJ study would encompass so much hypothetical. Fourth, you can't just reverse the situation and apply the same statistics, that isn't how math or reality works. Fifth, why are you assuming guns would be as readily available as prostitutes and drugs, is there any information to support this? Sixth, how often are rapes stopped by law-abiding citizens? Seventh, the reasons to kill are already banned. Eighth, if you support increased funding and attention to mental illness, perhaps vote Democrat?

Looking forward to your response.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:13:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:22:22 AM, Praesentya wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:10:29 PM, Dilara wrote:
According to the DOJ guns are used around 1,00,000 times a year to prevent crime and 400,000 of those times the person believed that if they did not have the gun they would have been killed. So guns save 400,000 lives a year and take 30,000 lives a year. And if guns were illegal you couldn't stop those 30,000 deaths--20,000 of then are suicides and 7000 are gang related homicides and since gangsters traffic drugs and other things illegally they would get their guns for sure. So by banning guns you could save 3000 lives but you would end 400,000 lives? Criminals will still get them like they do drugs and prostitutes. They will use their illegal weapons on defenseless god guys. Even with out a gun many criminals could over power their victim with their bodies . Doesn't the 5 foot women need a gun prevent a 6 foot man from raping her?
Assault weapons shouldn't be banned either. Criminal will get them and use them against law abiding citizens.
Instead of banning a tool used to kill ban the reasons to kill-- more Should be done about domestic violence, mental illness and gangs.
Ill debate anyone who wants.

Want to post the DOJ article on this, because it isn't on their website.

First, are you trying to say 100,000 or 1,000,000? Second, "about 1,00,000 times," what kind of leniency are you giving that number? Third, there is no subjectivity to this study whatsoever if the people who were endangered are the ones determining what might have happened. I seriously doubt a DOJ study would encompass so much hypothetical. Fourth, you can't just reverse the situation and apply the same statistics, that isn't how math or reality works. Fifth, why are you assuming guns would be as readily available as prostitutes and drugs, is there any information to support this? Sixth, how often are rapes stopped by law-abiding citizens? Seventh, the reasons to kill are already banned. Eighth, if you support increased funding and attention to mental illness, perhaps vote Democrat?

Looking forward to your response.
Typo. Guns are used one million times a year to prevent crime. Guns prevent 200,000 rapes a year. You are aware that criminals get drugs and other illegal stuff right? What makes you think guns will be any different?.
Dilara
Posts: 661
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:16:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 10:51:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.

Citizens could carry concealed at the Aurora theater with no consequence aside from being asked to leave (assuming of course said gun was some how found).

Aren't you glad a man had his gun when that nut went into that mall in Oregon and begun shooting? If that malls gun laws were the way many liberals want it to be that crazy guy would have killed more people.
Go to guns save lives.com and brows their story list. Read about the times guns have saved lives.
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 3:02:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 1:16:51 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:51:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.

Citizens could carry concealed at the Aurora theater with no consequence aside from being asked to leave (assuming of course said gun was some how found).

Aren't you glad a man had his gun when that nut went into that mall in Oregon and begun shooting? If that malls gun laws were the way many liberals want it to be that crazy guy would have killed more people.
Go to guns save lives.com and brows their story list. Read about the times guns have saved lives.

Please post the DOJ Study that I have already asked for. I have no interest in reading biased sites that spew falsehoods.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:37:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 3:02:07 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:16:51 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:51:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.

Citizens could carry concealed at the Aurora theater with no consequence aside from being asked to leave (assuming of course said gun was some how found).

Aren't you glad a man had his gun when that nut went into that mall in Oregon and begun shooting? If that malls gun laws were the way many liberals want it to be that crazy guy would have killed more people.
Go to guns save lives.com and brows their story list. Read about the times guns have saved lives.

Please post the DOJ Study that I have already asked for. I have no interest in reading biased sites that spew falsehoods.

I don't know about the DOJ study, but there seem to be high estimates of 2.5 million (Kleck 1997, Kleck and Gertz 1995, Kleck and Kates 2001), medium estimates like one million (Kleck 1991), and low estimates of 100,000 plus (NCVS), or around 300,000 from the anti gun VPC defensive gun uses per year... That doesn't even factor in deterrence which could lead to 7.5 million lives saved from being victims of violent crime (e.g. Southwick 1997; don't agree with that high of a number because the methodology is odd, but interesting.)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Genghis_Khan
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:42:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/27/2015 1:28:01 PM, Varrack wrote:
At 3/27/2015 6:16:42 AM, AlwaysRight12345 wrote:
I support the liberal side of this and I am up for debate on the topic.

Well the liberal side is wrong. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that higher crime is correlative with less guns. Common sense says that people need guns to defend themselves, and gun control isn't going to keep criminals from obtaining guns (since they are lawless).

lol. no.
anything your heart desires
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 10:26:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:37:18 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/28/2015 3:02:07 PM, Praesentya wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:16:51 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:51:32 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 3/27/2015 10:15:24 PM, Dilara wrote:
At 3/27/2015 5:02:38 PM, Praesentya wrote:
I see absolutely no reason for people to own high capacity magazines or military issued weapons, maybe someone can explain this to me?

To answer some of the earlier points...

Brazil is demographically very different from the United States, so statistics from your sample area don't apply here, necessarily.

Varrack, none of the sources you posted are credible. Could you find a government study please?

The argument that people with guns stop crimes doesn't make sense to me. Maybe someone could tell me which good samaritan stopped Sandy Hook, Columbine, Aurora Theater? For some reason I'm forgetting their names...

For those saying that gun control is unconstitutional, could you tell me which Supreme Court you work for?

Those shootings occurred in gun free zones. People weren't allowed to Carry them. If they were less people would have been killed. The Portland mall shooting was stopped by a man with a concealed gun. If he didn't have his weapon we could have seen 10 times as many people killed. Thank god he was there. According to the DOJ guns save 400,000 lives a year.

Citizens could carry concealed at the Aurora theater with no consequence aside from being asked to leave (assuming of course said gun was some how found).

Aren't you glad a man had his gun when that nut went into that mall in Oregon and begun shooting? If that malls gun laws were the way many liberals want it to be that crazy guy would have killed more people.
Go to guns save lives.com and brows their story list. Read about the times guns have saved lives.

Please post the DOJ Study that I have already asked for. I have no interest in reading biased sites that spew falsehoods.

I don't know about the DOJ study, but there seem to be high estimates of 2.5 million (Kleck 1997, Kleck and Gertz 1995, Kleck and Kates 2001), medium estimates like one million (Kleck 1991), and low estimates of 100,000 plus (NCVS), or around 300,000 from the anti gun VPC defensive gun uses per year... That doesn't even factor in deterrence which could lead to 7.5 million lives saved from being victims of violent crime (e.g. Southwick 1997; don't agree with that high of a number because the methodology is odd, but interesting.)

The CDC posted in 2013 I believe that guns are used overall in self defense 200k-500k times a year. Kleck's studies are just wrong.